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
51
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.
The mass-media can help people change their view of smoking and not wearing seat belts.
选项
A、Y
B、N
C、NG
答案
Y
解析
倒数第二段第五句“Press and television can do this very cost-effectively”,可知此题陈述正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/oMAMFFFM
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
NEWYORKMay26,(Reuters)—AttorneyDennisKeniganjustspentaweekrisingatdaybreaktoanswere-mailsandfieldconferencec
—WouldyoumindansweringafewquestionsforasurveyI’mdoing?—______—Howdoyoufeelaboutthefundingforuniversityeduc
Thegovernmentismakingeveryeffortto______aneconomiccrisis,butitseemsnothingcouldhelp.
Doctorsoftentellpatientstotakeacertainkindofmedicineinorderto【D1】______anillness.Forexample,apatientmaynee
Ittakesjustacoupleoflittletwiststoturnthesematchsticksintoamessage.Canyoufindtheword?
SeveralresearchgroupsintheUnitedStatesareconductinggeneticresearchaimedatretardingaging.Ifthebreakthroughsofr
随机试题
中枢神经系统中,抑制性突触传递的主要递质是
患者,男性,31岁。尿频、尿急、尿痛1年余,有时尿混浊,服用多种抗生素治疗无效。尿液检查:脓细胞满视野,蛋白(++)。B超提示右肾积水,输尿管探测不清楚。假如术后继续抗结核治疗,多次尿结核杆菌检查(一),尿常规:WBC0~1/HP,但尿频反较术前明显,
为防局麻药中毒在100ml的麻药中加入0.1%肾上腺素
部分容积效应伪影的一般表现是
某高校司法研究中心的一项研究成果表明:处于大城市“陌生人社会”的人群会更多地强调程序公正,选择诉诸法律解决纠纷;处于乡村“熟人社会”的人群则会更看重实体公正,倾向以调解、和解等中国传统方式解决纠纷。据此,关于人们对“公平正义”的理解与接受方式,下列哪一说法
一般防护罩不准脚踏和站立;必须作平台或阶梯时,应能承受()N的垂直力,并采取防滑措施。
下列关于申请QDII资格的机构投资者应当符合的条件的说法中,有误的是()。
某车间的质量改进团队对A系列产品的不合格品项目进行改进时做以下工作:团队成员通过“质量改进”的培训后认为解决A系列产品的不合格品项目的质量改进应通过()。
已知向量a,b相互平行但方向相反,且|a|>|b|>0,则必有()
WhatdoesthemansayabouttheparkIslaBeata?
最新回复
(
0
)