Shock Tactics - an informed comment from EUSPR
The following text on the use of "shock tactics" as an approach to prevention was provided by EUSPR. I welcome your comments. I will add mine tomorrow!
Prevention methods using shock tactics are proven to be ineffective. Nevertheless, strategies based on predominantly providing information about the dangers of substance use are widespread in Europe. The European Society for Prevention Research (EUSPR) is concerned about those so-called prevention strategies. It calls on decisionmakers, influencers and policymakers to use scientific proof of effectiveness as a criterion for exposing our youth to prevention methods and not to spend public money on rather commercial offers, since there are better and less expensive alternatives.
The so-called shock tactics, controversial forms of informational approaches where strong imagery or testimony (also by ex-substance-users) about the consequences of substance use are conveyed to children and adolescents are ineffective and expensive. Moreover, they may be harmful, leading to reactions that are opposite to those aimed for, e.g. increasing the willingness of certain target groups to try drugs.
There is clear consensus in the scientific world that lack of information or lack of awareness about substance use dangers are not the risk factors leading to drug use or drug problems. Studies on the effect of prevention strategies even show that shock tactics and fear stimulus could
- awake sleeping dogs
- be actually inspiring for those youngsters who are attracted by risk, danger and new sensations.
One of the most marketed examples of such approaches is the Revolution Train. It is a specially-equipped functioning train which guides 12-17 year olds through a touring exhibition on drugs. The children and adolescents are meant to experience the worst outcomes of substance use through appealing audio-visual techniques. It is an example of a prevention strategy that is counter-effective, but builds its sales tactics on satisfaction rates and dissemination volume instead of effectiveness studies.
EUSPR calls on decisionmakers, influencers and policymakers at all levels to use scientific proof of effectiveness as a criterion for exposing our youth to prevention methods. Dissemination of programs or projects that are harmful for the target group should be rejected. Recent tools available to help identifying quality standard interventions are: the European Prevention Curriculum, the Xchange registry and Best Practice Portal, all open source at the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and theInternational Standards of Drug Use Prevention at the United Nations.
For more information on the Position of the European Society for Prevention Research on ineffective and potentially harmful approaches in substance use prevention: http://euspr.org/position-euspr-on-harmful-approaches/
Copyright © 2019 EUSPR, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you are are involved in prevention activity (including research, education, training, and / or the application of prevention science)
Our mailing address is:EUSPR
Rambla 15 (2-3)
Palma, Balearic Islands 07003
Spain
Well said! I agree it would be good to understand how culturally applicable this is. How do people's roles, attitudes, values around the world influence the impact different prevention interventions have? If anyone can suggest some reading I would be very interested!!
I was pleased to see the EUSPR statement on shock tactics in prevention. It is something that has been said for the past 40+ years and yet there seems to have been little change in how the issue has been approached - and funded - by those who have the purse strings, the interest and the wherewithal to address issues around substance use. So why has there been no real change in the approach? Why is the expertise and the research - the evidence base - continue to be ignored? Allow me to express my reservations on the matter - although they do not go against the premise of the EUSPR document. I only want to raise the issue of cultural applicability and perhaps the more important issue of it is not always what we do and say it is how we do and say it and who is the agent of prevention through whom the message is offered.
I do have concerns about making such a statement as a “cover all” for all audiences. I think there are many cultural issues here and I wonder how far the research has explored the impact of these strategies in different cultures. I also wonder if we are isolating the “shock” approach when it may also be linked to who offers the message and in what context it is offered and what has gone before or follows the use of the “ shock tactic”. The “carrot and stick” strategy comes to mind.
I worry about being too simplistic in what we say and whether a strategy that encourages the need to consider how such tactics might best be used in a more comprehensive context and in a way that encourages discussion and debate might help people move forward. I think the main problem is that people often use this strategy in isolation as they think it will be enough to deal with the problem they are addressing – obviously it is not! I guess we also have the “drink-drive” campaign that is used to challenge the impact of “shock tactics” as effective. I think the difference here is that it focusses on an issue to which most of us can relate as it is something most of us do whereas this tactic for not using “drugs” has no link to reality for many people. Another point for discussion.
I wonder if it would be helpful to identify the research studies that support this and call for others to provide any other research they have undertaken on the matter. Or even just to encourage responses and the debate?
I also welcome the reference to the Quality Standards. Increasingly I feel this is a key starting point where we need to inform and educate those funding or providing prevention initiatives.
It is good that we can have these debates and share these points but how do we take it to the next stage so that it impacts on the practitioners and policy makers - and funders - of the essential efforts required in our prevention work.
Regarding this topic, I want to share some highlights of a 2018 post by the Center on Addiction:
• “There is evidence to suggest that scaring people can help them adopt or avoid certain behaviors – this is especially true when the proposed negative outcome is paired with an “efficacy method” or something people can do to eradicate the fear.”
• “But, when it comes to preventing adolescent drug use, the message is clear: fear is not the best answer. In fact, scare tactics may even increase a teen’s likelihood of engaging in an undesirable activity.”
• “Social scientists believe people, especially teens, may respond counterintuitively to scare tactics, for a variety of reasons, such as: Fear appeals often change attitudes and intentions without causing a change in behavior; People may manage their fear by internally arguing against the fear message instead of paying attention to the message and avoiding the behavior; People often feel like there is nothing they can do about a threat, so they don’t change their behavior; Fear messages often talk about serious but unlikely events, so people may discount or ignore them; Repeated exposure to a fear appeal can lead people to ignore or discount a message; Fear messages often fail to address the well-known potential benefits of engaging in an unhealthy behavior, compromising their effectiveness; Fear appeals often tell people what they already know, which can make them redundant and therefore ineffective”
• “Instead of fear, teachers, parents and community leaders should consider relying on honest communication to help teens make healthy choices.”
To read the full post, written by Hannah Freedman, please visit: https://www.centeronaddiction.org/the-buzz-blog/fear-factor-do-scare-ta…