The mechanism of myth creation is rather peculiar. Instead of checking the logical explanation of a certain phenomenon, people tend to follow a specific routine that has no obvious effect. For some reason, it has been believed for quite long that sugar causes hyperactivity in children.
As a result, parents tend to restrict the amount of sugar consumed by their children in order to address the behavioral issues that, in fact, demand a completely different treatment. To understand the mechanisms of the given belief, one should apply the concepts of sociological imagination to the issue.
According to the ideas suggested by C. Wright Mills, sociological imagination occurs when routine actions start attaining sociological meaning for people (Mills, 1959). As Mills put it, sociological imagination can be defined as the “s the ability to view one’s own society as an outsider would, rather than only from the perspective of personal experiences and cultural biases” (The sociological view, n. d., 2).
Mills also specified that sociological imagination has four key dimensions, i.e., structural, historical, cultural and critical ones. Applied to the mechanism of creation of the myth mentioned above, the given dimensions can be interpreted in the following way:
Structural
Even though there is no clear evidence that can prove the myth in question, people still continue believing it. The given phenomenon may have been caused by the pressure that most parents experience from the sources that are traditionally considered authoritative, i.e., their relatives, neighbors, friends, etc., who, in their turn, have also been under the impact of others (Harris et al., 2010).
Historical
When it comes to analyzing the past events that have led to such a common myth being created, one must admit that there have been quite few studies that have detected the link between sugar and behavioral changes. However, the numerous arguments that appeared in mass media by that time seem to have had an impact on parents’ minds (Comisarow, 1996).
Cultural
The reasons behind the persistence of the given myth are quite numerous, yet the influence of the opinions traditionally considered authoritative seems to be the decisive point. Since the myth has been believed to be true for quite long, it has gained a considerable weight. Consequently, the belief concerning sweets and changes in children’s behavioral patterns remains plausible for a number of people.
Critical
Approaching the problem critically, one should address the famous cui bono, cui prodest issue. Indeed, for a myth to have lasted so long, it had to be supported by the people who were interested in its promotion. In the given case, the researcher known as Benjamin Feingold seems to have worked hard on making sure that the given myth should persist.
In his study, he offered his Feingold Diet, which suggested that hyperactivity in children can be treated by feeding the latter with the meals that do not contain artificial flavoring, sugar, salt, and other food additives (Galaway-Patrick, n. d.).
Despite the fact that the connection between hyperactivity or any behavioral change whatsoever and the consumption of artificially flavored food, or food with sugar in it, for that matter, was never proven, Feingold managed to plant the seed of doubt among parents.
Therefore, there is no proof that behavioral changes and sugar consumption are related. However, parents continue addressing their children’s behavioral changes by prohibiting children from eating sweets. To change the given state of affairs, health professionals should spread awareness concerning sugar and behavioral changes in children. Once parents recognize their mistake, the myth will be busted.
Reference List
Comisarow, J. (1996). Can sweet treats drive children crazy? Sugar and hyperactivity in children. Nutrition Bytes, 2(1), 1–4.
Galaway-Patrick, B. (n. d.). Sugar and children’s behavior. Web.
Harris, J. L. et al. (2010). Effects of serving high-sugar cereals on children’s breakfast-eating behavior. Pediatrics, 127(1), 71–76.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Chapter one: The promise. Web.
The sociological view, n. d. Web.