Authoritarian attitudes and the perceived scientific legitimacy of anthroposophic medicine

These days, it is not often that I function as a co-author of a scientific paper. One rare exception has just been published:

This survey investigated prevalence, usage, and perceived scientific legitimacy of anthroposophic medicine (AM), a prominent form of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). It further explored associations with socioeconomic and psychological factors, with particular attention to authoritarian orientation, as measured by the KSA-3 scale and low ambiguity tolerance.

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among the Austrian population assessing sociodemographic characteristics, healthcare utilization, attitudes toward conventional medicine, AM, and SCAM, as well as selected psychological variableA total of 429 individuals completed the survey. To enhance representativeness, the sample was post-stratified according to recent election results. Regression models and appropriate statistical tests, selected based on data distribution and scale level, were used to evaluate associations between sociodemographic factors, psychological characteristics, and the use of and attitudes toward AM and SCAM.

Individuals over 50 showed higher SCAM preference (p = 0.044), and were more likely to have used AM at least once (p = 0.083). Similarly, women showed higher SCAM preferences (p = 0.004) and a higher likelihood of AM use (p < 0.001). Participants who viewed AM as scientific tended to be older (p < 0.001), have a higher income (p < 0.001), and resided more often in rural areas (p = 0.012). Psychologically, lower ambiguity tolerance and stronger perceived health control correlated with a stronger belief in AM’s scientific legitimacy (p < 0.05). Higher authoritarian orientation was also significantly associated with an increased belief in AM as scientific and a preference for eminence-based approaches (p < 0.001).

We concluded that, in our sample, we demonstrate how differences in specific socioeconomic and psychological factors correspond to differences in attitudes toward SCAM and AM. These findings represent a promising foundation for more interdisciplinary research aimed at uncovering the underlying drivers of AM and SCAM utilization.

Several of the reported findings confirm previous research in this area. What might be new is that, our evaluation demonstrates that individuals with heightened authoritarian tendencies are more inclined to invest in SCAM treatments. In fact, our results show a statistically significant association between authoritarian orientation and the conviction that AM is scientifically valid. An observation that becomes even more fascinating when contrasting it with the finding that there is no statistically significant correlation between authoritarian orientation and whether a participant has tried AM before – only a slight tendency. This dissociation between the robust link to epistemic judgment and the absent link to behavior merits closer attention. It suggests that authoritarian dispositions operate primarily at the level of knowledge evaluation rather than treatment choice: individuals with higher authoritarian orientation are not more likely to have used AM, but they are significantly more likely to regard it as scientifically valid. This pattern is consistent with theoretical accounts of authoritarianism as a disposition toward deference to perceived legitimate authority. Within this framework, “scientific validity” may function less as an empirical assessment and more as a marker of epistemic trust: a judgment shaped by the perceived authority of the source rather than by engagement with the underlying evidence. The finding thus opens a productive line of inquiry into how the category of “scientific validity” itself operates as a site of authority attribution, and how psychological dispositions mediate the reception of epistemic claims in healthcare contexts.