| Popis: |
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) encompasses treatments not considered part of conventional medicine. CAM use can be problematic because many treatments are not evidence-based and some lead to negative health outcomes for consumers. Researchers have suggested that a general tendency to rely on Type-1 processing can account for CAM endorsement. However, this theory does not consider the importance of context in Type-1 decisions. Dual-process theories of reasoning and decision making suggest that Type-1 treatment perceptions should depend on beliefs about health and science, not just treatment type. In my first study [The Role of Reasoning and Decision Making in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Perceptions and Use; osf.io/8cbdy], I predicted that new-age health beliefs would be positively related to Type-1 perceptions of CAMs and negatively related to Type-1 perceptions of conventional medicines, and science endorsement would be negatively related to Type-1 perceptions of CAMs and positively related to Type-1 perceptions of conventional medicines. One hundred and two participants completed measures of new-age health beliefs and science endorsement, as well as a decision-making task including brief descriptions of CAMs and conventional medicines. For each treatment, participants were asked to make an initial judgement regarding its effectiveness and then indicate whether they stood by this decision (‘yes’ responses indicated willing/Type-1 decisions, whereas ‘no’ responses indicated unwilling decisions/readiness to engage Type-2 processing). There was a belief by treatment type interaction on Type-1 treatment perceptions for both types of belief; however, the predicted pattern of results was only observed for perceptions of CAMs. There was clear evidence that CAM endorsement (but not conventional medicine dissatisfaction) increased with higher new-age beliefs. Equivalently, there was clear evidence that CAM dissatisfaction (but not conventional medicine endorsement) increased with higher science endorsement. One explanation of these findings could be that conventional medicines are widely endorsed in Australia, regardless of beliefs about health and science. Another explanation could be that the conventional medicines used in my first study did not challenge new-age health beliefs or require justification using scientific evidence because of the associated risks (i.e., they did not conflict with pro-CAM beliefs). The purpose of this study is to test these explanations by conducting a replication and extension of my first study including a greater number of conflicting conventional medicine items. |
