WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 (UPI) -- Bad habits are tough to break -- apparently even when you know why they're bad for you. People bombarded with health information are all too aware of why smoking, tanning or drinking are dangerous, but they do it anyway, says Cindy Jardine, an assistant professor and sociologist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, who led two recent studies on risk communication.
This was surprising, Jardine said, since many experts believe if a person is educated enough, they will make the right decision.
Rather, it's likely the underlying reasons for taking risks -- such as social norms, family histories and expectations of the community, among others -- that drive our decisions. United Press International caught up with Jardine to learn more of why we give in to our vices.
Q. What did you discover?
A. We did telephone surveys and (asked people to) rank (health) risks on a five-point scale, from "not dangerous at all" to "very dangerous" in two different (Canadian) communities. It included different risks contextual to the people (surveyed). We anticipated that people would get more upset about (environmental) contaminant risks than they do lifestyle risks, over which they have quite a bit of control. (But), we found the top risks people ranked as "very dangerous" were all lifestyle risks. That's interesting because it's showing people are understanding the risks about their health. The whole idea of (saying), "If only people understood," doesn't seem to be very true. So we started looking harder at why it might people understand risks and don't do anything about it.
Q. And do you have any hypotheses?
A. A lot of things bad for us are (also) socially acceptable or desirable. (Survey participants) rated stress as very high in terms of posing a health hazard to themselves. But we wear stress as a badge of honor ... like the 100-hour workweek. It's almost a social norm; we understand it's bad for us, yet we do it because we're going to adhere to that social norm. One of the other risks is suntanning ... there's still an ingrained idea that a tan makes you look healthy, more vibrant, and we haven't broken that social acceptance.
There's also delayed impact, as in "I've done that for years and nothing has happened." It's the same thing smokers say ... even though there (is) a general acknowledgment that smoking's bad for you.
I also think there's a bit of defiance in us. We choose to do things, and people shouldn't tell us what (to do). The more we try and tell a child, "Don't do that," it almost makes it more desirable to do. As much as we hate to think (this attitude) applies to adults, it does in some ways.
Q. Can you explain what "risk communication" is?
A. It has really evolved in the last 20 years. (We now know) one-way communication doesn't work; risk communication should be a two-way dialogue ... as opposed to just telling people "This is bad don't do it." Risk communicators don't have to be researchers; they can be people from government agencies who deal with risky types of issues and activities. ... Communication isn't just a media release or an ad in newspaper, it's really the idea of talking to people about what's risky in life.
Q. Public health campaigns often fail; for example, anti-tobacco campaigns have not worked as well for kids. What's to be done?
A. We need to take a step back and (realize) the information has gotten out there. If I've gotten anything from these two studies, it's that people understand the information they're getting. The fact is, people are not changing their behavior dramatically, so it requires we look at it differently.
We need to better understand the social norms in which people continue to do a behavior. I've been in a very interesting discussion whether alcohol is a chosen risk or an involuntary risk; most of us in naivete, who don't deal with alcohol-related problems, think of it as a choice. But a recovered alcoholic (will say), once I have that first drink I couldn't stop, so the only choice is not having the drink -- moderation isn't a choice. These are the contextual and cultural factors (I'm talking about).
Q. So we shouldn't blame people for not trying to be healthier?
A. We should pat ourselves on the back that we seem to be understood. The kind of work I do is premised on the fact we need to talk to people; communication shouldn't be "This is bad, don't do this." We need to understand their concerns, why they act (as) they do, and take a bottom-up approach in changing social norms.
Q. What will it take to change social norms?
A. (For example), we have to change this idea that working a 100-hour workweek is desirble; we're seeing tolls it's taking on work life, and it's not productive in the long run. But we seem unable to change the culture that thinks this is a good thing to do.
Q. Can you give an example of a public health campaign that has worked?
A. We've made small inroads in campaigns to get physically active, but we haven't had the wide-ranging effect we'd like to see yet. We've got to be vigilant how to address what's stopping people from adopting a new behavior; for example, it might be easier to make physical activity more accessible. I'm not saying all risk communication to date has not been successful.
Q. Do you see the way people responding to risks more in the future?
A. We're moving toward helping people make better decisions -- we have tools like we never had in the past. But if we really want to attack the big problems, usually lifestyle problems, we're going to have to take an extra step of, "How we can help people change?"
We're never going to live in a risk-free society. The only reason we have evolved as a species is we've continued to take risks. The whole premise of risk communication is making sure people have information and tools to make decisions for themselves -- and what comes with that is the risk people may not make the decisions you like! Whose responsibility it is to say what risks we're responsible for and (which we're not) is a matter of perspective.
