Consumer behaviour: Do you have a case of the "sticky priors?" There are good cases and there are bad, but all bad cases are definitely sad ones. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business suspect we all suffer from the bad, at least a little.
And if you are of an anxious frame of mind, best not to read on. There are no cures for "sticky priors".
Professors Lisa Bolton and Americus Reed are two specialists in personality and consumer behaviour. Observing American behaviour, the number of times and the variety of situations where people were incapable of reaching agreement even in the face of overwhelming evidence that one side was right struck them as, to say the least, odd.
They noted that in debates where the capacity for reason is diminished by passionate convictions, people retreat into simple identities that make their behaviour "sticky" or resistant to change. This, they claim, is a major barrier to health authorities trying to proselytise good health messages.
Bolton and Reed reason in Sticky Priors: the perseverance of identity effects on judgement (appearing in the forthcoming edition of the Journal of Marketing Research) that we adopt both permanent and transitory identities as we progress through life.
A permanent identity might be "son" or "daughter", for example, whereas a temporary identity would be "student" or "teenager". Less formal identities would be rebel, ladette, environmentalist, leftie, foodie, or traditionalist. These identity choices, they say, lie behind many of the addictive or "sticky" patterns of behaviour we engage in. They take the place of reason and once adopted they persist.
Instead of being analytical about health choices, we allow aspects of our identity to persuade us into entrenched positions. For example, a vegetarian who sees evidence that a small amount of meat may have a therapeutic effect has the choice of looking at the evidence or remaining in role. Most stay in role.
More dramatically smokers, faced with evidence of a painful death, draw on a range of supportive identities to continue their habit. People can retreat into their identity as rebels or as injured parties.
Binge drinking? We know it's about group identity. The researchers point out reason is not a cure for irrational behaviour, even when the irrational behaviour is clearly harmful. And wagging the finger in TV ads is self-defeating.
The "sticky prior" concept means the variety of identities we bring to our judgements persist even in the face of good reasons to banish them. The identities are part of our memories and are structured into how we see ourselves and our past.
In a separate essay, Bolton points out that there are now a number of remedial products on the market that encourage irrational sticky behaviour. Nicotine patches make smoking appear less risky than it is. Hangover cures do the same for teen drunks. Elections, one might add, do the same for political parties. The existence of a remedy lowers the perception of risk and encourages stickiness.
But what do you do to help people get over the sticky priors? Anti-smoking and anti-binging campaigns are not persuasive, even when smokers and drinkers recognise the validity of health research and wish to come to terms with the addiction. They are fulfilling their identity requirements through this behaviour. The job for health and welfare reformers is first and foremost pre-emption, stop people from engaging in bad behaviour by making alternative identities attractive enough for teens to adopt. More importantly, the health authorities have to create their own counter culture when faced with epidemics like binge drinking, the author suggests.
In other words, they should themselves become rebels and subversives. Their job is to go on the offensive and foster distrust in the motives and tactics of tobacco and alcohol companies.
Would we all drink to that?