2007 Are Modern Health Worries, Personality and PDF

Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
229
The
British
Psychological
British Journal of Health Psychology (2007), 12, 229–243
q 2007 The British Psychological Society
Society
www.bpsjournals.co.uk
Are modern health worries, personality and

attitudes to science associated with the use of
complementary and alternative medicine?
Adrian Furnham*
Department of Psychology, University College London, UK
Objective. To investigate whether personality traits, modern health worries

(MHWs) and attitudes to science predict attitudes to, and beliefs about,
complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). This study set out to test whether
belief in, and use of CAM was significantly associated with high levels of MHWs, a high
level of neuroticism and sceptical attitudes towards science.
Methods. Two hundred and forty-three British adults completed a four part
questionnaire that measured MHWs, the Big Five personality traits and beliefs about
science and medicine and attitudes to CAM.
Results. There were many gender differences in MHWs (females expressed more),
though results were similar to previous studies. Contrary to prediction, personality
traits were not related to MHWs, CAM usage or beliefs about CAM. Regular and
occasional users of CAM did have higher MHWs than those non or infrequent users.
Those with high totalled MHWs also tended to believe in the importance of
psychological factors in health and illness, as well as the potential harmful effects of
modern medicine. Young males who had positive attitudes to science were least likely
to be CAM users. Further, positive attitudes to science were associated with increased
scepticism about CAM.
Conclusion. Concern about health, belief about modern medicine and CAM are
logically inter-related. Those who have high MHWs tend to be more sceptical about
modern medicine and more convinced of the possible role of psychological factors in
personal health and illness.
There is an extensive and rapidly growing literature on patient choice of medical

practice and practitioner (Braman & Gomez, 2004). There is now also a literature on
pathways to the choice, and use of, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)
(Furnham & Vincent, 2000; Saher & Lindeman, 2005; Vincent & Furnham, 1997a). This
study focuses on three possible predictors of participants beliefs about CAM, namely
* Correspondence should be addressed to Adrian Furnham, Department of Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford
Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK (e-mail: a.furnham@ucl.ac.uk).
DOI:10.1348/135910706X100593
230 Adrian Furnham
modern health worries, personality traits (specifically neuroticism) and attitudes to

science.
Modern health worries (MHWs)

Petrie and Wessely (2002) identified, named and attempted to measure MHWs. Petrie
et al. (2001) reported further on the development of this scale. Their thesis was that
many people express concern that their health is threatened by modernity. The media,
they argue, increases perceptions of vulnerability, reduce subjective feelings of health
and emphasises toxic environmental causes of illness while simultaneously reducing an
emphasis on controllable lifestyle factors.
A 25-item questionnaire was developed that factored into four interpretable factors
labelled, toxic interventions, environmental pollution, tainted food and radiation. In a
second population study they looked at the effect of negative affectivity (neuroticism)
and MHWs on their utilisation of various medical practitioners (Petrie & Wessely, 2002).
Negative affectivity, but not MHWs, predicted visits to a GP. The opposite was true for
visits to a physiotherapist, a chiropractor-osteopath and alternative therapist, where
MHW scores, but not negativity, predicted consultations. Both MHWs and negative
affectivity predicted consultations with medical specialists and chemists. They
concluded that it was not surprising that these worries are associated with the
utilisation of alternative health care.
Petrie and Wessely (2002) argued that the media has increased the public’s
fascination with health and illness, healthy life styles and risks to health. Further new
technologies have been accompanied by new complaints, fears and illnesses. The
internet has increased both the spread of worries and health scares and the distrust of
medical experts. They conclude that the rapid introduction of new technologies has
been accompanied by adverse effects in the way people make sense of illness and
present with health complaints.
Recently, researchers have continued to use the MHWs scale. Helder et al. (2005)
compared Dutch and New Zealand medical students MHWs. They found national and
sex differences: female students were more concerned about their health than males;
the Dutch less concerned than New Zealanders. They found that once they had
controlled for the effects of affect (positive and negative), gender and perceived health,
the MHWs scores contributed significantly to perceptions of subjective health
complaints and were significantly positively related to use of the health care services.
Petrie et al. (2005) recently looked at the relationship between MHWs, positive and
negative affect, subjective health complaints and specific complaints after environment
pesticide spraying in New Zealand. They found symptom complaints after spraying
were most closely related to baseline symptoms but MHWs predicted avoidance
behaviour during spraying and the belief that their, their children’s and their pets’ health
was affected by the spray. They argue that MHWs can strongly influence the attribution
of symptoms and beliefs about health affects after major and minor environmental
incidents.
In this study, the MHWs of British adults are assessed. Pilot work suggested that
various items could be added to the scale to ensure that it was more comprehensive in
its coverage (see Method). It was predicted that MHWs are positively associated with
belief in, and use of CAM professionals. Various studies have listed the demographic and
psychographic correlates of CAM use (Furnham, 2002, 2003) but, as yet, the MHWs of
CAM users has not been explored. This study will explore the factor structure of MHWs
Science associated with the use of complementary and alternative medicine 231
and look at the incremental validity of MHWs in predicting CAM use over and above
personality, attitude to science and demographic factors.
Attitudes to science
Many factors have led to the rise of interest in, and use of CAM in the western world
(Vincent & Furnham, 1997a,b). There have been a range of issues investigated, such as
whether CAM is thought of as safe, efficacious and beneficial as orthodox conventional
medicine. In this study, these issues will be investigated along with beliefs about
science, health and medicine.
Vincent, Furnham, and Willsmore (1995) devised a simple 12-item scale with three
components: a positive attitude to medical science (which endorses the need for
rigorous scientific evidence and evaluation of orthodox medical treatments); the belief
that psychological (mental) factors play an important role in physical well being
(a healthy spirit/mind leads to a healthy body); and the idea that modern orthodox
medicine is actually often harmful (unnecessary side effects, etc.). They showed that
CAM patients tended to be more sceptical about orthodox medicine and stressed more
the importance of psychological factors.
Further, Vincent et al. (1995) studied 82 acupuncture patients using the
questionnaire and found, as expected, that a positive attitude to science was strongly
associated with a belief in the efficacy of regular medicine. Those who believed in the
efficacy of specific CAM therapies (i.e. acupuncture, homeopathy, herbalism) tended to
also believe in psychological factors associated with physical health.
More recently, Saher, and Lindeman (2005) demonstrated that beliefs in the efficacy
of CAM were correlated with paranormal, as well as magical, food and health beliefs
which were in turn, correlated with intuitive, rather than rational thinking. Clearly,
attitudes to science are related to attitudes towards, and behaviour concerning health.
Personality and health

Various studies have been carried out on the relationship between the Big Five
personality traits and health related variables namely, conscientiousness and
neuroticism (Brickman, Yount, Blaney, Rotherberg, & De Nour, 1996; Contrada,
Leventhal, & O’Leary, 1990; Feldman, Cohen, Doyle, Skoner, & Gwaltney, 1999;
Friedman et al., 1995; Marshall, Wortman, Vickers, Kusulas, & Hervig, 1994; Yousfi,
Matthews, Amelang, & Schmidt-Rathjens, 2004; Wasylkio, & Fekken, 2002). Further, the
results appear to suggest that neuroticism predicts concern with health, use of
medicines and therapies as well as visits to various practitioners, while conscientious-
ness predicts actual health behaviours and status.
Very few studies have looked at established personality trait correlates of interest in,
or use of, CAM. Most studies in this area have concentrated either on demographic,
medical history, motives or values of CAM patients (Sirous & Gick, 2002). Sugimoto and
Furnham (1999) compared patients of orthodox and CAM on the Big Five and found the
latter more conscientious but less agreeable.
This study set out to examine three hypotheses: that belief in, and use of, CAM will
be significantly associated with high levels of MHWs (H1) sceptical attitudes towards
science (H2) and a high level of neuroticism (H3).
232 Adrian Furnham
Method
Participants
In all, there were 243 participants of which 42.2% (100) were male and 57.8% (142)
were female. They ranged in age from 20 to 70, with a mean age of 41.93 years
(SD ¼ 14:35). In all, 42% were married. In all, 34.3% had school-leaving educational
qualifications while 32.5% had an under-graduate degree. The remainder had some post-
graduate education. In total, 91.5% were white, 49.0% were Christian, 31.4% no religion
and there were roughly equal numbers (3%) of Muslim, Jewish and Hindu. Over one
third (35%) earned £20,000 or less per annum, just over a third (38%) between £20,000
and £50,000 and the remainder over £50,000. On a 7 point religious scale (0¼not at all;
7¼very), the mean score was 4.62 (SD¼3.48). On a 7 point political conviction scale
(1¼strongly left wing; 7¼strongly right wing) the mean score was 3.84 (SD ¼ 1:33).
Various questions were also health-related. In all, 16.5% said they had at some stage
been seriously ill; 18% said they were currently being treated for an ongoing illness;
33.3% had private health insurance; 49.0% said they led a more healthier life style than
people of the same age and gender, while 6.9% said a less healthier life style. In the
previous year, 27.0% said they had never seen their GP, 37.8% said once, 24.9% two to
four times and 10.4% more than four times. Similarly, 59.6% said that they had not been
to hospital in the previous year. Finally, 29.9% admitted to seeking professional help for a
psychological problem.
Questionnaires
(1) The NEO-FFI Form S (Costa & McCrae, 1992) was used. The NEO-FFI is a paper and
pencil, self-report measure based on the currently popular five-factor model of trait
personality. The five factors or dimensions of personality measured by this inventory
are neuroticism, extraversion,openness-to-experience, agreeableness and
conscientiousness. The inventory is composed of 60 self-descriptive statements
to which participants were instructed to use a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The manual reports excellent
psychometric properties.
(2) Modern Health Worries (Petrie et al., 2001). This is an extended 40-item scale
originally developed to assess how concerned people are about the effects of
different aspects of modernity on their personal health. A pilot study of three focus
groups each containing a dozen adults suggested that a number of items needed to
be added to the existing scale as they were fairly common worries expressed by a
range of people. It should be noted that the 12 additional items to the MHWs scale
are varied. Five (aids and similar epidemics, overpopulation, human cloning,
terrorist attacks, gene therapy) are all clearly aspects of modernity that can be
perceived to threaten health. One (DNA testing) is modern but does not threaten
health; while others do threaten health but are not particularly modern, such as
work stress, passive smoking, euthanasia, medical side affects and drugs. For social
comparison purposes, all analysis using the MHWs scale will be carried out twice:
first using the 40-item version, then the original 28 item version. Participants
respond on a five point scale: 1. no concern, 2. a little concerned, 3. moderately, 4.
highly concerned, 5. extremely concerned. The original scale was shown to have an
interpretable factor structure, good internal reliability (a ¼ :94) and was
predictable correlated with other measures (Petrie & Wesseley, 2002).
(3) Attitudes to science and medicine (Vincent et al., 1995). This was a 12-item scale
that was divided into three themes: four questions assessed the participants belief in
the scientific base to medicine; four questions assessed the importance of
psychological factors in illness and four factors the possible harmful effects of
orthodox medicine. Vincent and Furnham (1997b) found that patients of orthodox
medicine rejected the idea of the possible harmful effects of it and were pro-science,
while patients of various CAM groups stressed the importance of psychological
factors in illness.
(4) Use and perception of CAM. This was a 12-item questionnaire in part derived from
previous studies (Vincent & Furnham, 1997). One question referred to use of CAM;
three to evidence that it works, five to its reputation; two to safety and one to the
manner of CAM practitioners. Participants were simply asked to indicate whether or
not they agreed with each item.
Procedure
A London-based market research company was asked to find 200 people broadly
representative of the population to complete the questionnaire. This they did with 196
usable responses. In order to boost the sample, a further 100 questionnaires were
distributed by the author at the three business conferences whose topics
(i.e. performance management systems) were not related to the questionnaire. In all,
58 questionnaires were returned of which 47 were usable. Hence the total of 243.
Where possible, participants were given a debriefing as to the purpose of the study. All
responses were anonymous.
Results
Underlying analysis strategy: The three major questionnaires were first treated to factor
analysis to determine the underlying structure of the measures. Factor scores were then
used to explore hypotheses mainly through correlations and regressions.
(1) Demographic correlates

The original (short 25-item) and extended (40-item) versions of the MHWs
questionnaire were totalled to give two scores per participants. They were then
correlated with various demographic, personality and belief variables. Both
totalled variables were correlated with gender (r ¼ :21, r ¼ :22) indicating that
females had more MHWs than males. Females were also more neurotic (r ¼ :19),
and more agreeable than males (r ¼ :20). Both variables were correlated with age
(r ¼ 2:27, r ¼ 2:24) indicating younger people had more MHWs. Neither total
score was significantly correlated with religious or political beliefs or income.
Further, neither was correlated with the five personality trait scores. Both scores
were also correlated with a whole range of health-related questions such as had
they ever been seriously ill; are they being currently treated for a medical
condition; how many times did they: (a) see their GP last year, (b) have a hospital
appointment; whether they had consulted an expert for a psychological problem.
None were significant. However, non-smokers did have more MHWs than smokers
(r ¼ :16, r ¼ :14).
(2) Attitudes to CAM
Table 1 shows the results of the second part of the questionnaire. Around a third
of the sample were occasional users of CAM and just under half said that they had
234 Adrian Furnham
Table 1. Attitudes to CAM
1. Which best describes you? %

Regular user of any CAM therapy 6.3
Occasional user 31.4
Former regular user now lapsed 2.5
Tried once1 3.0
Never used 46.9
Percentage
Factor analytic
Yes No results
2. Do you believe this treatment really 27.7 72.3 .79

helps cure or treat the problem?
3. Do you believe that there is now 36.6 63.4 .81
good evidence that many types
of CAM work?
4. Do you agree that if CAM works it 61.1 38.9
is really only a placebo effect
(mental effect but no physical effect)?
5. Do you believe CAM should be 33.1 66.9 .70
taught in medical schools?
6. Should people be able to get CAM 31.9 68.1 .73
on the NHS?
7. Do you think most doctors are 40.3 59.7 .75
hostile to CAM?
8. Do you think your own doctor 73.3 26.7 .74
is hostile to CAM?
9. Do you think the media is hostile 72.9 27.1 .48
to CAM?
10. Do you think most CAM treatments 24.2 75.4 .50
are safe?
11. Do you think most conventional 42.6 57.4 .77
medicine is safe?
12. Do you believe CAM practitioners 53.7 46.3 .60
have a better ‘bedside’ manner
(e.g. handle patients better)
compared to physicians?
Eigenvalue 2.81 1.70 1.20
Variance 23.56 16.46 10.91
never tried it. Judging by the results to the specific questions, it seems most
respondents were sceptical about CAM. For instance, nearly three quarters believe
CAM does not help cure problems; nearly two-thirds that there is no good evidence
that CAM works; nearly two-thirds that CAM effectiveness is entirely through
placebo; two-thirds that it should not be available through the NHS, or be taught in
medical school.
Whilst around 40% thought most doctors are hostile to CAM, just under three-
quarters believe their doctor is hostile. A similar number think the media is hostile
to CAM and that most CAM treatments are unsafe. In this sample, just under half
(i.e. 42.6%) thought that conventional medicine is safe. Just over half this sample
(53.7%) thought that CAM practitioners have a better bed-side manner than regular
doctors.
The 11 items were then subjected to a varimax rotated factor analysis. Three
factors emerged which accounted for over half the variance. The first factor
concerned the efficacy of CAM, the second attitudes to CAM, and the third the
safety of CAM. The Big Five personality trait scores were then correlated with the
three factor scores. Only two (of the 15) correlations were significant: extroverts
agreed more than introverts with the first factor (r ¼ :15, p , :05) and agreeable
people disagreed more with the third factor (r ¼ 2:16, p , :05) than disagreeable
people.
A one-way ANOVA was then computed across the total MHWs scale and the
eight factor scores (see Section 4) with CAM usage as the independent variable.
First, the five response groups (see Question 1, Table 1) were collapsed into two:
there were 88 people who had never or only once been a CAM user and 133 who
were either occasional or regular users. Of the eight one-way ANOVAs, four were
significant and all were in the same direction. For the total MHWs score (108.97 vs.
101.39) (Fð1; 220Þ ¼ 4:32, p , :05); Factor 1 (21.40 vs. 18.59) (Fð1; 235Þ ¼ 9:13,
p , :01); Factor 2 (21.83 vs. 19.64) (Fð1; 235Þ ¼ 7:79, p , :01) and Factor 7 (4.11
vs. 3.61) (Fð1; 237Þ ¼ 3:99, p , :05) the non-minimal user group had lower
MHWs scores than the occasional and regular users. This therefore provides
evidence in support of H1.
Following this, a regression was performed with CAM usage (Q1) as the criteria
variable and the 11 statements as predictor variables. This was significant
(Fð11; 189Þ ¼ 4:06, p , :001, Adj R 2 ¼.14) and showed two items significant
predictors (Q2, Q12). The more people believed CAM treatments helps cure ‘the
problem’ and the more they think bedside manner was better among CAM
practitioners the more they were likely to use CAM.
A regression was then performed with the CAM user as the predictor variable
and the big five traits as well as the eight MHWs factors as predictors. This was
significant (Fð12; 187Þ ¼ 2:47, p , :01, Adj R 2 ¼.001. Only two factors were
significant – Factor 1 (b ¼ :25, t ¼ 2:74, p , :01) and Factor 6 (b ¼ :19, t ¼ 2:14,
p , :03). This indicated that the more people were worried about food
contamination and radiation the more likely they were to use CAM.
Regressions were performed on each of the 11 specific questions about CAM
(see Table 1) as criterion variables with demographics, health status and MHWs as
predictor variables. None were statistically significant.
(3) Attitudes to science, health and bedicine
Table 2 indicates the results of the questionnaire on attitudes to science and
scientific medicine. Participants agreed strongly with four items (2, 5, 10, 11), all of
which loaded on the same factor called importance of psychological factors. They
tended to disagree with two items, namely 4 and 8. The results of the factor
analysis confirmed the results of Furnham, Vincent, and Wood (1995) as well as
Vincent and Furnham (1997) who found evidence of three clear factors in this
short questionnaire. Following the labels of Furnham, et al. the three factors were
labelled: one – importance of psychological factors; two – harmful effects of
modern medicine; three – positive attitude to science.
Items that loaded on these factors were combined arithmetically into three
scores. These were then correlated with the total MHWs score. Two of three were
236 Adrian Furnham
Table 2. Means, SDs and factor analytic results for the attitudes to science questionnaire
Xþ SD Factor analysis
1. Patients are sometimes operated on 3.17 1.08 .42

when they do not need to be.
2. Psychological treatments such as relaxation 4.05 0.77 .63
and counselling should be used
much more widely in medicine.
3. The side-effects of modern drugs are often 3.62 1.01 .64
severe and sometimes dangerous.
4. Treatments that are not based on modern 2.14 0.88 .48
scientific discoveries are worthless.
5. Being fit and well depends as much 4.17 0.74 .71
on your state of mind as on the
functioning of your body.
6. People sometimes feel worse rather than 3.53 0.76 .81
better after orthodox medical treatment.
7. Every treatment should be thoroughly 3.89 0.99 .56
tested by doctors and scientists
before people are allowed to try it.
8. Many forms of medical treatment do 2.70 0.91 .72
more harm than good.
9. Complementary and alternative therapies 3.96 0.75 .70
should be scientifically evaluated.
10. The ‘will to live’ can be a significant factor 4.21 0.78 .72
in whether people recover from
a serious illness or injury.
11. State of mind is a crucial part of achieving 4.28 0.66 .86
better health – positive thinking can enhance
physical health.
12. Medicine is a science and should be based 3.60 0.85 .77
on rigorous scientific principles.
Eigenvalue 2.71 1.04 1.30
Variance 22.3% 16.2% 10.8%
þ Scale: 1 ¼ Strongly disagree 5 ¼ Strongly agree.
significant. The correlation between total MHWs score of ‘importance of

psychological factors’ was (r ¼ :28, p , :001) and with ‘harmful effects of modern
medicine’ was (r ¼ :19, p , :001). The correlation with the third factor was not
significant. The three factor scores were also correlated with the eight factor
scores (arithmetic total) derived from the factor analysis of the MHW scale (see
Table 4). For the factor importance on psychological factors, all eight correlations
were significant and of similar magnitude (i.e. r ¼ :17 to r ¼ :29). For the second
factor (harmful effects of medicine), four of the seven factors were significant and
positive. Factor 1 (food contamination) (r ¼ :26, p , :001), Factor 2 (pollution)
(r ¼ :18, p , :01), Factor 4 (harmful rays) (r ¼ :21, p , :001) and Factor 7 (man-
made problems) (r ¼ :24, p , :001). For the third factor, positive attitudes to
science, the first of the seven was significant and negative (r ¼ 2:14, p , :05). It
indicated that the more people were positive towards sciences the less they were
concerned about problems with their food (r ¼ 2:14, p , :05). Once again, this
number of correlations risks problems with type 1 errors.
A series of regressions were then run onto each of the questions in Table 2 (as
criterion variables) and sex, age and the three factor scores (see above as predictor
variables). Nine of the 11 were significant and showed a fairly consistent pattern.
The regression on to question 1 (CAM user) was significant (Fð5; 208Þ ¼ 8:21; Adj
R 2 ¼ :15). This showed younger (b ¼ 2:21, t ¼ 3:19, p , :01) males (b ¼ :26,
t ¼ 4:06, p , :01) who had positive attitudes to science (b ¼ :14, t ¼ 2:13,
p , :05) were less likely to be users of CAM.
The regressions on to questions 1–5 were all significant and the pattern was
very clear. In each case only one of the five predictor variables was significant. The
more positive people were towards science, the more they did not believe in CAM
(Q1) (b ¼ 2:28, t ¼ 4:10, p , :001; Adj R 2 ¼ :07); the less they believed
there was evidence for the efficacy of CAM (Q2) (b ¼ 2:31, t ¼ 4:64, p , :001;
Adj R 2 ¼ :09); the more they thought CAM was due to a placebo effect (Q3)
(b ¼ :20, t ¼ 2:83, p , :01; Adj R 2 ¼ :05); the less they thought CAM should be
taught in medical school (Q4) (b ¼ 2:14, t ¼ 2:41, p , :05; Adj R 2 ¼ :05) and the
less they thought CAM should be available on the NHS (Q6) (b ¼ :25, t ¼ 3:79,
p , :01; Adj R 2 ¼ :09).
One other regression is worth noting: Question 10 regarding safety. It showed
that the less people believed in the harmful effects of medicine the more they
thought CAM was safe (b ¼ 2:15, t ¼ 2:16, p , :05; Adj R 2 ¼ :04).
Next, two regressions were performed with the totalled MHWs score as the
criterion variable. In the first regression, sex, age and the three attitude scores
were predictors. This was significant (Fð5; 210Þ ¼ 9:16, p , :001, Adj R 2 ¼ :16).
It indicated that three variables were highly significant. Younger (b ¼ 2:22,
t ¼ 3:37, p , :001), females (b ¼ :22, t ¼ 3:47, p , :01) who believed in
psychological factors in medicine (b ¼ :22, t ¼ 3:23, p , :01) had higher MHWs
scores.
The second regression added the Big Five personality traits to the analysis but
these failed to account for any additional variance.
(4) Modern health worries
Table 3 shows the results from the MHWs scale including the percentage of
people indicating that they were either highly or extremely concerned;
comparisons with previous results; the sex different results (F levels from the
ANOVAs) and the new items.
The results of this study were broadly compatible with the results from the New
Zealand sample tested by Petrie et al. (2001). Indeed, the rank order correlation
between the two samples was r ¼ :77 suggesting reasonable overlap.
Table 4 shows the factor analytic results from the VARIMAX rotated procedure
of the new, longer version. In all, eight factors were identified which accounted for
nearly 60% of the variance, though the scree test would suggest only the first three
were of particular importance. However, all the factors seem internally coherent
and able to be fairly clearly labelled. The first factor referred to food
contamination, and the second to pollution. The third factor seemed concerned
with disasters and epidemics and the fourth factor to harmful rays. The fifth
factor referred to doctors playing God, the sixth, radiation, the seventh less clear
and mainly about man-made problems. The final factor concerned the safety of
health prevention issues.
238 Adrian Furnham
Table 3. Results from the analysis of the enlarged Modern Health Worries Questionnaire
% rank rank
M F X SD a b c d
1. Cell phones 1.91 2.20 2.08 0.79 4.1 20 25 8.36**

2. Radio or cell phone towers 1.93 2.21 2.10 0.96 7.0 19 23 4.99**
3. High tension power lines 1.96 2.19 2.10 1.01 8.3 18 20 2.80
4. Nuclear radiation 2.66 3.13 2.94 1.29 34.0 – – 7.75**
5. Air pollution 2.98 3.47 3.27 1.04 45.7 4 5 13.31**
6. Noise pollution 2.44 2.54 2.50 1.13 20.0 12 16 0.47
7. Depletion of the ozone layer 2.86 3.55 3.27 1.16 43.3 5 2 22.09***
8. Traffic fumes 2.98 3.38 3.22 1.01 41.2 6 3 9.22**
9. Other environmental pollution 2.85 3.19 3.05 1.02 30.6 9 4 6.47**
10. Pesticide spray 2.43 2.81 2.65 1.14 21.4 11 11 6.72**
11. Poor building ventilation 2.08 2.43 2.28 1.10 15.7 17 14 5.99**
12. Genetically modified food 2.27 2.64 2.49 1.19 20.6 14 18 5.91**
13. Additives in food 2.43 2.82 2.66 1.22 24.2 13 17 5.98**
14. Pesticides in food 2.86 3.10 3.00 1.21 34.3 8 7 2.21
15. Antibiotics in food 3.05 3.25 3.17 1.33 46.3 3 13 1.35
16. Hormones in food 3.02 3.32 3.19 1.31 45.7 2 9 3.19
17. Mad Cow Disease (CJD) 2.66 2.98 2.79 1.31 30.1 – – 1.40
18. Contamination of water supply 2.57 3.10 2.88 1.35 32.1 10 1 9.19**
19. Fluoridation of water 1.66 1.97 1.84 1.04 9.0 23 21 5.70**
20. Vaccination programmes 1.77 2.12 1.98 1.11 10.1 21 19 5.82**
21. Overuse of antibiotics 2.96 3.20 3.10 1.30 39.3 7 8 1.92
22. Toxic chemicals in household products 2.48 2.53 2.50 1.21 19.9 15 12 0.19
23. Leakage from microwave ovens 1.64 2.10 1.91 1.11 12.0 22 15 10.20**
24. Bacteria in air conditioning systems 2.02 2.52 2.31 1.19 18.6 16 10 10.75**
25. Drug-resistant bacteria 3.20 3.26 3.24 1.32 39.3 1 6 0.14
26. Amalgam dental fillings 1.72 1.82 1.78 0.94 6.6 24 22 0.68
27. Mental and dental X-rays 1.58 1.79 1.70 0.91 5.4 25 24 3.66*
28. Bio-terrorism (e.g. anthrax poisoning) 2.73 2.81 2.78 1.28 29.8 0.23
29. Work stress 2.35 2.72 2.57 1.13 36.6 6.44**
30. AIDS and similar epidemics 2.91 3.19 3.08 1.21 49.0 3.08
31. Passive smoking 2.47 2.73 2.62 1.26 24.8 2.33
32. Terrorists attacks on urban populations 2.87 2.48 2.87 1.28 32.1 0.00
33. Plane crash 1.88 2.30 2.13 1.23 16.5 6.71**
34. DNA testing 1.58 1.77 1.66 0.98 6.2 1.20
35. Drugs 2.52 2.65 2.60 1.24 23.5 0.63
36. Medical side effects 2.28 2.42 2.36 1.06 14.8 1.10
37. Gene therapy 1.90 2.27 2.12 1.01 11.1 6.93**
38. Human cloning 2.72 3.38 3.11 1.43 42.8 12.99**
39. Euthanasia 1.89 2.24 2.10 1.12 12.7 5.62**
40. Overpopulation 2.51 2.58 2.55 1.17 19.6 0.20
***p , 001; **p , 01; *p , 05:

a. Percentage of people indicating either highly or extremely concerned.
b. Rank order of this data.
c. Rank order of the concerns from Petrie et al. (2001).
d. Results of the ANOVAs on sex differences.
1 ¼ No concern 5 ¼ Extremely concerned.
Table 4. Factor analytic results of the extended MHW scale
Factor
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
15 Antibiotics in food .86

16 Hormones in food .84
14 Pesticides in food .81
13 Additives in food .72
12 Genetically modified food .59
10 Pesticide spray .54
22 Toxic chemicals .48
5 Air pollution .82
8 Traffic fumes .81
9 Other environmental pollution .79
7 Depletion of the ozone layer .75
4 Nuclear radiation .57
6 Noise pollution .46
24 Bacteria in air conditioning .44
32 Terrorist attacks .85
28 Bio-terrorism .81
33 Plane crash .67
17 Mad Cow Disease .66
30 Aids .55
18 Contamination of water supply .50
27 X-rays .66
26 Amalgam dental fillings .65
23 Leakage from microwaves .57
11 Poor building ventilation .52
37 Gene therapy .78
38 Human cloning .78
39 Euthanasia .61
1 Cell phones .78
2 Radio/cell phone towers .78
3 High tension power lines .61
21 Overuse of antibiotics .59
29 Work stress .59
25 Drug resistant bacteria .52
34 DNA testing .40
19 Fluoridation of water .68
20 Vaccination programmes .66
Eigenvalue 13.24 2.98 2.08 1.90 1.57 1.42 1.33 1.10
Variance (%) 33.10 7.31 5.19 4.75 3.93 3.56 3.32 2.75
The original short version was also treated to a factor analysis which yielded six
interpretable factors very similar to those in Table 4. The only major difference lay
in the order of the factors. Thus, the first factor resulting from the analysis of the
long version was identical to the second from the analysis of the short version,
240 Adrian Furnham
while the second from the long was identical to the first from the short. Further,
when Table 4 is compared with Table 1 (Petrie et al., 2001, p. 398), apparently very
similar factors were energising, i.e. trained food, radiation, environmental
pollution. All analyses were repeated on long and short MHWs scale. In all
instances the results were similar in that they were both either statistically non-
significant or significant.
Items loading on these seven factors were then arithmetically combined to form
a total score making eight factor scores in all. Both the total score and the eight
factor scores were correlated with the Big Five personality sraits (total, seven
factors and five traits). Of the 35 correlations only five were significant.
Neuroticism was correlated with only two factor scores (i.e. 3: disasters and
epidemics (r ¼ :17) and 6: radiation (r ¼ :18)). Openness was correlated with
Factor 1 (food contamination; r ¼ :15) and Factor 3 (disasters and epidemics;
r ¼ :25) and agreeableness was correlated with Factor 2 (Pollution; r ¼ :16). The
correlation with the total MHWs scale and each of the five factors was not
significant. Thus there is limited support for H3.
The total score and seven factors were then correlated with all of the salient
demographic variables (sex, age, education, medical condition). There were only
two that showed a consistent pattern. Females had higher MHWs scores than
males (total score r ¼ :23, p , :05). Similarly, older people had fewer total MHWs
scores (r ¼ 2:22, p , :05). There were fewer other significant correlations than
one may expect by chance.
Discussion
Results of this study confirmed and extended previous research in this growing area. It
essentially examined the Big Five relationship between four sets of variables. Various
analyses (correlations, regressions) using the personality traits failed to indicate any of
them being statistically related to either MHWs and CAM usage or beliefs about
medicine. Previous studies have suggested that neuroticism (negative affectivity) should
be related to MHWs as well as CAM usage but this study failed to reflect this. It may be
that personality factors play a much less significant role than other more powerful
demographic beliefs and experiential factors than previously thought. Thus, medical
history, socio- and economic values, and experience of both orthodox and CAM
practitioners, may be primary determinants of MHWs rather than personality traits.
There may also have been a restriction in range on the neuroticism score as
dissimulation studies have indicated participants tending to ‘fake good’ (i.e. stable).
The expanded MHWs scale proved interesting and useful. Results were similar to
studies using the original 25 item scale in three ways: first, the rank order of issues were
very similar; second, similar factors arose (issues around pollution, food and radiation),
and thirdly, evidence of considerable and systematic sex differences (females indicting
greater MHWs than males). Further results from analysis of both the (original) short and
(extended) long version were very similar. So far, studies have reported data from
western industrial countries (UK, Netherlands, New Zealand) and it would be
particularly interesting to examine these beliefs in those from non-western and
developing countries where health issues are very different. Similarly, it would be
particularly interesting to trace changes in MHWs over time as media interest and
reporting changed from time to time. Indeed, it seems Westernisation and
industrialisation leads to an increase in MHWs. Hence, the paradox of where food
and pollution safety standards are highest, there is most concern with these issues while
in third world countries with real problems in this area there are far fewer MHWs
possibly related to issues like media coverage.
The fact that females have greater MHWs than males ‘fits’ with all the other medical
data on sex differences in health beliefs, consultations with general practitioners and
indeed use of CAM (Helgeson, 2003). Females seemed most concerned with pollution
issues and with food hygiene.
This study did show, as predicted, that MHWs were related to CAM usage, beliefs about
CAM, as well as beliefs about modern western medicine. Those with greater MHWs were
more likely to use CAM, and more likely to stress psychological (rather than purely
physical) factors in the maintenance of health (and prevention of illness). Further, MHWs
were statistically associated beliefs about the harmful effects of modern medicine.
Correlational data cannot be used to explain causation but various hypotheses are
possible. People with many and varied MHWs may be more interested in, and varied users
of, health and health products. That is, concerns with ill-health drive them to be
consumers or shoppers of health products, both conventional and complementary
(Vincent & Furnham, 1997). Further, CAM products and practitioners may accentuate and
emphasise issues that increase their MHWs. Hence there is a belief and behavioural cycle
that increases both MHWs and CAM use. Alternatively the ‘causal chain’ could equally go
the other way in the sense that exposure to CAM theories and therapies alerts people to
the possibilities of additional MHWs. More likely is the fact that the ‘causation’ is reciprocal
in the sense that there are feedback loops. That is, those with considerable MHWs read
materials and interact with therapists who increase or exacerbate those worries.
There are many CAM therapies available from those that are pharmacologically based
on those which are essentially psychotherapy. Some involve touch and manipulation
while others stress healing. Furnham (2000) found 39 different therapies factored into
distinct groups such as the art therapies or the well-established and well known
therapies (acupuncture, chiropractic, osteopathy, homeopathy, herbalism). One
question arising from this study is whether those with high MHWs selectively prefer a
particular group of CAM therapies that appear to deal with issues arising from the very
specific worries. That is, if one were to categorise both MHWs (as shown in Table 4) and
CAM therapies (as done by Furnham (2000) there may be a much closer relationship
between the two.
This study did show logical associations between various health beliefs as shown in
previous studies (Vincent & Furnham, 1997; Vincent et al., 1995). Thus those who
believed in ‘scientific’ modern (evidence-based) medicine were much more sceptical
about CAM which they thought less effective (except by placebo) and less worthy of
being included in teaching and medical provision. Presumably, once CAM has been
‘scientifically proven’ it becomes part of scientific medicine and not CAM. This could
mean that complementary and alternative are simply used as synonyms for either not
(yet) proven (scientifically evaluated) or proven to be ineffective. That is, both absence
of evidence and evidence of absence.
Studies in this area should pay careful attention to both sampling and statistical
issues. It is important to obtain large representative samples so that the full range of
MHW can be expressed. It seems likely that these are systematically related to such
things as education and class which require further examination. Second, carrying out
many correlational analysis as done in this study makes one vulnerable to committing
type 1 errors. Ideally, structural equation modelling will replace regressions and the
problems reduced.
242 Adrian Furnham
This study underlies the importance of examining MHWs. These beliefs are not
linked systematically either to personality or brief medical history. In this study these
MHWs were not related to visits to a GP; chronic illness; consultations for psychological
problems; religious or political beliefs; job level and satisfaction, income or education.
The question thus remains as to what sociological and psychological factors cause and
change MHW as well as their effect on mental and physical health beliefs and
behaviours. As well as psychological questions on individual difference correlates of
MHWs, there are interesting sociological questions worth pursuing which look at the
change of MHWs in a society and, in particular, social groups.
References
Braman, A., & Gomez, R. (2004). Patient personality predicts preference for relationships with
doctors. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 815–820.
Brickman, A., Yount, S., Blaney, N., Rothberg, S., & De Nour, A. (1996). Personality traits and long-
term health status. Psychosomatics, 37, 459–468.
Contrada, R., Leventhal, H., & O’Leary, A. (1990). Personality and health. In L. Pervin (Ed.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research ( pp. 638–668). New York: Guilford Press.
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Feldman, P., Cohen, S., Doyle, W., Skoner, D., & Waltney, J. (1999). The impact of personality on
the reporting of unfounded symptoms and illness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 370–378.
Friedman, H., Tucker, J., Schwartz, J., Martin, L., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Wingard, D., & Criqui, M.
(1995). Childhood conscientiousness and longevity: Health behaviours and the cause of death.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 696–703.
Furnham, A. (2000). How the public classify complementary medicine: A factor analytic study.
Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 8, 82–87.
Furnham, A. (2002). Complementary and alternative medicine. Psychologist, 15, 228–231.
Furnham, A. (2003). The psychology of complementary and alternative medicine. Evidence-Based
Integrative Medicine, 1, 57–64.
Furnham, A., & Vincent, C. (2000). Reasons for using CAM. In M. Kelner, B. Wellman,
B. Pescosolido, & M. Saks (Eds.), Complementary and alternative medicine: Challenge and
change ( pp. 61–778). Amsterdam: Harwood.
Furnham, A., Vincent, C., & Wood, R. (1995). The health beliefs and behaviours of three groups of
complementary medicine and a general practice group of patients. Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine, 1, 347–359.
Helder, D., van der Heijden, M., Rief, W., Moss-Morris, R., Petrie, K., & Kaptein, A. (2005). Modern
health worries in medical students. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 58, 453–457.
Helgeson, V. (2003). Gender-related traits and health. In J. Suls & K. Wallston (Eds.), Social
psychological foundations of health and illness. Oxford: Blackwell.
Marshall, G., Wortman, C., Vickers, R., Kusulas, J., & Hervig, L. (1994). The Five-Factor Model of
personality as a framework for personality-health research. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 278–286.
Petrie, K., Broadbent, E., Kley, N., Moss-Morris, R., Horne, R., & Rief, W. (2005). Worries about
modernity predict complaints after environment pesticide spraying. Psychosomatic Medicine,
67, 778–782.
Petrie, K., Sivertsen, B., Hysing, M., Broqadbent, E., Moss-Morris, R., Eriksen, H., & Ursin, H.
(2001). Thoroughly modern worries: The relationship of worries about modernity to reported
symptoms, health and medical care utilisation. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 51,
395–401.
Petrie, K., & Wessely, S. (2002). Modern worries, new technology and medicine. British Medical
Journal, 324, 690–691.
Saher, M., & Lindeman, M. (2005). Alternative medicine: A psychologist perspective. Personality
and Individual Differences, 39, 1169–1178.
Sirous, F., & Gick, M. (2002). An investigation of the health beliefs and motivations of
complementary medicine clients. Social Science and Medicine, 55, 1025–1037.
Sugimoto, A., & Furnham, A. (1999). The health beliefs, experiences and personality of Japanese
patients seeking orthodox vs complementary medicine. Complementary Therapies in
Medicine, 7, 175–182.
Vincent, C., & Furnham, A. (1997a). Complementary medicine: A research perspective.
Chichester: Wiley.
Vincent, C., & Furnham, A. (1997b). The perceived efficacy of complementary and orthodox
medicine: A replication. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 5, 85–89.
Vincent, C., Furnham, A., & Willsmore, M. (1995). The perceived efficacy of complementary and
orthodox medicine in complementary and general practice patients. Health Education
Research, 10, 395–405.
Yousfi, S., Matthews, G., Amelang, A., & Schmidt-Rathens, C. (2004). Personality and disease:
Correlations and multiple strait scores with various illnesses. Journal of Health Psychology, 9,
627–647.
Wasylkio, L., & Fekken, G. (2002). Personality and self-reported health. Personality and
Individual Differences, 33, 607–620.
Received 12 August 2005; revised version received 18 January 2006

2007 Are Modern Health Worries, Personality and PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2007 Are Modern Health Worries, Personality and PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Copyright © The British Psychological Society

Are modern health worries, personality and

Objective. To investigate whether personality traits, modern health worries

There is an extensive and rapidly growing literature on patient choice of medical

230 Adrian Furnham

modern health worries, personality traits (specifically neuroticism) and attitudes to

Modern health worries (MHWs)

Personality and health

232 Adrian Furnham

(1) Demographic correlates

234 Adrian Furnham

Table 1. Attitudes to CAM

1. Which best describes you? %

2. Do you believe this treatment really 27.7 72.3 .79

236 Adrian Furnham

1. Patients are sometimes operated on 3.17 1.08 .42

þ Scale: 1 ¼ Strongly disagree 5 ¼ Strongly agree.

significant. The correlation between total MHWs score of ‘importance of

238 Adrian Furnham

1. Cell phones 1.91 2.20 2.08 0.79 4.1 20 25 8.36**

***p , 001; **p , 01; *p , 05:

Table 4. Factor analytic results of the extended MHW scale

15 Antibiotics in food .86

240 Adrian Furnham

242 Adrian Furnham

Received 12 August 2005; revised version received 18 January 2006

S-ar putea să vă placă și

p , 001; p , 01; p , 05: