The to acknowledge which styles they fit into.

The second part was ( CRT) the cognitive reflection
test. This test required thinking and problem solving some simple maths.

The third test was base rate problems test with CAM beliefs. Along with Verbal intelligence where words hard to be paired with the alternative
meaning. The self-reported thinking styles which encouraged participants to
acknowledge which styles they fit into. Lastly the (OTE) openness to experience
test of 5 personality test and from a scale to 5 which one was closer to their

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now








Standardized coefficients Beta



Zero- order






























































































multiple linear regression test combined Age, Education, REIexp, REIrat, OtE,
CRTi and Base_i as predictors of the depending variable which was CAM total. A
significant model appeared as (f (1.205)=.305b; p<0.001; R2= 1.23) which is explaining 1.2% of adjustment in the regression. From the statistical data REIexp (Beta=.337; p=.008), only the(REIexp) knowledge was significant to the test whilst the others were over .1 and non-significant   Discussion Summarise the findings Our findings were as stated in the hypothesis having conducted the study on CAM beliefs and openness to experience we aimed to understand if individuals personality traits are related to their beliefs of complementary and alternative medicine and its effects. That these tests are improper when trying to find thinking styles and gives us data we are not looking for. From our results we found that only the REIexp test was significant whilst the others held no significance and did not give us what we were looking for.   Do the findings support the predictions you made? Our findings support our predictions as this test will eventually show its inaccuracy. In relation to a past study conducted by heard (Astin, 1998; Furnham & Smith, 1988; McGregor & Peay, 1996) who also found a fragile backing to their claim that CAM is influenced by peoples beliefs.   Our findings support previous literature as it being unsolved and predicted and not a strong argument. (Epstein et al., 1996).   Our findings compare and show strong similarities with previous studies carried out. As we also had no new information or change in our data regarding the relationships of openness to experience personality traits connecting to CAM beliefs or its effectiveness we had less support and no strong data to show it. Our results gave us a solid answer that openness to experience and CAM share no relation at all and are biased in considering using CAM whilst having mixed feelings as it is slightly supported with studies.   Most tests conducted in the past have included the REI (Pacini & Epsten, 1999).However the self report test does not fully tests people thinking styles and causes cognitive confusions which influences people to guess the answer instead.(Newstead, Handley, Harley, Wright & Farrelly, 2004).   In future practice if this study was to be conducted again it would be highly convincing if the cognitive reflection test (Toplak, West & Stanovich, 2011). Was carried out examining the performance of peoples instinctive thinking as it will give us more significant results. Their were many flaws to this test as most people gave indirect answers in short words you can say guessed what they thought may describe their personality traits. This could be avoided in the future by including the performance inutitaive test. Also another improvement can be the size of the test which included over 10 questions for each test. In these cases many participants may have lost interest in taking part or felt bored and predicted many answers to finish the test quickly. To prevent this is further practice researchers can limit the number of questions they would like to ask the public by making the test qualitative rather than quantitative and it being unsuccessful. For the ethical considerations problems arose as some participants did not feel comfortable giving their name and educational background as they felt too exposed and the materials presented to them as they preferred it better to complete online. In future practice we can aim to protect individuals privacy and not ask personal data which is likely it does not to be shared.   Astin, A. W. (1970a). The methodology of research on college impact (Part I). Sociology of Education, 43, 223-254   Adams J, Sibbritt DW, Easthope G, Young AF. The profile of women who consult alternative health practitioners in Australia. Med J Aust. 2003 Sep 15;179(6):297-300.   Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica, 44(3), 211-233.   Blackie, M.A.L., Case, J.M. & Jawitz, J (2010). Student-centredness: the link between transforming students and transforming ourselves, Teaching in Higher Education, 15 (6), 637-646   BACKSCHEIDER, ANDREA G.; SHATZ, MARILYN; and GELMAN, SUSAN A. Preschoolers' Ab. Distinguish Living Kinds as a Function of Regrowth. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1993, 64, 1242.   Chen, Y., Pane, A., Schpbach, T. (2007). Cutoff and aubergine mutations result in retrotransposon upregulation and checkpoint activation in Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 17(7): 637--642.     Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(2), 390-405.   Evans, J. S. B., Barston, J. L., & Pollard, P. (1983). On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & cognition, 11(3), 295-306.   Furnham, A. (2007). Are modern health worries, personality and attitudes to science associated with the use of complementary and alternative medicine?. British journal of health psychology, 12(2), 229-243.     Kelemen, D., & Rosset, E. (2009). The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition, 111(1), 138-143. Lindeman, M. (2011). Biases in intuitive reasoning and belief in complementary and alternative medicine. Psychology and Health, 26(3), 371-382.     Newstead, S. E., Handley, S. J., Harley, C., Wright, H., & Farelly, D. (2004). Individual Differences in Deductive Reasoning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A Human Experimental Psychology, 57, 33-60.


I'm Johnny!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out