Why don't people do what is good for them? That is one of the questions that health behavior specialists and health educators consider. I was thinking about this very issue during a bike ride (I have a couple of earlier posts reflecting 'bike think.') Supposedly this worked for Einstein, so maybe I am in good company. But what occurred to me today is that the role of chance and unpredictability in disease is perceived as pretty high. Actually a lot of people are aware of the role of genes, but that still tends to come off as 'the hand you are dealt.' I believe that this attributional leaning toward chance results from a lot of the health information that is provided to people. Even if your risk factor is quite low, you are advised to get certain screenings based on chronological age. (There is some sense to this because age is a risk factor.) There is a nice video I used to show my health classes of Sir Thomas Shakespeare, a researcher who has worked a lot in disability studies, talking about the role of stories versus statistics. According to Sir. S., people tend to place more value on stories. For instance, people can be told that eating a lot of high fat foods is associated with chronic conditions late in life, yet many tend to recall old cousin so and so who ate bacon and eggs (and smoked, and had shots of Jack Daniels 4 times a day) and lived to be 102. The latter, according to Shakespeare's thesis, is more powerful than the former. Watch the video if you like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOjG5RJznto I am beginning to think by extension, that people use this conflicting information (probabilities versus the 'outliers' they know or have heard of) and combine it with the inherent message in the advisement to get screenings, tests, exams, which is that 'you could get this at any time and not be aware, regardless of who you are' and come up with a notion that we have no control over out health outcomes, regardless of our behaviors. I think people are a little more likely to put faith in genetics (witness all of the women getting preventive mastectomies based on genetics) than in behavior. Otherwise, I tend to think it would not be so hard to get people to change behavior and adhere to the behavior change.
People even express this sometimes: "we're all going to die anyway," "I would rather have a good time and die younger than live longer and be miserable" but there seems to be no compelling evidence showing people the difference in how we age as a result of our lifestyle habits. As Shakespeare suggests, the evidence I have seen in narratives is very compelling to me - but what I have tended to notice are the patterns among several people who are aging the way I want to - and not the odd smoker/drinker who has gotten old. I have seen a profound difference among people in their 40s on, and it is particularly telling among people 60 up, and, without fail, the ones I look to as role models are people who are physically active, intellectually interested, involved with others, goal setters, aware eaters (but not eating disordered in either direction), and almost always in average to above average physical condition. But as long as the message that we have no control over how or how long we age, is received by people, I think they are going to continue to undervalue the potential control they have over their own outcomes. I wonder if I cou
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am Sheryl L. Chatfield, Ph.D, C.T.R.S. I am a member of the faculty in the College of Public Health at Kent State University. I also Co-coordinate the Graduate Certificate in Qualitative Research and I am a member of the Design Innovation Team at Kent State. Archives
February 2024
Categories
|