Individual differences in personality predict the use and perceived effectiveness of essential oils

Lindsay S Ackerman; William J Chopik

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229779

. 2020 Mar 12;15(3):e0229779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229779

Individual differences in personality predict the use and perceived effectiveness of essential oils

Lindsay S Ackerman ¹, William J Chopik ^1,^*

Editor: Rosemary Frey²

PMCID: PMC7067385 PMID: 32163451

Abstract

Essential oil (EO) use is growing in popularity and ostensibly used for treating or preventing various ailments or conditions. Despite the increase in use, there is a paucity of research on psychosocial predictors of EO use and their perceived effectiveness. However, several psychosocial characteristics are associated with health-promoting behavior and a tendency to believe in homeopathic cures. In the current study, we examined a variety of individual differences in the use and perceived effectiveness of essential oils in a sample of 1,202 participants (M_age = 31.33, SD = 13.77; 61.7% women, 75.6% Caucasian). We found that receptivity to pseudo-profound fabricated statements and religiosity were the most consistent predictors of greater use of, perceived effectiveness of, and a willingness to spend more money on EOs.

Introduction

Essential oils (EOs) are “any of a class of volatile oils that give plants their characteristic odors and are used especially in perfumes and flavorings, and for aromatherapy” [1]. EOs are commonly used topically, internally, or by diffusion to prevent or treat illness or ailments, as substitutes for chemical-based cleaning products and candles, and for mood alteration or enhancement. EOs are used by many people; indeed, by some estimates, it was a $7.16 billion industry in 2017 [2] and is expected to increase to over $11 billion by 2022 [3]. However, there have been no studies to date examining the psychological predictors (i.e., personality) of EO use and effectiveness. In the current study, we examined individual differences in Big Five personality traits, bullshit receptivity (BSR), and need for cognition (NFC) as predictors of EO use and perceived effectiveness.

Advocates of EOs will point to the ostensible benefits they provide through their antioxidant, antibacterial, antifungal, antimicrobial, and antiplaque/antigingivitic properties, as well as their performance as an effective insect repellant [4–10]. In our review of the literature on EOs, many of these studies compare the effectiveness of EOs to existing treatments, placebos, no treatment, or in combination with existing treatments on varying outcome variables [e.g., hormone levels, brain activation, subjective evaluations of stress, chemical reactions with other substances; 11–21]. The purported benefits of EOs range from treating pain [in combination with conventional treatments; 22], to memory and mood enhancement [e.g., promoting calmness, alertness, contentment; 23, 24], to insomnia relief [25, 26]. Although the vast majority of research purports the benefits of EOs, there is some research to suggest that certain oils decrease working memory performance and reaction time [27]. In the general public, and among food and drug regulators, there is often a sense of skepticism regarding the effectiveness of EOs. There are also few comprehensive reviews published providing evidence for the overall effectiveness for EOs. Particularly absent from the EO literature is a delineation of the exact biological mechanisms through which EOs provide benefits for people.

A separate but related question as to whether EOs provide marked health benefits is whether people perceive benefits of EO use. Indeed, there is a large literature on placebo effects, such that the belief that a medication provides benefits is associated with an increased odds of that medication actually working as intended [28, 29]. There are many other scenarios in which individuals’ beliefs translate to better outcomes for them. Relatedly, many people benefit from broader belief systems more generally, such as those found in many organized religions. For example, people who consider themselves religious or spiritual—characteristics that do not always overlap [30, 31]—experience a number of health and well-being benefits compared to those who are not religious or spiritual, including increased longevity [32, 33]. There are many reasons for these benefits, including a connection to a broader community or power that may reduce stress and loneliness and the fact that they are more physically active—all factors which likely contribute to a healthier lifestyle [33–35]. In other words, religious and spiritual individuals engage in healthier behaviors and social activities as a result of the participation in their faith or connection to a higher power, even in the absence of proof of divine intervention on their health. Preventative or reparative health behaviors, such as using EOs, may be included in this broader umbrella—they may provide health benefits through some other byproduct of health monitoring. Thus, it is likely that the use of EOs might reflect a belief that they work and that they have preventative or restorative health properties.

Further, it is likely that some individuals are more likely to purchase and try EOs, which is not often the subject of EO research that relies on small placebo controlled and randomization studies to demonstrate their effectiveness. But what might predict the purchase, use, and perceived effectiveness of EOs? An individual’s dispositional tendencies to act in certain ways (i.e., their personality) predict a number of outcomes related to health and financial decision making [36, 37]. Examining personality as a predictor of EO use seems like a logical next step.

One dominant model of personality is the Big Five personality framework [38]. These five broad, global traits—often referred to as the Big Five—are extraversion (traits like outgoing and lively), agreeableness (traits like helpful and sympathetic), neuroticism (traits like moody and worrying), conscientiousness (traits like hardworking and responsible), and openness to experience (traits like imaginative and curious). Personality is related to health and health-promoting behavior, of which EO use may be just one type of behavior. Research has found that conscientiousness predicts greater longevity [39], is negatively related to risky health behaviors, is positively related to behaviors that promote health [36, 40], and is associated with changes in health behavior across the lifespan [41]. High neuroticism has been found to predict attrition in exercise programs [42]. Personality has also been found to be related to pain relief from administration of a placebo treatment [43]. For instance, Peciña and colleagues [44] found that among the most predictive traits for placebo analgesia were agreeableness (positively) and neuroticism (negatively). Regarding the benefits of EO use, it could be possible that personality traits often associated with demonstrated placebo effects might also be associated with perceiving more benefits of EOs.

There are also several personal characteristics beyond the Big Five personality traits that might predict use and perceived effectiveness of EOs. For example, NFC (i.e., an inclination toward effortful cognitive activities) and BSR (i.e., endorsing information as profound/meaningful despite its vacuous nature) are two constructs that might also predict EO use and perceived effectiveness. Both characteristics involve the (lack of) critical engagement in cognitive activities of skepticism. BSR, for instance, is related to the endorsement of conspiracy theories and paranormal belief, and is negatively related to measures of intelligence and cognitive reasoning [45]. Most pertinent to the current study is that people high in BSR are more likely to believe in the efficacy of common types of alternative medicines (e.g., homeopathy, energy healing). Some aspects of NFC are associated with more imaginative thinking as well, but sometimes in different directions. For example, many of the characteristics of NFC fall on the opposite end of a continuum than the endorsement of paranormal beliefs, magical ideation, and fantasies when researchers map out the psychometric coverage of the trait [46]. However, there is also some research to suggest individuals high on NFC might be more likely to believe in things like witchcraft and extraterrestrial life [47] or that NFC may be unrelated to paranormal beliefs entirely [48]. These traits (low NFC; high BSR) might also be associated with an endorsement of the benefits of medicinal products not endorsed by federal regulators or other reputable agencies (i.e., EOs).

In the current study, we took an exploratory approach and predicted EO use/effectiveness from the Big Five personality traits, NFC, and BSR. These variables were chosen based on their previous associations with health behavior [36]. NFC and BSR were chosen because we thought that individuals high on each trait might more or less likely to critically examine the potential benefits of medicinal products that are (often) not FDA approved. We tentatively hypothesized that agreeableness and BSR would be associated with greater use and perceived effectiveness of EOs. Based on the high health literacy of individuals high in conscientiousness and NFC [49–51], one could reasonably hypothesize that individuals high in both traits might be less likely to use EOs, but this hypothesis was not made a priori, and the analysis is therefore exploratory.

Materials and method

Participants

Participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk; n = 790) and an undergraduate subject pool (n = 412). The samples were combined to maximize statistical power. We excluded an additional 210 participants because they indicated they didn’t read the materials carefully. The final sample consisted of 1,202 participants (M_age = 31.33, SD = 13.77; 61.7% were women), including undergraduate students from Michigan State University and respondents to the study survey made accessible through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Regarding race/ethnicity, 75.6% of the sample identified as white, 9.3% identified as black, 3.7% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 11.3% identified as mixed race/other. MTurk participants were compensated $.50 for their participation in the survey. Undergraduate participants were compensated with course credit. No a priori decisions about sample size were made; we sought to collect as many participants as we could given our resources. Our sample size of 1,202 enabled us to find effects as small as f² = .008 (with 80% power and α = .05) or f² = .01 (with 95% power and α = .05).

The Michigan State Institutional Review Board approved this human subjects research (IRB# 16-1291e). Participants consented electronically and data were analyzed in an anonymous way. Data, materials, and syntax are available at https://osf.io/r9c62/.

Measures

Personality

Personality was measured using the Big Five Inventory-2 [BFI-2; 52]. The questionnaire contains 60 items that ask individuals to rate the extent to which each statement accurately describes them (i.e., “I am someone who …”) on a scale ranging from 1(disagree strongly) to 5(agree strongly). The BFI-2 measures the personality domains of extraversion (12 items; sample item: “Is outgoing, sociable;” α = .83), agreeableness (12 items; sample item: “Is helpful and unselfish with others;” α = .84), conscientiousness (12 items; sample item: “Is efficient, gets things done;” α = .88), neuroticism (12 items; sample item: “Is moody, has up and down mood swings;” α = .89), and open-mindedness (i.e., openness to experience; 12 items; sample item: “Is curious about many different things;” α = .87). Responses were averaged to create composites for each dimension.

Bullshit receptivity

BSR, as measured by reception of pseudo-profound fabricated statements, was assessed using the 30-item Bullshit Receptivity Scale [45]. Participants were given a series of statements that retained grammatical syntax of a sentence but were devoid of any true meaning and rated them on a five-point scale ranging from 1(not at all profound) to 5(very profound). Examples of these nonsensical statements include, “Imagination is inside exponential space time events”, and “As you self-actualize, you will enter into infinite empathy that transcends understanding.” Responses were averaged to create an overall scale of BSR (α = .97).

Need for cognition

NFC, or an individual’s tendency to prefer effortful cognitive activities, was assessed using a 6-item Need for Cognition scale [NCS-6; 53, 54]. Participants rated the items such as “I only think as hard as I have to” and “The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me” on a 5-point scale ranging from 1(not at all like me) to 5(very much like me). Responses were averaged to create an overall scale of NFC (α = .80).

Essential oils use and effectiveness questionnaire

EO use and perception of effectiveness were measured using a questionnaire developed specifically for this study. This questionnaire first asked questions about EO use (e.g., “do you currently use essential oils?”) and method of application (topical, internal, diffusion), and then solicited reasons for using EOs. Reasons for currently using EOs included: (1) to provide relief for physical ailments/conditions, (2) to alter mental/emotional state, (3) to avoid physical/mental illness, (4) to improve mood, (5) to help sleep, (6) to enhance spiritual life, (7) to improve relationships with family or friends, (8) as a dietary supplement, or (9) to clean/disinfect. These questions were only asked among people who were currently using essential oils and participants could nominate multiple reasons for using EOs (e.g., for relieving physical ailments/conditions and enhancing their spiritual life).

If participants responded positively to using EOs for each of these purposes, they were then asked if they experienced the benefits they were seeking on a five-point scale ranging from 1(always) to 5(never). In other words, if someone noted that they used EOs to enhance their spiritual life, they were then asked if they experienced the spiritual effects they were seeking. Responses to the perceived effectiveness of each reason was reverse scored so that higher values reflected more effectiveness and analyzed separately.

Finally, participants were asked about brands of EOs they used, how much money they’d be willing to spend on EOs per month (on an 8-point scale ranging from 1[less than $10] to 8[more than $200]), and overall perceived effectiveness (i.e., “Overall, do you think essential oils are effective?”) ranging on a scale from 1(always) to 5(never), which was recoded so that higher values indicated more effectiveness.

Control variables

Age, gender, household income (1[less than $5,000] to 9[$100,000 or greater]), religiosity (1[not at all religious] to 7[extremely religious]), and political orientation (1[very liberal] to 7[very conservative]) were all entered as control variables in logistic and linear regression analyses.

Results

Overall, 66% of the sample currently used EOs. The most common brand of EOs used were NOW Essential Oils (27.5%), Edens Garden (22.6%), and doTerra (20.3%). Participants were willing to spend on average between $10 and $49 per month on essential oils (M = 2.14, SD = 1.22 on the 8-point scale). Among EO users, the overall effectiveness was slightly above the midpoint on a 5-point scale (M = 3.12, SD = 1.07; t = 3.25, p < .001 compared to the midpoint), suggesting that users generally thought EOs were effective.

In the current sample, 25% (n = 296) of people had previously tried EOs and stopped using them. The most common reasons for discontinuing use was that they were too expensive (38.9%) and that they did not experience the claimed benefits of EOs (32.2%). We restricted our analyses below to individuals currently using EOs and those who have never used EOs because we thought it was a more interesting comparison to examine people who have either had positive (currently using) or no experiences with EOs, rather than individuals who likely have a negative impression of EOs. In predicting who these former EO users are (with respect to personality and demographic characteristics), former EOs users were less conscientious (Exp(b) = .77, p = .05), more open to experience (Exp(b) = 1.37, p = .03), less receptive to bullshit (Exp(b) = .67, p < .001), and more likely to be men (Exp(b) = .70, p < .001). Some individuals reported stopping use because they did not experience any benefits; none of the personality and demographic characteristics significantly predicting halting use because of not receiving benefits (ps > .07).

Logistic (for use: 0 = not use; 1 = use) or linear regressions were used to predict each outcome from the Big Five personality traits, BSR, and NFC while controlling for age, gender, income, religiosity, and political orientation. Full regression tables can be found in S1 through S25 Tables. The results are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Personality predicting essential oil use.

	Extraversion	Agreeableness	Conscientiousness	Neuroticism	Openness	Bullshit Receptivity	Need for Cognition
Currently Use (Exp(b))	1.24	.90	1.35	1.08	.68	1.70	1.00
Topical Use (Now) (Exp(b))	1.54	.72	1.11	1.30	1.00	1.24	.95
Internal Use (Now) (Exp(b))	1.18	.68	.66	1.17	.43	1.64	1.59
Diffusion Use (Now) (Exp(b))	1.46	1.36	1.10	1.46	1.35	.88	1.08
Why did you use?
Physical Ailment (Exp(b))	1.08	.94	.91	1.12	.97	1.35	.94
Effectiveness (β)	.04	.08	-.06	.02	-.17	.21	.02
Mental State (Exp(b))	1.33	1.09	.76	1.42	1.05	1.37	.89
Effectiveness (β)	.07	-.03	-.04	-.06	-.05	.18	.03
Avoid Phys/Men Probs Exp(b))	1.33	.65	.62	.87	.54	1.96	1.15
Effectiveness (β)	.03	-.01	.06	-.04	-.15	.19	.11
Improve Mood (Exp(b))	1.07	1.00	.80	1.21	1.13	1.61	.91
Effectiveness (β)	.04	-.03	.10	-.18	-.06	.18	.02
Improve Sleep (Exp(b))	1.32	1.26	.64	1.08	.70	1.47	1.16
Effectiveness (β)	.14	.02	-.03	-.003	.01	.13	-.08
Improve Social Relations (Exp(b))	.96	.45	.40	.52	.41	5.10	1.19
Effectiveness (β)	.08	-.26	-.04	-.01	.14	.05	-.05
Dietary (Exp(b))	1.08	.48	.47	.63	.36	2.94	1.64
Effectiveness (β)	-.07	-.12	.02	.16	.03	.30	.02
Clean/Disinfect (Exp(b))	.86	.72	.77	.94	.77	1.74	1.32
Effectiveness (β)	-.03	.05	.02	-.01	.02	.12	.11
Spirituality (Exp(b))	.87	.48	.53	.60	.93	2.88	.84
Effectiveness (β)	-.19	-.14	.05	-.08	.07	.14	.17
Main Outcomes
Willingness to Spend Money (β)	.02	-.08	-.04	-.03	-.09	.26	-.02
Overall Effectiveness (β)	.05	.04	-.01	.03	-.03	.28	-.03

Open in a new tab

Bolded coefficients are significant at p < .05.

The largest and most consistent predictor of essential oil use and perceived effectiveness was BSR–it positively predicted all applications of use except for by diffusion, every reason for use, and nearly every perceived effectiveness of the various uses, as well as willingness to spend money and perceived overall effectiveness. In contrast to our predictions, the more agreeable someone was, the less likely they were to use EOs for a variety of reasons (although they are more likely to use EOs by diffusion). Neuroticism predicted a higher likelihood of use of oils topically or by diffusion, and to improve mental state. Those high in neuroticism were less likely to use EOs to improve social relationships, for dietary reasons, or to enhance their spiritual life. Openness to experience negatively predicted current use or internal administration, as well as use to avoid mental/physical problems, improve sleep and social relationships, or for dietary purposes. Those high in conscientiousness were less likely to use EOs to for various reasons. Extraversion and NFC were rarely predictors of use.

Interestingly, religiosity as a predictor of EO use and perceived effectiveness was also found to be significant for most variables measured (see supplementary tables). In fact, high religiosity positively predicted every use of EOs except for by diffusion and to improve mood or help sleep. Religiosity also positively predicted perceived effectiveness for relieving physical ailments, altering mental/emotional state, helping with sleep, enhancing spiritual life, and sustaining/improving relationships. Additionally, those high in religiosity were more likely to spend money on EOs and to find EOs effective overall.

Of the remaining control variables, women were more likely to be currently using EOs, to use them topically or by diffusion, and to use them for physical ailments, sleep, and as a dietary supplement. They were also more likely to spend money on EOs; however, they did not rate EOs as effective for use with any particular problem. Age positively correlated with EO use by diffusion and for sleep and cleaning. Older adults deemed EOs to be less effective for relieving sleep problems and as a dietary supplement. Political orientation (i.e., being conservative) was found to be positively predictive of topical use and use for spiritual enhancement. Those who were more conservative thought EOs were effective for relieving physical ailments, for avoiding physical/mental illness, for spiritual enhancement, and to sustain/improve relationships. Income was least likely to predict EO use but did positively predict topical application and use for spiritual enhancement. Income also positively predicted willingness to spend money on EOs.

Discussion

In the present study, our most consistent finding was that those high in BSR were 70% more likely to use essential oils and were more likely to find them effective. Personality characteristics identified in previous research showing associations with similar phenomena (e.g., placebo effects, health behavior, homeopathic medicine) were largely unrelated to EO use. Investigation into the predictors of EO use is useful for many fields—to psychologists, medical professionals, and industry leaders alike—as the EO market is a massive and growing industry. Discovering who uses EOs and for what purposes can provide additional insight to practitioners helping clients make informed health decisions.

There is often uncertainty about the use and effectiveness of EOs, and very few studies provide evidence for EO’s overall effectiveness. Even so, EOs remain a widely popular remedy for various ailments and issues. Until now, no research has investigated what might predict EO use in the general public, nor the traits of those who experience their benefits. Religious individuals and those high in BSR were more likely use EO for a variety of reasons and were more likely to find their use to be effective.

The fact that religious individuals were more likely to use EOs is consistent with other studies showing that they are more likely to engage in preventative and restorative health behaviors—which contribute to some of the reasons why they live longer [33]. Religious individuals have better biological health, longevity, physical activity, and well-being [55]. Relevant to the current study, there is also some evidence that spiritual individuals are more likely to use some forms of traditional health care (e.g., doctors’ appointments, methods to extend life)[56]. In a way, our finding that religious individuals are more likely to use EOs similarly captures the effect that religious individuals may use a variety of methods—including those that involve some faith beyond reason—to enhance their health. Worth noting, oil has a unique place in many religious traditions as a way of communicating hospitality, providing an incarnation of divine blessing, or as a form of medicine [57]. Although the modern, commercial use of EOs may not have religious origins, it is similar to historical and religious uses of oil in that religious people (and others) might be putting faith in EOs to cure illnesses or alleviate their negative life circumstances, as they do with other forms of complementary and alternative medicine [58].

In their original conceptualization of BSR, Pennycook and colleagues [45] noted that there are several definitions of bullshit, ranging from simple “nonsense” to something that is designed to impress but was constructed without concern for the truth [59]. In evaluating the appeal of EOs, we acknowledge that portions of this definition of bullshit may apply. For example, EOs purport to alleviate an impressive number of health and life problems despite there being no consensus on the effectiveness of these EOs for serving those purposes. In this way, EOs are designed to impress with their effectiveness despite their development and testing being constructed without a high standard for truth (e.g., well-powered randomized control trials with an active control, FDA oversight). People who find meaning in otherwise meaningless stimuli (i.e., those high in BSR) therefore are more likely to uncritically accept EOs’ purported benefits at face value given that the mechanisms leading to the benefits are unknown or illusory. Those low in BSR may find such claims of EOs as lacking meaning and therefore unconvincing in their decisions to deal with a health or life issue. Because essential oils are likely harmless (but possibly not beneficial either), people may be less likely to scrutinize the claims about their effectiveness [60]. Of course, our paper is not meant to adjudicate the evidence about the effectiveness of EOs; rather we sought to examine the individual difference characteristics associated with EO use and perceived effectiveness. People high in BSR were more likely to use EOs and perceive their benefits, suggesting that they might also be susceptible to the claims of the benefits of EOs—particularly those that are most questionable regarding the underlying mechanisms (e.g., spiritual reasons).

The results from the current study create some exciting opportunities for future research. Are people high in BSR more receptive to placebo effects? Only well-powered and controlled randomized control trials that also measure BSR can answer this question. Another research question posed by the current study is whether EOs tend to be used in combination with (or instead of) more scientifically based methods for improving life problems (e.g., seeking therapy, going to a physician, engaging in preventative health behaviors [diet, exercise]). Are specific people, to their detriment, using EOs in place of more proven treatments? If they are using EOs instead, are they working as people say there are? Finally, future research could further examine the individuals who reported having used EOs in the past, but had stopped; specifically, understanding the traits of those who stopped because they believed the EOs were not effective would be of great interest.

There are some limitations of the current study that are worth acknowledging. For example, there was a substantial part of the sample (25%) who had tried—but ultimately ceased—using EOs. Unfortunately, because we were focused on the perceived effectiveness of current EO use, we missed an opportunity to ask more questions about people who stopped using EOs. In the future, researchers should study these individuals more in depth. The survey was also cross-sectional and relied on people’s report of their typical everyday use of EOs. Future research could more precisely measure EO use and even randomly assign participants to use EOs (or a placebo) in order to measure their effectiveness (particularly among those high in BSR). Alternatively, longitudinal studies of the health of EOs users over time would also be useful to conduct.

An additional limitation that must be acknowledged relates to the measurement of the constructs examined in the current study. For example, we assessed religiosity with a single-item measure. Although this was done for expediency reasons, both religiosity and spirituality (which we did not measure in this study) are separable, multi-faceted phenomena that can be better measured using more detailed scales [30]. For example, some conceptualizations of religiosity highlight different facets of religiosity [61]—an engagement in more structural/organized elements (i.e., external), personal identification and living a principled life (i.e., intrinsic), and an engagement with existential questions about life more broadly (i.e., quest). Future research can include such nuanced measures and a formal, established measure of spirituality to examine their utility in predicting the likelihood of using complementary and alternative medicines. Further, the use of the BSR measure is not without controversy and has been criticized on the grounds of both conceptual framing and cultural-specificity [62]. Specifically, Dalton takes issue with the BSR measure because there are scenarios in which some of the statements, despite being randomly generated, indeed make sense to practitioners of Eastern religions and may tap into an individual’s propensity of wise reasoning. In a succinct critique, he offers that, “beauty, like bullshit, may be in the eye of the beholder” (p. 122) and that, just because someone from the West cannot immediately discern wisdom from a statement, does not necessary imply that a statement is bullshit. We take Dalton’s critique to heart [although see Pennycook et al.’s response; 63]. It was not our intention to label EO users as being full of bullshit, bullshitters, or as naïve, uncritical consumers of medicinal products. Nor are we trying to discredit EOs or complementary and alternative medicines more broadly. Rather, we took the opportunity here to examine a variety of individual difference predictors of EO use, perceived effectiveness, and consumption. We found that this particular, albeit narrow, conceptualization of BSR was the most consistent predictor of each of these outcomes. Future research can more accurately determine why BSR is related to EO use and whether there is some overlapping variance with other constructs that might explain why some parts of BSR are associated with EO use [64].

Further, in the current sample, few people used EOs to enhance spiritual life (N = 253), to sustain/improve relationships (N = 195), or as a dietary supplement (N = 198), and thus these analyses had smaller sample sizes. As such, even though many predictors of these uses were statistically significant, the findings should be interpreted with caution given the small sample sizes. Lastly, there is significant variability in types of EOs, and brands of EOs may differ in quality or safety. The present study considered all EOs on a level playing field, yet perhaps there are certain types of oils (e.g. peppermint, lavender), certain brands (e.g. DoTerra, Eden’s Garden), or certain methods of administration that are perceived as more effective.

In sum, with the growing prevalence of EO use and the lack of research on the effectiveness of EOs, the current study set out to examine reliable psychological predictors of EO use and perceived effectiveness. BSR and religiosity were the most consistent predictors; those high in these traits were more likely to use oils and find them effective in almost every instance. Future research can more directly examine why certain people report benefits while others do not.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Models predicting whether people ever use essential oils.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(15.9KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S3 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils topically.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S4 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils internally.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S5 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils by diffusion.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S6 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils for physical ailments.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S7 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils to alter mental/emotional state.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S8 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils for avoiding physical/mental illness.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S9 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils to improve mood.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S10 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils to help sleep.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S11 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils to enhance spiritual life.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S12 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils to improve/sustain relationships.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S13 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils as dietary supplement.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S14 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils to clean/disinfect.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S15 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO for relieving physical ailments.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.3KB, docx)}

S16 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO for altering mental/emotional state.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

S17 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO for avoiding physical/mental illness.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

S18 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO to improve mood.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.3KB, docx)}

S19 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO to help sleep.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

S20 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO to enhance spiritual life.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

S21 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO to sustain/improve relationships.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

S22 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO to clean/disinfect.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.3KB, docx)}

S23 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO as a dietary supplement.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

S24 Table. Models predicting willingness to spend money on EO.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

S25 Table. Models predicting overall effectiveness of EO.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.3KB, docx)}

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Sam Warshaw for his comments on a previous version of this manuscript.

Data Availability

Data, materials, and syntax are available at https://osf.io/r9c62/.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Essential Oil. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. 2019.
2.Ahuja K, Singh S. Essential oils market size by product, application potential, price trend, competitive market share and forecast, 2018–2024. Global Market Insights, 2018.
3.Verma P. Essential oil market size product—global opportunity analysis and industry forecast, 2015–2022. Applied Market Research, 2016.
4.Kim J, Marshall MR, Wei C-i. Antibacterial activity of some essential oil components against five foodborne pathogens. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry. 1995;43(11):2839–45. [Google Scholar]
5.Knobloch K, Pauli A, Iberl B, Weigand H, Weis N. Antibacterial and antifungal properties of essential oil components. Journal of Essential Oil Research. 1989;1(3):119–28. [Google Scholar]
6.Burits M, Bucar F. Antioxidant activity of Nigella sativa essential oil. Phytotherapy research. 2000;14(5):323–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Batish DR, Singh HP, Kohli RK, Kaur S. Eucalyptus essential oil as a natural pesticide. Forest Ecology and Management. 2008;256(12):2166–74. [Google Scholar]
8.Carson C, Riley T. Antimicrobial activity of the major components of the essential oil of Melaleuca alternifolia. Journal of applied bacteriology. 1995;78(3):264–9. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1995.tb05025.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Charles C, Mostler K, Bartels L, Mankodi S. Comparative antiplaque and antigingivitis effectiveness of a chlorhexidine and an essential oil mouthrinse: 6‐month clinical trial. Journal of clinical periodontology. 2004;31(10):878–84. 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00578.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Ali B, Al-Wabel NA, Shams S, Ahamad A, Khan SA, Anwar F. Essential oils used in aromatherapy: A systemic review. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine. 2015;5(8):601–11. [Google Scholar]
11.Polonini H, Mesquita D, Lanine J, Dijkers E, Gkinis S, Rezende Barbosa Raposo N, et al. Intranasal use of lavender and fennel decreases salivary cortisol levels and improves quality of sleep: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2019:101015. [Google Scholar]
12.Lee M-k, Lim S, Song J-A, Kim M-E, Hur M-H. The effects of aromatherapy essential oil inhalation on stress, sleep quality and immunity in healthy adults: Randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2017;12:79–86. 10.1016/j.eujim.2017.04.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
13.Seo E-Y, Song J-A, Hur M-H, Lee M-k, Lee MS. Effects of aroma mouthwash on stress level, xerostomia, and halitosis in healthy nurses: A non-randomized controlled clinical trial. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2017;10:82–9. 10.1016/j.eujim.2017.03.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
14.Aguiar JJS, Sousa CPB, Araruna MKA, Silva MKN, Portelo AC, Lopes JC, et al. Antibacterial and modifying-antibiotic activities of the essential oils of Ocimum gratissimum L. and Plectranthus amboinicus L. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2015;7(2):151–6. 10.1016/j.eujim.2014.10.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15.Barros FJ, Costa RJO, Cesário FRAS, Rodrigues LB, da Costa JGM, Coutinho HDM, et al. Activity of essential oils of Piper aduncum anf and Cinnamomum zeylanicum by evaluating osmotic and morphologic fragility of erythrocytes. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2016;8(4):505–12. 10.1016/j.eujim.2016.02.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16.Lee Y-T. A study of the effect of lavender floral-water eye-mask aromatherapy on the autonomous nervous system. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2016;8(5):781–8. 10.1016/j.eujim.2016.05.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17.Seong K, Hong J-H, Hur M-H, Lee MS. Two-week aroma inhalation effects on blood pressure in young men with essential hypertension. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2013;5(3):254–60. 10.1016/j.eujim.2012.12.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18.Hur M-H, Hong JH, Yeo S. Effects of aromatherapy on stress, fructosamine, fatigue, and sleep quality in prediabetic middle-aged women: A randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2019;31:100978 10.1016/j.eujim.2019.100978 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
19.Sowndhararajan K, Cho H, Yu B, Song J, Kim S. Effect of inhalation of essential oil from Inula helenium L. root on electroencephalographic (EEG) activity of the human brain. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2016;8(4):453–7. 10.1016/j.eujim.2016.01.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
20.Çobanoğlu A, Şendir M. The effect of hypericum perforatum oil on the healing process in the care of episiotomy wounds: A randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2019:100995 10.1016/j.eujim.2019.100995 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
21.Al-Lahham S, Sbieh R, Jaradat N, Almasri M, Mosa A, Hamayel A, et al. Antioxidant, antimicrobial and cytotoxic properties of four different extracts derived from the roots of Nicotianatabacum L. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2020;33:101039 10.1016/j.eujim.2019.101039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22.Lakhan SE, Sheafer H, Tepper D. The effectiveness of aromatherapy in reducing pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain research and treatment. 2016;2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Diego MA, Jones NA, Field T, Hernandez-Reif M, Schanberg S, Kuhn C, et al. Aromatherapy positively affects mood, EEG patterns of alertness and math computations. International Journal of Neuroscience. 1998;96(3–4):217–24. 10.3109/00207459808986469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Tildesley N, Kennedy D, Perry E, Ballard C, Wesnes K, Scholey A. Positive modulation of mood and cognitive performance following administration of acute doses of Salvia lavandulaefolia essential oil to healthy young volunteers. Physiology & behavior. 2005;83(5):699–709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Wheatley D. Medicinal plants for insomnia: a review of their pharmacology, efficacy and tolerability. Journal of psychopharmacology. 2005;19(4):414–21. 10.1177/0269881105053309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Lillehei AS, Halcon LL. A systematic review of the effect of inhaled essential oils on sleep. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2014;20(6):441–51. 10.1089/acm.2013.0311 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Moss M, Cook J, Wesnes K, Duckett P. Aromas of rosemary and lavender essential oils differentially affect cognition and mood in healthy adults. International Journal of Neuroscience. 2003;113(1):15–38. 10.1080/00207450390161903 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Price DD, Finniss DG, Benedetti F. A comprehensive review of the placebo effect: Recent advances and current thought. Annual Review of Psychology. 2008;59(1):565–90. 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.113006.095941 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Leibowitz KA, Hardebeck EJ, Goyer JP, Crum AJ. The role of patient beliefs in open-label placebo effects. Health Psychology. 2019;38(7):613–22. 10.1037/hea0000751 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Henningsgaard JM, Arnau RC. Relationships between religiosity, spirituality, and personality: A multivariate analysis. Personality and Individual Differences. 2008;45(8):703–8. 10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
31.Reutter KK, Bigatti SM. Religiosity and spirituality as resiliency resources: Moderation, mediation, or moderated mediation? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2014;53(1):56–72. 10.1111/jssr.12081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
32.Ferraro KF, Kim S. Health benefits of religion among Black and White older adults? Race, religiosity, and C-reactive protein. Social science & medicine. 2014;120:92–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Kim ES, VanderWeele TJ. Mediators of the association between religious service attendance and mortality. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2018;188(1):96–101. 10.1093/aje/kwy211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Clements AD, Ermakova AV. Surrender to God and stress: A possible link between religiosity and health. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. 2012;4(2):93–107. 10.1037/a0025109 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
35.Oleckno WA, Blacconiere MJ. Relationship of religiosity to wellness and other health-related behaviors and outcomes. Psychological Reports. 1991;68(3):819–26. 10.2466/pr0.1991.68.3.819 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Bogg T, Roberts BW. Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: a meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin. 2004;130(6):887–919. Epub 2004/11/13. 10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.887 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Weston SJ, Gladstone JJ, Graham EK, Mroczek DK, Condon DM. Who are the scrooges? Personality predictors of holiday spending. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2018:1948550618792883>. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.John OP, Srivastava S. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives In: Pervin LA, John OP, editors. Handbook of personality: Theory and research 1999. p. 102–38. [Google Scholar]
39.Hill PL, Turiano NA, Hurd MD, Mroczek DK, Roberts BW. Conscientiousness and longevity: an examination of possible mediators. Health Psychology. 2011;30(5):536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Chopik WJ. Age differences in conscientiousness facets in the second half of life: Divergent associations with changes in physical health. Personality and Individual Differences. 2016;96:202–11. 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.076 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
41.Roberts BW, Walton KE, Bogg T. Conscientiousness and health across the life course. Review of General Psychology. 2005;9(2):156–68. 10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.156 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
42.Potgieter JR, Venter RE. Relationship between adherence to exercise and scores on extraversion and neuroticism. Perceptual and motor skills. 1995;81(2):520–2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Schweinhardt P, Seminowicz DA, Jaeger E, Duncan GH, Bushnell MC. The anatomy of the mesolimbic reward system: a link between personality and the placebo analgesic response. Journal of Neuroscience. 2009;29(15):4882–7. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5634-08.2009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Peciña M, Azhar H, Love TM, Lu T, Fredrickson BL, Stohler CS, et al. Personality trait predictors of placebo analgesia and neurobiological correlates. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013;38(4):639 10.1038/npp.2012.227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Pennycook G, Cheyne JA, Barr N, Koehler DJ, Fugelsang JA. On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision making. 2015. [Google Scholar]
46.DeYoung CG, Grazioplene RG, Peterson JB. From madness to genius: The Openness/Intellect trait domain as a paradoxical simplex. Journal of Research in Personality. 2012;46(1):63–78. 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
47.Lasikiewicz N. Perceived stress, thinking style, and paranormal belief. Imagination, Cognition and Personality. 2016;35(3):306–20. [Google Scholar]
48.Lindeman M, Svedholm‐Häkkinen AM. Does poor understanding of physical world predict religious and paranormal beliefs? Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2016;30(5):736–42. [Google Scholar]
49.Bogg T, Vo PT. Openness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and family health and aging concerns interact in the prediction of health-related Internet searches in a representative US sample. Frontiers in psychology. 2014;5:370 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00370 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Britt RK, Hatten KN. Need for cognition and electronic health literacy and subsequent information seeking behaviors among university undergraduate students. Sage Open. 2013;3(4):2158244013508957. [Google Scholar]
51.Gale CR, Deary IJ, Wardle J, Zaninotto P, Batty GD. Cognitive ability and personality as predictors of participation in a national colorectal cancer screening programme: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(6):530–5. 10.1136/jech-2014-204888 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Soto CJ, John OP. The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2017;113(1):117–43 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Cacioppo JT, Petty RE. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982;42(1):116–31. 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Smith J, Fisher G, Ryan L, Clarke P, House J, Weir D. Psychosocial and lifestyle questionnaire 2006–2010. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center, 2013. [Google Scholar]
55.Hoverd WJ, Sibley CG. Religion, deprivation and subjective wellbeing: Testing a religious buffering hypothesis. International Journal of Wellbeing. 2013;3(2). [Google Scholar]
56.Puchalski CM, editor The role of spirituality in health care. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings; 2001: Taylor & Francis. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
57.Boersma H, Levering M, Kasza JC. Anointing of the sick. Oxford University Press; 2016. [Google Scholar]
58.Hildreth KD, Elman C. Alternative worldviews and the utilization of conventional and complementary medicine. Sociological Inquiry. 2007;77(1):76–103. 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2007.00178.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
59.Frankfurt HG. On bullshit. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
60.Reyna VF. How people make decisions that involve risk: A dual-processes approach. Current directions in psychological science. 2004;13(2):60–6. [Google Scholar]
61.Hills P, Francis LJ, Robbins M. The development of the Revised Religious Life Inventory (RLI-R) by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences. 2005;38(6):1389–99. [Google Scholar]
62.Dalton C. Bullshit for you; transcendence for me. A commentary on" On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit". Judgment and Decision making. 2016;11(1):121. [Google Scholar]
63.Pennycook G, Cheyne JA, Barr N, Koehler DJ, Fugelsang JA. It’s still bullshit: Reply to Dalton (2016). Judgment and Decision making. 2016;11(1):123. [Google Scholar]
64.Rohrer JM. Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2018;1(1):27–42. [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229779.r001

Decision Letter 0

Rosemary Frey

12 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-25949

Individual differences in personality predict the use and perceived effectiveness of essential oils

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Chopik,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the issues raised by Reviewer 2.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 12 January 2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rosemary Frey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the abstract, for clarify and considering the wide PLOS ONE readership, please update the sentence in the Abstract reading "We found that bullshit receptivity and religiosity..." to "We found that receptivity to pseudo-profound fabricated statements and religiosity..."

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Very good study. Explanation given was extraordinary. Research and publication ethics was satisfied. Given great introduction about the topic. Results were greatly explained in graph. Discussion part can improve better.

Reviewer #2: The analysis is straightforward enough, at least in terms of the regression methods and scales applied. (I've taught that for three decades.) Where the problem lies is in the author's lack of transparency and critical thinking as to how this issue was conceptualized in the first place. There is now a growing body of evidence, which the author conveniently ignores, in the medical and social sciences indicating that persons who are religious, or spiritual (not necessarily the same thing) in their orientation tend to have better medical outcomes, live longer, and are happier than those who are more skeptical and/or atheistic. As most practicing physicians are aware, the 'power of belief' in something, independent of its demonstrable scientific verifiability, sometimes sets in motion psycho-physiological processes (e.g. stress reduction) that can result in improved health. That we do not yet sufficiently understand how (what BSR scale proponents narrowly characterize as 'bullshit') works does not mean that the (seemingly irrational) rituals such as EO are entirely without value.

Unfortunately this article gives the reader the impression that it has a preexisting agenda to discredit complimentary and integrative medical approaches, particularly in its choice of the conceptually-biased BSR measure, and religiosity rather than a broader measure of spirituality. At minimum, the literature review and discussion sections need to acknowlege, not just the literatures of their preferred paradigm, but also of the paradigm one finds reflected e.g. in scientific articles in European Journal of Integrative Medicine.

Minor correction...

lines 48-49 should read

48 antioxidant, antibacterial, antifungal, antimicrobial, and antiplaque/antigingivitic properties, as

49 well //as// their performance as an effective insect repellant (4-10).

lines 59-60 should read

59 A separate but related question //as// to whether or not EOs provide marked health benefits is

60 whether people perceive benefits of EO use. Further, it is likely that some individuals are more

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Mar 12;15(3):e0229779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229779.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

12 Jan 2020

***Response to Reviewers***

We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments on the manuscript. We very much appreciate the feedback and believe that the manuscript has improved significantly as a result of the suggestions in this round of review. We are happy to make any additional changes that the Editor feels is necessary.

The line numbers below refer to the clean (i.e., not tracked changes) version of the manuscript.

***Associate Editor***

1.) The Editor noted that we should adhere to PLOS ONE’s style and naming conventions. We have now edited the manuscript so that it is consistent with the templates linked to us by the Editor.

2.) The Editor also recommended that we change “bullshit receptivity” to “receptivity to pseudo-profound fabricated statements” in the Abstract. We have now done so.

***Reviewer #1***

Reviewer #1 characterized our paper has containing a “very good study” and that the “explanation given was extraordinary.” They noted that research and publication efforts were satisfied, the introduction was great, and that the results were greatly explained.

We thank the reviewer for their kind assessment of our paper. They noted that the Discussion could be improved and we have now done so according to some recommendations made by Reviewer #2.

***Reviewer #2***

1.) Reviewer #2 recommended that we integrate the literature on the health benefits of religiosity and spirituality. Indeed, there is an extensive literature on the health benefits of religious and/or spiritual individuals (and the mechanisms linking the two). We have now added these considerations to the Introduction (on pages 4, lns 58-74) and Discussion (on pages 14-15, lns 268-281). We also make a connection to how the use of essential oils reflects an engagement with religious traditions and preventative health behaviors more generally.

2.) Reviewer #2 also recommended that we discuss some limitations related to measurement, particularly of the BSR measure and our narrow measure of religiosity (instead of a broader measure of spirituality). We have now done so in the Discussion on pages 17-18 (lns 321-346). They also recommended that we cite literature from alternative paradigms, especially those published in a particular journal (e.g., the European Journal of Integrative Medicine). Although our methodological approach substantially differs from that used in studies examining the effectiveness of EOs, we have now added some of this literature to pg 3 (lns 45-49)

3.) Finally, the reviewer noted two minor corrections (inserting the word “as” into two sentences). We have now made these changes.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(15.7KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229779.r003

Decision Letter 1

Rosemary Frey

14 Feb 2020

Individual differences in personality predict the use and perceived effectiveness of essential oils

PONE-D-19-25949R1

Dear Dr Chopik,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Rosemary Frey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229779.r004

Acceptance letter

Rosemary Frey

28 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-25949R1

Individual differences in personality predict the use and perceived effectiveness of essential oils

Dear Dr. Chopik:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Rosemary Frey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Table. Models predicting whether people ever use essential oils.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(15.9KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S3 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils topically.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S4 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils internally.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S5 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils by diffusion.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S6 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils for physical ailments.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S7 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils to alter mental/emotional state.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S8 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils for avoiding physical/mental illness.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S9 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils to improve mood.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S10 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils to help sleep.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S11 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils to enhance spiritual life.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S12 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils to improve/sustain relationships.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S13 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils as dietary supplement.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S14 Table. Models predicting whether people currently use essential oils to clean/disinfect.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16KB, docx)}

S15 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO for relieving physical ailments.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.3KB, docx)}

S16 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO for altering mental/emotional state.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

S17 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO for avoiding physical/mental illness.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

S18 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO to improve mood.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.3KB, docx)}

S19 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO to help sleep.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

S20 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO to enhance spiritual life.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

S21 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO to sustain/improve relationships.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

S22 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO to clean/disinfect.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.3KB, docx)}

S23 Table. Models predicting the effectiveness of EO as a dietary supplement.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

S24 Table. Models predicting willingness to spend money on EO.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.2KB, docx)}

S25 Table. Models predicting overall effectiveness of EO.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.3KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(15.7KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

Data, materials, and syntax are available at https://osf.io/r9c62/.

[pone.0229779.ref001] 1.Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Essential Oil. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. 2019.

[pone.0229779.ref002] 2.Ahuja K, Singh S. Essential oils market size by product, application potential, price trend, competitive market share and forecast, 2018–2024. Global Market Insights, 2018.

[pone.0229779.ref003] 3.Verma P. Essential oil market size product—global opportunity analysis and industry forecast, 2015–2022. Applied Market Research, 2016.

[pone.0229779.ref004] 4.Kim J, Marshall MR, Wei C-i. Antibacterial activity of some essential oil components against five foodborne pathogens. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry. 1995;43(11):2839–45. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref005] 5.Knobloch K, Pauli A, Iberl B, Weigand H, Weis N. Antibacterial and antifungal properties of essential oil components. Journal of Essential Oil Research. 1989;1(3):119–28. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref006] 6.Burits M, Bucar F. Antioxidant activity of Nigella sativa essential oil. Phytotherapy research. 2000;14(5):323–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref007] 7.Batish DR, Singh HP, Kohli RK, Kaur S. Eucalyptus essential oil as a natural pesticide. Forest Ecology and Management. 2008;256(12):2166–74. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref008] 8.Carson C, Riley T. Antimicrobial activity of the major components of the essential oil of Melaleuca alternifolia. Journal of applied bacteriology. 1995;78(3):264–9. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1995.tb05025.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref009] 9.Charles C, Mostler K, Bartels L, Mankodi S. Comparative antiplaque and antigingivitis effectiveness of a chlorhexidine and an essential oil mouthrinse: 6‐month clinical trial. Journal of clinical periodontology. 2004;31(10):878–84. 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00578.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref010] 10.Ali B, Al-Wabel NA, Shams S, Ahamad A, Khan SA, Anwar F. Essential oils used in aromatherapy: A systemic review. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine. 2015;5(8):601–11. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref011] 11.Polonini H, Mesquita D, Lanine J, Dijkers E, Gkinis S, Rezende Barbosa Raposo N, et al. Intranasal use of lavender and fennel decreases salivary cortisol levels and improves quality of sleep: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2019:101015. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref012] 12.Lee M-k, Lim S, Song J-A, Kim M-E, Hur M-H. The effects of aromatherapy essential oil inhalation on stress, sleep quality and immunity in healthy adults: Randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2017;12:79–86. 10.1016/j.eujim.2017.04.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref013] 13.Seo E-Y, Song J-A, Hur M-H, Lee M-k, Lee MS. Effects of aroma mouthwash on stress level, xerostomia, and halitosis in healthy nurses: A non-randomized controlled clinical trial. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2017;10:82–9. 10.1016/j.eujim.2017.03.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref014] 14.Aguiar JJS, Sousa CPB, Araruna MKA, Silva MKN, Portelo AC, Lopes JC, et al. Antibacterial and modifying-antibiotic activities of the essential oils of Ocimum gratissimum L. and Plectranthus amboinicus L. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2015;7(2):151–6. 10.1016/j.eujim.2014.10.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref015] 15.Barros FJ, Costa RJO, Cesário FRAS, Rodrigues LB, da Costa JGM, Coutinho HDM, et al. Activity of essential oils of Piper aduncum anf and Cinnamomum zeylanicum by evaluating osmotic and morphologic fragility of erythrocytes. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2016;8(4):505–12. 10.1016/j.eujim.2016.02.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref016] 16.Lee Y-T. A study of the effect of lavender floral-water eye-mask aromatherapy on the autonomous nervous system. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2016;8(5):781–8. 10.1016/j.eujim.2016.05.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref017] 17.Seong K, Hong J-H, Hur M-H, Lee MS. Two-week aroma inhalation effects on blood pressure in young men with essential hypertension. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2013;5(3):254–60. 10.1016/j.eujim.2012.12.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref018] 18.Hur M-H, Hong JH, Yeo S. Effects of aromatherapy on stress, fructosamine, fatigue, and sleep quality in prediabetic middle-aged women: A randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2019;31:100978 10.1016/j.eujim.2019.100978 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref019] 19.Sowndhararajan K, Cho H, Yu B, Song J, Kim S. Effect of inhalation of essential oil from Inula helenium L. root on electroencephalographic (EEG) activity of the human brain. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2016;8(4):453–7. 10.1016/j.eujim.2016.01.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref020] 20.Çobanoğlu A, Şendir M. The effect of hypericum perforatum oil on the healing process in the care of episiotomy wounds: A randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2019:100995 10.1016/j.eujim.2019.100995 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref021] 21.Al-Lahham S, Sbieh R, Jaradat N, Almasri M, Mosa A, Hamayel A, et al. Antioxidant, antimicrobial and cytotoxic properties of four different extracts derived from the roots of Nicotianatabacum L. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2020;33:101039 10.1016/j.eujim.2019.101039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref022] 22.Lakhan SE, Sheafer H, Tepper D. The effectiveness of aromatherapy in reducing pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain research and treatment. 2016;2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref023] 23.Diego MA, Jones NA, Field T, Hernandez-Reif M, Schanberg S, Kuhn C, et al. Aromatherapy positively affects mood, EEG patterns of alertness and math computations. International Journal of Neuroscience. 1998;96(3–4):217–24. 10.3109/00207459808986469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref024] 24.Tildesley N, Kennedy D, Perry E, Ballard C, Wesnes K, Scholey A. Positive modulation of mood and cognitive performance following administration of acute doses of Salvia lavandulaefolia essential oil to healthy young volunteers. Physiology & behavior. 2005;83(5):699–709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref025] 25.Wheatley D. Medicinal plants for insomnia: a review of their pharmacology, efficacy and tolerability. Journal of psychopharmacology. 2005;19(4):414–21. 10.1177/0269881105053309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref026] 26.Lillehei AS, Halcon LL. A systematic review of the effect of inhaled essential oils on sleep. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2014;20(6):441–51. 10.1089/acm.2013.0311 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref027] 27.Moss M, Cook J, Wesnes K, Duckett P. Aromas of rosemary and lavender essential oils differentially affect cognition and mood in healthy adults. International Journal of Neuroscience. 2003;113(1):15–38. 10.1080/00207450390161903 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref028] 28.Price DD, Finniss DG, Benedetti F. A comprehensive review of the placebo effect: Recent advances and current thought. Annual Review of Psychology. 2008;59(1):565–90. 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.113006.095941 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref029] 29.Leibowitz KA, Hardebeck EJ, Goyer JP, Crum AJ. The role of patient beliefs in open-label placebo effects. Health Psychology. 2019;38(7):613–22. 10.1037/hea0000751 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref030] 30.Henningsgaard JM, Arnau RC. Relationships between religiosity, spirituality, and personality: A multivariate analysis. Personality and Individual Differences. 2008;45(8):703–8. 10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref031] 31.Reutter KK, Bigatti SM. Religiosity and spirituality as resiliency resources: Moderation, mediation, or moderated mediation? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2014;53(1):56–72. 10.1111/jssr.12081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref032] 32.Ferraro KF, Kim S. Health benefits of religion among Black and White older adults? Race, religiosity, and C-reactive protein. Social science & medicine. 2014;120:92–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref033] 33.Kim ES, VanderWeele TJ. Mediators of the association between religious service attendance and mortality. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2018;188(1):96–101. 10.1093/aje/kwy211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref034] 34.Clements AD, Ermakova AV. Surrender to God and stress: A possible link between religiosity and health. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. 2012;4(2):93–107. 10.1037/a0025109 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref035] 35.Oleckno WA, Blacconiere MJ. Relationship of religiosity to wellness and other health-related behaviors and outcomes. Psychological Reports. 1991;68(3):819–26. 10.2466/pr0.1991.68.3.819 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref036] 36.Bogg T, Roberts BW. Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: a meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin. 2004;130(6):887–919. Epub 2004/11/13. 10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.887 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref037] 37.Weston SJ, Gladstone JJ, Graham EK, Mroczek DK, Condon DM. Who are the scrooges? Personality predictors of holiday spending. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2018:1948550618792883>. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref038] 38.John OP, Srivastava S. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives In: Pervin LA, John OP, editors. Handbook of personality: Theory and research 1999. p. 102–38. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref039] 39.Hill PL, Turiano NA, Hurd MD, Mroczek DK, Roberts BW. Conscientiousness and longevity: an examination of possible mediators. Health Psychology. 2011;30(5):536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref040] 40.Chopik WJ. Age differences in conscientiousness facets in the second half of life: Divergent associations with changes in physical health. Personality and Individual Differences. 2016;96:202–11. 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.076 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref041] 41.Roberts BW, Walton KE, Bogg T. Conscientiousness and health across the life course. Review of General Psychology. 2005;9(2):156–68. 10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.156 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref042] 42.Potgieter JR, Venter RE. Relationship between adherence to exercise and scores on extraversion and neuroticism. Perceptual and motor skills. 1995;81(2):520–2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref043] 43.Schweinhardt P, Seminowicz DA, Jaeger E, Duncan GH, Bushnell MC. The anatomy of the mesolimbic reward system: a link between personality and the placebo analgesic response. Journal of Neuroscience. 2009;29(15):4882–7. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5634-08.2009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref044] 44.Peciña M, Azhar H, Love TM, Lu T, Fredrickson BL, Stohler CS, et al. Personality trait predictors of placebo analgesia and neurobiological correlates. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013;38(4):639 10.1038/npp.2012.227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref045] 45.Pennycook G, Cheyne JA, Barr N, Koehler DJ, Fugelsang JA. On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision making. 2015. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref046] 46.DeYoung CG, Grazioplene RG, Peterson JB. From madness to genius: The Openness/Intellect trait domain as a paradoxical simplex. Journal of Research in Personality. 2012;46(1):63–78. 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref047] 47.Lasikiewicz N. Perceived stress, thinking style, and paranormal belief. Imagination, Cognition and Personality. 2016;35(3):306–20. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref048] 48.Lindeman M, Svedholm‐Häkkinen AM. Does poor understanding of physical world predict religious and paranormal beliefs? Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2016;30(5):736–42. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref049] 49.Bogg T, Vo PT. Openness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and family health and aging concerns interact in the prediction of health-related Internet searches in a representative US sample. Frontiers in psychology. 2014;5:370 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00370 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref050] 50.Britt RK, Hatten KN. Need for cognition and electronic health literacy and subsequent information seeking behaviors among university undergraduate students. Sage Open. 2013;3(4):2158244013508957. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref051] 51.Gale CR, Deary IJ, Wardle J, Zaninotto P, Batty GD. Cognitive ability and personality as predictors of participation in a national colorectal cancer screening programme: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(6):530–5. 10.1136/jech-2014-204888 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref052] 52.Soto CJ, John OP. The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2017;113(1):117–43 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref053] 53.Cacioppo JT, Petty RE. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982;42(1):116–31. 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref054] 54.Smith J, Fisher G, Ryan L, Clarke P, House J, Weir D. Psychosocial and lifestyle questionnaire 2006–2010. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center, 2013. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref055] 55.Hoverd WJ, Sibley CG. Religion, deprivation and subjective wellbeing: Testing a religious buffering hypothesis. International Journal of Wellbeing. 2013;3(2). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref056] 56.Puchalski CM, editor The role of spirituality in health care. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings; 2001: Taylor & Francis. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

[pone.0229779.ref057] 57.Boersma H, Levering M, Kasza JC. Anointing of the sick. Oxford University Press; 2016. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref058] 58.Hildreth KD, Elman C. Alternative worldviews and the utilization of conventional and complementary medicine. Sociological Inquiry. 2007;77(1):76–103. 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2007.00178.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref059] 59.Frankfurt HG. On bullshit. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref060] 60.Reyna VF. How people make decisions that involve risk: A dual-processes approach. Current directions in psychological science. 2004;13(2):60–6. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref061] 61.Hills P, Francis LJ, Robbins M. The development of the Revised Religious Life Inventory (RLI-R) by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences. 2005;38(6):1389–99. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref062] 62.Dalton C. Bullshit for you; transcendence for me. A commentary on" On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit". Judgment and Decision making. 2016;11(1):121. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref063] 63.Pennycook G, Cheyne JA, Barr N, Koehler DJ, Fugelsang JA. It’s still bullshit: Reply to Dalton (2016). Judgment and Decision making. 2016;11(1):123. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0229779.ref064] 64.Rohrer JM. Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2018;1(1):27–42. [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Individual differences in personality predict the use and perceived effectiveness of essential oils

Lindsay S Ackerman

William J Chopik

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and method

Participants

Measures

Personality

Bullshit receptivity

Need for cognition

Essential oils use and effectiveness questionnaire

Control variables

Results

Table 1. Personality predicting essential oil use.

Discussion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Rosemary Frey

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Rosemary Frey

Roles

Acceptance letter

Rosemary Frey

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases