IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i7-8p821-834.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of a Naturalness Preference Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Shawna F. Bayerman

    (Department of Health and Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado, Denver CO, USA)

  • Meng Li

    (Department of Health and Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado, Denver CO, USA)

  • Adnan Syed

    (University of Colorado School of Medicine/VA Eastern Colorado COIN, Denver, CO, USA)

  • Laura D. Scherer

    (University of Colorado School of Medicine/VA Eastern Colorado COIN, Denver, CO, USA
    VA Eastern Colorado COIN, Denver, CO, USA)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:7-8:p:821-834
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231189494
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231189494
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231189494?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. Xijuan Zhang & Ramsha Noor & Victoria Savalei, 2016. "Examining the Effect of Reverse Worded Items on the Factor Structure of the Need for Cognition Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, June.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:91-97 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. Shengnan Li & Patrick J. Heath & Carlos A. Vidales & David L. Vogel & Yangang Nie, 2022. "Measurement Invariance of the Self-Stigma of Mental Illness Scale: A Cross-Cultural Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-13, February.
    4. Ulf Böckenholt, 2019. "Contextual Responses to Affirmative and/or Reversed-Worded Items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(4), pages 986-999, December.
    5. Hüttel, Alexandra & Balderjahn, Ingo & Hoffmann, Stefan, 2020. "Welfare Beyond Consumption: The Benefits of Having Less," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    6. Marieke Hansmann & Johannes Beller & Friederike Maurer & Christoph Kröger, 2022. "Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Employees with Mental Disorders or Musculoskeletal Diseases after Sickness-Related Absence: Validation of the German Version of the Return-to-Work Self-Efficacy Scale," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-16, August.
    7. Tifferet, Sigal, 2021. "Verifying online information: Development and validation of a self-report scale," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).

    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:7-8:p:821-834. 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.