Abstract

Global efforts to eradicate 'child marriage' (<18 years) increasingly target governments, the private sector and the general public as agents of change. However, understanding of child marriage may be subject to popular misconceptions, particularly because of ambiguity in the age threshold implied by the term 'child', and because awareness campaigns routinely emphasize extreme scenarios of very young girls forcibly married to much older men. Here, we ascertain public knowledge of child marriage via an online survey. Half of those surveyed mistakenly believed that the cut-off for child marriage is younger than the threshold of 18 years, and nearly three-quarters incorrectly believed that most child marriages occur at 15 years or below (it primarily occurs in later adolescence). Most participants also incorrectly believed that child marriage is illegal throughout the USA (it's illegal in only 4/50 states), substantially overestimated its global prevalence, and mistakenly believed that it primarily takes place among Muslim-majority world regions. Our results highlight important popular misconceptions of child marriage that may ultimately undermine global health goals and perpetuate harmful stereotypes. Organizations seeking to empower women by reducing child marriage should be cautious of these misunderstandings, and wary of the potential for their own activities to seed misinformation.

Highlights

  • Rosling et al.’s 2018 book Factfulness [1], exposed widespread ignorance among the public, and global health professionals, about the state of world we live in

  • We present descriptive statistics for each of the 10 questions on child marriage alongside correct responses where available

  • Our results suggest that the American public are poorly informed about child marriage

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Rosling et al.’s 2018 book Factfulness [1], exposed widespread ignorance among the public, and global health professionals, about the state of world we live in. The large majority of errors were caused by participants believing the state of the world was considerably worse than it is. Rosling et al [1] attribute this pattern to the way that we receive and process information, most importantly the tendency for negative news to get media interest and retain our attention. Negative news may be effective at garnering public interest, but resulting biases in understanding can be counterproductive to global health objectives [1]. Public and policy-maker misconceptions can stifle effective decision-making, misprioritizing global health issues.

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call