- Email: [email protected]
Individual differences in situational preference amongst smokers
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SITUATIONAL PREFERENCE AMONGST SMOKERS KERON Department
O’CONNOR
of Psychology. Institute of Psychiatry, University of London (Received 18 December 1979)
Summary-A smoking questionnaire containing 26 items covering a range of stressful and nonstressful situations was administered to a sample of 60 light and medium cigarette smokers. Principal component analysis revealed two main factors relating to high and low emotional and attentional stress. Sex and personality differences were found in extent of desire on these factors. Introverts tended to have high desire in selective attentional situations and females had higher desire in situations of emotional stress. Differences in inhalation patterns and length of habit were also related to sex and extraversion. It is proposed that differences in smoking behaviour and the apparent paradoxical effects of smoking may reflect the use of smoking as a rewarding distraction from. rather than contribution to, current stressful activity. Predictions concerning the nature of a smoker’s habit may thus be aided by considering individual differences in attentional as well as emotional styles.
INTRODUCTION
of effects that smokers achieve from smoking is reflected in the variety of their smoking habits. Smokers vary in the number of cigarettes they smoke, when and where they choose to smoke, and the motives to which they attribute their smoking. A pharmacological basis is generally held responsible for these effects achieved by smoking, and the smoking habit is interpreted by various authors as a learned behavioural sequence designed to control dosage level in accordance with the effect desired (Ashton and Watson, 1976). But whether or not nicotine is the effective component in tobacco smoking and habit dependence is pharmacologically based, the active modulation of this effect is behavioural, and the development and maintenance of smoking behaviour, is based in the environment It thus seems reasonable to centre a typology of smoking behaviour around the situations in which it takes place, and to consider smoking in the context of the stimuli which accompany the characteristic smoking response, rather than hypothesize about this response in isolation. However most typologies of smoking have not been based on models of the smoker’s immediate smoking situation, but have classified smokers on the basis of hypothetical motives, attributed to smoking, based loosely on the supposed pharmacological possibilities of nicotine. Thus classification schemes have variously attributed smoking to desires on the part of the smoker to ‘increase pleasant feelings’, ‘decrease unpleasant feelings’ (Tomkins, 1968), or to motives involving ‘social confidence’, ‘food substitution’, ‘nervous irritation’, or ‘inner need’ (McKennel, 1970). But factor analysis has failed to reveal any of these ‘motives’ as independent activities capable of predicting actual patterns of smoking behaviour, since these models do not account for the circumstances surrounding the smoking act. Russell et al. (1974) proposed a reinforcement model of smoking based on the theoretical rewards that might motivate smoking behaviour. These authors classified questionnaire responses on smoking habit into seven categories of motivation: stimulant, indulgent, sedative, psychosocial, addictive and automatic. These groupings failed to emerge from the factor analysis as independent dimensions, but responses on the items tended to cluster into two groupings along a dimension which Russell et al. termed a pharmacological-non-pharmacological dimension. Strength of response on the pharmacological items which the authors had previously classified under addictive, automatic and stimulant motives, correlated highly with the number of cigarettes smoked. Non-pharmacological items classified under psychosocial and indulgent motives on the other hand, did
The diversity
249
250
KIERON O’CONNOR
not relate to number of cigarettes smoked. Though Russell er al. claimed that scoring high on pharmacological items is predictive of addiction, it is difficult by this criterion to avoid the tautology that heavy smokers are more addicted because they smoke more often. However, the finding that heavy smokers smoke more frequently for more reasons, whilst light smokers tend to smoke more specifically for social reasons, did suggest that some smoking behaviour might be situationally based. In fact Russell et al. suggested that though initiation of smoking may be mediated by psychosocial motives, eventually the general pharmacological effects of nicotine take over as prime reinforcers. Frith (1971) attempted to relate a specific pharmacological model of smoking motivation to the immediate experience of the smoker and hypothesized that different types of smokers do have preferences for smoking in different situations. Frith proposed that smokers use nicotine to produce either an increase or a decrease in their level of arousal. He constructed a questionnaire of circumstances which he interpreted as producing high or low arousal, and asked subjects to rate their desire for a cigarette in these situations. High arousal items related basically to stress situations, and low arousal items related to settings conducive to boredom and tiredness. Two factors were extracted by principal components analysis. Most of the situations were positively correlated and loaded significantly on the first factor, which Frith interpreted as due to the large percentage of heavy smokers wishing to smoke in any situation. The second factor lent support to Frith’s arousal model by showing bipolar loadings for high and low arousal situations. Subjects who had a desire to smoke in high arousal situations had a low desire in low arousal situations, and this established a valid situational differentiation for smoking. Frith also reported a sex difference in situational response. Females tended to report more desire to smoke in what Frith termed high arousal situations, and men in low arousal situations. Frith suggested that this difference may be due to different inhalation patterns in men and women, women inhaling less in high stress situations and so relying on non-pharmacological components of smoking rather than pharmacological effects. This explanation runs contrary to Russell’s finding that low addiction smokers tend to smoke more for psychosocial than other reasons, and without further information on individual differences, it is difficult to verify ad hoc interpretations of Frith’s findings. Although Frith’s arousal factor differentiated smoking responses, it only accounted for 31% of the response variance, which means that much unexplained variance might be accounted for by other situational specific factors. Classifying situations as arousing or non-arousing tends to throw a blanket over a host of variants that make up the situation. Arousal, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder, and different situations will arouse smokers in different ways. The degree of stress of a situation will depend on the type of response activity it entails, and might involve specifically attentional, emotional, active, passive, pleasant or unpleasant activity. From the smoker’s point of view it is these specific demands of the situation which accompany smoking and to which smoking may be one of several person specific responses. DESIGN
The following questionnaire study was thus designed to examine desire to smoke over a range of situations varying in type as well as degree of high and low stress demand, the hypothesis was that further factors might emerge from response variation, besides high and low arousal items, which might relate more specifically to response activities involved in the situations, and which might give additional predictability for individual differences in smoking. The smoking questionnaire consisted of 26 items (detailed in the appendix), covering a range of situations involving emotional, and attentional activity and inactivity. Items referred as far as possible to real situations the smoker was likely to have encountered rather than to hypothetical situations. Hypothetical items, as Russell er al. (1974) have pointed out, tend to increase unreliability of smokers self report. Sixty subjects completed the form, age range 21-55, mean age 29.2. Sexes were equal and the sample contained an equal number of medium and light smokers, as judged by
Situational
preference
amongst
Rae’s criterion (1975). Eysenck EPQ Personality were also obtained.
smokers
251
Scores (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1976)
ANALYSIS The correlation matrix of the 26 questionnaire items showed that though all correlations were positive few were significantly so. Frith reported similar findings with his items, but with more significant values, which perhaps suggests that there was greater heterogeneity of situations in the present items. Seven direct factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted from the correlation matrix by principal components analysis. However, application of the scree test (Cattell, 1952), and the Burts-Banks (Burt, 1952) significance criterion indicated that only five factors had interpretable validity. These five factors accounted for 66.7% of the variance. The first factor which accounted for 58.5% of the factor variance showed a positive loading for each item. The most significant items related to strenuous active engagement in some task, such as arguing, whilst the non-significant items related to restful nondemanding occupations such as going to bed. The second factor, which accounted for 13.7% of the factor variance showed bipolar loadings. Items with significant positive loadings on this item related more specifically than factor 1 to non-stress situations, such as eating and relaxing, whilst items with significant negative loadings represented high stress circumstances such as being embarrassed. This factor represents the high and low arousal dlvlslon reported by Frith. The third factor accounting for 10.3% of the factor variance also showed a bipolar loading structure. Significant positive items related specifically to emotional activity, such as winning money whilst items with significant negative loadings, related specifically to selective attentional effort, such as filling in forms. The fourth factor, again bipolar, accounted for 9.9% of the variance, and positive and negative item loadings were divided according to whether the situational activities centred around an activity with specific purpose such as waiting for an important result, or around a non-directional activity represented by general anxiety, or needing to keep awake where purposes are more uncertain. The fifth factor, accounting for the remaining 7.7% of the variance, loaded positively on items where activity involved a solitary occupation such as walking alone or driving at high speed and negatively on items which would reflect a more shared social activity. There were only four significant items on this factor and interpretation is necessarily vague. Oblique rotation on the 5 factors was performed by use of the direct oblimin method (Nie et al., 1975) with the aim of according factors greater resolution amongst contributing variance. Factors emerging from the derived solution brought out the structure of the items more clearly along single dimensions, though the principal item loadings remained identical to the unrotated matrix. Rotated factor loadings are given in Table 1. Factor 1 group items along a general activeinactive engagement dimension. Factor 2 represented an emotionally stressful-non-stressful dimension. Factor 3 structured items according to a specifically selective or non-selective attentional response dimension. Factor 4 related to specificity-non-specificity of task demand. Factor 5 discriminated responses on the solitary versus social nature of the situation. INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCES
These findings would appear to support the original hypothesis that type of activity involved in a situation is an important correlate of smoking desires. However, in order to understand why a particular smoker should select his smoking response along each or any of these five situational criteria, the relationship between other personal attributes and situational response preferences was examined. Smokers were divided into age, sex, medium/light smoker and personality groups, and r-test comparisons carried out on
KIERON O’CONNOR
252 Table
1. Oblique
factor
pattern
Factor VAROOl VAROOZ VARO03 VARO04 VAROOS VAROO6 VARO07 VAROOI VARO09 VAROlO VAROI 1 VAROl2 VAR013 VAR014 VAROlS VAR016 VAR017 VAR018 VAR019 VAROZO VARO21 VAR022 VAR023 VAR024 VAR025 VAR026
1 2 3 4 5
l.ooooo 0.05451 -0.31189 - 0.28495 0.17789
Factor
2
0.38407 0.49202 0.19433 0.48249 0.09115 0.03382 0.11101 0.17031 0.22957 0.01300 0.47118 -0.06432 -0.01982 -0.06270 -0.03087 0.13043 -0.02511 -0.10097 0.05432 0.08784 -0.12539 - 0.20028 -0.51814 0.23254 -0.12733 0.15360
0.04219 -0.15747 - 0.27478 0.04000 0.16382 0.33223 0.24930 0.23270 - 0.09062 0.22717 0.57927 0.47854 0.55185 0.45789 0.17035 -0.01103 0.66555 -0.14389 -0.02214 0.29276 0.05189 0.12773 0.08285 0.23376 0.38459 -0.14987
Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor
I
matrix after rotation Delta = 0.
1
Factor Factor 2 0.0545 1 l.OOOOO -0.11175 -0.17985 0.20576
Factor
with
3
0.19234 - 0.20859 -0.10451 -0.01627 0.11269 -0.23596 -0.11982 - 0.65349 -0.41532 -0.33568 -0.01049 -0.01120 -0.10618 - 0.29430 -0.05621 -0.52515 -0.33154 -0.13847 -0.61344 0.0303 1 - 0.60072 -0.83840 - 0.12479 -0.28568 0.13013 -0.29676
Kaiser
Factor
-0.23882 -0.20902 -0.58261 -0.00664 0.00446 0.03248 -0.11014 0.20404 -0.11667 -0.39861 -0.01858 -0.04295 -0.02471 -0.20665 -0.48315 -0.22328 -0.10312 0.01425 -0.05552 - 0.50298 - 0.04688 -0.02273 -0.51549 -0.27179 -0.66921 -0.60610
pattern correlations Factor 3 Factor -0.31189 -0.11175 l.OOOOO 0.39623 -0.24567
4
-0.28495 -0.17985 0.39623 l.ooooO -0.19367
4
normalization,
Factor
5
0.25672 0.13016 -0.01654 0.00020 0.70100 0.28253 0.23699 0.13222 0.38828 -0.00966 -0.17531 0.21871 - o.Oc039 - 0.02005 0.05210 -0.18603 0.00129 0.77910 0.16576 0.03389 0.11918 - 0.06749 - 0.03900 -0.02591 0.073 12 0.15101
Factor
5
0.17789 0.20576 - 0.24567 -0.19367 l.OOQOO
mean group responses for each of the 26 questionnaire items. Personality grouping was according to P, E, N and L norms given by Eysenck and Eysenck (1976). Medium and light smokers were divided according to whether 25 or more cigarettes were smoked per day. Age grouping was set arbitrarily about the mean of 29 yr. In view of the wide range within each grouping and the absence of specific predictions on the direction of differences, t-values beyond the p < 0.10 two tailed probability level were accepted as significant. Significant c-values and mean differences between groups for the items are given in Table 2. Heavy smokers had significantly higher desire over 15 of the 26 items, so supporting Frith’s previous finding that heavy smokers generally desire to smoke more in most situations. However, a differential pattern relating to number of cigarettes smoked did emerge, in that items on which the heavy-light groupings were not significantly different were mostly the items loading highest on the five factors particularly the emotional strain factor. This suggests either that light smokers are able to be more selective in their craving or that heavy smokers accord more situations an extreme status. Older subjects showed more desire to smoke during relaxing and generally inactive episodes such as going to bed and winning money which may indicate that these settings assume more importance in older subjects. Females show significantly higher desire than men to smoke in situations of high emotional stress, and this accords with Frith’s previous findings. High N scorers also had more desire to smoke under emotional stress, than low stress N scorers. Significant
Situational Table
Item
2 5 6 1 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26
Significant principal loading factor F3 F2 F5 Fl, F5 Fl F3 F3, F5 F4, F3 Fl, F2 FI Fl Fl F4 Fl. F3 F5 F3 F4 F3 F2, F4 F3 F4,Fl F4, F3
2. Significant
EPQ P -
preference
r-values
Variables E
-2.61” -
between
N
- 1.80* -
- 1.88’ - 1.68*
-
+2.56** +2.38**
+2.04** + 1.67*
+ 1.ss* -
-
-2.55*’ -
-2.03* -
-
1.70*
+2.03**
-2.35**
-
-
+ 2.02** -
-
- 2.96** -2.13**
-
+1.87* -
-
-
-
-2.70**
-
-2x8**
+2.03* + 1.89* -
253
Number of cigarettes (>25<25 per day)
Sex (M/F) L +1.94* -
- 1.98**
smokers
smokinggroupsfor item scores7
-
-2.51** -
amongst
+ 1.86* -2.93’*
-
(r
Age 29 -z 29yr)
-
+2.21** + 4.56** + 3.08** + 2.04** + 2.20** +3.51** + 1.83; + 2.20** +3.33**
+ 1.74; -
+3.11** + 3.22** + 2.07+* + 1.94’ +2.13** -
+ 1.83;
+ 2.70** + 3.59**
-
-
-
* p < 0.10. ** p < 0.05. Positive r-value indicates that the group scoring highest on respective personality and other attributes showed the higher craving for that item, and in the case of sex that males showed higher craving.
also
differences were on the same items that typified the sex differences, and in fact females showed significantly higher N scorers than males. High E scorers smoked significantly less on items relating to the attentional factor, so suggesting that introverts are more likely than extraverts to desire to smoke during tasks of selective attentidn. High P scorers expressed less desire to smoke on items relating to specific and active task demand, than low P scorers. This could indicate that high P scorers are less worried about achieving specific ends. It should be noted that in accordance with general population norms the number of high P scorers was disproportionately large (30) in the present sample. However, previous studies have suggested that high P scores may be a characteristic of smokers (Jamison, 1979), and drug users (Gossop, 1978). High L scorers reported more desire than low L scorers to smoke on selective attentional items exclusively loading on factor 3, and factor 1. Eysenck and Eysenck (1976) originally proposed this L scale as a measure of dissimulation but suggest that it may also form an independent personality trait, relating to social naivety. The present results could indicate that high L scorers are also highly achievement motivated, and so willing to invest more effort in tasks involving active attentional engagement, and attributing more importance to those tasks than low L scorers. High and low E groups had been equated for heavy and light smokers, but there was no correlation between number of cigarettes smoked, and P and N personality dimensions. Within personality groups there was no correlation betwen N and P or between N and E, but there was a positive correlation (p < 0.02) between P and E indicating that in the present sample, high P scorers also tended to score high on E, though high E scorers were not significantly higher on P than low E scorers. Additional information was obtained from most of the 60 respondents concerning three other smoking variables. These were length of habit (in years), extent of inhalation [whether the smoker inhaled: every puff (3), most puffs (2), the first few puffs only (1). never (0)], and brand of preferred cigarette (transformed into milligrammes of nicotine
KIERON O’CONNOR
254
Table
3. Self report
habit,
Habit Mean High E scorers
inhalation (yr) t-value
6.43
and preferred
Inhalation (G3) l-value Mean
Heavy
smokers
10.90 8.00 8.71 6.70 6.71 9.71t 7.67 7.76 7.03 7.88 6.14
4.00**
groups
yield (mg)
t-value
2.67** I.13 1.05 I .25 1.24 1.17 1.13 1.25 1.31 1.10
3.50**
1.22
2.44 1.82*
l.98* Light smokers
Brand nicotine Mean
3.98** 2.58 2.30 2.38 2.39 2.41 2.38 2.31 2.50 2.18
between
1.29
2.20 4.50**
Low E scorers High N scorers Low N scorers High P scorers Low P scorers High L scorers Low L scorers Men Women
brand differences
2.24
1.16
* p < 0.10. ** p < 0.05. t Age differences
normalized.
yield). t-Test comparisons were carried out between personality, sex and smoking groups on these additional smoking variables. Results are given in Table 3. Introverts inhaled more frequently, but smoked cigarettes with significantly less nicotine yield than extraverts. Also introverts had maintained their smoking habits longer. High N and high L scorers tended to smoke lower nicotine yield cigarettes, than low N and low L scorers, though there were no significant differences between these groups in inhalation or length of habit. Males inhaled more often and smoked stronger nicotine cigarettes, and heavy smokers tended to have smoked for more years, and inhaled more often, than light smokers, though there was no consistent difference in their choice of cigarette brands.
DISCUSSION
The main findings of the present study can be summarized as follows: Smokers desire to smoke to the extent that they are actively engaged in a situation. Smokers can be typified according to their desire to smoke in situations involving emotional, attentional and social activity. Smokers’ preference to smoke under these situations is in part related to their personality, and to the amount they habitually smoke. How smokers smoke, and the duration of their habit is also related to their personality, in particular their E score. The most consistent finding of previous research on the behavioural effects of smoking is that it lowers the effects of emotional disruption on performance, Dunn (1978), so reducing irritation, aggression or boredom, and inducing pleasant feelings of well-being (Gilbert, 1979). There is much conjecture over whether these effects can be attributed to the sensori-motor aspects of smoking which by themselves can reduce tension (Freeman, 1948) or whether they are due to the direct influence of nicotine on cerebral structures. The link reported in the present study between inhalation differences and situational preference, suggests that nicotine does contribute to the smoking effect. However the results do challenge the notion that this effect alone can account for preference. Both introverts and extraverts, and also males and females differ in their patterns of inhalation, but clearly there are some situations where they share the same desire to smoke, to achieve the same effects, yet employing different smoking strategies. It is difficult to reconcile these findings within a model that relates nicotine dosage level directly to effect achieved. In fact in other studies manipulation of dosage level has not resulted in behavioural differences expected (Ague, 1973) from a simple stimulant model of nicotine action. So it is important to recognize that tying smoking to a specific
Situational
preference
amongst
smokers
255
situation does not tie it to a specific function either behaviourally or physiologically. Different personalities may respond to the same situation using different strategies. The diversity of situational preferences amongst smokers indicates a fluidity in the exact behavioural role of smoking. Russell et al. (1974) supporting the pharmacological model of smoking, have argued that if it were not for the nicotine effects in smoking, smokers would be as little inclined to smoke as they are to blow bubbles or light sparklers. This argument implies that the smoking act itself is just like any other minor motor act. But clearly there are a number of unique characteristics about the smoking act which distinguish it from other motor behaviours. There are few socially acceptable alternative behaviours, occupying similar time, space and motion, that can mimic the peculiar brief, episodic, frequent, convenient and ‘invisible’ nature of smoking, as a behavioural act. It is hardly considered appropriate to light sparklers on hearing of a tragic accident involving a friend, nor would the executive who blows bubbles across the annual board meeting be guaranteeing his promotion prospects. Yet in both these ______cases smoking would be considered appropriate (if not desirable) behaviour. Others oftena not notice or remember whether someone is a smoker, and also do not seem to modify their general perceptions about the smoker as a consequence of his habit (Mausner and Platt, 1971). Smoking is a fairly ‘invisible’ act, unlike other personal quirks, similar in pattern of activity to smoking, such as biting nails, fiddling with hair, etc., which are more usually noticed (Morris, 1978). The smoking act is therefore fairly unique in being a culturally inconspicuous secondary activity that a subject can conveniently undertake in most situations. Smoking is nevertheless a discreet behavioural act, encapsulated in the stream of behaviour, and when the smoker smokes, activity previously engaged in becomes momentarily disrupted. The uniqueness of smoking as a portable activity thus of includes its availability as a distraction from, rather than a continuation any current activity, and this has implications for the discussion of its effects. Most models of smoking assume that the effects are in some way tied to abetting or abating previous activity levels. But the fact that smoking takes place more frequently against a background of some activities in preference to others suggests, in the light of the previous observations, that it is a planned distraction from, rather than a contribution towards these activities. Evidence cited earlier suggests consistently that the effects of smoking, regardless of the situation in which it takes place, are rewarding. It is proposed here that smoking functions as a pleasurable distractor and occurs as a kind of voluntary or involuntary reward period in situations where no other immediate reward is forthcoming; whether the reward is voluntarily or involuntarily administered may be a function of length of habit. Smoking effects then become themselves pleasurable rewards reinforcing and maintaining current unpleasurable activity. Where the smoker has come to depend on smoking as the only reinforcement for a certain activity, inability to smoke should lead to frustration and irritation, and eventual cessation of the activity, which has been reported in the literature. Also anecdotally one often hears smokers report that they cannot do certain activities, or ‘are lost’ without a cigarette. Smoking of course may also serve as an additional reward in situations that are already pleasant, although if the theory is correct, desire should not be so strong in these already pleasantly reinforced situations. ~-The present findings of an attentional factor in smoking preference suggests that in some subjects smoking may act as a pleasurable way of redistributing attention in accordance with task demand. The physiological effect of smoking itself may thus be non-specific but its stimulant or sedative nature tied rather through the personality of the smoker to the attentional demands of the situation. There is physiological evidence that nicotine may activate primary reward centres such as the medial forebrain bundle and so elevate mood. As a rewarding distractor smoking may become both the incentive and means for regulating attentional activity within a task. Attention to a primary and secondary task of different modality, makes less demands on attentional capacity than does allocation of attention to multiple within task distracters (Kahneman, 1973). Therefore during task performance where attention is divided between several competing
KIERONO’CONNOR
256
stimuli either through boredom or stress, the splitting of attention solely between smoking and the task may have the initial effect of raising attentional capacity. This may account for the apparent paradoxical findings that smoking can improve both high and low arousal task performance. Nicotine may appear to differentially affect different cerebral generators in different smokers since it reinforces different habitual functioning in these groups. The effect of smoking has been related to initial performance strategy differences between personality groups (O’Connor, 1980). This distracting-reward model of smoking would therefore propose that differences in situational preference of smoking stem from individual differences in ways of performing stressful and tedious tasks rather than directly from the effects of nicotine itself. So for instance in the present study introverts might have desired to smoke more in selective attentional tasks as they might invest more concentration in these tasks. Likewise N scorers may need more so than low N scorers, to pace their involvement in high emotional stress situations with smoking distractions. There is also evidence that extraverts are more likely to seek external rewards for their behaviour whilst introverts are more likely to generate their own internal rewards. This suggests that extraverts are more likely to smoke in more situations, whilst introverts will be more discriminating in their smoking habit. Cherry and Kiernan (1976) reported that extraverts were more likely to smoke than introverts and in the present study extraverts were heavier smokers by Rae’s criterion (1975) of higher nicotine intake. Eysenck (1979) recently reported that extraverts are more likely than introverts to fail to give up smoking. There is evidence from the experimental literature indicating that though external incentives and rewards significantly modify extraverts performance, they have little effect on introverts performance (e.g. Eysenck, 1971). The present model of smoking would predict that where dependence on external reinforcers was high, the dependence on smoking in general would be more pervasive and higher. The distraction-reward model of smoking proposed here complements arousal and addiction models by offering predictions about the effect of smoking based on individual differences in attentional strategy adopted under stress. Acknowledgements-This research was supported in part by a grant from several American tobacco manufacturers. The author is grateful to Professor H. J. Eysenck for comments on an earlier version of this paper. REFERENCES AGUE C. (1973) Nicotine and smoking: Effects upon subjective changes in mood.
Psychopharmacologia
30,
323-328.
ASHTONH. and WATSOND. W. (1970) Puffing frequency and nicotine intake in cigarette smokers. Br. med. J. 3, 679-681. BURTC. (1952) Tests of significance in factor analysis. Br. J. Psychol. 5, 109-133. CATTIZLL R. B. (1952) Factor Annlysis. Harper, New York. CHERRYN. and KERNAN K. (1976) Personality scores and smoking behaviour: A longitudinal study. Br. 1. preoent. sot. Med. 2, 123-131. DUNN W. L. (1978) Smoking as a possible inhibitor of arousal. In Behovioural Eficrs of Nicotine. (Edited by BATTIG K.) Kargar, Basel. EYSENCKH. J. and EY~ENCKS. B. G. (1976) Manual of the Eysenck personality Questionnaire. Hodder & Stoughton, London. FRITH C. D. (1971) Smoking behaviour and its relation to the smoker’s immediate experience. Br. J. Sot. C/in. Psychol.
10, 73-78.
Gosso~ M. (1978) Drug dependence crime and personality among female addicts. Drug Ale. Depend. 3.359-364. GILBERTD. G. (1979) Paradoxical tranquilizing and emotion-reducing effects of nicotine. Psycho/. Bull. 86, 643-66 1. HENDRICKXINA. E. and WHITEP. 0. (1964) Promax: A quick method for rotation to oblique simple structure. Br. J. math. stat. Psychol. 17, 65-70. JAMIX)NR. (1979) Cigarette smoking and personality in male and female adolescents. Psycho/. Rep. 44, 842. JARVIKM. E. (1970) The role of nicotine in the smoking habit. In Learning Mechanism in Smaking (Edited by W. A. HUNT). Aldine, Chicago. KAHNEMAND. (1973) Attention and E’rt. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs. NJ. MAUSNERB. and PLAIN E. S. (1971) Smoking: A Behauioural Analysis. Pergamon Press. Oxford. MCKENNELA. C. (1970) Smoking motivation factors. Br. J. sot. c/in. Psycho/. 9, 8-22. MORRISD. (1978) Man-Watching: A Field Guide to Human Behauiour. Pautler. London. NIE N., HULL C. H., JENKINSJ. G.. STEINBRENNER K. and BRENTD. (1975) SPSS Manual. McGraw-Hill. New York.
Situational preference
amongst
smokers
O’CONNOR K. (1980) The contingent
257
negative variation and individual differences in smoking behaviour. 1, 57--72. RAE G. (1975) Extraversion, neuroticism and cigarette smoking. Br. J. sot. c/in. Psychol. 14, 429430. RUSSELLM. A. H.. PETO J. and PATEL U. A. (1974) The clarification of smoking by factorial structure of motives. J. R. Stat. Sot. 137, 313-346. TOMKINSS. (1968) A modified model of smoking behaviour. In Smoking, Health and Behaviour (Edited by E. F. BORGA’ITA and R. R. EVANS),Aldine Chicago. Person.
Individ.
Difl
APPENDIX Smoking
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
situation
irems
Just before going to bed. Immediately after a large meal. With an alcoholic drink. With a non-alcoholic drink. On waking up in the morning. Travelling on a coach or train for a long journey. Having a restful evening alone reading a magazine. Filling in a complicated form. Waiting for a coach or train with nothing to do. Waiting to hear an important result. Waiting in a dentist’s waiting room to have a difficult filling. Whilst you are driving at speed in heavy traffic. During an important interview. When you are trying to hold an important conversation at a noisy party. When you are anxious about someone’s safety. When you are anxious about succeeding in something. Whilst you are making an important telephone call in a noisy office. Whilst you are walking on your own. Whilst you are searching through a long list of names. After you have been badly shaken up by a near accident. When you are explaining something technical to someone who doesn’t understand. When you are expressing a point of view to someone who doesn’t agree with it. When you are embarrassed at a social gathering. After hearing that you have just won a great deal of money. After hearing that a friend has been involved in an accident. When you feel tired and need to keep awake.
O’CONNOR
of Psychology. Institute of Psychiatry, University of London (Received 18 December 1979)
Summary-A smoking questionnaire containing 26 items covering a range of stressful and nonstressful situations was administered to a sample of 60 light and medium cigarette smokers. Principal component analysis revealed two main factors relating to high and low emotional and attentional stress. Sex and personality differences were found in extent of desire on these factors. Introverts tended to have high desire in selective attentional situations and females had higher desire in situations of emotional stress. Differences in inhalation patterns and length of habit were also related to sex and extraversion. It is proposed that differences in smoking behaviour and the apparent paradoxical effects of smoking may reflect the use of smoking as a rewarding distraction from. rather than contribution to, current stressful activity. Predictions concerning the nature of a smoker’s habit may thus be aided by considering individual differences in attentional as well as emotional styles.
INTRODUCTION
of effects that smokers achieve from smoking is reflected in the variety of their smoking habits. Smokers vary in the number of cigarettes they smoke, when and where they choose to smoke, and the motives to which they attribute their smoking. A pharmacological basis is generally held responsible for these effects achieved by smoking, and the smoking habit is interpreted by various authors as a learned behavioural sequence designed to control dosage level in accordance with the effect desired (Ashton and Watson, 1976). But whether or not nicotine is the effective component in tobacco smoking and habit dependence is pharmacologically based, the active modulation of this effect is behavioural, and the development and maintenance of smoking behaviour, is based in the environment It thus seems reasonable to centre a typology of smoking behaviour around the situations in which it takes place, and to consider smoking in the context of the stimuli which accompany the characteristic smoking response, rather than hypothesize about this response in isolation. However most typologies of smoking have not been based on models of the smoker’s immediate smoking situation, but have classified smokers on the basis of hypothetical motives, attributed to smoking, based loosely on the supposed pharmacological possibilities of nicotine. Thus classification schemes have variously attributed smoking to desires on the part of the smoker to ‘increase pleasant feelings’, ‘decrease unpleasant feelings’ (Tomkins, 1968), or to motives involving ‘social confidence’, ‘food substitution’, ‘nervous irritation’, or ‘inner need’ (McKennel, 1970). But factor analysis has failed to reveal any of these ‘motives’ as independent activities capable of predicting actual patterns of smoking behaviour, since these models do not account for the circumstances surrounding the smoking act. Russell et al. (1974) proposed a reinforcement model of smoking based on the theoretical rewards that might motivate smoking behaviour. These authors classified questionnaire responses on smoking habit into seven categories of motivation: stimulant, indulgent, sedative, psychosocial, addictive and automatic. These groupings failed to emerge from the factor analysis as independent dimensions, but responses on the items tended to cluster into two groupings along a dimension which Russell et al. termed a pharmacological-non-pharmacological dimension. Strength of response on the pharmacological items which the authors had previously classified under addictive, automatic and stimulant motives, correlated highly with the number of cigarettes smoked. Non-pharmacological items classified under psychosocial and indulgent motives on the other hand, did
The diversity
249
250
KIERON O’CONNOR
not relate to number of cigarettes smoked. Though Russell er al. claimed that scoring high on pharmacological items is predictive of addiction, it is difficult by this criterion to avoid the tautology that heavy smokers are more addicted because they smoke more often. However, the finding that heavy smokers smoke more frequently for more reasons, whilst light smokers tend to smoke more specifically for social reasons, did suggest that some smoking behaviour might be situationally based. In fact Russell et al. suggested that though initiation of smoking may be mediated by psychosocial motives, eventually the general pharmacological effects of nicotine take over as prime reinforcers. Frith (1971) attempted to relate a specific pharmacological model of smoking motivation to the immediate experience of the smoker and hypothesized that different types of smokers do have preferences for smoking in different situations. Frith proposed that smokers use nicotine to produce either an increase or a decrease in their level of arousal. He constructed a questionnaire of circumstances which he interpreted as producing high or low arousal, and asked subjects to rate their desire for a cigarette in these situations. High arousal items related basically to stress situations, and low arousal items related to settings conducive to boredom and tiredness. Two factors were extracted by principal components analysis. Most of the situations were positively correlated and loaded significantly on the first factor, which Frith interpreted as due to the large percentage of heavy smokers wishing to smoke in any situation. The second factor lent support to Frith’s arousal model by showing bipolar loadings for high and low arousal situations. Subjects who had a desire to smoke in high arousal situations had a low desire in low arousal situations, and this established a valid situational differentiation for smoking. Frith also reported a sex difference in situational response. Females tended to report more desire to smoke in what Frith termed high arousal situations, and men in low arousal situations. Frith suggested that this difference may be due to different inhalation patterns in men and women, women inhaling less in high stress situations and so relying on non-pharmacological components of smoking rather than pharmacological effects. This explanation runs contrary to Russell’s finding that low addiction smokers tend to smoke more for psychosocial than other reasons, and without further information on individual differences, it is difficult to verify ad hoc interpretations of Frith’s findings. Although Frith’s arousal factor differentiated smoking responses, it only accounted for 31% of the response variance, which means that much unexplained variance might be accounted for by other situational specific factors. Classifying situations as arousing or non-arousing tends to throw a blanket over a host of variants that make up the situation. Arousal, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder, and different situations will arouse smokers in different ways. The degree of stress of a situation will depend on the type of response activity it entails, and might involve specifically attentional, emotional, active, passive, pleasant or unpleasant activity. From the smoker’s point of view it is these specific demands of the situation which accompany smoking and to which smoking may be one of several person specific responses. DESIGN
The following questionnaire study was thus designed to examine desire to smoke over a range of situations varying in type as well as degree of high and low stress demand, the hypothesis was that further factors might emerge from response variation, besides high and low arousal items, which might relate more specifically to response activities involved in the situations, and which might give additional predictability for individual differences in smoking. The smoking questionnaire consisted of 26 items (detailed in the appendix), covering a range of situations involving emotional, and attentional activity and inactivity. Items referred as far as possible to real situations the smoker was likely to have encountered rather than to hypothetical situations. Hypothetical items, as Russell er al. (1974) have pointed out, tend to increase unreliability of smokers self report. Sixty subjects completed the form, age range 21-55, mean age 29.2. Sexes were equal and the sample contained an equal number of medium and light smokers, as judged by
Situational
preference
amongst
Rae’s criterion (1975). Eysenck EPQ Personality were also obtained.
smokers
251
Scores (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1976)
ANALYSIS The correlation matrix of the 26 questionnaire items showed that though all correlations were positive few were significantly so. Frith reported similar findings with his items, but with more significant values, which perhaps suggests that there was greater heterogeneity of situations in the present items. Seven direct factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted from the correlation matrix by principal components analysis. However, application of the scree test (Cattell, 1952), and the Burts-Banks (Burt, 1952) significance criterion indicated that only five factors had interpretable validity. These five factors accounted for 66.7% of the variance. The first factor which accounted for 58.5% of the factor variance showed a positive loading for each item. The most significant items related to strenuous active engagement in some task, such as arguing, whilst the non-significant items related to restful nondemanding occupations such as going to bed. The second factor, which accounted for 13.7% of the factor variance showed bipolar loadings. Items with significant positive loadings on this item related more specifically than factor 1 to non-stress situations, such as eating and relaxing, whilst items with significant negative loadings represented high stress circumstances such as being embarrassed. This factor represents the high and low arousal dlvlslon reported by Frith. The third factor accounting for 10.3% of the factor variance also showed a bipolar loading structure. Significant positive items related specifically to emotional activity, such as winning money whilst items with significant negative loadings, related specifically to selective attentional effort, such as filling in forms. The fourth factor, again bipolar, accounted for 9.9% of the variance, and positive and negative item loadings were divided according to whether the situational activities centred around an activity with specific purpose such as waiting for an important result, or around a non-directional activity represented by general anxiety, or needing to keep awake where purposes are more uncertain. The fifth factor, accounting for the remaining 7.7% of the variance, loaded positively on items where activity involved a solitary occupation such as walking alone or driving at high speed and negatively on items which would reflect a more shared social activity. There were only four significant items on this factor and interpretation is necessarily vague. Oblique rotation on the 5 factors was performed by use of the direct oblimin method (Nie et al., 1975) with the aim of according factors greater resolution amongst contributing variance. Factors emerging from the derived solution brought out the structure of the items more clearly along single dimensions, though the principal item loadings remained identical to the unrotated matrix. Rotated factor loadings are given in Table 1. Factor 1 group items along a general activeinactive engagement dimension. Factor 2 represented an emotionally stressful-non-stressful dimension. Factor 3 structured items according to a specifically selective or non-selective attentional response dimension. Factor 4 related to specificity-non-specificity of task demand. Factor 5 discriminated responses on the solitary versus social nature of the situation. INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCES
These findings would appear to support the original hypothesis that type of activity involved in a situation is an important correlate of smoking desires. However, in order to understand why a particular smoker should select his smoking response along each or any of these five situational criteria, the relationship between other personal attributes and situational response preferences was examined. Smokers were divided into age, sex, medium/light smoker and personality groups, and r-test comparisons carried out on
KIERON O’CONNOR
252 Table
1. Oblique
factor
pattern
Factor VAROOl VAROOZ VARO03 VARO04 VAROOS VAROO6 VARO07 VAROOI VARO09 VAROlO VAROI 1 VAROl2 VAR013 VAR014 VAROlS VAR016 VAR017 VAR018 VAR019 VAROZO VARO21 VAR022 VAR023 VAR024 VAR025 VAR026
1 2 3 4 5
l.ooooo 0.05451 -0.31189 - 0.28495 0.17789
Factor
2
0.38407 0.49202 0.19433 0.48249 0.09115 0.03382 0.11101 0.17031 0.22957 0.01300 0.47118 -0.06432 -0.01982 -0.06270 -0.03087 0.13043 -0.02511 -0.10097 0.05432 0.08784 -0.12539 - 0.20028 -0.51814 0.23254 -0.12733 0.15360
0.04219 -0.15747 - 0.27478 0.04000 0.16382 0.33223 0.24930 0.23270 - 0.09062 0.22717 0.57927 0.47854 0.55185 0.45789 0.17035 -0.01103 0.66555 -0.14389 -0.02214 0.29276 0.05189 0.12773 0.08285 0.23376 0.38459 -0.14987
Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor
I
matrix after rotation Delta = 0.
1
Factor Factor 2 0.0545 1 l.OOOOO -0.11175 -0.17985 0.20576
Factor
with
3
0.19234 - 0.20859 -0.10451 -0.01627 0.11269 -0.23596 -0.11982 - 0.65349 -0.41532 -0.33568 -0.01049 -0.01120 -0.10618 - 0.29430 -0.05621 -0.52515 -0.33154 -0.13847 -0.61344 0.0303 1 - 0.60072 -0.83840 - 0.12479 -0.28568 0.13013 -0.29676
Kaiser
Factor
-0.23882 -0.20902 -0.58261 -0.00664 0.00446 0.03248 -0.11014 0.20404 -0.11667 -0.39861 -0.01858 -0.04295 -0.02471 -0.20665 -0.48315 -0.22328 -0.10312 0.01425 -0.05552 - 0.50298 - 0.04688 -0.02273 -0.51549 -0.27179 -0.66921 -0.60610
pattern correlations Factor 3 Factor -0.31189 -0.11175 l.OOOOO 0.39623 -0.24567
4
-0.28495 -0.17985 0.39623 l.ooooO -0.19367
4
normalization,
Factor
5
0.25672 0.13016 -0.01654 0.00020 0.70100 0.28253 0.23699 0.13222 0.38828 -0.00966 -0.17531 0.21871 - o.Oc039 - 0.02005 0.05210 -0.18603 0.00129 0.77910 0.16576 0.03389 0.11918 - 0.06749 - 0.03900 -0.02591 0.073 12 0.15101
Factor
5
0.17789 0.20576 - 0.24567 -0.19367 l.OOQOO
mean group responses for each of the 26 questionnaire items. Personality grouping was according to P, E, N and L norms given by Eysenck and Eysenck (1976). Medium and light smokers were divided according to whether 25 or more cigarettes were smoked per day. Age grouping was set arbitrarily about the mean of 29 yr. In view of the wide range within each grouping and the absence of specific predictions on the direction of differences, t-values beyond the p < 0.10 two tailed probability level were accepted as significant. Significant c-values and mean differences between groups for the items are given in Table 2. Heavy smokers had significantly higher desire over 15 of the 26 items, so supporting Frith’s previous finding that heavy smokers generally desire to smoke more in most situations. However, a differential pattern relating to number of cigarettes smoked did emerge, in that items on which the heavy-light groupings were not significantly different were mostly the items loading highest on the five factors particularly the emotional strain factor. This suggests either that light smokers are able to be more selective in their craving or that heavy smokers accord more situations an extreme status. Older subjects showed more desire to smoke during relaxing and generally inactive episodes such as going to bed and winning money which may indicate that these settings assume more importance in older subjects. Females show significantly higher desire than men to smoke in situations of high emotional stress, and this accords with Frith’s previous findings. High N scorers also had more desire to smoke under emotional stress, than low stress N scorers. Significant
Situational Table
Item
2 5 6 1 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26
Significant principal loading factor F3 F2 F5 Fl, F5 Fl F3 F3, F5 F4, F3 Fl, F2 FI Fl Fl F4 Fl. F3 F5 F3 F4 F3 F2, F4 F3 F4,Fl F4, F3
2. Significant
EPQ P -
preference
r-values
Variables E
-2.61” -
between
N
- 1.80* -
- 1.88’ - 1.68*
-
+2.56** +2.38**
+2.04** + 1.67*
+ 1.ss* -
-
-2.55*’ -
-2.03* -
-
1.70*
+2.03**
-2.35**
-
-
+ 2.02** -
-
- 2.96** -2.13**
-
+1.87* -
-
-
-
-2.70**
-
-2x8**
+2.03* + 1.89* -
253
Number of cigarettes (>25<25 per day)
Sex (M/F) L +1.94* -
- 1.98**
smokers
smokinggroupsfor item scores7
-
-2.51** -
amongst
+ 1.86* -2.93’*
-
(r
Age 29 -z 29yr)
-
+2.21** + 4.56** + 3.08** + 2.04** + 2.20** +3.51** + 1.83; + 2.20** +3.33**
+ 1.74; -
+3.11** + 3.22** + 2.07+* + 1.94’ +2.13** -
+ 1.83;
+ 2.70** + 3.59**
-
-
-
* p < 0.10. ** p < 0.05. Positive r-value indicates that the group scoring highest on respective personality and other attributes showed the higher craving for that item, and in the case of sex that males showed higher craving.
also
differences were on the same items that typified the sex differences, and in fact females showed significantly higher N scorers than males. High E scorers smoked significantly less on items relating to the attentional factor, so suggesting that introverts are more likely than extraverts to desire to smoke during tasks of selective attentidn. High P scorers expressed less desire to smoke on items relating to specific and active task demand, than low P scorers. This could indicate that high P scorers are less worried about achieving specific ends. It should be noted that in accordance with general population norms the number of high P scorers was disproportionately large (30) in the present sample. However, previous studies have suggested that high P scores may be a characteristic of smokers (Jamison, 1979), and drug users (Gossop, 1978). High L scorers reported more desire than low L scorers to smoke on selective attentional items exclusively loading on factor 3, and factor 1. Eysenck and Eysenck (1976) originally proposed this L scale as a measure of dissimulation but suggest that it may also form an independent personality trait, relating to social naivety. The present results could indicate that high L scorers are also highly achievement motivated, and so willing to invest more effort in tasks involving active attentional engagement, and attributing more importance to those tasks than low L scorers. High and low E groups had been equated for heavy and light smokers, but there was no correlation between number of cigarettes smoked, and P and N personality dimensions. Within personality groups there was no correlation betwen N and P or between N and E, but there was a positive correlation (p < 0.02) between P and E indicating that in the present sample, high P scorers also tended to score high on E, though high E scorers were not significantly higher on P than low E scorers. Additional information was obtained from most of the 60 respondents concerning three other smoking variables. These were length of habit (in years), extent of inhalation [whether the smoker inhaled: every puff (3), most puffs (2), the first few puffs only (1). never (0)], and brand of preferred cigarette (transformed into milligrammes of nicotine
KIERON O’CONNOR
254
Table
3. Self report
habit,
Habit Mean High E scorers
inhalation (yr) t-value
6.43
and preferred
Inhalation (G3) l-value Mean
Heavy
smokers
10.90 8.00 8.71 6.70 6.71 9.71t 7.67 7.76 7.03 7.88 6.14
4.00**
groups
yield (mg)
t-value
2.67** I.13 1.05 I .25 1.24 1.17 1.13 1.25 1.31 1.10
3.50**
1.22
2.44 1.82*
l.98* Light smokers
Brand nicotine Mean
3.98** 2.58 2.30 2.38 2.39 2.41 2.38 2.31 2.50 2.18
between
1.29
2.20 4.50**
Low E scorers High N scorers Low N scorers High P scorers Low P scorers High L scorers Low L scorers Men Women
brand differences
2.24
1.16
* p < 0.10. ** p < 0.05. t Age differences
normalized.
yield). t-Test comparisons were carried out between personality, sex and smoking groups on these additional smoking variables. Results are given in Table 3. Introverts inhaled more frequently, but smoked cigarettes with significantly less nicotine yield than extraverts. Also introverts had maintained their smoking habits longer. High N and high L scorers tended to smoke lower nicotine yield cigarettes, than low N and low L scorers, though there were no significant differences between these groups in inhalation or length of habit. Males inhaled more often and smoked stronger nicotine cigarettes, and heavy smokers tended to have smoked for more years, and inhaled more often, than light smokers, though there was no consistent difference in their choice of cigarette brands.
DISCUSSION
The main findings of the present study can be summarized as follows: Smokers desire to smoke to the extent that they are actively engaged in a situation. Smokers can be typified according to their desire to smoke in situations involving emotional, attentional and social activity. Smokers’ preference to smoke under these situations is in part related to their personality, and to the amount they habitually smoke. How smokers smoke, and the duration of their habit is also related to their personality, in particular their E score. The most consistent finding of previous research on the behavioural effects of smoking is that it lowers the effects of emotional disruption on performance, Dunn (1978), so reducing irritation, aggression or boredom, and inducing pleasant feelings of well-being (Gilbert, 1979). There is much conjecture over whether these effects can be attributed to the sensori-motor aspects of smoking which by themselves can reduce tension (Freeman, 1948) or whether they are due to the direct influence of nicotine on cerebral structures. The link reported in the present study between inhalation differences and situational preference, suggests that nicotine does contribute to the smoking effect. However the results do challenge the notion that this effect alone can account for preference. Both introverts and extraverts, and also males and females differ in their patterns of inhalation, but clearly there are some situations where they share the same desire to smoke, to achieve the same effects, yet employing different smoking strategies. It is difficult to reconcile these findings within a model that relates nicotine dosage level directly to effect achieved. In fact in other studies manipulation of dosage level has not resulted in behavioural differences expected (Ague, 1973) from a simple stimulant model of nicotine action. So it is important to recognize that tying smoking to a specific
Situational
preference
amongst
smokers
255
situation does not tie it to a specific function either behaviourally or physiologically. Different personalities may respond to the same situation using different strategies. The diversity of situational preferences amongst smokers indicates a fluidity in the exact behavioural role of smoking. Russell et al. (1974) supporting the pharmacological model of smoking, have argued that if it were not for the nicotine effects in smoking, smokers would be as little inclined to smoke as they are to blow bubbles or light sparklers. This argument implies that the smoking act itself is just like any other minor motor act. But clearly there are a number of unique characteristics about the smoking act which distinguish it from other motor behaviours. There are few socially acceptable alternative behaviours, occupying similar time, space and motion, that can mimic the peculiar brief, episodic, frequent, convenient and ‘invisible’ nature of smoking, as a behavioural act. It is hardly considered appropriate to light sparklers on hearing of a tragic accident involving a friend, nor would the executive who blows bubbles across the annual board meeting be guaranteeing his promotion prospects. Yet in both these ______cases smoking would be considered appropriate (if not desirable) behaviour. Others oftena not notice or remember whether someone is a smoker, and also do not seem to modify their general perceptions about the smoker as a consequence of his habit (Mausner and Platt, 1971). Smoking is a fairly ‘invisible’ act, unlike other personal quirks, similar in pattern of activity to smoking, such as biting nails, fiddling with hair, etc., which are more usually noticed (Morris, 1978). The smoking act is therefore fairly unique in being a culturally inconspicuous secondary activity that a subject can conveniently undertake in most situations. Smoking is nevertheless a discreet behavioural act, encapsulated in the stream of behaviour, and when the smoker smokes, activity previously engaged in becomes momentarily disrupted. The uniqueness of smoking as a portable activity thus of includes its availability as a distraction from, rather than a continuation any current activity, and this has implications for the discussion of its effects. Most models of smoking assume that the effects are in some way tied to abetting or abating previous activity levels. But the fact that smoking takes place more frequently against a background of some activities in preference to others suggests, in the light of the previous observations, that it is a planned distraction from, rather than a contribution towards these activities. Evidence cited earlier suggests consistently that the effects of smoking, regardless of the situation in which it takes place, are rewarding. It is proposed here that smoking functions as a pleasurable distractor and occurs as a kind of voluntary or involuntary reward period in situations where no other immediate reward is forthcoming; whether the reward is voluntarily or involuntarily administered may be a function of length of habit. Smoking effects then become themselves pleasurable rewards reinforcing and maintaining current unpleasurable activity. Where the smoker has come to depend on smoking as the only reinforcement for a certain activity, inability to smoke should lead to frustration and irritation, and eventual cessation of the activity, which has been reported in the literature. Also anecdotally one often hears smokers report that they cannot do certain activities, or ‘are lost’ without a cigarette. Smoking of course may also serve as an additional reward in situations that are already pleasant, although if the theory is correct, desire should not be so strong in these already pleasantly reinforced situations. ~-The present findings of an attentional factor in smoking preference suggests that in some subjects smoking may act as a pleasurable way of redistributing attention in accordance with task demand. The physiological effect of smoking itself may thus be non-specific but its stimulant or sedative nature tied rather through the personality of the smoker to the attentional demands of the situation. There is physiological evidence that nicotine may activate primary reward centres such as the medial forebrain bundle and so elevate mood. As a rewarding distractor smoking may become both the incentive and means for regulating attentional activity within a task. Attention to a primary and secondary task of different modality, makes less demands on attentional capacity than does allocation of attention to multiple within task distracters (Kahneman, 1973). Therefore during task performance where attention is divided between several competing
KIERONO’CONNOR
256
stimuli either through boredom or stress, the splitting of attention solely between smoking and the task may have the initial effect of raising attentional capacity. This may account for the apparent paradoxical findings that smoking can improve both high and low arousal task performance. Nicotine may appear to differentially affect different cerebral generators in different smokers since it reinforces different habitual functioning in these groups. The effect of smoking has been related to initial performance strategy differences between personality groups (O’Connor, 1980). This distracting-reward model of smoking would therefore propose that differences in situational preference of smoking stem from individual differences in ways of performing stressful and tedious tasks rather than directly from the effects of nicotine itself. So for instance in the present study introverts might have desired to smoke more in selective attentional tasks as they might invest more concentration in these tasks. Likewise N scorers may need more so than low N scorers, to pace their involvement in high emotional stress situations with smoking distractions. There is also evidence that extraverts are more likely to seek external rewards for their behaviour whilst introverts are more likely to generate their own internal rewards. This suggests that extraverts are more likely to smoke in more situations, whilst introverts will be more discriminating in their smoking habit. Cherry and Kiernan (1976) reported that extraverts were more likely to smoke than introverts and in the present study extraverts were heavier smokers by Rae’s criterion (1975) of higher nicotine intake. Eysenck (1979) recently reported that extraverts are more likely than introverts to fail to give up smoking. There is evidence from the experimental literature indicating that though external incentives and rewards significantly modify extraverts performance, they have little effect on introverts performance (e.g. Eysenck, 1971). The present model of smoking would predict that where dependence on external reinforcers was high, the dependence on smoking in general would be more pervasive and higher. The distraction-reward model of smoking proposed here complements arousal and addiction models by offering predictions about the effect of smoking based on individual differences in attentional strategy adopted under stress. Acknowledgements-This research was supported in part by a grant from several American tobacco manufacturers. The author is grateful to Professor H. J. Eysenck for comments on an earlier version of this paper. REFERENCES AGUE C. (1973) Nicotine and smoking: Effects upon subjective changes in mood.
Psychopharmacologia
30,
323-328.
ASHTONH. and WATSOND. W. (1970) Puffing frequency and nicotine intake in cigarette smokers. Br. med. J. 3, 679-681. BURTC. (1952) Tests of significance in factor analysis. Br. J. Psychol. 5, 109-133. CATTIZLL R. B. (1952) Factor Annlysis. Harper, New York. CHERRYN. and KERNAN K. (1976) Personality scores and smoking behaviour: A longitudinal study. Br. 1. preoent. sot. Med. 2, 123-131. DUNN W. L. (1978) Smoking as a possible inhibitor of arousal. In Behovioural Eficrs of Nicotine. (Edited by BATTIG K.) Kargar, Basel. EYSENCKH. J. and EY~ENCKS. B. G. (1976) Manual of the Eysenck personality Questionnaire. Hodder & Stoughton, London. FRITH C. D. (1971) Smoking behaviour and its relation to the smoker’s immediate experience. Br. J. Sot. C/in. Psychol.
10, 73-78.
Gosso~ M. (1978) Drug dependence crime and personality among female addicts. Drug Ale. Depend. 3.359-364. GILBERTD. G. (1979) Paradoxical tranquilizing and emotion-reducing effects of nicotine. Psycho/. Bull. 86, 643-66 1. HENDRICKXINA. E. and WHITEP. 0. (1964) Promax: A quick method for rotation to oblique simple structure. Br. J. math. stat. Psychol. 17, 65-70. JAMIX)NR. (1979) Cigarette smoking and personality in male and female adolescents. Psycho/. Rep. 44, 842. JARVIKM. E. (1970) The role of nicotine in the smoking habit. In Learning Mechanism in Smaking (Edited by W. A. HUNT). Aldine, Chicago. KAHNEMAND. (1973) Attention and E’rt. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs. NJ. MAUSNERB. and PLAIN E. S. (1971) Smoking: A Behauioural Analysis. Pergamon Press. Oxford. MCKENNELA. C. (1970) Smoking motivation factors. Br. J. sot. c/in. Psycho/. 9, 8-22. MORRISD. (1978) Man-Watching: A Field Guide to Human Behauiour. Pautler. London. NIE N., HULL C. H., JENKINSJ. G.. STEINBRENNER K. and BRENTD. (1975) SPSS Manual. McGraw-Hill. New York.
Situational preference
amongst
smokers
O’CONNOR K. (1980) The contingent
257
negative variation and individual differences in smoking behaviour. 1, 57--72. RAE G. (1975) Extraversion, neuroticism and cigarette smoking. Br. J. sot. c/in. Psychol. 14, 429430. RUSSELLM. A. H.. PETO J. and PATEL U. A. (1974) The clarification of smoking by factorial structure of motives. J. R. Stat. Sot. 137, 313-346. TOMKINSS. (1968) A modified model of smoking behaviour. In Smoking, Health and Behaviour (Edited by E. F. BORGA’ITA and R. R. EVANS),Aldine Chicago. Person.
Individ.
Difl
APPENDIX Smoking
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
situation
irems
Just before going to bed. Immediately after a large meal. With an alcoholic drink. With a non-alcoholic drink. On waking up in the morning. Travelling on a coach or train for a long journey. Having a restful evening alone reading a magazine. Filling in a complicated form. Waiting for a coach or train with nothing to do. Waiting to hear an important result. Waiting in a dentist’s waiting room to have a difficult filling. Whilst you are driving at speed in heavy traffic. During an important interview. When you are trying to hold an important conversation at a noisy party. When you are anxious about someone’s safety. When you are anxious about succeeding in something. Whilst you are making an important telephone call in a noisy office. Whilst you are walking on your own. Whilst you are searching through a long list of names. After you have been badly shaken up by a near accident. When you are explaining something technical to someone who doesn’t understand. When you are expressing a point of view to someone who doesn’t agree with it. When you are embarrassed at a social gathering. After hearing that you have just won a great deal of money. After hearing that a friend has been involved in an accident. When you feel tired and need to keep awake.