The Pervasiveness and Policy Consequences of Medical Folk Wisdom in the U.S.

• In Event: Public Opinion and Health Politics: Policy Feedback and Misinformation

Abstract

Medical folk wisdom (MFW) refers to widely held, but factually inaccurate, beliefs about disease, immunity, pregnancy, and other medically-relevant topics. Examples include the idea that fasting when feverish ("starving a fever") can increase the pace of recovery, or that showering after sex can prevent pregnancy. The pervasiveness of MFW, and whether or not it – like other forms of medically-relevant misinformation – shapes Americans’ health behaviors and policy preferences is an important and under-studied question. In this letter, we first propose and validate a novel measure of MFW; including a short-form scale suitable for administration in public opinion surveys. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we find that nearly all Americans – irrespective of socio-economic status, political orientation, and educational background – endorse at least some aspects of MFW. We then test two theories about the relationship between MFW, health behavior, and health policy. Consistent with the idea that folk wisdom challenges scientific expertise, we find that those highest in MFW tend to place less value on medical expertise and expert-backed health policies. However, and consistent with theorizing MFW as a “benign folk theory,” those highest in MFW are no more or less likely than the rest of the population to participate in healthy behaviors or support redistributive health policies. We conclude by characterizing folk theories as a policy-relevant form of medical misinformation; one which cannot be characterized neatly as ignorance, conspiratorial thinking, or susceptibility to misinformation campaigns.

Authors

• Matthew P. Motta, Oklahoma State University

• Timothy Herbert Callaghan, Texas A&M University