Go on, have another
It’s easy to mock social scientists, but sometimes they do lay themselves open to it.
Take this week’s study from the Medical Research Council/Chief Scientist Social and Public Health Sciences Unit in Glasgow, published in Sociology of Health and Illness. It reveals that some people aged 25 to 44 drink too much and may be encouraged to do so by their friends.
It is based on 36 self-selected respondents interviewed as eight focus groups, each group consisting of people who already knew each other socially. Half reported drinking over the recommended weekly limits (21 units for men, 14 for women) and of these six were drinking harmful amounts (over 50 units for men and 35 for women). They all came from western Scotland.
The group was selected in a variety of ways: by flyers handed out in pubs or on the street, by e-mail invitations asking people to recruit friends and colleagues, by posters on community notice boards and in doctors’ surgeries, and by phoning community groups and advertising on community websites. It wasn’t easy, the research team admits.
What they finished with is not a random sample, nor necessarily a representative one, so one wouldn’t expect it to mirror the behaviour of those interviewed for the General Lifestyle Survey, among whom, in 2009, 26 per cent of men and 19 per cent of women in this age group reported drinking more mean weekly units than their respective recommended limits. But it hardly matters: this isn’t a study about how much people drink, but why. We don’t need to be told that binge-drinking and drunkenness occur among older adults – we already know that.
The conclusion is a bit of an anti-climax. “Older adults find it hard to say no to a drink in social situations” says Dr Carol Emslie, one of the research team. Go on! These are drinkers we’re talking about, meeting socially, possibly in licensed premises, or at a party in somebody’s home. What else are they there for? The quiz? Admiring the new curtains?
The study further finds that people make excuses to say no, such as “I’m on a diet”. That’s good manners rather than an insight into human psychology. People always make excuses to reject a well-meant but undesired invitation.
The conclusion reached by Professor Dame Sally Macintyre, director of the unit, is that while younger people who drink excessively can cause visible disruption, “older adults tend to drink behind closed doors where their behaviour is hidden from society”.
No doubt it’s reprehensible for friends to encourage you to drink more than the Government recommends. But how greatly would you relish the company of those constantly insisting you’d had enough? What this study tells us is that alcohol is a social lubricant occasionally indulged in to excess. We might already have guessed that.
Max Cruickshank (not verified) wrote,
Wed, 14/12/2011 - 00:25
There are now so many experts telling us that exceeding the recommended units of alcohol a week will have dire consequences for adults, not just the kids, that a case is fast being built for banning completely this apparently highly toxic drug.
The government cannot even agree what are safe limits as their own web sites say 2-3 units a day for women? Is than not 21 units a week? Also 3-4 units a day for men so up to 28 units is safe is it, or not? In the utter confusion we all drink on and there is no advice on safe limits for children who legally can drink from aged 5, can buy cider,beer, wine and perry, along with a meal in licensed restraints. At 18 they can legally buy any alcohol they want - but now if they are under 26 yrs old they need a note from mum or official ID to buy alcohol in supermarkets or off licenses.
So it seems to me the health advice is dodgy. The laws are not fit for purpose and the government is laughing all the way to the bank with the tax income from all us binge drinkers. So what,s the problem?
Alex Sutherland (not verified) wrote,
Wed, 14/12/2011 - 09:22
Correction, it's easy to mock BAD social scientists (and bad social science). Please don't commit the same fallacy as the authors of the study you mock by drawing invalid inferences from an unrepresentative sample to a population (in other words, please don't tar us all with the same brush).
Carol Emslie (not verified) wrote,
Wed, 21/12/2011 - 08:36
We were puzzled to see our study of mid-life drinking (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01424.x/abst...) featured on the Straight Statistics website which aims to “detect and expose the distortion and misuse of statistical information”. Our study did not use statistical methods. Instead, our purpose was to understand the social context of drinking in mid-life (e.g. what men and women themselves say about their drinking , pressure to drink to excess and strategies to avoid drinking too much) and so we used an in-depth qualitative approach (group discussions). We used appropriate, commonly used methods to recruit our sample. Interested readers can learn more about qualitative methods from a short informative article published in the British Medical Journal (http://www.bmj.com/content/315/7110/740.full).
Scientists at the MRC Social & Public Health Sciences Unit (http://www.sphsu.mrc.ac.uk/) use a variety of methods to promote human health via the study of social and environmental influences on health. Where appropriate, our work uses statistical methods. However, on this occasion, we wished to understand how people in mid-life themselves perceived drinking, so we could contribute to the development of effective harm reduction strategies. This could only be achieved by using qualitative methods.
Carol Emslie and Sally Macintyre, MRC Social & Public Health Sciences Unit