Group Research i Oevelopent Centre, Brleish-~Perican Tobacco Co~ Ltd,, SOUTaPSPTON, IHICr11146J 26th June, 1981 CONeEPa OF ORAtIn ~1~D TH~I;R REIAnOBSHIP TO S~DKIPC BE~VIOUa (Report No, BD,1821 Restricted) SUME~S(Y IlvD EONnUSIONS in attempting to explain the reasons why people smoke, some attention us been given to the possible implication of oral personality characteristics, Previous research has suggested that smokers possess different oral psrsodit)r traits from nolr smokers , and (ii) ~aolren indulge in more oral behaviours than norrsmokers. The present study Examines the possible relationship betueen orality and smoking, using three published guesrionnafres~ From the Southaopton cons~mer panel, 208 volunteers took part in the research, The results indicate that scores on the oral per~onality questionnaires are critically influenced by the individual's scores on extnversion and neuroticism questionnaires, thus casting doubt on the validity of some previous studies~ Lvcver, it is shovn that, compared vith Mrrsmokas, smokers indulge more in other oral behaviours such as pen chewing and fingernail biting I It is therefore concluded that orality, as a trait, measured by the questionnaires used here, does not differentiate smokers fret norrsmo'Kers, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 II6TRODUCTIOI: It is commonly believed that people who indulge in oral Se'navi6urs during childhood, such as sucking pencils and biting fingernails, are pore likely than others to become smokers later In life, Indeed, there is experimental evidence which suggests that smokers tend to display more oral behaviours thn nohs~okersl For example, Jafobll et al~ (1, 2, 3) found that heavy smokers described themselves as using more oral behaviours than norrsmokers or e~smokeos~ ~eldJan and Brown (I) shoved that smokers made more sentence completions relating to oral behaviours, such as eating and drinking, than nolrwo'Kers; and hilpeldorf and Cevitz (5), using the Blacky Pictures" (6), claimed that smokers differed from nor smokers on the oral factor, Uhilst bye and Sue~merfield (7) did not find any significant difference in the tendency to indulge in oral behaviours between smokers and nor smokers, there was sat evidence to suggest that smokers, who had never succeeded in giving up the habit, reported indulging In more oral beKaviours tbn intermittent Elp0kelO. The finding that people who smoke also have a tendency to indulge more in other oral behaviours has been interpreted with reference to the psychoanalytic theory of personality (B). Inis theory describes five stages of psychosexual development which occur during early chfldhoodl keording to this theory a person will become fixated at any one of these stages if they receive too little gratification during that stage, so that they are afraid to go on to the next stage, or if they receive too rlhe Blacky Test is a ptojcctlve technique for personality measurement, P It consists of a series or' cartoons in vilich a black dog, with whom CI the subject identifies, is a recurrent figure, me assumption or' the CI test is that the way tile subject e~p~thises with the dog is determined F~j by their personality characteristics. Cri Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ·_ · much gratification, so that there is little motivation to move on to the next stage, During the first developmental stage, the oral phase, attention is focussed on the south and the principal source of pleasure is derived from eating, Lsociated with this stage two types of ffxatfon pay occurl (a) Fixation at the oral sucking stage, possibly due to over Indulgent breast fasding~ If a person becomes fixated at this stage they are said to he orally gratified, (b) Fixation at the oral biting stage, possibly due to rigid breast feeding schedules. (People who were bottle fed during infancy are likely to fall into this category since bottle feeding schedules usually follow strict regimes,) Fixation at this stage is associated with oral frustration, It has been hypothesised that people who fall into the latter category art note likely to smoke, and to indulge more in other oral bLlviouru, because of the need to compensate for the Oral frustration that occurred during early childhood, Rather than investigating the correspondence between smoking and indulgence in other oral behaviours, an alternative approach to the study of the relationship between orality and smoking was adopted by I~ine and Storcy (9)1 Tne,v tested the hypothesis that smokers possess different oral personality traits from norrssokctsl Freudian theory predicts that certain constelatiDF.s of personality traits exist in adults as a result of child-rearing practices, Indeed, Iline and Storey identified two distinct personality types resulting from fixation at the oral sucking Q and the oral biting stages, which they called oral optimism and oral P3 Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 pessimism res)ec:ivel~l They reasoned that if smoking results from a need to compensate for oral frustration (result~ng in fixation at the oral biting stage) during early childhood, then smokers should possess more oral pessimistic personality traits than norrulokers, Using two specially designed guestionnaires to measure the existence of Oral personality traits associated with fixation se either the oral sucking stage or the oral biting stage, Kline and Storey found support for the Freudian hypothesis that those who had experienced oral ~rustration- the oral pessimists - would snake in recompense, That is, smokers displayed more oral pessimistic personality traits than noFst~otersl For the present research the following objectives were defined: i, To further examine the relationship between smoking and oral personality traitsl Drawing from Freudian theory, Kline and Storey hypothesised that smokers possess different oral personality raits from norrsnokea~ Specifically, because it is suggested that smoking provides a means of compensating for oral frustration experienced during early childhood, it is hypothesised that smokers would be more likely to possess oral pessimistic personality traits thn nofismokers I i, To determine whether or not smokers report indulging in more oral behaviours than cfsnolrers or norrsmoters, Again, if smoking is seen as a means of compensating for oral frustration it Is possible that smokers would also indulge more in other means of oral compensation, 3, To ensure that any group differences in scores on the orality questionnaires used are not the result of initial differences in O Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ex~raversio3 and neurotic!s~ scores, as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventor)', Ex;:aversion and neutoticin were selected for investigation because :~ey have most often been shoon to account for the differences in personality characteristics between smokers end norrsmoltersl 4, To investigate the hflothes!s that heavy smokers votlld indulge more in other oral behavfours and possess pore oral pessimistic personality traits than moderate or arnokers, This hypothesis arises from the suggestion by ~acobs et all that, whereas moderate smoking serves 8 social need, heavy smoking serves to satisfy inner frustrations, Related to this, bcobs et al, helfered tkt crmai~crs would be less oral because their ability to quit the habit suggested that when they did woke they did so for social reasons rather than to satisfy inner needs, MABOD Data uas collected from 208 people dravn from the volunteer consllmer panel in SautLpton. Each volunteer completed the following four questionnaires. i, Oral Pessinis~~Questionnaire (Ok~ This questionnaire Ms devised by Kline and Storey to measure the Eonptelstion of personality traits associated with the oral pessimistic character. That is, character traits resulting from fixatfon at the oral phase of development, as a result of a rigid breast feeding regime, leading to oral frustrationl 2, Oral Optimism guestioanaire (w9) Kline and Storey devised this questionnaire to leasure the constellatfon of personality traits associated vftb the oral optimistic c~iaracter; II;) Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 that is, c::rracter traits resulting fro; fixarion at the oral stage as a result of being fed on demand, leading:3 oral graeiftcalion, 3, Oral jcktviours Questionnaire (O~P1 Devised by Boue and Su~erfield to give a factual cross section of physical oral behavioursl 6, E?sen~:i Personality Ifiventory (EPI) The E?I (Eysenclt and Eysenck (10)) ~as used to measure exlraversion and neuroticism, ~NblYSIS One vay analpes of variance (bSOP~'s) were performed on the data to test the relationship betveen subject group and scores on the orality guestfonna!res, i Suba,;j~dl I. uy.llall at ~and~re (h~X~O~b) wt pisnd on the data, to test any effect extraversion and neuroticism may have on scoring behaviour on the orality quesrionnaites, B~ESIIITS i, Oral personality Traits and Smakin~ Behaviour (0) ~q Proo iable 1 It can be seen that there was no significant relationship between aokfng status and OP0 scores, (a) ~q There se a significant relationship between smoldng status and 000 scores (p(0,042)1 Closer examination of mean scores for the three groups (sJo;iers, crsmokers and norraokers) shove that mean scores for smokers uere nuch ~ghcr than lean cores [or boeh ersokers and not fi smokers (lajle I), O Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 -7- 2. Smdkinf and !ndulSence in Other Oral Sehaviours (a, ~29 As sho;n in Table I there vas no significant relationship betscn smoking status and indulgence in other oral behaviours as measured by the osp, TABLE 1 RfLATIONSil!P BETWEES SCORES Oil ORU,lTf OUESTIO~1JdIRES AI;D S~Y3KIHC BEE4P~OUR ~estionaaite Group hen F Value Significance of F OPa Smokers 6,48 0, 931 0, 396 E~Smokers 5,88 NorrSmokess 6158 009 Smokers 12,15 1 3,229 1 0,042 E~c·S~okers 11141 NorrSmokers 11,16 089 Smokers 10,29 2,491 0, 085 ErSmokers 9,19 NorrSnokers 8173 3, The Lfluenea of Extraversion and Seuroticlsn Scores on Scores Obtained on the Orality gues~ionnaires (a) ~9 From Table 2 it can be seen chat neuroticism significantly affects scores an the oep, iJhen both the covariates ate controlled for, there is still no significant relationship betveen smoking status and OPP EICOrCSI O Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ·8· (b) Both neuroticism and exaaversion ate significantly related to scores on the 009 ~Table 2)1 t~hen these covariates are controlled for, there is nov no significant relationship ber:een smoking status and OOQ scores, (c) ~9 Illthough the ~OCOVA indicated that scores on extraversion and neuroticism did not significantly influence scores on the oral behaoiours questionnaire, when these covariates were controlled for, the relationship between 089 scores and:emoking status was significant (Table 2), T~BIE 2 BESUITS OF k~At~YS~S OF COI'~RT~UCE wrm COVAR~~TF~S EPIE ~O EPlN FValue Significance of P Covatiates 13,094 01001 EPl Extraversion 0,262 0,609 EPr Neuroticism 25,897 0,001 Lln Ef fects: Smoker Status by OPQ 0,350 0. 705 Covariaees 36,983 0,001 EPI Extraversion 64,558 1' 0, 001 EPI Neuroticism 9,670 01002 Ebfn Ef facts: Smoker Status by OOQ j 0,719 01474 ~Q P· Covariates 0,161 0,812 O EPT Extraverslon 0,176 0. 675 IV EPI Neuroticism 0, 143 0,105 C~ Ehin Effects: I I I Smoker Status by OBP 3.383 0,036 Q C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 -9- 1, The D~stincrioa Between Heaw SnP~ers, Jodcrarc_Smokers and ErS~okers as !leasured by the Orali~v Oeestionoaires For this analysis the smotcer population was split into tqo groups: (a) heavy sPokers (tbse who SIPOhd 20 oe nora cigarettes pr day), (b) Moderate smokers (those who spoired less than 20 cigarettes pee day) , these two groups of sn~okers were cwgared with each other and with e~smokcrs in an attcnpt to examine any differences in group scores on the orality quesrionnairesl Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ·10- From Table 3 it can be seen that, vith regard to DPQ scores, there uas no difference See;Jeen heavy smokers, moderate smokers and rrsooketsl Mean scores for the three groups vere quite similar, ~hsn these mean scores uere corrected for the effects of the covariates, exrraversion and neuroticism, the dif,Lerence betveen them uas negligible, TABLE 3 TRE DIST~~CT~O: BEilr'EEJ HaW SWiZRS, HOO~RI~ SMOKERS ~cD PS~IOAERS PS MEISURE~ BY T~i~ OPQ Fvalue Significancel of F j IOlrA ~avy Snokcrs/bdcrate SlokerslkSooiters by 1,591 0,207 OPP Scores WEAN STORES 11 Pcavy smokers 5,88 2, Moderate smokers 6,67 3, Ersnokers 5, 88 A~OCOVh ~cl Covariates 10,518 0,001 BI b;raetslofi 0,186 0,667 EPI Neuroticism 20,657 0,001 Heavy SsPkerslModcrate Sp6lre:s/ ix~-Sookers by 0, 225 0, 882 OPP Scares EDJUST3 !~ SCORES 1~ Lavy smokers 6,11 Moderate smokers 6.6 3, kcokers 6, 27 a C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 -11- from Table 4 it can be seen that an AflOVA which does tot cake into account the covariates, extraversion and neurotieis:, uill show a significant relationship betveen smoking status and scores on the 0041 Ihis result is misleading because both extraversion end neuroticism significantly affect scoring behaviour on the 009, CThen these variables ate controlled for, there is no significant difference bet~een the three smoking groups and scores on the 009, TABU I THE DISTINCTION 9~3 HEAW S~OKEI(S ~K)D~ZR;I S1S/3~itS _I bYD EX-S~QKEP.S AS ~SURED BY TriZ 000 F Value Significance of F ANOVA Heavy Snoicersl~oderate Smolrers/Ex~Smoker~ by 3,186 0,044 009 Scores MWW SCORES 1, Heavy smokers 13.0 2, Moderate smokers 11,88 3, Lrwokers 11,4 ~OCbA Covariates 21,571 0,001 'IEPIExtraversion 39,900 0,001 IPI Neuroticism 1,175 0,043 Heavy Smokersl~odtrate Ssokerslk~pokers by 2,710 0, 070 oop Scores ADJOST~D ~E~V: SCORES 1, ~avy smokers 12,88 2, Moderate smokers 11,79 3, ~x~snokers 11,65 1 I I Q Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 -12- Table 5 illustrates tht there is no significant relationship berveea heavy saokers, aodera~e seolters and eFsmo~crs and other reported oral. behaviours~ Ihe covarktes, extraversfon and oeuroticfst, do not significantly affect scoring behaviour on the 0891 TABLE 5 THE O~STIh'CT'I~O~ SEiWI~ RLIGY SMOKERS, MODEIUTE SMOKERS k~D i~i-S!k3S23S ~S ~-ASI;I~~ ali TH5 080 F value Significance of F ~OVA t~avy Soo~erslModerart bl~erslLrSPolters by 0,950 0,389 089 Scores MEAN SCORES t~cavy smokers 10,42 2, Moderate smokers 10,24 31 Crs~oke~s 9,19 ANOCOVA Canriares 04467 0, 628 EPI Extraversion 0.294 0,581 EPI Neuroticism 0,604 0, 438 Heavy SmokerslYoderate Ssokers/ EK·Smokers by i, 551 0,216 089 Scores ~E~JOSTED EI~ SCORES )1 Bavy Smokers 10,32 2~ Moderate smokers 10,12 3, Fx-ksokers i 8, 91 Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 -13- DISCVSSIO~ Contrary to predictions based on psychoanalytic theory, it is evident from the results of this investigation that smokers do not report possessing different oral personality traits, as measured by the 009 and OPQ, from oo~s~Pokerr and e.rmoke:s, in fact, the results of the present andy strongly suggest that the OPP and 009 simply tap differences in extraversion and neuroticism in the smoking groups, Previous research has shown a strong relationship between scores on extraversion and neuroticism and smoking behaviour (11, 12, 13). it Ms therefore interesting to note the effect scores on thess measures have on scores obtained on tL 009 and 0Ppl initially, an analysis of variance shoved thr smokers scored significantly higher on the 00Q than both non~smokers and ek~ohrsl however, an analysis of covariance, which controlled for scores on extraversion and neuroticism, revealed no significant relationship betueen smoking behaviour and 009 scores. it MS apparent, from the analysis of covarfaace, that both extraverslon and neuroticism were significantly affecting scores obtained on the 009, Whilst neuroticism also has a significant effect on scores obtained from the OPP, an analysis of covariance, like the analysis of variance, did not reveal the relationship between smoking and oral pessimistic personality traits which Freudian theory predicts, Thus it is clear that an investigation of the relationship between oral personality traits and smoking which does not take account of the confounding effect of extraversion and neurotlcisn will give misleading results, Bine and Storey's finding that Moilers possess more oral pessimistic personality traits than fiarrsno~ng controls Is therefore Q Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ·14- suspect because extraversion and neuroticism were not controlled for, it is possible t5r any differences chat were found between smokers and nohsmokers on the olp could have resulted from Initial differences in extraversion and neuroticism scores, Ibe hypothesis that, as a result of oral frustration, smokers would indulge more in other oral behaviours than nopsmokers and exsnokets was substantiated by the findings, The 089, which was used to measure indulgence in oral behviours, was also subject to the influence of initial scores on k~::aversion and neuroticism, However, in this case, although these cova:4res do not significantly affect scores obtained on the~OBP, when group means are corrected for their influence, the analysis of covariance shovel a significant relationship between smoking Pad indulgence in oral behaviours which the analysis of variance failed to reveal, The fourth hypothesis, proposed by Jacobs st art, was refutedl Ihere Ms no evidence to suggest br heavy sn~okets, Phom it vas pos:ulared smoke to satisfy inner needs, were more oral than moderate or ers~okets, whom, it was postulated, smoke at smoked for social reasons, ~aln, it was apparent that a simple analysis of variance performed on the data k~dd give misleading results as it showed a relationship between heavy smoking and oral optimistic personality traits, However, when mean scores were corrected for 11 influence of extraversion and neuroticism, there was no evidence to suggest that heavy smokers possessed different oral personality traits or indulged in moii'aral, behaviours p when compared with moderate smokers and e~-snokers. O Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ___ -II- In sUIPmary, the evidence suggests that vhirst smokers do not Possess different oral personality traits from noo-smokers and cx-smoh:s, they ate Ippre likely to indulge in other oral behsviours~ Heavy smol:ers cannot be differentiated from moderate smoicets either by possessing different oral personality traits or indulging in note oral behavioursl Here importantly, the results reveal that an analysis of the relationship becJec3 orality and smoking must control for differences in extraversion and neuroticism in the various smoking groups, Ihus, the notion that smokers scote significantly differently on oral personality scalps can, on the present evidence, be dfscoc;ited, Bovever, ue cannot aides de belief thac 8okers Indulge In lere oral behsvlauts than nb~smo~ers or crsmokcrst Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 -1& ~tQgCfS i, Jlfobl, I,I,, Indarson, 1,S,, Q~gnc, E,, Karlrsh, 1,, Ric~ln, S,~, and ~lpp, P,I, Oralitr, Inpul~ivity nod Ciglratra SnoWnt in Ln: PPrthrr iindinyt in lopparr ofl tLorl, J. of tl~ous and ~nt~l Disoasc, 1966, 143 (3), 207-2191 2. Jlcobs, ~,A., kapp, P,H,, hdrrlon, 1,S., Botush, N,, aaissnar, P, and Zic~n, S,J, ZB~tionJMp of Ornl Frusrration Factors vi~h Llrl Qglrlrrl alo~nl in Lllr. f, of Narvons and Msntll OfsaaJc, 1965, 141 (2), 161-171, 3, Jlfobr, a,l, and Spllhn, 1,2. Parsonllity PlftlrPr ~locLtad dth L~ Cillrctte 81o~i~ in L11 Collala St~mt~, J, of bPldti~ and Cl~~c~l Psychology, 1971, 1o1,31, ~,3, 42~132. i, Voldoan, Q.JI and Iroa, 0,8, Parsonlllty and Pltfo~ocl Chlr;lctorisrios Llaei~t~d Kith ~frrctte SDoking IPonB Collage Pn~ha~ J. of Conrulrin( and Clinical Pltchotog, 1969, 33, 109-119, 5. Uleldore, C. and Qidtr, I,J, Snoking and tL Il~c$ Orlrirt Beeor~, JI PIoJaCEIPL flC~PICI and )IrIoDllitJ bllllCLt, 19661 PQ1130, 167·168, 6, I Qfde for Rasalroh Usa of tha Il~cb Piotutss, J, Proj, Tlch,, 1962, 26, 3·29, 7, bn, 1. and Srsriilld, a,l, Oraliey and Sloting, British Journal of Hcdieal Psychology, 1979, 52, BS-90, 8, Fraud, S. lhraa Essays on St~lity, S,E,, 1905, Vo1171 13~143. landon: Botsrth, 9, F;lina, P, and JePn7, 1, I rlcror Inaltrio Stat pr rhl ~~1 ~~c:cr, Irl J, Socl Clint Psycbl,, 1977, 16, 317-328, 10, trlnc~, B.J. and $rmc~, b,B,' Pa EPl (1964) london, BBlrsit~ of london Prcssl ii, $ICPC~, l.J~, hlt·t, a1 and Bolf, a. SmokinD and parsonllity, British ~edic~l ~c~nsl, 1910, i, 1456-1460. 12, $IcPct, 1,J, SnokinS, Pcrson~llt! and ~t~cholorti~ Disordarr. J. of Plycbs~ric Rclclrch, 1963, 7, 107-130, 13, ~t~r~::o, S.D. and Saslo;i, C, PsycholaCic~l and Ralatad elroctt:i~Licr of SPotars Ipd lorSrttrrl Pstchololital Bullatin, 1960, 57, 493-513, ClibPDF - v~~fastio.soni