IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i4p360-370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Behavioral Confirmation and Reduction of the Natural versus Synthetic Drug Bias

Author

Listed:
  • Brian P. Meier

    (Department of Psychology, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA, USA)

  • Amanda J. Dillard

    (Department of Psychology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, USA)

  • Eric Osorio

    (Department of Psychology, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA, USA)

  • Courtney M. Lappas

    (Department of Biology, Lebanon Valley College, Annville, PA, USA)

Abstract

Research reveals a biased preference for natural v. synthetic drugs; however, this research is based on self-report and has not examined ways to reduce the bias. We examined these issues in 5 studies involving 1125 participants. In a pilot study ( N = 110), participants rated the term natural to be more positive than the term synthetic , which reveals a default natural-is-better belief. In studies 1 ( N = 109) and 2 ( N = 100), after a supposed personality study, participants were offered a thank you “gift†of a natural or synthetic pain reliever. Approximately 86% (study 1) and 93% (study 2) of participants chose the natural v. synthetic pain reliever, which provides a behavioral choice confirmation of the natural drug bias. In studies 3 ( N = 350) and 4 ( N = 356), participants were randomly assigned to a control or experimental condition and were asked to consider a scenario in which they had a medical issue requiring a natural v. synthetic drug. The experimental condition included a stronger (study 3) or weaker (study 4) rational appeal about the natural drug bias and a statement suggesting that natural and synthetic drugs can be good or bad depending on the context. In both studies, the natural bias was reduced in the experimental condition, and perceived safety and effectiveness mediated this effect. Overall, these data indicate a bias for natural over synthetic drugs in preferences and behavioral choices, which might be reduced with a rational appeal.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian P. Meier & Amanda J. Dillard & Eric Osorio & Courtney M. Lappas, 2019. "A Behavioral Confirmation and Reduction of the Natural versus Synthetic Drug Bias," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 360-370, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:4:p:360-370
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19838527
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19838527
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19838527?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Neil Stewart & Christoph Ungemach & Adam J. L. Harris & Daniel M. Bartels & Ben R. Newell & Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler, "undated". "The Average Laboratory Samples a Population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk Workers," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f97b669c7b3e4c2ab95c9f805, Mathematica Policy Research.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:572-583 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:5:p:479-491 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cao, Yu & Li, Heng, 2023. "Everything has a limit: How intellectual humility lowers the preference for naturalness as reflected in drug choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    2. Li-Jun Ji & Courtney M. Lappas & Xin-qiang Wang & Brian P. Meier, 2023. "The Naturalness Bias Influences Drug and Vaccine Decisions across Cultures," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(2), pages 252-262, February.
    3. Shawna F. Bayerman & Meng Li & Adnan Syed & Laura D. Scherer, 2023. "Development of a Naturalness Preference Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 821-834, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2020. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics (RM/19/029-revised-)," Research Memorandum 014, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    2. Roman Lukyanenko & Andrea Wiggins & Holly K. Rosser, 0. "Citizen Science: An Information Quality Research Frontier," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-23.
    3. Clément Le Ludec & Paola Tubaro & Antonio A. Casilli, 2019. "How many people microwork in France? Estimating the size of a new labor force," Working Papers hal-02012731, HAL.
    4. Austin M Strange & Ryan D Enos & Mark Hill & Amy Lakeman, 2019. "Online volunteer laboratories for human subjects research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-13, August.
    5. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2019. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics," Research Memorandum 029, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    6. David Ronayne & Daniel Sgroi, 2018. "On the motivations for the dual-use of electronic and traditional cigarettes," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(12), pages 830-834, July.
    7. Christ, Margaret H. & Vance, Thomas W., 2018. "Cascading controls: The effects of managers’ incentives on subordinate effort to help or harm," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 20-32.
    8. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    9. Kevin C Elliott & Aaron M McCright & Summer Allen & Thomas Dietz, 2017. "Values in environmental research: Citizens’ views of scientists who acknowledge values," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, October.
    10. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    11. Clément Le Ludec & Paola Tubaro & Antonio A. Casilli, 2019. "Combien de personnes micro-travaillent en France ? Estimer l'ampleur d'une nouvelle forme de travail," Working Papers hal-02021525, HAL.
    12. Sergio Alessandro Castagnetti & Sebastiano Massaro & Eugenio Proto, 2021. "The Influence of Anger on Strategic Cooperative Interactions," Working Papers 2021_05, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    13. Logan S. Casey & Jesse Chandler & Adam Seth Levine & Andrew Proctor & Dara Z. Strolovitch, 2017. "Intertemporal Differences Among MTurk Workers: Time-Based Sample Variations and Implications for Online Data Collection," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, June.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:99-113 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Keela S. Thomson & Daniel M. Oppenheimer, 2016. "Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 99-113, January.
    16. Capraro, Valerio & Schulz, Jonathan & Rand, David G., 2019. "Time pressure and honesty in a deception game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 93-99.
    17. Tom Meyvis & Stijn M J Van Osselaer & Dahl DarrenEditor & Eileen FischerEditor & Gita JoharEditor & Vicki MorwitzEditor, 2018. "Increasing the Power of Your Study by Increasing the Effect Size," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(5), pages 1157-1173.
    18. Stevenson, Regan M. & Josefy, Matthew, 2019. "Knocking at the gate: The path to publication for entrepreneurship experiments through the lens of gatekeeping theory," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 242-260.
    19. Anthony M. Evans & Joachim I. Krueger, 2017. "Ambiguity and expectation-neglect in dilemmas of interpersonal trust," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 584-595, November.
    20. Roman Lukyanenko & Andrea Wiggins & Holly K. Rosser, 2020. "Citizen Science: An Information Quality Research Frontier," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 961-983, August.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:584-595 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Summer Allen & Aaron M. McCright & Thomas Dietz, 2017. "A Social Movement Identity Instrument for Integrating Survey Methods Into Social Movements Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:4:p:360-370. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.