When it comes to teen vaping many parents feel out of their depth and conversations with teenagers can feel awkward or even confrontational.
As parents, we often feel like our teenagers dismiss much of the advice we have to offer. Many of us have had the words “you just don’t understand!” thrown back at us.
In 2022, we began a two-year journey of research to understand the social context for teen vaping. The reassuring finding, (over and above everything we learned about barriers, facilitators, motivators and enablers) was that, for many teenagers, parents are much more influential than they realise, or their conversations with their teens suggest.
When it comes to vaping having an opinion really matters. And knowing how to have calm, informed conversations at home can make a real difference.
Our research with teenagers in Years 7 to 12 across Australia set out to better understand how young people are navigating a fast-changing vaping landscape.
Categorising teenagers into “vapers” and “non-vapers” misses the complexity of what many are actually experiencing.
For some, vaping is something they are curious about; for others, it is tied to peer dynamics, identity, risk-taking or dependency. The reality is more nuanced than a simple yes-or-no label.
The findings confirmed that about one in five teenagers were currently vaping, meaning most are not — at least not yet.
What matters is that young people sit in very different places along a spectrum of attitudes and behaviours. Our research identified distinct groups, including teenagers who are curious but hesitant, those who are experimenting, and those who believe they have vaping under control when signs of dependence may already be emerging. This helps explain why different teenagers need different kinds of support and different types of conversation.
Even when teenagers seem dismissive, many say their parents’ opinions are the ones they care about most when it comes to vaping. In fact, one reason many teens choose not to vape is that they do not want to disappoint the people who matter most to them. That means parents are not powerless — they are a key part of prevention.
That is why, in partnership with VicHealth, we developed an evidence-based conversation guide for parents.
Rather than offering scripted lines, the guide helps parents recognise where their teen might be at and respond in ways that are informed, calm and non-judgmental.
It is designed to help parents start meaningful conversations, build trust and adapt their approach as their teenager’s circumstances change.
The message is simple: teenagers are listening, even when they do not look like they are.
With the right information and the confidence to speak up, parents can play a powerful role in helping their teens navigate vaping.
There’s
no doubt that there’s been fervent interest in behavioural economics in the
last couple of years among social marketing and policy practitioners. Both the
UK and NSW Governments have developed insights teams dedicated to finding new
ways to ‘nudge’ citizens to be healthier, greener and more civic-minded.
So how can behavioural economics help with program design and campaign
development?
Social
marketing is about changing behaviour – behaviour that is driven by rational
and irrational desires. The rational part of our decision-making process
can be influenced by increasing knowledge (e.g. presenting the facts about skin
cancer), increasing efficacy (e.g. healthy cooking classes or QUIT hotlines)
and through legislation and subsidies (e.g. seat-belt laws, tobacco tax).
However,
extensive academic research has found that people are often “predictably
irrational”. When making decisions we take mental short cuts. We’re
influenced by the desires and distractions of the moment. Knowing how people will
behave irrationally can provide guidance on how interventions can be structured
to influence healthy behaviours.
Below are three common decision errors, which have major implications for healthy behaviours.
Present bias
Present
bias is the tendency to focus on the immediate benefits or costs of a situation
and undervalue future consequences. An example is postponing a session at
the gym to watch TV; or undervaluing the long-term harms of tanning to look
good now.
Researchers
are now looking at a range of tools to help manage present bias. These
include offering small incentives immediately after a ‘desirable’ behaviour has
been done. One example is a pilot scheme in the UK where mothers from
disadvantaged neighborhoods are given food vouchers worth around A$340 if they
breastfeed for the first six weeks of their child’s life.
Because
the use of incentives is very effective at motivating one-time behaviours (e.g.
getting a vaccination or attending a screening), it is now being evaluated as
an effective motivator for habit formation (e.g. exercising everyday).
The use of ‘contracts’ and commitment devices to pledge to a certain behaviour or goal are also very effective. These devices leverage the desire to be (or to appear) consistent with what we have committed to doing. Once we have made a choice (e.g. pledge to give up drinking for a month or to run a marathon), we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressure to respond in ways that justify our earlier decision.
This is
especially powerful when the pledge or commitment is made in public, such as
social media, as people are pressured to be consistent with their earlier
commitments.
Status quo bias
Status
quo bias is the tendency to choose a ‘path of least resistance’ in our
decision-making. An example of this is in western European countries that
have an ‘opt in’ policy for organ donation, that is, the default is non-participation,
donation rates tend to be close to just 10%. In contrast, in countries with an
‘opt out’ policy, in which citizens are automatically enrolled as organ donors
unless they actively choose to opt out, organ donation rates are typically 98%–99%.
It’s
important to consider the ways in which choices or options for programs are
structured. The choices which social marketers want people to choose, whether
it’s to recycle or take the right medication, needs to be the choice which
requires the least amount of cognitive energy to choose.
Loss aversion
Loss aversion is the tendency to put much greater weight on losses than gains. Studies have shown that a loss has roughly twice the dis-utility of an equivalent dollar gain. Knowing this decision bias can help frame messages and structure the way incentive programs work.
While
behavioural economics has the potential to make programs and policies more
effective, as with any concept or intervention, there are limitations.
The tools presented by behavioural economists are part of a possible
solution, and should not substitute for public policies, infrastructural
projects, or programs that increase knowledge and efficacy.
We also
need to consider the social determinants which affect health and the decisions
people make, while looking to policies that will deal with the underlying
contributors to poor health, such as poverty, inequity and illiteracy.
As
described by Loewenstein and Ubel, behavioural economics should “complement,
not substitute for, more substantive economic interventions. If
traditional economics suggests that we should have a larger price difference
between sugar-free and sugared drinks, behavioural economics could suggest
whether consumers would respond better to a subsidy on unsweetened drinks or a
tax on sugary drinks.”
Disclaimer: Charissa has written this post as an independent
contributor. This post reflects only Charissa’s views and not those of
her employer or clients.
