Consumers Prefer “Natural” More for Preventatives Than for Curatives

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>We demonstrate that natural products are more strongly preferred when used to prevent a problem than when used to cure a problem (the prevent/cure effect). This organizing principle explains variation in the preference for natural across distinct product categories (e.g., food vs. medicine), within product categories (e.g., between different types of medicines), and for the same product depending on how it is used (to prevent or to cure ailments). The prevent/cure effect is driven by two factors: lay beliefs about product attributes and importance of product attributes. Specifically, a) consumers hold lay beliefs that natural products are safer and less potent, and b) consumers care more about safety and less about potency when preventing as compared to when curing, which leads to a stronger preference for natural when preventing. Consistent with this explanation, when natural products are described as more risky and more potent, reversing the standard inferences about naturalness, then natural products become more preferred for curing than for preventing. This research sheds light on when the marketing of “natural” is most appealing to consumers.</jats:p>

In Times of Trouble: A Framework for Understanding Consumers’ Responses to Threats

“…Another article relevant to health threat concerns how consumers view natural versus synthetic products as a source of disease prevention. Scott et al. (2020 , this issue) find that consumers have lay theories that natural products are safer but less potent than synthetic products.…”

“…First, we seek to set the stage for the articles that appear in this issue. These articles address responses to economic threats ( Coskuner-Balli 2020 ; Mittal, Griskevicius, and Haws 2020 , this issue; Wilroy, Meloy, and Carlson 2020 , this issue) and health threats ( Galoni, Carpenter, and Rao 2020 , this issue; Huang and Sengupta 2020 , this issue; Scott, Rozin, and Small 2020 , this issue), including the threat of mortality ( Dunn, White, and Dahl 2020 , this issue). Second, we seek to provide a broad foundation for future research on this important, timely, and timeless topic.…”

Inauthenticity aversion: Moral reactance toward tainted actors, actions, and objects

“…Adulteration inauthenticity—the aversion to tampering with a good's original or true form—can also help to explain a pervasive consumer preference for “naturalness.” Across a variety of contexts and product categories, consumers value what they see as emanating from the natural world and respond negatively to what they perceive as “unnatural” processing. This preference for naturalness can be understood in part by consequentialist beliefs about the safety and potency of natural products (vs. synthetic equivalents; Scott et al., 2020), but it also seems to reflect a more general moral intuition that the natural world is desirable and benevolent (Scott et al., 2016; Scott & Rozin, 2020). Indeed, consumers seem to see tampering with nature as a moral violation (i.e., “playing God”)—evoking notions of contamination and feelings of disgust (Haidt et al., 1993; Rozin et al., 2008).…”

An Overview of Natural Extracts with Antioxidant Activity for the Improvement of the Oxidative Stability and Shelf Life of Edible Oils

“…Since some harmful effects for synthetic antioxidants have been reported [4,5], international regulatory authorities have established limits to the amounts of synthetic antioxidants permitted in foods [6]. During the past decade, around the world, the preference of consumers for natural substitutes of synthetic additives is increasing [5,6], mainly for ideational/emotional reasons [7]. This preference is mainly based on the idea that natural compounds are healthier than synthetics [8].…”