A new study from researchers at Penn’s Annenberg School for Communication found that most people—smokers and non-smokers—were nowhere near accurate in their answers to questions about the health effects of smoking. The study, conducted by doctoral candidate Douglas Guilbeault and Damon Centola, professor of communication, sociology and engineering found a way to help people be more accurate in their assessment of smoking’s risks: discussing their ideas with other people. This study, published in PLOS ONE, is the first to demonstrate the power of networked collective intelligence for public health. 

The information shared in public health campaigns and on tobacco warning labels is accurate: It has been studied and tested to ensure it conveys factual information. And yet people continue to smoke.  

The researchers created an online network in which 1,600 participants, both smokers and non-smokers, were asked to answer questions about the health risks associated with smoking. In the first round, all participants answered the questions alone. Then participants in the control group were allowed to change their answers but were still working alone. Their answers did not become any more accurate. 

Meanwhile, two networked groups of participants were allowed to view the answers of others and use that information to revise their guesses for the second and third rounds. One group simply saw the answers of anonymous participants, while the other group was able to see whether the guesses were coming from smokers or non-smokers. 

The answer to the question of how many people will die in developed countries is a daunting figure: 30 million, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). In both networked groups where participants shared answers, everyone’s responses to the question improved dramatically. Just by talking in a social network, participants came away with a much better understanding of their own smoking risks, which is a key indicator of a smoker’s intention to quit.  

A survey on participant experience showed that when people were in networks where they could see that others were smokers and nonsmokers, they were the most likely to report having improved their opinion about the other group. If they were a smoker, they now thought more favorably of non-smokers, and vice versa. 

For more about the study, visit https://tinyurl.com/ASCsmokingnetwork