Different “types” of cigarette smokers received similar effects from smoking

Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 9, pp. 207-210, Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

1984 Copyright

0306-4603/84 $3.00 + .OO 0 1984 Pergamon Press Ltd

BRIEF REPORT DIFFERENT RECEIVED

“TYPES” SIMILAR

D.G. WILLIAMS, Developmental

OF CIGARETTE

SMOKERS

EFFECTS FROM SMOKING

P.R. TATA and J. MISKELLA Group, University of Sussex

Psychology

Abstract-In experiments with 22 women and with 26 men subjects, contrasted groups of socalled high-arousal situation smokers and low-arousal situation smokers did not differ in the increases in pulse rate and in letter cancellation speed shown after smoking the first cigarette of the day in a prescribed manner. Some implications are discussed.

INTRODUCTION Myrsten, Andersson, Frankenhaeuser and Elgerot (1975) compared so-called low arousal smokers whose self-rated need to smoke was strongest in situations of low arousal potential (e.g., monotonous, boring) with high arousal smokers whose need was strongest in more highly arousing situations (e.g., anxiety-provoking, exciting). Cigarettes had a favorable effect upon performance and general well-being only when each group happened to be in the type of situation it most preferred for smoking. However, Williams (1980), concentrating upon performance changes, achieved only mixed results using a similar distinction between smokers. The current report is concerned with attempts to clarify the issue of differential change using heart rate as an index of physiological arousal, and using letter cancellation speed as an index of level of performance in a simple, non-stressful task making low demands upon memory and known to be sensitive to small changes in arousal level (see Williams, 1980). METHOD Subjects The subjects were 22 women undergraduates or university employees (19-24 yrs.) and 26 men undergraduates (18-25 yrs.). All were unpaid volunteers who each smoked at least 10 cigarettes per day and inhaled when smoking. Subjects were classified using the Situational Smoking Questionnaire (SSQ) developed by Frith (1971), which asks for self-ratings (7-point scale) of the likely “degree of craving” for a cigarette in each of 10 low-arousal situations (of relaxation, boredom, bodily tiredness, etc.) and 12 higharousal situations (of stress, anxiety, etc.). Of the women, 10 were so-called high arousal situation smokers, claiming proportionally more craving for cigarettes in the SSQ high-arousal situations than in the low-arousal situations: Their individual totals for craving across the 12 high-arousal situations averaged to 33.4 (SD = 9.5), with 22.5 (SD = 5.8) for the 10 low-arousal situations, and they smoked 18.5 (SD = 7.2) cigarettes/day. Twelve women were low arousal situation smokers whose totals for high-arousal situations averaged to 16.5 (SD = 13.9), with 26.6 (SD = 7.1) for low-arousal situations, and they smoked 15.8 Requests Psychology

for reprints or the complete report Group, University of Sussex, Falmer,

should be sent to Dr. D.G. Williams, Brighton, BNl 9QN. England. 207

Developmental

208

D.G.

WILLIAMS

et al.

(SD = 3.4) cigarettes/day. These female groups differed significantly in craving scores for the SSQ high-arousal situations, t(20) = 3.26, p < .Ol, but not for SSQ lowarousal situations, t = - 1.46, p > .05, nor in cigarettes smoked per day, t = 1.12, p > .05. Thirteen men were high-arousal situation smokers with totals for craving in higharousal situations averaging 32.8 (SD = 9.0), with 21.0 (SD = 6.6) for low-arousal situations, and they smoked 22.5 (SD = 5.5) cigarettes per day. The other thirteen men were low-arousal situation smokers who averaged 19.0 (SD = 9.1) for higharousal situations and 25.5 (SD = 7.5) for low-arousal situations, and smoked 20.3 (SD = 7.8) cigarettes per day. These male groups differed significantly in scores for SSQ high-arousal situations, t(24) = 3.91, p < .OOl, but not for SSQ low-arousal situations, t = - 1.61, p > .05, nor in cigarettes smoked per day, f = 0.81, p > .05. In neither sex were there significant differences between these groups of smokers in age, weight, number of years a smoker, number of cups of tea and coffee drunk per day, or in Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism or Lie scores from the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). Procedure The women were tested first in a separate experiment from the men. Subjects abstained from tobacco and all other psychoactive substances from at least the preceding midnight and arrived to smoke at 10:00 a.m. f 5 mins. A relaxed ambience was attempted throughout. Pulse rates (radial artery) were observed for 30 sets immediately before and after smoking. (Pulse rates at other times are not reported here and do not affect the conclusions.) Immediately before and after the taking of these pulse rates subjects took a letter cancellation test, crossing out each instance of an “E” found in sheets of randomly ordered letters (upper case, typed). The score was the total number of letters of any kind, whether an E or not, scanned in 3 minutes. Subjects smoked one filter-tipped cigarette (approximately 83mm overall) of the same (disguised) UK commercial brand (rated by the UK Government Chemist at 1.5 mg nicotine and 17 mg tar during the testing of the women, at 1.3 mg nicotine and 16 mg tar for the men). Smoking was paced using the procedure described and justified by Williams (1980): Two 2-second puffs per minute until a line drawn at 5mm before the filter overwrap was reached. RESULTS

In the women, the combined effect of practice and smoking increased speed of performance in the letter cancellation test for the high-arousal smokers from an average 1512.8 (SD = 217.5) letters scanned (per 3 mins) before to 1675.4 (SD = 241.3) letters after smoking, t(9) = 6.67, p < .OOl. Low-arousal smokers increased from 1158.1 (SD = 121.3) to 1278.5 (SD = 112.6) letters/3 mins, t(l1) = 3.37, p < .Ol. The high-arousal group was faster at letter cancellation than the low-arousal group both before (t(20) = 4.83, p < .OOl) and after (t = 5.09, p < .OOl) smoking, but the groups did not differ in the extent to which they improved on smoking, t(20) = 0.93, p > .05, even when the increases were regressed upon pre-smoking scores in a one-way analysis of covariance, F(1,19) = 1.69, p > .05. The pulse rate of the high-arousal women increased from 36.4 (SD = 4.2) beats per 300 sets to 46.7 (SD = 4.7), t = 13.3, p < .OOl, and that of the low-arousal group from 35.3 (SD = 2.8) to 45.3 (SD = 2.7) beats, t = 20.2, p < .OOl. These were similar changes in the two groups, t(20) = 0.24, p > .05, with no significant difference between the groups at each time.

“Types” of cigarette smokers

209

In a parallel analysis for the men, the letter scanning rate for the high-arousal smokers rose on smoking from an average 1363.2 (SD = 318.9) to 1523.8 (SD = 291.9) letters/3 mins, t(12) = 6.84, p < .OOl; the low-arousal smokers increased their speed from 1288.2 (SD = 293.1) to 1477.9 (SD = 376.9) letters/3 mins, t(12) = 3.90, p < .Ol. These were similar changes in the two groups, t(24) = - 0.54, p > .05, with no significant difference between groups at each time. Pulse rate increased from an average 33.1 (SD = 3.0) to 42.3 (SD = 3.8) beats/30 sets in the male high-arousal smokers, t(12) = 12.0, p < .OOl, and from 32.3 (SD = 2.6) to 42.1 (SD = 3.8) beats/30 sets in the low-arousal smokers, t(12) = 12.1, p < .OOl, which was a comparable change in the two groups, t(24) = -0.48, p > .05, with no difference between the groups at each time. It might be objected that in both sexes the groups did not differ in their changes on smoking because they differed significantly only in SSQ high-arousal scores and not in their levels of craving in SSQ low-arousal situations while the experimental situation in which subjects had smoked was essentially one of low arousal. However, selected smaller groups which did differ on both SSQ scales did not alter the pattern of changes observed in either sex. Although, curiously echoing the women smokers, the most extreme high-arousal male smokers (n = 4, SSQ HA M = 30.5, SSQ LA M = 15.0) were faster at letter cancellation both before, t(7) = 4.29, p < .Ol, and after, t(7) = 5.53, p < .OOl, smoking than the extreme low-arousal smokers (n = 5, HA M = 12.8, LAM = 27.2), but did not differ otherwise. In another approach, subjects were reclassified by their SSQ low-arousal scores only: There were no significant differences between high and low scoring groups in performance or pulse rate changes even, again, when small groups of extreme scorers were selected.

DISCUSSION Those previous experiments which have found differences in reactions on smoking by different groups can be seen to have had greater statistical power: Williams (1980) studied a relatively large number of subjects and Myrsten et al. (1975) selected groups with extreme scores on the smoking questionnaire that they employed. Thus, it is possible that high- and low-arousal situation smokers really do differ in reactions but perhaps only in small ways that are easily obscured. Power is further threatened if the instrument used to partition the subjects has low reliability or validity. These properties of the Frith SSQ are not known but the evidence from other classification schemes is not encouraging: The validity of a variety of instruments has proved to be rather low (e.g., Adesso & Glad, 1978; Joffe, Lowe & Fisher, 1981). Furthermore, Stanaway and Watson (1980) have criticized the construction of the Frith SSQ, arguing that items could be removed to leave a 15-item questionnaire contrasting stress-inducing with relaxing situations. However, reanalysis of the current data using such reformed scores was no more successful in establishing differential change on smoking, even when the comparison was restricted to the most extreme scorers. Perhaps the differences between kinds of smoker lie elsewhere. The female and selected male high-arousal situation smokers appeared better at the letter cancellation task whether or not they smoked, implying a higher level of psychological arousal, effort or motivation compared to low-arousal situation smokers-a difference, however, which was not revealed in higher pulse rates. Unfortunately, stability across different laboratories seems elusive here also. Knott (1980) found his high-arousal smokers (in non-smoking conditions) to be the slower in decision speed in a choice-reaction experi-

210

D.G.

WILLIAMS

et al.

ment. Provided there had been no significant trade-off between decision speed and errors, Knott’s results imply the reverse to that from current findings with letter cancellation. The attractiveness of the Frith SSQ has been in its relative simplicity and in the way it appeared to focus so directly upon the arousal-changing functions of cigarettes, generally acknowledged to be central to an understanding of smoking behavior (e.g., Ashton & Stepney, 1982). Nevertheless, use of the scale encourages too simple a view of the arousal domain. Thayer (1978), for example, has distinguished between two dimensions of subjective arousal, one running from sleepiness to energy and vigor, and the other from placidity and quietness to subjective tension. Smoking situations that have been treated as equivalent in arousal potential might involve a different mix of such components and smokers grouped by need to smoke in these situations may still be quite heterogeneous. Certainly, more types of smoking situation need distinguishing (e.g., O’Connor, 1980) than has been the case in the SSQ. Although questionnaires to determine those occasions when the intending ex-smoker is most prone to relapse should prove useful in individual therapy, to make additional assumptions concerning groups of smokers with supposedly similar characteristics runs the danger of reification of questionnaire categories into quasi-traits. Furthermore, in the light of recent discussions by personality theorists (e.g., Epstein, 1979), researchers should not expect questionnaires on motives or situations for smoking always to give close predictions of responses on particular occasions. REFERENCES Adesso, V.J., &Glad, W.R. A behavioral test of a smoking typology. Addictive Behaviors, 1978, 3, 35-38. Ashton, H., & Stepney, R. SmokingPsychology andpharmacology. London: Tavistock Publications, 1982. Epstein, S. The stability of behavior-I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1097-I 126. Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B.G. Manual of the Eysenck Personulity Questionnaire (Junior und Adult). London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1975. Frith, C.D. Smoking behaviour and its relation to the smoker’s immediate experience. British Journul of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 10,73-78. Joffe, R., Lowe, M.R., & Fisher, E.B., Jr. A validity test of the Reasons for Smoking Scale. Addictive Behaviors, 1981, 6, 41-45. Knott, V.J. Reaction time, noise distraction and autonomic responsivity in smokers and non-smokers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1980, 50, 1271-1280. Myrsten, A-L., Andersson, K., Frankenhaeuser, M., 81 Elgerot, A. Immediate effects of cigarette smoking as related to different smoking habits. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1975, 40, 515-523. O’Connor, K. Individual differences in situational preference amongst smokers. Personality und Individuui Differences, 1980, 1, 249-257. Stanaway, R.G., & Watson, D.W. Smoking motivation: A factor-analytical study. Personulity und Individuul Differences, 1980, 1, 371-380. Thayer, R.E. Toward a psychological theory of multidimensional activation (arousal). Motiwtion und Emotion, 1978, 2, l-34. Williams D.G. Effects of cigarette smoking on immediate memory and performance in different kinds of smoker. British Journal of Psychology, 1980, 71, 83-90.