The naturalness bias in sport

We examined the naturalness bias - the tendency to prefer people who seem to come by their talent naturally and not through work or effort - on ratings of athletic ability. Football (soccer) coaches, athletes, fans, and non-fans (n = 430) read about an athlete described as either being a natural or a striver. After watching a video of the athlete going through drills, participants rated the athlete on likelihood of success, athletic skill, mental strength, and physiological ability. Participants of all expertise levels tended to rate the athlete described as a natural as being higher in mental toughness than did the participants rating the athlete described as being a striver. There were no significant differences in ratings for the natural and the striver for measures of skill and explosiveness. It appears that the naturalness bias was most likely to influence ratings not easily judged by viewing a single performance.

Religiosity and the Naturalness Bias in Drug and Vaccine Choices

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.

Everything has a limit: How intellectual humility lowers the preference for naturalness as reflected in drug choice

OBJECTIVE

Across a broad range of cultures, people demonstrate a strong preference for items that are labeled as natural. Yet, less is known about methods that can reduce the natural-is-better bias. The objective of the present research is to see whether intellectual humility, a moral virtue that can be understood as a more open and curious mindset, reduces naturalness bias in terms of drug-related decisions.

METHODS

We tested our hypotheses across four studies using different populations (university students and community adults) and methods (correlational and experimental). Study 1 involved a survey exploring whether university students choosing a synthetic drug tended to display a higher level of intellectual humility than those choosing a natural drug. Study 2 assessed the link using observation of real-world behavior in non-student adults. Study 3 adopted an experimental approach to test the idea that reflecting on one's intellectual fallibility can at least temporarily reduce naturalness bias on drug choice. Study 4 examined the potential mediating mechanism underlying the observed effect.

RESULTS

We found correlational and experimental evidence that participants higher in intellectual humility were more likely to choose the synthetic drug than those lower in intellectual humility in both self-report and behavioral measures. The results also demonstrate that openness to experience mediated the effect of intellectual humility on naturalness bias.

CONCLUSIONS

These results highlight intellectual humility as a malleable, psychological variable that can combat biased thinking associated with health-related decision-making.