首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
If asked, "What are health decisions?", most of us would answer in terms of hospitals, doctors and pills. Yet we are all making
If asked, "What are health decisions?", most of us would answer in terms of hospitals, doctors and pills. Yet we are all making
admin
2011-01-05
71
问题
If asked, "What are health decisions?", most of us would answer in terms of hospitals, doctors and pills. Yet we are all making a whole range of decisions about our health which go beyond this limited area; for example, whether or not to smoke, exercise, drive a motorbike, or drink alcohol really. The ways we reach decisions and form attitudes about our health are only just beginning to be understood.
The main paradox is why people consistently do things which are known to be very hazardous. Two good examples of this are smoking and not wearing seat belts. Both these examples underline elements of how people reach decisions about their health. Understanding this process is crucial. We can then more effectively change public attitudes to hazardous, voluntary activities like smoking.
Smokers run double the risk of contracting heart disease, several times the risk of suffering from chronic bronchitis and at least 25 times the risk of lung cancer, as compared to non-smokers. Despite extensive press campaigns ( especially in the past 20 years) , which have regularly told smokers and car drivers the grave risks they are running, the number of smokers and seat belt wearers has remained much the same. Although the number of deaths from road accidents and smoking are well publicised, they have aroused little public interest.
If we give smokers the real figures, will it alter their views on the dangers of smoking? Unfortunately not. Many of the "real figures" are in the form of probabilistic estimates, and evidence shows that people are very bad at processing and understanding this kind of information.
The kind of information that tends to be relied on both by the smoker and seat belt non-wearer is anecdotal, based on personal experiences. All smokers seem to have an Uncle Bill or an Auntie Mabel who has been smoking cigarettes since they were twelve, lived to 90, and died because they fell down the stairs. And if they don’t have such an aunt or uncle, they are certain to have heard of someone who has. Similarly, many motorists seem to have heard of people who would have been killed if they had been wearing seat belts.
Reliance on this kind of evidence and not being able to cope with "probabilistic" data form the two main foundation stones of people’s assessment of risk. A third is reliance on press-publicised dangers and causes of death. American psychologists have shown that people overestimate the frequency (and therefore the danger) of the dramatic causes of death (like aeroplane crashes)and underestimate the undramatic, unpublicised killers (like smoking) which actually take a greater toll of life.
What is needed is some way of changing people’s evaluations of and attitudes to the risks of certain activities like smoking. What can be done? The "national" approach of giving people the "facts and figures" seems ineffective. But the evidence shows that when people are frightened, they are more likely to change their estimates of the dangers involved in smoking or not wearing seat belts. Press and television can do this very cost-effectively. Programmes like Dying for a Fag (a Thames TV programme) vividly showed the health hazards of smoking and may have increased the chances of people stopping smoking permanently.
So a mass-media approach may work. But it needs to be carefully controlled. Overall, the new awareness of the problem of health decisions and behaviour is at least a more hopeful sign for the future.
For answers 51-55, mark
Y (for YES) if the statement agrees with the information given in the passage;
N (for NO) if the statement contradicts the information given in the passage;
NG (for NOT GIVEN) if the information is not given in the passage.
This article discusses why people fail to make good ______.
选项
答案
decisions
解析
参见文章最后一句。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/5K8K777K
本试题收录于:
A类竞赛(研究生)题库大学生英语竞赛(NECCS)分类
0
A类竞赛(研究生)
大学生英语竞赛(NECCS)
相关试题推荐
Severalguestswerewaitinginthe______forthefrontdoortoopen.
NEWYORKMay26,(Reuters)—AttorneyDennisKeniganjustspentaweekrisingatdaybreaktoanswere-mailsandfieldconferencec
NEWYORKMay26,(Reuters)—AttorneyDennisKeniganjustspentaweekrisingatdaybreaktoanswere-mailsandfieldconferencec
—WouldyoumindansweringafewquestionsforasurveyI’mdoing?—______—Howdoyoufeelaboutthefundingforuniversityeduc
Readthechartbelowandwritea120-wordreportonpopulationgrowthasthechartdescribes.Writeontheanswersheet.
Doctorsoftentellpatientstotakeacertainkindofmedicineinorderto【D1】______anillness.Forexample,apatientmaynee
Doctorsoftentellpatientstotakeacertainkindofmedicineinorderto【D1】______anillness.Forexample,apatientmaynee
Doctorsoftentellpatientstotakeacertainkindofmedicineinorderto【D1】______anillness.Forexample,apatientmaynee
SeveralresearchgroupsintheUnitedStatesareconductinggeneticresearchaimedatretardingaging.Ifthebreakthroughsofr
随机试题
以下叙述正确的是
中国奇美公司与韩国明浩公司签订了向中国进口两批皮包的合同,由破浪公司的“喹明”轮运输,适用《海牙规则》,货物投保了平安险。第一批货物因“喹明”轮过失与他船相碰致部分货物受损,第二批货物收货人在持正本提单提货时,发现已被他人提走。争议诉至中国某法院。根据相关
发生燃烧和火灾必须同时具备的条件是()。
事业单位在财产清查时,对盘盈的事业用材料应进行的账务处理是( )。
甲公司2016年至2017年发生的与企业合并有关的经济业务如下:(1)2016年1月1日,甲公司以银行存款11500万元自非关联方处控股合并乙公司,占乙公司有表决权股份的70%,能对乙公司实施控制。当日乙公司可辨认净资产的账面价值为14000万元(其中股
下列说法错误的是()。
户主们可投保的政府补贴的保险项目使得任何人要在海边的一个经常被飓风袭击的区域建房变得可行。在这样的沿海地区,每次大风暴都能造成数亿美元的损失,大风暴过后,那些投了保险的户主能够领取到一定数量的钱,这些钱足以用来补偿他们的很大一部分的损失。该段落为以下哪一项
10.Diebold公司是总部位于美国俄亥俄州的具有150多年历史的金融设备制造商。主要产品之一为自动柜员机(ATM机)。该公司20世纪80年代开始走出国门,与荷兰公司Philips达成协议,运用后者的全球分销渠道进行销售。1990年该合作无疾而终,Die
已知A2=0,A≠0,证明A不能相似对角化.
请在“答题”菜单中选择相应的命令,并按照题目要求完成下面的操作。注意:以下的文件必须保存在考生文件夹下。文慧是新东方学校的人力资源培训讲师,负责对新入职的教师进行入职培训,其PowerPoint演示文稿的制作水平广受好评。最近,她应北京节水展馆的邀请,
最新回复
(
0
)