Brian P Meier, Amanda J Dillard, Courtney M Lappas
{"title":"自然偏差。","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":"{\"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}","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}
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.
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