Background: Although biologics have revolutionized psoriasis care, some patients may be reluctant to consider implementing biologic therapy. Objective: To determine whether willingness to take a biologic is increased by commonly used advertising techniques. Methods: An online survey was used to assess subjects with a self-reported diagnosis of psoriasis and their willingness to initiate biologic treatment (N=400). Subjects were randomized to receive one of the following surveys: clinical data with positive framing (N=80), bandwagon-based statement (N=80), testimonial-based statement (N=80), comparative advertising (N=80), and negative framing (N=80). Willingness to take treatment was recorded on a 10-point Likert scale and evaluated using one-way ANOVA, two-group t-tests, and chi-squared tests. Results: Compared to subjects presented with positive framing (M=5.5, SD=3.2), subjects presented with a bandwagon-based statement (M=6.5, SD=2.7; P=0.04) and testimonial-based statement (M=7.0, SD=2.7; P=0.01) reported a greater willingness to take treatment, whereas negative framing (M=4.5, SD=3.0; P=0.03) decreased willingness and comparative advertising (M=5.5, SD=2.7; P=0.96) yielded the same willingness as positive framing. Conclusion: Providers might be able to enhance biologic acceptance by utilizing commonly used advertising techniques, such as the bandwagon effect, testimonial effect, and positive framing.

We conducted a preregistered multilaboratory project (k = 36; N = 3,531) to assess the size and robustness of ego-depletion effects using a novel replication method, termed the paradigmatic replication approach. Each laboratory implemented one of two procedures that was intended to manipulate self-control and tested performance on a subsequent measure of self-control. Confirmatory tests found a nonsignificant result (d = 0.06). Confirmatory Bayesian meta-analyses using an informed-prior hypothesis (δ = 0.30, SD = 0.15) found that the data were 4 times more likely under the null than the alternative hypothesis. Hence, preregistered analyses did not find evidence for a depletion effect. Exploratory analyses on the full sample (i.e., ignoring exclusion criteria) found a statistically significant effect (d = 0.08); Bayesian analyses showed that the data were about equally likely under the null and informed-prior hypotheses. Exploratory moderator tests suggested that the depletion effect was larger for participants who reported more fatigue but was not moderated by trait self-control, willpower beliefs, or action orientation.