The Influence of Safety, Efficacy, and Medical Condition Severity on Natural versus Synthetic Drug Preference

Abstract

Research indicates that there is a preference for natural v. synthetic products, but the influence of this preference on drug choice in the medical domain is largely unknown. We present 5 studies in which participants were asked to consider a hypothetical situation in which they had a medical issue requiring pharmacological therapy. Participants ( N = 1223) were asked to select a natural, plant-derived, or synthetic drug. In studies 1a and 1b, approximately 79% of participants selected the natural v. synthetic drug, even though the safety and efficacy of the drugs were identical. Furthermore, participants rated the natural drug as safer than the synthetic drug, and as that difference increased, the odds of choosing the natural over synthetic drug increased. In studies 2 and 3, approximately 20% of participants selected the natural drug even when they were informed that it was less safe (study 2) or less effective (study 3) than the synthetic drug. Finally, in study 4, approximately 65% of participants chose a natural over synthetic drug regardless of the severity of a specific medical condition (mild v. severe hypertension), and this choice was predicted by perceived safety and efficacy differences. Overall, these data indicate that there is a bias for natural over synthetic drugs. This bias could have implications for drug choice and usage.

Naturally better? A review of the natural‐is‐better bias

“…Other research has found that participants rated foods, vitamins, and allergens more favorably when they were described as natural versus made in a laboratory (Li & Chapman, ). Research has also shown that participants are more likely to choose drugs for hypothetical medical conditions when the drugs were described as natural versus synthetic (DiBonaventura & Chapman, ; Meier & Lappas, ).…”

“…The naturalness bias appears to hold even when people are given additional information that equates natural items with synthetic items (Meier & Lappas, ; also see DiBonaventura & Chapman, , & Rozin et al, , Study 2). For example, multiple studies have shown that a majority of participants (approximately 80%) preferred to take a natural versus a synthetic drug for a hypothetical medical condition even though the drugs were described as equally effective and safe (Meier & Lappas, ). Some participants (approximately 20%) even preferred a natural drug when it was described as less safe or less effective than a synthetic drug.…”

“…That is, people might perceive natural items as safer than non‐natural items. For example, in studies involving cigarettes (Baig et al, in press), other drugs (Li & Chapman, ; Meier & Lappas, ), and injuries (Rudski et al, ), participants rated the natural version of each item as safer or less harmful than the non‐natural version. Other work has provided evidence for perceived safety as a mechanism for the naturalness bias.…”

“…Yet it might be difficult to disentangle safety beliefs from a natural‐is‐better default belief because safety is a emotional construct, and therefore, it may be a component of the natural‐is‐better belief. However, some work has shown that participants still preferred a natural drug over a synthetic drug even when the drug was described as less safe (Meier & Lappas, ). This finding suggests that a natural‐is‐better default belief might be stronger than beliefs about safety at least for some individuals, and therefore, these factors may be unrelated in some cases.…”

Identification of compounds that inhibit the binding of Keap1a/Keap1b Kelch DGR domain with Nrf2 ETGE/DLG motifs in zebrafish

“…All these diseases are the foremost cause for the deaths in humans worldwide . Chemoprevention is the strategy employed to alleviate these diseases with both natural and synthetic compounds . Most eukaryotic systems have an intricate protective system called the Kelch‐like ECH‐associated protein 1—nuclear factor‐erythroid 2‐related factor 2—antioxidant response elements (Keap1‐Nrf2‐ARE) signalling pathway through which they orchestrate the regulation of an array of genes to hamper stress.…”