527 



loMrlng ff tbt dtUvtrj b«lov this f Igurt r«iule*4 ta r«j«ctloa by 

 eoofuaert, t^m r«Ct of rtjccdoo lacreatlai cbc aort ch« dtUvtry w«« 

 reduced. Th«r« If •»chias la ch« ?ToJ«ec WHEAT re*ulc« Co •ut(**c Chae 



ch« optioua aictfune 4tllvcr7 for che average of a >«aple of O.K. aala 



"^ 

 •Boker* is, aov •&/•{«<■ thaa l.€'ag, despite cbc general reduction la 



dellveriei which has c'^to pla«« since the I.T. Co. survey was carried 



out; indeed it aighc be coa^uded froa Che second produce Cesc that che 

 opciaua is soaewhac above 1.4 a^, perhaps as high as 1.6 mg. These 

 '~ findings, of course, are based oa ^ licuacloo in which respondents had 

 n$ knowledge of the deliveries of che elgarcccas that they were smoking, 

 and tbe figure might be different when saotclag branded products for 

 wlilch chp4eUveries are published in "league r^^les" or even printed 

 on the pack. ^ 0^ 



The Vraocherri concerning che link between Inner ^^fM nA Referred 

 nicotine delivery is «(dy partially confirmed. Taking accent noc only 

 of the actual perceatagc ^ference figures, buC also of other mcasuras 

 of the coaparative deuaa of'-^klng for the test cigareccea, ic can b« 

 said that High Need cluscara cenf^ prefer relatively high nicotine 

 cigarettes, and that cheir opclaua ntratine delivery is certainly higher 

 Chan is that of the Low Keed clusccra. ^V(^c other hand Che lowcsc 

 nicotine delivery cigarette that was casced f0^7 ag) was rejected by a 

 aajority of all clusters, and tha next lowaic dei^ery (0.9 ag) was 

 probably rather too low even for the Low Seed cluster^. In other words 

 the separation between Low Need and High Need clusters vtv'terms of 



a 

 c 



preferred nicotine delivery, although in the direction predic^d by the -^ 



^^ N 



hypothesis, was not at large as expected. However clisslf tcatiotf>f o 



«4 



