Naturally better? A review of the natural‐is‐better bias

Abstract

People are frequently exposed to products and services that are labeled natural (e.g., Nature Made Vitamins or GoJo Natural Orange Hand Cleaner). The frequency with which this label is used suggests that it delivers an advantage in marketing and sales. Our review examines the preference for and perception of naturalness and reveals that people have a bias for items described as natural in many domains including foods, medicine, beauty products, cigarettes, and lighting. These preferences abound even when the natural item is identical or not objectively better than the non‐natural or synthetic item. We believe this bias may be driven by a natural‐is‐better default belief as well as the belief that natural items are safer than non‐natural items. Although a bias for natural items is apparent, this literature is in its infancy, and we suggest three areas that will help build and refine the empirical research base and theory: the measurement of behavior, the examination of individual differences, and the development of methods for reducing the bias. A better understanding of the naturalness bias relevant to these areas will lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the area, including factors that may cause and reduce it.

Predictors of the intention to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine

“…Additionally, the novel finding that a greater naturalness bias is negatively related to the intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine suggests that the synthetic nature of vaccines may contribute to vaccine hesitancy. Messages that combat the negative view of synthetic substances might further enhance vaccine intentions 6 . Both of these findings add to the vaccine hesitancy literature and would likely be found in future vaccination attempts.…”

Harmony Between Humanity and Nature: Natural Vs. Synthetic Drug Preference in Chinese Atheists and Taoists

“…Extensive research on cognitive biases has consistently shown that people tend to rate a rich variety of natural items as being better, safer, and healthier than non-natural items in their judgment and decision-making (Koval & Rosette, 2020 ; Meier et al, 2019a ; Rozin et al, 2004 ). Extending beyond these findings, the current research compared natural preferences on drug choice from two groups of participants with different degrees of nature connectedness: Chinese Taoists and atheists.…”

“…In the first part of the questionnaire, they responded to several questions requesting their demographic information such as age, sex, and ethnicity. Following the demographic questions, we employed the same experimental question that was used in Meier and Lappas ( 2016 ), Meier et al, ( 2019a , b ), and Li and Cao ( 2020 ) to explore participants’ drug choice. However, researcher may cast doubt on the predictive validity of single-item measures (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007 ).…”

“…The naturalness-is-better bias is one of the well-documented decision biases in the literature (Kellert & Wilson, 1995 ; Meier et al, 2019a , b ; Migliore et al, 2018 ). The naturalness bias refers to the preference for natural items ( e.g ., foods and medicines) even when they exhibit the same or less efficacy and safety than artificial or synthetic alternatives (Shepard, 1993 ; Wilson, 1984 ).…”

Behavioural frameworks to understand public perceptions of and risk response to carbon dioxide removal

“…In a study of risk perceptions of nuclear energy, for example, 'tampering with nature' largely displaced the impact of other psychometric dimensions on overall perceived risk [46]. Generally, people view things that are considered natural as more desirable than things considered unnatural [46][47][48][49]; however, the perception of naturalness is not clear cut. For example, when DACCS is framed as working like 'artificial trees' instead of '[involving] a chemical process with large industrial machinery', support for 'geoengineering' increased [50].…”