Dataset of the sample.

Many people believe in and use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to address health issues or prevent diseases. Empirical evidence for those treatments is either lacking or controversial due to methodological weaknesses. Thus, practitioners and patients primarily rely on subjective references rather than credible empirical evidence from systematic research. This study investigated whether cognitive and personality factors explain differences in belief in CAM and homeopathy. We investigated the robustness of 21 predictors when examined together to obtain insights into key determinants of such beliefs in a sample of 599 participants (60% female, 18-81 years). A combination of predictors explained 20% of the variance in CAM belief (predictors: ontological confusions, spiritual epistemology, agreeableness, death anxiety, gender) and approximately 21% of the variance in belief in homeopathy (predictors: ontological confusions, illusory pattern perception, need for cognitive closure, need for cognition, honesty-humility, death anxiety, gender, age). Individuals believing in CAM and homeopathy have cognitive biases and certain individual differences which make them perceive the world differently. Findings are discussed in the context of previous literature and in relation to other unfounded beliefs.诸多民众信赖并使用补充与替代医学（complementary and alternative medicine, CAM）以应对健康问题或预防疾病。由于方法学层面的缺陷，这类疗法的实证依据要么匮乏，要么存在争议。因此，从业者与患者主要依赖主观参考，而非来自系统性研究的可信实证证据。本研究旨在探究认知与人格因素能否解释补充与替代医学及顺势疗法（homeopathy）的信念差异。本研究纳入599名参与者（其中60%为女性，年龄跨度18至81岁），通过同时检验21个预测变量的稳健性，以深入剖析这类信念的核心决定因素。各预测变量的组合可解释补充与替代医学信念20%的变异量（预测变量包括：本体论混淆、灵性认识论、宜人性、死亡焦虑、性别），以及顺势疗法信念约21%的变异量（预测变量包括：本体论混淆、虚幻模式感知、认知闭合需求、认知需求、诚实谦卑、死亡焦虑、性别、年龄）。信赖补充与替代医学及顺势疗法的人群存在认知偏差与特定个体差异，这使得他们对世界的感知异于常人。本研究结合既往文献语境，并与其他无实证依据的信念相关联，对研究结果展开了讨论。