Efforts to educate the public are based on the assumption that human beings can be persuaded by good reasons and evidence in formulating their responses to important questions about public health. But are things this straightforward? Are humans really this rational in how they make their decisions?
Think of any social problem that is predicated on how people understand and use information to make good decisions for themselves, especially decisions that have significant social costs. For example, consider the question: does having a gun in one’s home make one more or less safe? A recent piece from the New York Times is typical of the clear evidence presented from social science research to show that guns in the home “were fired far more often in accidents, criminal assaults, homicides or suicide attempts than in self-defense. For every instance in which a gun in the home was shot in self-defense, there were seven criminal assaults or homicides, four accidental shootings, and 11 attempted or successful suicides.” Moreover, there is a strong risk factor of having a gun in the home for female homicides and intimidation of women. These data do not prevent gun rights advocates from passionately arguing against any limitations place on guns including assault rifles. In fact some pro-gun advocates falsely claim that any limitation of assault weapons would in fact make women less safe as though that the typical woman would not have the full ability to protect herself. It appears many people view the evidence through the lens of their preexisting set of assumptions, which makes them ignore the scientific evidence or to see it as biased; thus, they continue to believe that having guns in their homes make them safer.