{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017774851876234364, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.58008658008658, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Asymmetrical genetic attributions for the presence and absence of health problems.

OBJECTIVE
Recent research has suggested that people more readily make genetic attributions for positively valenced or desirable traits than for negatively valenced or undesirable traits-an asymmetry that may be mediated by perceptions that positive characteristics are more 'natural' than negative ones. This research sought to examine whether a similar asymmetry in genetic attributions would emerge between positive and negative health outcomes.


DESIGN
Across seven experiments, participants were randomly assigned to read a short vignette describing an individual experiencing a health problem (e.g. hypertension) or a corresponding healthy state (e.g. normal blood pressure).


MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
All participants provided ratings of naturalness and genetic attributions for the outcome described in their assigned vignette.


RESULTS
For diagnoses other than addictive disorders, participants rated the presence of a diagnosis as less genetically caused than its absence; for addictive disorders, the presence of a diagnosis was rated as more genetically caused than its absence. Participants consistently rated the presence of a health problem as less natural than its absence.


CONCLUSION
Even within a single domain of health, people ascribe differing degrees of 'naturalness' and genetic causation to positive versus negative health outcomes, which could impact their preferences for treatment and prevention strategies.