The JM^LTERTHOMPSON NEWS BULLETIN JULY 1922 COPYRIGHT 1922 J. WALTER THOMPSON COMPANY JULY 1922 NUMBER 88 What cigarette are you smoking, and why? BY JOHN B. WATSON New York Office SK any consistent devotee of a particular brand of A cigarette whether he would just as soon smoke some other brand, and he will say "No!" indignantly. Ask him if any one could switch labels on his pet brand and deceive him, and he will still tell you "No." Ask him if he could pick out his chosen cigarette blind­ folded, and if he has never tried it his confidence still will not waver. In order to find out just how accurately people can tell what cigarette they are smoking when they cannot read the name of the brand, we recently made a test upon twenty thoroughly seasoned cigarette smokers. The group consisted of six women and fourteen men. TEST I (Blindfolded) Each individual was shown seven packages of cigarettes: Lucky Strike, Egyptian Deity, Piedmont, Camel, Herbert Tareyton, Chesterfield, and Fatima. All were more or less familiar with each of these brands. Each individual was asked what cigarette he regularly smoked. Since there was only one high-grade Turkish cigarette, it was expected that at least the Deity would be correctly named on each test. An additional factor making for ease of judgment with the Deity is the fact of its large size. [I] The test was made in a well-aired room. An electric fan was set up in front of the smoker, and after each cigarette had been smoked and named the fan was turned on to clear out the smoke. Immediately before offering each cigarette a swallow of black coffee was given to the subject. The subjects were blindfolded. The cigarettes were either handed to the subject or else placed in his mouth. He was told to smoke the cigarette, to take it from his mouth and handle it, taste it, and smell the smoke at the burning end. In other words, he was allowed to make his judgment on any sensory basis whatever except that of the sight of the printed name. The results, at least to the subjects tested, were quite astonishing! They are shown in Table I. The table shows the judgment each individual made and the actual cigarette offered him. For example, when Hoogland said he was smoking a Camel he was smoking a Lucky Strike; a Deity when a Deity was offered; a Lucky Strike when smoking a Piedmont, etc. The figures at the bottom of each column show the number of times each cigarette was judged correctly. It will be seen that Deities were correctly reported 13 times out of a possible 20, which is rather surprising— everyone had predicted in advance that they could tell a Deity from any cigarette made of American tobacco. The cigarette receiving the next highest number of correct judgments was Camel. Lucky Strikes, Pied­ monts, Chesterfields, and Fatimas are on a par with each other, but are judged correctly only about one- J half as often as are Deities and Camels. In this par­ ticular test Tareyton is unique in that only one correct | judgment on it was registered. Where the number of subjects is so small such groupings cannot be depended upon. The surprising thing about the whole test is that so| few correct judgments were made. The average5 number for the men was 2.4, and for the women 1.5. When one considers that there is a probability that one [2] ••• •• r JUDGMENTS ON CIGARETTES OFFERED ON TEST ONE CICARITTB ACTUALLY SMOKED Number SUBJECTS Correct Lucky Strike Deity Piedmont Came Tareyton Chesterfield Fatima Judgments Judgment of Subjects HOOGLAND Camel Deity Lucky Strike Fatima Tareyton Piedmont Fatima 3 MAULE Fatima Chesterfield Camel Piedmont Piedmont Tareyton Fatima 1 BAILLIE Tareyton Fatima Deity Camel Chesterfield Tareyton Piedmont 1 DUNNE Camei Deity Fatima Camel Fatima Tareyton Lucky Strike 2 SYMINGTON Chesterfield Fatima Piedmont Camel Lucky Strike Chesterfield Lucky Strike 3 RESOR Chesterfield Fatima Camel Camel Lucky Strike Chesterfield Lucky Strike 2 CAMPBELL Tareyton Lucky Strike Camel Deity Fatima Lucky Strike 1 WATSON Chesterfield Deity Camel Lucky Strike Piedmont Tareyton Camel 1 DE VREES Lucky Strike Fatima Deity Tareyton Lucky Strike Chesterfield Camel 2 JACKSON Fatima Deity Tareyton Piedmont Chesterfield Lucky Strike Camel 1 WOOD Lucky Strike Deity Tareyton Deity Camel Piedmont Fatima 3 MALONE Camel Deity Piedmont Camel Chesterfield Lucky Strike Fatima 4 STANSBURY Camel Chesterfield Fatima Piedmont Fatima Lucky Strike Camel 0 HUTCHISON Lucky Strike Deity Piedmont Lucky Strike Camel Fatima Deity 3 ESTEY Lucky Strike Deity Piedmont Camel Chesterfield Piedmont Tareyton 4 MILLER Tareyton Deity Lucky Strike Camel Lucky Strike Piedmont Fatima 3 KOCH Deity Deity Chesterfield Camel Piedmont Chesterfield Fatima 4 FLEMING Fatima Deity Deity Lucky Strike Piedmont Deity Chesterfield 1 LEFFINGWELL Camel Deitv Camel Fatima Piedmont Lucky Strike Lucky Strike 1 DEERSON Lucky Strike Deity Tareyton Camel Fatima Fatima Lucky Strike 3 Number Average of Number of Times Cigarette was Judged Correctly Number Subjects Correct 20 5 13 4 10 1 4 6 2.1 TABLE 1 judgment in seven will be right by chance, the conclu­ sion is evident that under the conditions of this test the ordinary smoker without considerable training cannot correctly discriminate among cigarettes belong­ ing in the same general class. Even the cigarette regularly smoked by the subject was correctly named only 13 times out of 36 chances (See page 10). TEST II (After training—blindfolded) In view of the fact that in the previous test the sub­ jects were asked to smoke blindfolded and name brands with which, in some cases, they had had only slight experience, it was decided to make the same test after the subjects had had equal training on several brands. In order to make the test somewhat easier and to obtain a fair amount of practice in a short time we divided the group used in the first test: Group One was trained on Camel, Lucky Strike, Chesterfield, Fatima; Group Two, on Camel, Piedmond, Deity, and Tareyton. Camel was introduced into each group because we wished to see whether or not the high number of correct judgments it received in Test I was accidental. A box of cigarettes was made up for each subject. Each box contained 30 each of the four brands he had to smoke for a week. The following instructions were sent to each subject: In the enclosed package are packed at random 120 cigarettes. You are requested to use them as follows: (1) Smoke or partially smoke 20 cigarettes each day for six days; (2) Pick the cigarette at random; (3) Blow off the tobacco adhering to the cigarette, and tap each end so as to completely free each| cigarette of particles of tobacco belonging toj some other brand; (4) Before lighting cigarette name the brand over toj yourself, for example—"This is a Fatima"—etc! [4] (5) Smoke no other cigarettes during the course of this test. On the seventh day a test was made similar in all respects to the test already described (blindfolded, coffee after each trial, etc.). JUDGMENTS ON CIGARETTES OFFERED ON TEST TWO GROUP ONE CIGARETTE ACTUALLY SMOKED Number SUBJECTS Correct Judgments Camel Lucky Strike Chesterfield Fatima Judgment of Subjects HOOGLAND Camel Chesterfield Lucky Strike Camel 1 CAMPBELL Chesterfield Lucky Strike Camel Chesterfield 1 WATSON Fatima Camel Chesterfield Fatima 2 DE VREES Lucky Strike Fatima Camel Lucky Strike 0 WOOD Camel Lucky Strike Fatima Fatima 3 STANSBURY Lucky Strike Chesterfield Camel Fatima 1 HUTCHISON Camel Camel Lucky Strike Chesterfield 1 ESTEY Camel Lucky Strike Chesterfield Fatima 4 LEFFINGWELL Chesterfield Fatima Lucky Strike Fatima 1 Number Average of Number of Times Cigarette was Judged Correctly Number Subjects Correct 9 4 3 2 5 1.5 TABLE 2 The number of subjects in each group is too small to give absolutely reliable results. They certainly show that even after a short, but intense, training, the ability to name the cigarette actually smoked is not very sharp. In Group One only two individuals returned a higher percentage of correct answers than is expected from chance. In Group Two ability to make a correct response apparently has increased, but only apparently. [Si In this group the judgments on Deities offered no real problem. The probability of a correct judgment by chance is thus increased to one in three, whereas in Group One it is one in four. Test II as a whole would seem to show that Camel falls back and Tareyton rises into the Fatima, Chester­ field, Lucky Strike, etc., class. JUDGMENTS ON CIGARETTES OFFERED ON TEST TWO GROUP TWO CIOAHBTTB ACTUALLY SMOIBD Number SUBJECTS Correct Cimel Piedmont Deity Tareyton Judgmenti Judgment of Subjects DUNNE Piedmont Tareyton Diety Chesterfield 1 SYMINGTON Camel Piedmont Deity Camel 3 JACKSON Camel Piedmont Deity Tareyton 4 BAILLIE Piedmont Camel Deity Tareyton 2 MALONE Camel Piedmont Deity Tareyton 4 MILLER Camel Camel Deity Piedmont 2 MAULE Piedmont Tareyton Deity Piedmont 1 KOCH Camel Piedmont Deity Piedmont 3 DEERSON Camel Piedmont Deity Tareyton 4 Numbtr Average of Number of Times Cigarette was Judged Correctly Number Subjects Correct 9 6 5 9 4 2.6 TABLE 2 (continued) TEST III (With cigarette holder—blindfolded) During the preceding tests seven of the subjects gave a higher percentage of correct responses than can be accounted for on the basis of chance. They made at [6] least three correct judgments out of a possible four. It seemed desirable to make a further rough test with taste and touch as well as sight eliminated. As is well known, the various brands of cigarettes differ in size, in compactness, in taste, etc.