If You Want Someone to Drink Less, Is Scaring Them the Best Way to Do It?

There are plenty of ways to tell someone they should drink less.

You can tell them alcohol causes cancer.

That it raises the risk of liver disease.

That it can affect sleep, blood pressure, mental health and plenty of other things most people would rather not think about while pouring a glass of wine.

You can tell them there is no completely risk-free level of alcohol consumption.

You can make the warning impossible to misunderstand.

And maybe they listen.

But then comes a different question:

Do they believe they can actually do anything about it?

A new randomized study asked a version of that question.

Researchers studied 485 adults already drinking at risky or harmful levels and randomly showed them different messages about alcohol.

One emphasized that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.

Another focused on the benefits of cutting down.

A third served as the control.

The researchers weren't only interested in whether the messages got people's attention.

They wanted to know what happened next.

• Did people recognize a problem?
• Did they feel afraid?
• Did they reject the message?
• Did they feel at risk?
• Did they feel capable of changing?

The results weren't nearly as simple as scary warnings work or scary warnings don't work.

The messages could produce reactions that appeared helpful and unhelpful at the same time.

The Warning Got Their Attention

Let's start with what the stronger warning appeared to accomplish.

People who saw the no-safe-level message showed greater problem recognition than those in the control condition.

That's meaningful.

If someone doesn't recognize that their drinking might carry risk, changing it may not even be on the table.

A health warning can interrupt that.

It can make someone think:

Maybe this applies to me.

That's one of the reasons public-health messaging exists.

Accurate risk information matters.

People deserve to know that alcohol is associated with health risks.

So this isn't an argument that we should make alcohol sound safer than it is because the truth might make somebody uncomfortable.

The interesting part is what happened alongside that recognition.

Fear Went Up Too

The no-safe-level message produced more fear than the control message.

That isn't particularly surprising.

Tell somebody something they're doing could harm them and fear is a reasonable response.

Fear can get attention.

Messages about cancer or the absence of a completely risk-free amount can make risk feel immediate.

In this experiment, the stronger message did make people respond emotionally.

But fear wasn't the only response.

Some People Started Arguing With the Message

Researchers also measured something called message derogation.

That sounds more complicated than it is.

Essentially, it captures a defensive response in which someone starts rejecting, criticizing or discounting what they've been told.

You probably recognize the phenomenon.

Tell someone something they don't want to hear and suddenly they're an attorney for the defense.

• Everything causes cancer now.
• The guidelines change every five minutes.
• My grandfather drank whiskey every night and lived until 94.
• I don't drink nearly as much as some people.
• Wine is supposed to be good for your heart.

The conversation moves away from:

Should I think about my drinking?

And toward:

Why doesn't this warning apply to me?

In the study, the no-safe-level message produced more message derogation than the control condition.

That's important because a message can be scientifically accurate and still provoke resistance.

Getting someone's attention and getting someone to accept what you're saying are not necessarily the same thing.

Then Comes the Finding I Can't Stop Thinking About

Researchers also measured self-efficacy.

In plain English:

How confident do you feel that you can actually change your drinking?

And this is where the result becomes especially interesting.

The no-safe-level message increased problem recognition.

But it also reduced self-efficacy compared with the control condition.

Think about that combination for a second.

Someone may leave a message thinking: my drinking might actually be a problem.

While simultaneously feeling: I'm less sure I can do anything about it.

That's an uncomfortable place to leave somebody.

What good is convincing someone they have a problem if the same message leaves them feeling less capable of solving it?

That doesn't mean the warning caused people to drink more.

The study didn't establish that.

It doesn't mean health warnings should disappear.

It doesn't mean fear is always harmful.

It means behavior change may require something more complicated than simply increasing concern.

What About the Positive Cutting-Down Message?

You might expect the answer to be obvious.

If scary messaging creates defensiveness, just make everything positive.

Tell people they'll sleep better.

Save money.

Feel better.

Have more energy.

Cut back a little.

Problem solved.

Except the study didn't give us that tidy ending either.

The benefits-focused cutting-down message did not substantially increase problem recognition compared with the control condition.

It also modestly increased fear.

And it reduced self-efficacy.

Neither intervention significantly changed risk recognition.

So this isn't negative messaging bad, positive messaging good.

Human behavior refuses to cooperate with headlines that convenient.

The researchers found different psychological effects from different messages, and some of those effects moved in directions that appear contradictory.

That's precisely why the study is interesting.

Knowing Something Is Dangerous Isn't the Same as Knowing What to Do Next

Imagine someone who drinks every night.

They already suspect it's more than they'd like.

Then they read: no amount of alcohol is safe.

Okay.

Now what?

• Never drink again?
• Tonight?
• Forever?
• Do they need treatment?
• Can they cut back?
• Does having three alcohol-free nights matter?
• What happens if they drink Friday?
• Do they have to call themselves an alcoholic?
• What if they've tried before?

A warning can identify danger without providing a path through it.

And when the gap between where I am and where I'm apparently supposed to be feels enormous, sometimes people don't become motivated.

They become overwhelmed.

We Do This With More Than Alcohol

Think about the last time somebody told you what you should do.

• Exercise more.
• Lose weight.
• Stop smoking.
• Eat better.
• Sleep eight hours.
• Put your phone down.
• Stress less.

Thank you.

Very helpful.

The frustrating part is that the advice may be completely correct.

Knowing that exercise is good for you doesn't put your shoes on.

Knowing cigarettes cause cancer doesn't automatically make nicotine dependence disappear.

Knowing you need more sleep doesn't make you unconscious at 10 p.m.

And knowing alcohol carries health risks doesn't automatically tell you how to change a behavior that may be tied to stress, friends, dinner, weekends, relationships, celebrations, loneliness, sleep or routine.

Information matters. But information and behavior change aren't identical jobs.

Shame Is Another Shortcut That Can Look Like Motivation

The new study measured fear and defensive reactions, not shame specifically.

That's worth making clear.

But the findings raise a broader question about how we communicate around drinking.

There is a temptation to believe that if someone isn't changing, they simply haven't been made uncomfortable enough yet.

Show them another liver.

Another cancer statistic.

Another wrecked life.

Make the consequences impossible to ignore.

Maybe then they'll finally get it.

Sometimes stronger risk information may genuinely help someone recognize what's happening.

But there's a difference between this behavior carries risk and what is wrong with you for still doing it?

One communicates information.

The other turns behavior into identity.

And once somebody feels judged, the conversation can become about defending themselves rather than examining what they actually want.

The Study Doesn't Tell Us Whether Anyone Drank Less

This limitation matters.

The researchers measured immediate psychological responses to the messages.

They measured things such as problem recognition, fear, message derogation, perceived risk and self-efficacy.

They did not establish that one message led to lower alcohol consumption months later.

So we cannot say:

No-safe-level messaging makes people drink more.

We also cannot say:

Cut-down messaging makes people drink less.

Those conclusions would go beyond the evidence.

What the study tells us is narrower.

Different alcohol messages can change how people think and feel about their drinking in different ways.

And some of those effects may work against each other.

• Problem recognition went up.
• Fear went up.
• Defensiveness went up.
• Confidence in changing went down.

That's enough to make the next research question obvious:

Which of those reactions actually helps someone change?

Maybe the Missing Piece Is Agency

There is another way to talk about drinking.

Not: alcohol is harmless.

It isn't.

Not: don't worry about the risks.

People deserve accurate information.

And not: everybody should just drink whatever they want.

That's not particularly useful either.

Maybe accurate risk information needs to be followed by another question:

What change feels possible from here?

That's a completely different conversation.

Someone drinking every night might not be ready to imagine never drinking again.

But maybe they can imagine tonight.

Someone having five drinks on Saturday might be able to imagine three.

Someone drinking automatically while cooking might be willing to put something else in the glass first.

Someone who has tried repeatedly to quit alone might be willing to tell somebody.

Someone who doesn't know how much they're actually drinking might start by tracking it.

Those aren't guarantees.

They're next moves.

And next moves matter because they give someone something fear can't provide on its own.

A direction.

I Need to Quit Forever Is a Very Large Sentence

Forever is intimidating.

So is: never again.

Even I need to completely change my relationship with alcohol is a lot to contemplate on a Tuesday afternoon.

Sometimes the more useful question is much smaller.

What happens if I don't drink tonight?

That's one evening.

Or:

• What if I wait until dinner?
• What if I have something alcohol-free first?
• What if I write down how much I'm actually drinking this week?
• What if I tell one person I'm trying to cut back?
• What if I notice what happened right before I wanted a drink?

None of those questions requires pretending alcohol has no health risks.

They simply convert information into something a person can actually attempt.

And Then You Get Information From the Attempt

Let's say somebody decides: I'm not drinking tonight.

And at 5:30 they drink.

That doesn't automatically mean the experiment was useless.

What happened?

• Bad day?
• Someone came over?
• Started cooking?
• Opened the refrigerator?
• Partner poured wine?
• Craving appeared out of nowhere?
• Made it until 8 and then changed their mind?

That information matters.

Now the conversation isn't: why can't I get my act together?

It's:

5:30 while cooking is harder than I realized.

That's something you can work with.

The first question attacks the person.

The second identifies the pattern.

You don't need to turn yourself into the problem to start understanding the problem.

Fear Can Start the Conversation. It Probably Can't Be the Whole Conversation.

Maybe you learn alcohol increases cancer risk and it genuinely scares you.

That fear matters.

Maybe it's the first thing that makes you reconsider a habit you've ignored for years.

But then what?

Eventually the conversation has to move from this could hurt me to what am I going to do?

That's where confidence matters.

Options matter.

Support matters.

Understanding your own patterns matters.

And the ability to make one decision without first solving the rest of your life matters.

What This Means for the Way We Talk to Each Other

If someone you care about is drinking more than they want to, giving them another frightening statistic may not be the only thing they need.

They may already know.

They may be scared already.

They may have Googled the health effects at 2 a.m.

They may understand perfectly well that drinking isn't helping.

The question might be:

Do they believe change is possible?

And can you help without turning yourself into their prosecutor?

That might sound like:

• What would make tonight easier?
• Do you want me to not drink with you?
• Do you want to do something else?
• Do you want help finding support?
• What are you trying to change?

You don't have to pretend everything is fine.

You also don't have to make someone feel hopeless before they're allowed to change.

The Goal Isn't to Make Alcohol Less Scary

It's to make change feel more possible.

Those are not the same thing.

People deserve honest information about alcohol.

They deserve to know the risks.

They deserve public-health messaging based on evidence rather than what the alcohol industry would prefer them to believe.

But once someone looks at that information and thinks: okay. I want something to be different.

We need another kind of conversation.

One that doesn't only tell them what they're doing wrong.

One that helps them figure out what they might do next.

Maybe that's one alcohol-free night.

Maybe it's cutting back.

Maybe it's stopping completely.

Maybe it's talking with a doctor.

Maybe it's treatment.

Maybe it's simply admitting: I don't really like how this is going anymore.

That's not the end of the process.

It's a place to start.

Knowing the risk can give someone a reason to change. Believing change is possible may be what gives them somewhere to go.

Frequently Asked Questions