The naturalness bias.

IF 6.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Brian P Meier, Amanda J Dillard, Courtney M Lappas
{"title":"The naturalness bias.","authors":"Brian P Meier, Amanda J Dillard, Courtney M Lappas","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research shows that people have a natural-is-better belief whereby things described as \"natural\" are perceived as better than artificial, synthetic, or human-made items. For example, people report they would prefer a host of items when they are described as natural versus synthetic including drugs, vaccines, food, cigarettes, human talent, and lighting. Some people report preferring a natural item like a drug even when it is objectively less safe or effective than a synthetic counterpart. This naturalness bias is may become more widespread given the political climate in the U.S. and elsewhere in 2025 and beyond. However, there are many instances in which believing naturalness is better may be problematic, especially when it comes to health or medical behaviors. For example, people may forgo a synthetic or human-made medical treatment that has been rigorously tested in the laboratory and shown to influence a health condition in favor of a natural approach (e.g., herbal medicine). Research suggests that beliefs regarding the safety of natural items is one causal factor, but science skepticism is another factor that may be important. People who have a stronger naturalness bias may also be higher in science skepticism. Understanding how these two factors are connected could bring additional insight into how to reduce this bias. Implications of this connection and other ideas for future research related to the naturalness bias are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"102143"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102143","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research shows that people have a natural-is-better belief whereby things described as "natural" are perceived as better than artificial, synthetic, or human-made items. For example, people report they would prefer a host of items when they are described as natural versus synthetic including drugs, vaccines, food, cigarettes, human talent, and lighting. Some people report preferring a natural item like a drug even when it is objectively less safe or effective than a synthetic counterpart. This naturalness bias is may become more widespread given the political climate in the U.S. and elsewhere in 2025 and beyond. However, there are many instances in which believing naturalness is better may be problematic, especially when it comes to health or medical behaviors. For example, people may forgo a synthetic or human-made medical treatment that has been rigorously tested in the laboratory and shown to influence a health condition in favor of a natural approach (e.g., herbal medicine). Research suggests that beliefs regarding the safety of natural items is one causal factor, but science skepticism is another factor that may be important. People who have a stronger naturalness bias may also be higher in science skepticism. Understanding how these two factors are connected could bring additional insight into how to reduce this bias. Implications of this connection and other ideas for future research related to the naturalness bias are discussed.

自然偏差。
研究表明,人们有一种“自然就是更好”的信念,即被描述为“自然”的东西被认为比人工、合成或人造的东西更好。例如,人们报告说,当他们被描述为天然的而不是合成的东西时,他们更喜欢很多东西,包括药物、疫苗、食品、香烟、人才和照明。有些人更喜欢天然的东西,比如药物,即使它在客观上不如合成药物安全或有效。考虑到2025年及以后美国和其他地方的政治气候,这种自然偏见可能会变得更加普遍。然而,在很多情况下,相信自然更好可能是有问题的,尤其是在健康或医疗行为方面。例如,人们可能会放弃在实验室经过严格测试并证明会影响健康状况的合成或人造药物,而选择自然方法(例如草药)。研究表明,对天然食品安全性的信念是一个原因,但科学怀疑主义是另一个可能很重要的因素。自然偏见更强的人也可能对科学持更高的怀疑态度。了解这两个因素是如何联系在一起的,可以让我们进一步了解如何减少这种偏见。本文还讨论了这一联系的含义以及与自然性偏差相关的未来研究的其他想法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Current Opinion in Psychology
Current Opinion in Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
3.40%
发文量
293
审稿时长
53 days
期刊介绍: Current Opinion in Psychology is part of the Current Opinion and Research (CO+RE) suite of journals and is a companion to the primary research, open access journal, Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology. CO+RE journals leverage the Current Opinion legacy of editorial excellence, high-impact, and global reach to ensure they are a widely-read resource that is integral to scientists' workflows. Current Opinion in Psychology is divided into themed sections, some of which may be reviewed on an annual basis if appropriate. The amount of space devoted to each section is related to its importance. The topics covered will include: * Biological psychology * Clinical psychology * Cognitive psychology * Community psychology * Comparative psychology * Developmental psychology * Educational psychology * Environmental psychology * Evolutionary psychology * Health psychology * Neuropsychology * Personality psychology * Social psychology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信