Pseudoscientific Health Beliefs and the Perceived Frequency of Causal Relationships
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Method
2.1. Participants
2.2. Design
2.3. Procedure
2.4. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Average Causal Belief Ratings
3.2. Average Contingency Estimate
3.3. Contingency Estimation and Causal Belief
3.4. Individual Differences Measures
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
CAM | Complementary and alternative medicine |
IPIP | International personality item pool |
References
- Davidson, M. Vaccination as a cause of autism—Myths and controversies. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 2017, 19, 403. [Google Scholar]
- Shanks, D.R. Associationism and cognition: Human contingency learning at 25. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2007, 60, 291–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Allan, L.G.; Jenkins, H.M. The effect of representations of binary variables on judgment of influence. Learn. Motiv. 1983, 14, 381–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shanks, D.R.; Dickinson, A. Associative accounts of causality judgment. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation; Bower, G., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1988; Volume 21, pp. 229–261. [Google Scholar]
- Matute, H.; Blanco, F.; Yarritu, I.; Díaz-Lago, M.; Vadillo, M.A.; Barberia, I. Illusions of causality: How they bias our everyday thinking and how they could be reduced. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Torres, M.N.; Barberia, I.; Rodríguez-Ferreiro, J. Causal illusion as a cognitive basis of pseudoscientific beliefs. Br. J. Psychol. 2020, 111, 840–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matute, H.; Yarritu, I.; Vadillo, M.A. Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience. Br. J. Psychol. 2011, 102, 392–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chow, J.Y.; Colagiuri, B.; Livesey, E.J. Bridging the divide between causal illusions in the laboratory and the real world: The effects of outcome density with a variable continuous outcome. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 2019, 4, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barrett, B.; Brown, R.; Rakel, D.; Mundt, M.; Bone, K.; Barlow, S.; Ewers, T. Echinacea for treating the common cold: A randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2010, 153, 769–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barberia, I.; Blanco, F.; Cubillas, C.P.; Matute, H. Implementation and assessment of an intervention to debias adolescents against causal illusions. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e71303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, A.; Cranswick, N.; South, M. Adverse events associated with the use of complementary and alternative medicine in children. Arch. Dis. Child. 2011, 96, 297–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freckelton, I. Death by homeopathy: Issues for civil, criminal and coronial law and for health service policy. J. Law Med. 2012, 19, 454–478. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Geller, A.I.; Shehab, N.; Weidle, N.J.; Lovegrove, M.C.; Wolpert, B.J.; Timbo, B.B.; Mozersky, R.P.; Budnitz, D.S. Emergency department visits for adverse events related to dietary supplements. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 1531–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- National Institutes of Health. Americans Spent $30.2 Billion Out-of-Pocket on Complementary Health Approaches. 2016. Available online: https://www-nccih-nih-gov.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/news/press-releases/americans-spent-302-billion-outofpocket-on-complementary-health-approaches (accessed on 18 March 2019).
- Jenkins, D.J.; Spence, J.D.; Giovannucci, E.L.; Kim, Y.I.; Josse, R.; Vieth, R.; Paquette, M. Supplemental vitamins and minerals for CVD prevention and treatment. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2018, 71, 2570–2584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bjelakovic, G.; Nikolova, D.; Gluud, L.L.; Simonetti, R.G.; Gluud, C. Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2012, 2012, CD007176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tobacyk, J.J. A revised paranormal belief scale. Int. J. Transpers. Stud. 2004, 23, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tobacyk, J.; Milford, G. Belief in paranormal phenomena: Assessment instrument development and implications for personality functioning. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 44, 1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindeman, M.; Svedholm, A.M. What’s in a term? Paranormal, superstitious, magical and supernatural beliefs by any other name would mean the same. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2012, 16, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldberg, L.R.; Johnson, J.A.; Eber, H.W.; Hogan, R.; Ashton, M.C.; Cloninger, C.R.; Gough, H.C. The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. J. Res. Personal. 2006, 40, 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, P.T., Jr.; McCrae, R.R. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R™) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI); Psychological Assessment Resources: Odessa, FL, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Levenson, H. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1973, 41, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levenson, H. Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control. J. Personal. Assess. 1974, 38, 377–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donnellan, M.B.; Oswald, F.L.; Baird, B.M.; Lucas, R.E. The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychol. Assess. 2006, 18, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Allan, L.G. A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 1980, 15, 147–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghasemi, A.; Zahediasl, S. Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-statisticians. Int. J. Endocrinol. Metab. 2012, 10, 486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Vadillo, M.A.; Miller, R.R.; Matute, H. Causal and predictive-value judgments, but not predictions, are based on cue-outcome contingency. Learn. Behav. 2005, 33, 172–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wasserman, E.A. Detecting response-outcome relations: Toward an understanding of the causal texture of the environment. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1990; Volume 26, pp. 27–82. [Google Scholar]
- Blanco, F.; Matute, H.; Vadillo, M.A. Interactive effects of the probability of the cue and the probability of the outcome on the overestimation of null contingency. Learn. Behav. 2013, 41, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. On the psychology of prediction. Psychol. Rev. 1973, 80, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kunda, Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 108, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewandowsky, S.; Ecker, U.K.; Seifert, C.M.; Schwarz, N.; Cook, J. Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 2012, 13, 106–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyhan, B.; Reifler, J. Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine 2015, 33, 459–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- MacFarlane, D.; Hurlstone, M.J.; Ecker, U.K. Reducing demand for ineffective health remedies: Overcoming the illusion of causality. Psychol. Health 2018, 33, 1472–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Blanco, F.; Barberia, I.; Matute, H. Individuals who believe in the paranormal expose themselves to biased information and develop more causal illusions than nonbelievers in the laboratory. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0131378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gianotti, L.R.; Mohr, C.; Pizzagalli, D.; Lehmann, D.; Brugger, P. Associative processing and paranormal belief. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2001, 55, 595–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Van Elk, M. Paranormal believers are more prone to illusory agency detection than skeptics. Conscious. Cogn. 2013, 22, 1041–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Topic Area |
---|
Complementary and Alternative Medicine |
Herbal remedies are effective in treating the common cold (herbal–cold) |
Chiropractic therapy is an effective treatment for backpain (chiropractic–backpain) |
Acupuncture is an effective treatment for prolonged pain (acupuncture–pain) |
Controversial beliefs about modern technology and medicine |
Childhood vaccination causes autism (vaccination–autism) |
Exposure to wind turbines can cause adverse health effects including memory loss, disturbed sleep and headaches (even when the turbine cannot be heard) (wind turbine syndrome) |
Radiation from mobile phones and WIFI causes cancer (WIFI–cancer) |
Beliefs relating to general lifestyle |
Prolonged smoking causes heart, lung and breathing problems (smoking–breathing) |
Regular exercise increases lifespan (exercise–lifespan) |
Practicing a restrictive diet can make you feel better (diet–feel better) |
Belief Sub-Category |
---|
Belief To what extent do you agree that chiropractic therapy is an effective treatment for back pain? |
Contingency Estimate sub-category |
Probability of the cause, c Of all the people you know, what percentage of people visit a chiropractor for back pain? |
Estimate of probability of outcome given cause, p(O|C) Of those people you know who suffer from back pain and visit a chiropractor, what percentage of them have experienced an improvement in their condition? |
Estimate of probability of outcome given no cause, p(O|~C) Of those people you know who suffer from back pain but do not visit a chiropractor, what percentage of them have experienced an improvement in their condition? |
Revised Paranormal Belief Scale | Conscientiousness | Openness to Experience | Locus of Control | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Herbal–Cold | β = 0.082, t(4) = 1.12, p = 0.263 BF10 = 0.497 | β = 0.149, t(4) = 2.18, p = 0.030 BF10 = 2.42 | β = 0.181, t(4) = 2.65, p = 0.008 * BF10 = 6.81 | β = 0.046, t(4) = 0.64, p = 0.523 BF10 = 0.335 |
Chiropractic–Backpain | β = 0.148, t(4) = 1.98, p = 0.049 BF10 = 1.76 | β = 0.020, t(4) = 0.28, p = 0.777 BF10 = 0.307 | β = 0.128, t(4) = 1.85, p = 0.066 BF10 = 0.351 | β = 0.030, t(4) = 0.41, p = 0.681 BF10 = 0.320 |
Acupuncture–Pain | β = 0.216, t(4) = 2.99, p = 0.003 * BF10 = 15.2 | β = 0.065, t(4) = 0.97, p = 0.333 BF10 = 0.402 | β = 0.246, t(4) = 3.67, p < 0.001 * BF10 = 108.9 | β = −0.014, t(4) = −0.20, p = 0.845 BF10 = 0.264 |
Vaccination–Autism | β = 0.338, t(4) = 4.82, p < 0.001 * BF10 = 6.83e + 3 | β = 0.033, t(4) = 0.50, p = 0.620 BF10 = 0.829 | β = −0.107, t(4) = −1.64, p = 0.102 BF10 = 0.591 | β = 0.061, t(4) = 0.88, p = 0.380 BF10 = 0.338 |
Wind Turbine Syndrome | β = 0.147, t(4) = 2.01, p = 0.046 BF10 = 1.76 | β = 0.073, t(4) = 1.06, p = 0.292 BF10 = 0.467 | β = −0.080, t(4) = −1.17, p = 0.242 BF10 = 0.190 | β = 0.137, t(4) = 1.88, p = 0.062 BF10 = 1.41 |
WIFI–Cancer | β = 0.254, t(4) = 3.46, p < 0.001 * BF10 = 56.9 | β = 0.074, t(4) = 1.07, p = 0.286 BF10 = 0.477 | β = 0.062, t(4) = 0.91, p = 0.364 BF10 = 0.110 | β = 0.044, t(4) = −0.61, p = 0.545 BF10 = 0.334 |
Smoking–Breathing Problems | β = −0.087, t(4) = −1.17, p = 0.245 BF10 = 0.558 | β = 0.069, t(4) = 0.98, p = 0.326 BF10 = 0.467 | β = 0.117, t(4) = 1.68, p = 0.095 BF10 = 0.565 | β = −0.018, t(4) = −0.24, p = 0.808 BF10 = 0.309 |
Exercise–Lifespan | β = 0.047, t(4) = 0.65, p = 0.517 BF10 = 0.331 | β = 0.116, t(4) = 1.70, p = 0.091 BF10 = 1.02 | β = 0.234, t(4) = 3.44, p < 0.001 * BF10 = 54.5 | β = −0.076, t(4) = −1.06, p = 0.293 BF10 = 0.456 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chow, J.Y.L.; Colagiuri, B.; Rottman, B.M.; Goldwater, M.; Livesey, E.J. Pseudoscientific Health Beliefs and the Perceived Frequency of Causal Relationships. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11196. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111196
Chow JYL, Colagiuri B, Rottman BM, Goldwater M, Livesey EJ. Pseudoscientific Health Beliefs and the Perceived Frequency of Causal Relationships. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(21):11196. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111196
Chicago/Turabian StyleChow, Julie Y. L., Ben Colagiuri, Benjamin M. Rottman, Micah Goldwater, and Evan J. Livesey. 2021. "Pseudoscientific Health Beliefs and the Perceived Frequency of Causal Relationships" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 21: 11196. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111196
APA StyleChow, J. Y. L., Colagiuri, B., Rottman, B. M., Goldwater, M., & Livesey, E. J. (2021). Pseudoscientific Health Beliefs and the Perceived Frequency of Causal Relationships. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), 11196. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111196