Why do we keep clinging to myths, even when research or other facts tell us the myths aren’t true? That’s the question posed by Newsweek’s Sarah Kliff, discussing a new book put out by Vreeman and Carroll, who blow away 66 new medical myths in their new book, Don’t Swallow Your Gum!
The research offers only a few answers as to why we keep believing things like we must drink 8 glasses of water a day (myth) and the belief that vitamin C helps cure the common cold (myth):
The body of research on belief formation is relatively sparse. One expert in the field, York University psychologist James Alcock, admits that it’s difficult to trace where beliefs start.
“Even as individuals we usually can’t explain where beliefs come from,” says Alcock, who is currently at work on a book about the psychology of belief. “Why should you drink eight glasses of water? People will say they heard it somewhere. Sometimes it’s impossible to trace the source, but it just gets repeated over and over.”
Some myths begin with a kernel of truth that gets misinterpreted, like the eight-glass theory. In 1945, the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council stated that adults should take in about 2.5 liters of water a day and that most of this is contained in prepared foods. Ignore that last part of the recommendation and you’ve got the eight-glass mandate.[…]
So why do we do it? Something called “illusory correlation” may play a role:
Once we believe something, whether it’s truth or myth, we begin to see confirmation in the world around us. In psychology, Alcock explains, this is known as an illusory correlation: making connections between particular events that line up with our beliefs about the world.
I also think this ties in with something called “confirmation bias,” which suggests we only seek out information (or interpret information we find) that confirms our existing preconceptions about something. So if we hear “Drinking 8 glasses of water a day is a myth,” we’ll go look for something online that tells us otherwise (such as this article on the Mayo Clinic’s website that repeats the 8 glasses of water a day myth as an acceptable medical recommendation, despite admitting that the approach “isn’t supported by scientific evidence.” Which kind of begs the question — why list it on your medical website if there’s no evidence to support it?).
Getting back to Alcock’s explanation:
“We can become attached to beliefs that seem to serve a function for us,” Alcock explains, “and we don’t like to give them up even if they’re false because they seem too true to be false.” This is especially true when we get information from a trusted source. Since medical myths usually come from parents, doctors and media, it’s no surprise they’re particularly robust.
A while back, Alcock did an experiment with his students in illusory correlations. He told them all that redheads were particularly erratic drivers and to watch out on the road for them. Sure enough, his students came back reporting all sorts of stories of redheads gone wild on the road.
Alcock’s pointing out that once this misinformation is out there, it’s very difficult to change. Myths take on a life of their own and enter into the “common wisdom” of society.
What about the myth that sugar intake causes symptoms of ADHD?
Those illusory correlations seem particularly strong with one of the more controversial myths that Vreeman and Carroll debunked that sugar causes hyperactivity in children (it doesn’t). There’s a slew of double-blinded, randomized trials that have shown no connection between sugar consumption and a child’s increase in energy.
“For that one, anecdote seems to trump science,” says Carroll. “They don’t care how many good studies are out there, they’ve seen it happen with their child so they know it must be true.” Carroll suspects that parents will often associate situations with sugar a birthday party, for example with hyperactivity and immediately identify sugar as the culprit, rather than considering the other factors that could cause a burst in energy.
Again, it doesn’t help when websites such as WebMD suggest that “a child may become more active due to an adrenaline rush produced by this blood sugar spike” when answering the question “Does sugar cause symptoms of ADHD.” The real answer is simply, “No, there’s no proof that sugar is connected to symptoms of ADHD in children.” Instead of that being the first sentence in the answer, it’s the last sentence, clouding the clarity of our existing knowledge (and the actual answer).
What can be done about all of these medical myths that seem to continue to float around?
Medical myths usually stick around because no one’s on a public-health crusade to set the record straight. Of all the battles to pick in health care, chances are convincing Americans that they don’t need to have eight glasses of water is nowhere near a top priority.
True. Although a search of information on the web about the “8 glasses of water a day” myth seems to be busted by every mainstream website in the search results. That’s because when a website can write a news article that “busts” a myth, it can be very newsworthy in itself.
So one of the ways we can combat such myths isn’t by a public health crusade, per se’. It’s by simply reporting on studies as they are published, which can by itself provide some counterbalance to the myth.
Read the full article: Why We Cling to Outdated Medical Myths
14 comments
Excellent article!
To complicate things further, there is such a thing called “oberver bias” which happens in research more often than we would like to think. The experts can call something a myth not realizing that they are injecting spurious bias into their methodology.
Marshall (1998) states about observer bias that “this refers to the cultural assumptions which all researchers bring to their work and which help determine their method of research and their observations. It has been argued by some that all enquiry (including ‘pure’ science) is simply a reflection of such biases.”
Reference
GORDON MARSHALL. “observer bias.” A Dictionary of Sociology. 1998. Retrieved May 30, 2009 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-observerbias.html
Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
http://www.DrSam.tv
The myth about eight glasses of water a day has myth-hood exceptions.
Those with high levels of serum protein from abnormalities like myeloma or even Monogammopahy of Uncertain Significance (MGUS) may stave off renal failure for a time with high fluid intake and renal output. The light chains can actually block the fine structure of the kidney.
And, times have changed. In days of no air conditioning and hard labor when the US industry was 90% agriculture, in summer heat eight glasses a day might have been lifesaving.
We just don’t need to believe myths blindly till we don’t verify it
Why we believe myths at all is a question for psychology in and of itself I must say. It’s quite amazing how much belief people put into what is known as pseudoscience. It masquerades as a true science; it lacks the substance of something that is true, yet we fall prey to believing it.
Wolfensberger (1994) gives a psychological picture of why pseudoscientific discoveries are so highly believed:
This craziness for crazes consists of a mindless surrender by much of science and the lay public to any number of fads or crazes that flash across the scene in bewildering variety, boosted by much hoopla and hype, often cloaked in scientific language and accompanied by claims to a scientific, research, and intellectual base. These fads and crazes are interpreted, perceived, and treated as if they were certainly valid, substantially better than what came before, and perhaps even the definitive answer to all sorts of problems and challenges. Each craze tends to appear meteorically…, to be greeted with much fanfare and interest…often at great expense…. (as cited in Shane, 1994, p58).
Although I’m not strictly against science, I couldn’t agree more!
Dr.T
http://kalkap.ning.com/
Why we believe myths at all is a question for psychology in and of itself I must say. It’s quite amazing how much belief people put into what is known as pseudoscience. It masquerades as a true science; it lacks the substance of something that is true, yet we fall prey to believing it.
Wolfensberger (1994) gives a psychological picture of why pseudoscientific discoveries are so highly believed:
This craziness for crazes consists of a mindless surrender by much of science and the lay public to any number of fads or crazes that flash across the scene in bewildering variety, boosted by much hoopla and hype, often cloaked in scientific language and accompanied by claims to a scientific, research, and intellectual base. These fads and crazes are interpreted, perceived, and treated as if they were certainly valid, substantially better than what came before, and perhaps even the definitive answer to all sorts of problems and challenges. Each craze tends to appear meteorically…, to be greeted with much fanfare and interest…often at great expense…. (as cited in Shane, 1994, p58).
Although I’m not strictly against science, I couldn’t agree more!
Dr.T
Isn’t there some research that shows that people listen to positive statements far more than to negative ones? And if you tell them something is NOT true, “the mind loses the negativity tag” (I read that somewhere) and they end up thinking you told them it IS true.
Perhaps public health sites and information-givers should just give the facts in a positive form, eg:
You should drink four glasses of water a day.
Feed your children sugar in moderation.
Lucy,
it would be a much better world and less confusing if “producers of information” would just give the facts. Unfortunately this world doesn’t work that way. If it did, we would not have all the tiresome hoopla and hype associated with evolution, medical research and myths, scientific research, and psychology that helps it to ultimately survive! For example, think of the new “LINK,” the fossil Ida, which perpetuates the study of fossils of our origins. There have been years and years of evolutionary hype that lacks substantial evidence. There have been many “Links” in our previous time such as African Eve, Homo Erectus, and Lucy. Furthermore, Ida was bought for millions of dollars from a paleontologist, not “found” somewhere after digging up millions of rocks, as they would like for us to believe. The hype gets attention and sadly, viewers and consumers.
Essentially, science prospers because of hype and frankly speaking, lies.
Hi,
After reading this article, I began to think of some of the myths that surround Down syndrome and the persistent nature of these myths. Some of these myths are based on old information but others are just plain incorrect. Most have probably arisen based on people’s limited experience with people with Down syndrome. But with the advent of the internet, television and other mass media venues, these myths should be fading as these venues expose more and more people to individuals with Down syndrome and their accomplishments.
tina
Thanks For posting .Very Nice .Keep up date a more article
everone likes a good story ,as children we were told many storys to try and explain this world we born in and some r drilled into us like religion if u isolated a childs toughts and made him believe peter pan is god he will believe it, lot of people r still hangin on to there childhood if this was not true there would be more billionaires in this world cos it take more responsibility running yr own business and that most people shy away from its so much easier workin 4 a boss, so back to the myth factor its so much easier to believe some story than facing this true complex universe
Yes, medical myths is a facinating subject. I’m trying to dive deeper into this area myself. I take C vitamins when I get a Cold.. I need to write an article about that myth to convince myself! I want to believe in C vitamins! 🙂