| Popis: |
Advances in the medical field have led to an increase in the number of treatment choices for patients. Nearly simultaneously, new strides in computer technology and the internet have created increased access to information about these treatments, allowing patients to have unfettered access to information about efficacy, side effects, and treatment availability. As evidence-based treatment choices and their marketing have increased, however, non-evidence-based treatments, including many complementary and alternative treatments have joined them, often making it difficult for even discerning patients to navigate the best course of treatment for their conditions. Considering the increase in evidence-based medicine, the question of why people are drawn to non-evidence-based options remains. The aim of the present set of studies is to examine the possibility that the cognitive bias of illusory correlation elevates positive perceptions of some treatments, such as contemporary and alternative medicine treatments (CAMs). A pilot study with student volunteers was conducted to first determine if treatment perceptions could be influenced by illusory correlations. Unspecified treatments (labeled Treatment A and Treatment B) were paired with positive and negative treatment outcomes such that one treatment and one outcome was distinctive, however neither treatment was correlated with either outcome. Significant results were found in frequency estimates, treatment ratings, and negative attributions, in that the distinctive treatment and treatment outcome were judged to occur more often together, were rated more positively, and the non-distinctive (negative) treatment outcome was attributed more often to the non-distinctive treatment. This suggests that treatment decision making can be influenced by illusory correlation. The present study aimed to further explore this finding using a chronically ill sample. Using a similar paradigm as the pilot study, we conducted a three-condition manipulation of the probability of treatments and treatment outcomes. The first condition was conceptually identical to the Pilot Study, in that the treatments and outcomes were uncorrelated. The second and third conditions, however, presented the non-distinctive treatment and treatment outcomes as increasingly correlated, making the non-distinctive treatment the statistically better option. Based on the robust effect found in the pilot study, it was hypothesized that illusory correlations would persist despite this actual inverse correlation, and that there would be no significant differences between correlation conditions. Further, based on the results from the Pilot Study, it was hypothesized that causal uncertainty and attitudes toward CAM would moderate the illusory correlation effect. Two exploratory variables, novelty avoidance and trust in healthcare information were included to determine mechanisms for the moderation seen from attitudes toward CAM. Finally, response time to make treatment attributions was also collected to determine if response latency acted as a mechanism for illusory correlations. The results of the present study failed to support the hypothesis that illusory correlations would be seen in all conditions, and surprisingly found that illusory correlation did not occur in any of the correlation conditions. Potential explanations for this finding are explored and discussed. |
