Abstract
Concerns regarding the short and long-term effects of sport-related head injury have grown in recent decades. The damage incurred by mild traumatic brain injury in the context of collision sports has thus received significant attention in both the media and in scientific research. Although this field of enquiry largely concerns the neurological impact of acute head injury (including concussion), a recent proliferation of research considering more subtle mechanisms of brain damage has also taken place. General observations from the study of “subconcussion” suggest a potential link between repeated head impacts of a subclinical nature and increased risk of neurodegeneration.
The act of intentionally playing the ball with one’s head, or “heading”, is an integral part of football gameplay, and has since been identified as a potential vehicle of subconcussive injury. Despite the lack of conclusive evidence for a link between the act of heading and increased risk of brain injury, both the United States and the United Kingdom have recently taken precautionary measures by introducing regulations on junior heading exposure. To date, no empirical study has investigated public perceptions of heading as a possible health risk.
The present study explored attitudes of the New Zealand public towards heading in an effort to gauge how the factors of scientific uncertainty and precautionary information influence heading-related risk perceptions. A sample of domestic players and parents of junior players (n= 89) was recruited to take part in an online survey. Participants were presented with information regarding subconcussion research and the notion of a link between heading and neurodegenerative disease.
Individuals presented with a disclosure of scientific uncertainty tended to report a higher level of risk attributable to heading compared to controls. Conversely, information regarding precautionary measures generally resulted in slightly lower risk perceptions than controls. Analysis revealed a medium-large interaction effect between the factors of uncertainty and precautionary information (p<.05), illustrating significantly higher risk perceptions when uncertainty was paired with a “strong” example of precaution (banning junior heading) compared to when uncertainty was associated with an example of weaker precaution (limiting junior heading exposure).
The findings show that information on precautionary heading guidelines may act to attenuate concerns regarding heading as a possible health risk. Moreover, acknowledgment of the uncertainty inherent to current heading research may combine with information on strong precautionary measures to prompt a more intuitive and perhaps pessimistic assessment of risk. These findings have significant implications for the communication of current and future heading guidelines to the public, as transparent risk communication demands honest appraisals of the scientific uncertainty and value-laden precautionary judgments that underpin regulatory decisions. Considering the potential health risk posed by heading, alongside the general health benefits of physical activity; the communication of heading guidelines must take care in promoting the safety of at-risk populations while also avoiding the risk of escalating public concerns and reducing participation in football.