IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i2p252-262.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Naturalness Bias Influences Drug and Vaccine Decisions across Cultures

Author

Listed:
  • Li-Jun Ji

    (Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada)

  • Courtney M. Lappas

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

  • Xin-qiang Wang

    (Department of Psychology, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China)

  • Brian P. Meier

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

Abstract

Past research with North American participants has demonstrated a naturalness bias in the medical context: people prefer natural drugs to synthetic drugs under a variety of situations. Does such a bias exist in other countries (such as China) where cultural values and practices are quite different from those in the United States? We conducted 3 studies ( N = 1,927) to investigate the naturalness bias with drugs and vaccines across cultures with American, Canadian, and Chinese participants. In studies 1A and 1B, participants chose or rated drugs (natural v. synthetic) for a hypothetical medical issue. The drugs were presented as having identical effectiveness and side effect profiles. Study 2 focused on a different medical context, vaccines, and required participants to rate their likelihood of taking vaccines (made from either more natural or more synthetic ingredients) for a harmful virus. The naturalness bias occurred across cultures in studies 1A and 1B, although it was not significant among Chinese participants in study 1B. In study 2, Chinese participants showed a stronger naturalness bias than Americans did, and safety concerns mediated the effect. Perceived safety accounted for the naturalness bias among Americans and Canadians, but did so only among Chinese in study 2. Overall, the results suggest that the naturalness bias in drug and vaccine decision making occurs across cultures, but Chinese participants may be more sensitive to the medical context. 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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:2:p:252-262
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221140803
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221140803
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X221140803?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. Jonathan Baron & Gerald B. Holzman & Jay Schulkin, 1998. "Attitudes of Obstetricians and Gynecologists toward Hormone Replacement Therapy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(4), pages 406-411, October.
    2. Brian P. Meier & Courtney M. Lappas, 2016. "The Influence of Safety, Efficacy, and Medical Condition Severity on Natural versus Synthetic Drug Preference," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(8), pages 1011-1019, November.
    3. Marco daCosta DiBonaventura & Gretchen B. Chapman, 2008. "Do Decision Biases Predict Bad Decisions? Omission Bias, Naturalness Bias, and Influenza Vaccination," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(4), pages 532-539, July.
    4. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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. 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.
    3. Heather P. Lacey & Steven C. Lacey & Prerna Dayal & Caroline Forest & Dana Blasi, 2023. "Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 417-429, May.
    4. Braverman, Jennifer A. & Blumenthal-Barby, J.S., 2012. "Assessment of the sunk-cost effect in clinical decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 186-192.
    5. Shanike J. Smart & Solomon W. Polachek, 2024. "COVID-19 vaccine and risk-taking," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 25-49, February.
    6. Jiménez, Ángel V. & Stubbersfield, Joseph M. & Tehrani, Jamshid J., 2018. "An experimental investigation into the transmission of antivax attitudes using a fictional health controversy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 23-27.
    7. Kaitlin T. Raimi & Kimberly S. Wolske & P. Sol Hart & Victoria Campbell‐Arvai, 2020. "The Aversion to Tampering with Nature (ATN) Scale: Individual Differences in (Dis)comfort with Altering the Natural World," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 638-656, March.
    8. Ángel V Jiménez & Alex Mesoudi & Jamshid J Tehrani, 2020. "No evidence that omission and confirmation biases affect the perception and recall of vaccine-related information," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-16, March.
    9. Vicki S. Freimuth & Amelia Jamison & Gregory Hancock & Donald Musa & Karen Hilyard & Sandra Crouse Quinn, 2017. "The Role of Risk Perception in Flu Vaccine Behavior among African‐American and White Adults in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2150-2163, November.
    10. Gary D. Sherman & Beth Vallen & Stacey R. Finkelstein & Paul M. Connell & Wendy Attaya Boland & Kristen Feemster, 2021. "When taking action means accepting responsibility: Omission bias predicts parents' reluctance to vaccinate due to greater anticipated culpability for negative side effects," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 1660-1681, December.
    11. Polman, Evan, 2012. "Self–other decision making and loss aversion," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 141-150.

    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:43:y:2023:i:2:p:252-262. 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.