Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36394691›Full record

ArticleJournal of religion and health2023

Religiosity and the Naturalness Bias in Drug and Vaccine Choices.

Brian P Meier, Amanda J Dillard, Adam K Fetterman, Li-Jun Ji, Courtney M Lappas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of religion and health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Brian P MeierDepartment of Psychology, Gettysburg College, 300 N. Washington Street, Gettysburg, PA, 17325, USA. bmeier@gettysburg.edu.
Amanda J DillardDepartment of Psychology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, 49401, USA.
Adam K FettermanDepartment of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 77204, USA.
Li-Jun JiDepartment of Psychology, Queens University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Courtney M LappasDepartment of Biology, Lebanon Valley College, Annville, PA, 17003, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research reveals a bias for natural versus synthetic drugs. We sought to determine if this bias is associated with religiosity. Three cross-sectional studies (N = 1399 U.S. participants) were conducted to examine the impact of religiosity on the naturalness bias in the drug and vaccine domains. We assessed measures of religiosity, preferences for natural versus synthetic drugs and vaccines in hypothetical scenarios, and a health-related behavior (COVID-19 vaccination status). The results revealed that participants high versus low in religiosity had stronger preferences for natural versus synthetic drugs and vaccines. Furthermore, participants high versus low in religiosity were less likely to have taken the COVID-19 vaccine, and the natural drug bias was a mediator of this effect. Overall, participants higher in religiosity had a stronger preference for natural versus synthetic drugs and vaccines, and this preference had implications for health behavior.

Indexed as

COVID-19Synthetic DrugsCOVID-19 VaccinesCross-Sectional StudiesHealth BehaviorHumansReligionCOVID-19 VaccinesSynthetic DrugsBiasDrugNaturalNaturalness biasReligionReligiosityVaccine intentions

Identifiers

PMID36394691
PMCPMC9669538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.