RESUMEN

The naturalness bias in which people perceive natural items to be safer, healthier, and better than synthetic alternatives has been found to be associated with numerous individual difference variables (e.g. connectedness to nature and religiosity). However, no research has examined the role of morningness-eveningness in influencing preferences for naturalness. Here, we propose that evening individuals may exhibit a weaker preference for naturalness compared to morning individuals due to their greater exposure to artificial lighting, technology, and stimuli. To systematically test our theoretical perspective, we conducted three complementary and high-powered studies. In an online survey (Study 1), student participants with a stronger evening orientation displayed a diminished preference for natural drugs compared to those with a morning orientation. Using a sample of community adults, Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1 in a real-world, behavioral context. Study 3 examined the relationship between morningness-eveningness and preference for naturalness within the domain of beverages. The results revealed that individuals with an evening-orientation had decreased odds of selecting natural water without minerals. Taken together, the findings suggest that an individual's diurnal preference toward eveningness may have implications for their bias toward and perception of naturalness across various domains.

RESUMEN

We examined the naturalness bias - the tendency to prefer people who seem to come by their talent naturally and not through work or effort - on ratings of athletic ability. Football (soccer) coaches, athletes, fans, and non-fans (n = 430) read about an athlete described as either being a natural or a striver. After watching a video of the athlete going through drills, participants rated the athlete on likelihood of success, athletic skill, mental strength, and physiological ability. Participants of all expertise levels tended to rate the athlete described as a natural as being higher in mental toughness than did the participants rating the athlete described as being a striver. There were no significant differences in ratings for the natural and the striver for measures of skill and explosiveness. It appears that the naturalness bias was most likely to influence ratings not easily judged by viewing a single performance.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Naturalness preference can influence important health decisions. However, the literature lacks a reliable way to measure individual differences in naturalness preferences. We fill this gap by designing and validating a scale to measure individual differences in naturalness preference. METHODS: We conducted 3 studies among Amazon Mechanical Turk participants. In study 1 (N = 451), we created scale items through an iterative process that measured naturalness preference in hypothesized domains. We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify items that assess the naturalness preference construct. In study 2 (N = 448), we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and tests of criterion, discriminant, convergent, and incremental validity. In study 3 (N = 607), we confirmed test-retest reliability of the scale and performed additional validity tests. RESULTS: EFA revealed 3 correlated factors consistent with naturalness preference in medicine, food, and household products. The CFA confirmed the 3-factor structure and led to the decision to drop reverse-coded items. The finalized Naturalness Preference Scale (NPS) consists of 20 items and 3 subscales: NPS-medicine, NPS-food, and NPS-household products. The NPS demonstrated good test-retest reliability, and subscales had good validity in their respective domains. The NPS-medicine subscale was predictive of the uptake of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine (r = -0.45) and belief in unproven natural COVID remedies and treatments (r = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: The NPS will allow researchers to better assess individual differences in naturalness preference and how they influence decision making and health behaviors. HIGHLIGHTS: This research created and validated a scale to measure individual differences in naturalness preference in 3 domains: medicine, food, and household products.This study confirms that the strength of the naturalness preference differs in different domains.An important and timely finding is that higher scores in the naturalness preference medical subscale are associated with belief in COVID-19 misinformation and reluctance toward COVID-19 vaccination.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Research reveals a bias for natural versus synthetic drugs. We sought to determine if this bias is associated with religiosity. Three cross-sectional studies (N = 1399 U.S. participants) were conducted to examine the impact of religiosity on the naturalness bias in the drug and vaccine domains. We assessed measures of religiosity, preferences for natural versus synthetic drugs and vaccines in hypothetical scenarios, and a health-related behavior (COVID-19 vaccination status). The results revealed that participants high versus low in religiosity had stronger preferences for natural versus synthetic drugs and vaccines. Furthermore, participants high versus low in religiosity were less likely to have taken the COVID-19 vaccine, and the natural drug bias was a mediator of this effect. Overall, participants higher in religiosity had a stronger preference for natural versus synthetic drugs and vaccines, and this preference had implications for health behavior.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Across a broad range of cultures, people demonstrate a strong preference for items that are labeled as natural. Yet, less is known about methods that can reduce the natural-is-better bias. The objective of the present research is to see whether intellectual humility, a moral virtue that can be understood as a more open and curious mindset, reduces naturalness bias in terms of drug-related decisions. METHODS: We tested our hypotheses across four studies using different populations (university students and community adults) and methods (correlational and experimental). Study 1 involved a survey exploring whether university students choosing a synthetic drug tended to display a higher level of intellectual humility than those choosing a natural drug. Study 2 assessed the link using observation of real-world behavior in non-student adults. Study 3 adopted an experimental approach to test the idea that reflecting on one's intellectual fallibility can at least temporarily reduce naturalness bias on drug choice. Study 4 examined the potential mediating mechanism underlying the observed effect. RESULTS: We found correlational and experimental evidence that participants higher in intellectual humility were more likely to choose the synthetic drug than those lower in intellectual humility in both self-report and behavioral measures. The results also demonstrate that openness to experience mediated the effect of intellectual humility on naturalness bias. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight intellectual humility as a malleable, psychological variable that can combat biased thinking associated with health-related decision-making.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

HIGHLIGHTS: The naturalness bias - preferring natural to synthetic drugs or vaccines - occurred across cultures (Americans, Canadians, and Chinese).Chinese participants showed a stronger naturalness bias than Americans did when the medical context was focused on vaccination, and safety concerns mediated this effect.The naturalness bias may influence medical decision making across cultures, but Chinese participants may be more sensitive to naturalness in a vaccine context.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

A preference for "naturals" over "strivers" in performance judgments was investigated to test whether the effect is generalizable across domains, as well as to ascertain any costs imposed on decision quality by favoring naturals. Despite being presented with entrepreneurs equal in achievement, participants judged the natural and his business proposal to be superior to the striver and his proposal on multiple dimensions of performance and success (Study 1a and Study 1b). These findings were extended in Study 2, which quantified the costs of the naturalness bias using conjoint analysis to measure specific decision tradeoffs. Together, these three studies show that people tend to pass over better-qualified individuals in favor of apparent naturals.

Asunto(s)