Jump to:

USC Tobacco Industry Monitoring Project Collection

PERSONALITY FACTORS AND SMOKING PROGRESS REPORT AND PLANS FOR CONTINUED STUDY

Date: No date
Length: 5 pages

Jump To Images
snapshot_lor 01127175-01127179

Fields

Subject
AAAA

Document Images

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Page 1: haa81e00
~~,~,,~,,~ ~~ T~ IiOUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEAR ,; J,/~~~ ; SILUGUST 17, 1964 `CFTR GRANT #390 PROGRESS .REPORT No. PETER H. KNAPP,_ M.D. and MARTIN A. JACOBS, PH.D. Division of Psychiatry Boston University School of Medicine 80 East Concord Street Boston, Massachusetts Personality Factors And Smoking Progress ReEort A,nd ]~-Ilans, For Continued Study Our first study was underway a year ago and rep_orted in partial form at that time. It involved responses to a questionnaire given 600 employees of a large electronic concern (Raytheon). Our return was only 20%; 100 of the respondenets being male. Despite the obvious sampling problem, it was nevertheless fruitful to analyze the results from these 100 subjects, who distribut.~d themselves over a wide spectrum with respect to smoking practices. Certain clear persor}ality and attitudinal factors were found to be associated with eavy cigarette smoking (more than 25 cigarettes a day) in males and were found to differentiate this •group .of smokers fro.rr~ a comparable group of non-smokers. ,These factors were (1) defiafiLae, impetuousnes+s and emotional lability and (2) perception of the mother as domineering, cold, and ha.rsh. These factors were found to be most characteristic of heavy cigarette smokers, and next most characteristic of moderate smokers, next most of mild smokers, and least of non-smolkers; i. e. there was a ; statistically significant linear trend for intensity of these factors and the amount of cigarette smoking reported. Furthermore, using these factors and developing criteriori scores or cut-off points, we were able correctly to classify 70% of the extreme groups; i. e. in 70% of the cases sampled the scores on these factors were above the criteriod for heavy smokers and below it for non-smokers. We next undertook a replication study. By means of an item analysis we a t=~ _ refined and shortened our questionnaire, hoping to get a greater degree of • cooperation from subjects. ~ In addition we used anotheri ndustrial population h ha' (the Converse Rubber Company in Malden). `From this company whics 900 ,. ~cu ... a.,xswt, personnel,' we got magnificent coo peration; both managemenand.labor 1 , During the past year we• have completed two studies utilizing questionnaires to`V`" ~ investigate,, in relatively large industrial groups, smoking patterns and selected personality factors. The psychological aspects suggested by findings of others and our own,••had to do with emotional stability, impulsive trends, and specific "oral" activities, operationally defined as urges to eat, drink, chew, bite etc., which were not clearly associated with nutritional needs. - Our hypotheses was that heavy smoking would be associated with (1) evidence of inten'se "oral" urges and also with (2) a particular mode of psychological defense against these,' i. e. the use of active impulsive behavior. In addition we examined certain attitudes of subjects towards their parents, thinking that these might throw light on the origins of any current behavior.:nt.. i : ...... _.. ~ ,
Page 2: haa81e00
.,, '*, ,. . -2- atives spoke on a Public Address System urging employees to respond and every effort was made to maximumize returns. Our percentage of respondents increased but only to 277,. Part of the reason for the smallness of this increase appears to be the fact that a large number of the employees of this concern are older Italians, illiterate and non-English speaking. Beyond that we probably are encountering limits to the approach to thei-:- problem by means of returns from a distributed questionaire. One of our concerns for the future is to supplement this by personal canvassing in the field. Nevertheless again it was extremely important to analyze the results. The 338 respondents from our second study fori'ned a'group ethnically different from the first sample; they were older in age. Woman as well as men were represented, in about equal numbers. We wished (1) to see if we could replicate the findings of the first study with respect to the personality differences between heavy and non-smokers; (2) to stud}r'for the first time with these tests female smokers and non-smokers to determine if similar characteristics applied to them; and (3) to investigate the growing group of former cigarette smokers.' With respect to this last group, which was only minimally represented in our first sample (N=9) we had noted that they at times on the tests evidenced. the characteristics of heavy smokers and at times (on other categories of.,the tests) evidenced scores similar to non-smokers. The one category which seemed striking was that of "orality" (operationally defined as above). In this category the small group of former smokers in the first study had scored lowest of all the groups while-heavy smokers had scored highest. In the replication experiment we sampled 136 males and 101 females using the revised, shortened versions of the questionnaires. Analysis of the male groups indi- cated that heavy cigarette smokers in this population had significantly higher scores _ for "impetuousness", thrill and danger seeking" and "orality" than did non-smokers. Former smokers (N=23) had the lowest scdres for "orality" and "emotional lability". 1r. They were also the most "introverted" group. On the test examinating attitudes about parents, former smokers consistently evidenced lower scores on categories of faulty patterns of relatioEship. Our previous finding that heavy smokers characterize their mothers as most domineering, cold and harsh was again supported. t'ia :, Analysis of the female groups' rettirns indicated that heavy smokers had highest scores of "orality", "emotional lability", and "thrill and danger seeking". Our returns did not include a sufficient number of former smokers among the female population (N=5) for satisfactory investigation of that group. We are still analyzing the data from this second study. Some of the questions which are of interest are: (1) to what extent do light smokers resemble the apparently "healthy"pattern of most former smokers" (our "impression is that they are very similar). (2) 'Were. `former smokers" indeed, formerly in the group of heavy smokers, or are they in fact largely representative of the light smokers (possibly those who
Page 3: haa81e00
y, + -3- can "take it or leave it alone" i. e. use tobacco in moderation). (3) Will our logically defined questionnaire categories hang together when our now substantial body of data subjected to factor analytic or other sophisticated "objective" forms of analysis ? We hope to have tentative answers to these questions from present day. Certain wider questions, not only about sample representativeness, but about "deeper"validation of our findings also present themselves. We were also able to make a limited attack on the latter of these by a small series of clinical interviews, aimed at corroborating our notions and refining our hypotheses. l The detailed statistical findings: to 'the' exteiit we have completed our analysis and a copy of the questionnaire instrumep,ts will be forwarded separately as Appendices to this report. What stands our so far is that results with a second, larger population, which differed from our first population with respect to a number of demographic character- istics, and which included females as well as males, support our initial finding that certain personality factors correlate strongly=with patterns of smoking. r. . . II Discussion: Interpretation, ~and Hypotheses to date. Our findings to date on two questionnaire studies smoking tends to correlate in a linear fashion with responses a priori conceived as reflecting "infantile-impulsive" trends and also reflec4 ng_ a. perception of parents, particularly the"f7~other as rejecting are consistent with the assumption that cigarette smoking is based on both intra-psychic and environmental influences. A1th-ough such p'syicho-social factors as peer group influences, a wish to appear more mature, and a striving for independence play an important role in determining whether a person will begin smoking, intra-psychic or personality variables determine whether thl~ habit will continue or become extreme.. -Once the influences of adolescence have pass-ecY;:: other, more compelling factors must enter the picture in order for a person to pei'`sist in this habit beyond moderation. The significance:-of this study lies in the attempt to understand whether particular aspects of personality, indicated to be of relevance to smoking by questionnaire techniques, explain why some peo~le- smoke heavily,~ others not all, and why others, who have smoked moderately to heavily, can give lup the habit. We are proposing that a particular type of personality structure, composed of basic needs and means of dealing with these needs, serves as the compelling reason for the persistence of the heavy smoking habit, and that the absence of such a need-defense structure leads to--the ability to discontinue the habit or to never having taken it up at all, or to development of the habit and the persistence of it within moderate bounds. The heavy smoker is someone who engages in a habit to extremes--a habit which had its roots partially in social and environmental orientations--because the habit serves to satisfy basic needs which have been frustrated
Page 4: haa81e00
in other areas of his life. The concepts shown to be of importance in the questionnaire returns comprise what has been called the oral, infantile, impulsive character structure, a personality type found to be most characteristic of the heavy smoker. This concept symbolically represents a character structure whose major conflict is coping with a frustrated need for dependency or'wish to be cared for. If a person has experienced frustration of this basic need in his early life experiences, he may be expected to seek gratification else- where or in other ways. The individual with an oral, impulsive character structure becomes a heavy smoker because this "i's a'mearis of gratifying symbolically basic needs which have been frustrated in other area,s of his life. Smoking is only one way for him to satisfy these needs. Orality exists as a generalized behavior pattern and in cludes other intake, mouthing activities. Frust'ration of early dependency needs is based on experiences within the family. The questionnaire information has supplied us with evidence that male heavy cigarette smokers remember their relations with mothers as more unpleasant than the other groups. Specifically, they describe their mothers as more control,linl,d cold, and harsh. The heavy smokers, therefore, remember a type of mother wh~obe unlikely to have satisfied dependency and affectional needs. Such people would be mostAexpected to se;ek vicarious and substitute means of gratification. Our h,9potheses are that other types of smokers and non-smokers have not been subjected to excessive or faulty patterns of mothering and consequently have not had their basic needsL;frustrated to an intense degree. Smoking fail•them exists as a socially acceptable, envi'rbnmentally supported activity. It may serve as a means of relaxation, a search for contentment, or a prop::or crutch in group situations. For mild smokers, non-smokers and people able to give up the habit, evidence of the oral, impulsive character structure is expected to be minimal. " Our previous studies support these hypotheses. Former smokers evidence the lowest scores on the questionnaries for fauPfy interaction patterns with the mother and also evidence lowerst scores for the concept or orality. We have conceptualized the onset of the smoking habit as being related to environmental and social factors. The fact that such reasons are particularly, of. relevance to people who can give up the habit may be shown in the finding that they soore highest of all groups on the "introversion" factor, suggesting that smoking may wIP ll have served them as a vehicle for improved social interactions. However, since this habit was not rooted in a basic desire for gratification of dependency needs (because such needs were;being satisfied in other ways), it was possible for these people to give up the habit when it became apparent to them that it might be injurious to their health or for other personal reasons. Non-smokers, too,evidenced low scores for faulty parent-child relationships and for orality. These are people who had neither internal nor environmental forces to propel them to the smoking habit. More than likely such people grew up in a setting where the family and peer groups did not encourage or foster smoking. That they are less. impetuous and danger seeking than heavy smokers, as shown in the questionnaire results, suggests a greater degree of cautiousness and reserve--the picture of someone who is not likely to try something new unless he has a good reason for it. The non-smoker, then, may be seen as not being socially exposed or reinforced to begin the habit and as not haviri the intra-psychic need to seek it out. oii2~ii78
Page 5: haa81e00
The mild smokers, too, have shown on the questionnaire returns that they have not experienced faulty patterns of mothering, have low scores for orality, impetuousness" and danger seeking, and high scores for cautiousness and delay. Mild smoking therefore may be seen as an activity not rooted in disturbed early relationships or frustrations of basic needs. ,

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size: