Tag: Shock Tactics Archives

Published on April 15, 2015 in Media Psychology by drnduck

This morning I polished off a few rashers of bacon. My risk of stomach cancer increased. However, I followed it with a cup of coffee which probably lowered my risk of liver cancer. But those alcoholic beverages over the years have probably sealed my fate there.

At least that’s what I’ve been led to believe.

If it seems like every day you being told something you enjoy gives you cancer or, possibly, helps lower your risks of the disease, you might be right.

An interesting study has shown that cancer research can be biased towards showing us the links to the disease even though some of those links are tenuous at best.

The researchers took 50 common household ingredients from a cookbook and searched for studies where those ingredients were examined as to their affect on cancer.

Specifically, they examined the cancer risk of the following ingredients: veal, salt, pepper, spice, flour, egg, bread, pork, butter, tomato, lemon, duck, onion, celery, carrot, parsley, mace, sherry, olive, mushroom, tripe, milk, cheese, coffee, bacon, sugar, lobster, potato, beef, lamb, mustard, nuts, wine, peas, corn, cinnamon, cayenne, orange, tea, rum, raisin, bay leaf, cloves, thyme, vanilla, hickory, molasses, almonds, baking soda, ginger, and terrapin.

A whopping 80 per cent of these ingredients were, in one way or another, linked to cancer! That is the researchers found one or more studies which concluded that the ingredients lowered or raised the risk of certain cancers.

So goodbye scrambled eggs, cakes, roast dinners, ice-cream, sandwiches, and anything else you care to imagine. Well, not yet.

Luckily for everyone, the researchers also found that the authors of these studies were often over-stating the importance of their findings. Significant results regularly presented in the research abstracts but the non-significant results were buried in the detail.

Furthermore, many of the findings were small in size and were no longer salient when examined as part of a larger collection of studies.

In short, the evidence showing these links was pretty flimsy.

The biggest problem with this kind of research is that it can distract from less interesting, yet important, links to cancer, such as cigarettes, alcohol and sun exposure.

Because consumers are led to think that ‘everything causes cancer’ they either lose confidence in research and media reports or they can become apathetic about their chances of controlling their risk exposure. See the frustrated response to this issue from a cancer prevention organisation in Australia.

So why do the researchers oversell their findings? It’s the fault of most consumers.

We don’t like the truth to get in the way of a good story, which is why stories about the cancer fighting properties of green tea, apples, and pineapples catches our attention.

We are even drawn in by the sneaky headings like, ‘Everything causes cancer.’

It’s imperative that you read this blog for your health, damn it!

Published on March 16, 2015 in Media Psychology by drnduck

Eat less meat! Stay out of the sun! Get more outdoor exercise! Quit smoking! Drink red wine! Don’t drink too much! Quit sugar! Cut your carbs! Get more sleep! Lose weight! Build muscle! Get lean! Everything in moderation…

Anxious? Depressed? Overwhelmed?

The sheer volume of competing messages in various formats from newspapers, social media, billboards, television and radio make it a daily challenge for advertisers to get their message to the consumer. Therefore it’s a daily challenge for consumers to make sense of sound advice and good ideas as opposed to tricks and deceptions.

To try to attract our attention, advertisers continually bombard us with more extreme images and content to encourage us to engage with their messages.

Health warnings are no different. How many of us have been drawn to and repulsed by graphic cigarette packages which depict cancerous lungs and mouths regardless of whether we smoke or not?

In recent years there have been efforts to highlight the dangers of tanning by showing graphic images of surgeons cutting cancers from patients.

They’re all important messages, of course, but do they work?

Research suggests we need to be cautious about trying to shock and scare people into action. For example, in one curious study, researchers had participants rate their intention to buy sunscreen. Prior to rating the sunscreen, each participant was reminded about their mortality. That is, they were reminded that they were going to die one day.

As expected, participants said they were likely to purchase sunscreen presumably because the fear of dying shocked them into being cautious.

However, for a second group of participants the researchers changed it up. After reading about their mortality, participants completed an activity that helped switch their attention and distanced them from their thoughts about dying. After the interruption, they indicated that they were less likely to purchase the same sunscreen.

When we feel threatened our immediate conscious mind does what we expect. We remove ourselves from risks and tell our future selves to behave.

Unfortunately, once the thoughts and fears subside, and the message is no longer salient, we often revert back to how we’ve behaved in the past.

A second study showed that—unconsciously—highlighting a person’s mortality seemed to generate a paradoxical effect, driving the very behaviour that the information should have supressed. That is, participants indicated they were more likely to purchase tanning products.

Why does this happen? Tanning essentially enhances our self-confidence because it improves our appearance. So, unconsciously, our motivation to tan increases as a means to feel better about ourselves after experiencing a brief yet troubling period of musing on our mortality. The researchers have written an interesting article about it here.

What does this say about health messages that continually remind us about our mortality? Could they be unintentionally driving a motivation to take risks?

Although this is just one study and I’m sure the health professionals could call on hundreds if not thousands of studies that show otherwise, this one was intriguing enough to capture my attention.

Shock Tactics

You might be interested in

You might be interested in