Action bias in the public's clinically inappropriate expectations for antibiotics

J Exp Psychol Appl. 2020 Sep;26(3):422-431. doi: 10.1037/xap0000269. Epub 2020 Apr 9.

Abstract

Clinical guidelines recommend that physicians educate patients about illnesses and antibiotics to eliminate inappropriate preferences for antibiotics. We expected that information provision about illnesses and antibiotics would reduce but not eliminate inappropriate preferences for antibiotics and that cognitive biases could explain why some people resist the effect of information provision. In 2 experiments, participants (n₁ = 424; n₂ = 434) either received incomplete information (about the viral etiology of their infection) or complete information (about viral etiology and the ineffectiveness and harms of taking antibiotics), before deciding to rest or take antibiotics. Those in the complete information conditions responded to items on 4 biases: action bias, social norm, source discrediting, and information neglect. In 2 follow-up experiments (n₁ = 150; n₂ = 732), we aimed to counteract the action bias by reframing the perception of the resting option as an action. Complete information provision reduced but did not eliminate inappropriate preferences for antibiotics. Around 10% of people wanted antibiotics even when informed they are harmful and offer no benefit and even when the alternative option (i.e., rest) was framed as an active treatment option. Results suggest an action bias underpins this preference but appears challenging to counteract. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Anti-Bacterial Agents / therapeutic use*
  • Bias*
  • Female
  • Health Personnel
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Motivation*
  • Patient Education as Topic*
  • Social Norms*
  • Virus Diseases / therapy

Substances

  • Anti-Bacterial Agents