ARTICLE
Naturally better? A review of the natural-is-better bias
Brian P. Meier,
Amanda J. Dillard, Courtney M. Lappas,
Corresponding Author
Brian P. Meier
Gettysburg College
Correspondence
Brian P. Meier, Gettysburg College, 300 North Washington Street, Gettysburg, PA 17036.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorBrian P. Meier,
Amanda J. Dillard, Courtney M. Lappas,
Corresponding Author
Brian P. Meier
Gettysburg College
Correspondence
Brian P. Meier, Gettysburg College, 300 North Washington Street, Gettysburg, PA 17036.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
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.
REFERENCES
- “Natural” on food labeling. (2017, November 11th). Retrieved from www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/use-term-natural-food-labeling
- Agaku, I. T., Omaduvie, U. T., Filippidis, F. T., & Vardavas, C. I. (2015). Cigarette design and marketing features are associated with increased smoking susceptibility and perception of reduced harm among smokers in 27 EU countries. Tobacco Control, 24, 233–240.
- Apaolaza, V., Hartmann, P., Lopez, C., Barrutia, J. M., & Echebarria, C. (2014). Natural ingredients claim's halo effect on hedonic sensory experiences of perfumes. Food Quality and Preference, 36, 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.03.004
- Baig, S. A., Byron, J., Lazard, A. J., & Brewer, N. T. (in press). “Organic,” “natural,” and “additive-free” cigarettes: Comparing the effects of advertising claims and disclaimers on perceptions of harm. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 21(7), 933–939. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nty036
- Baron, J., Holzman, G. B., & Schulkin, J. (1998). Attitudes of obstetricians and gynecologists toward hormone replacement therapy. Medical Decision Making, 18, 406–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9801800408
- Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207–12120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x
- Berman, M. G., Kross, E., Krpan, K. M., Askren, M. K., Burson, A., Deldin, P. J., … Jonides, J. (2012). Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140, 300–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.012
- Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 887–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.887
- Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., McCaual, K. D., & Weinstein, N. D. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: The example of vaccination. Health Psychology, 26, 136–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136
- Byron, M. J., Baig, S. A., Moracco, K. E., & Brewer, N. T. (2015). Adolescents' and adults' perceptions of ‘natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘additive-free’ cigarettes, and the required disclaimers. Tobacco Control, 25, 517–520.
- DiBonaventura, M. D., & Chapman, G. B. (2008). Do decision biases predict bad decisions? Omission bias, naturalness bias, and influenza vaccination. Medical Decision Making, 28(4), 532–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X08315250
- Dillard, A. J., Fagerlin, A., Dal Cin, S., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., & Ubel, P. A. (2010). Narratives that address affective forecasting errors reduce perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening. Social Science & Medicine, 71, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.02.038
- Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390
- Giveon, S. M., Liberman, N., Klang, S., & Kahan, E. (2004). Are people who use “natural drugs” aware of their potentially harmful side effects and reporting to family physician? Patient Education and Counseling, 53, 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00241-6
- Haans, A. (2014). The natural preference in people's appraisal of light. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 39, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.04.001
- Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46.
- Li, M., & Chapman, G. B. (2012). Why do people like natural? Instrumental and ideational bases for the naturalness preference. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2859–2878. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00964.x
- McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
- McMahan, E. A., & Josh, P. (2017). Measuring preference for natural versus built environments: Initial validation of the preference for nature questionnaire. Ecopsychology, 9, 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2017.0009
10.1089/eco.2017.0009 Google Scholar
- Meier, B. P., & Lappas, C. M. (2016). The influence of safety, efficacy, and medical condition severity on natural versus synthetic drug preference. Medical Decision Making, 36, 1011–1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15621877
- Meier, B. P., Osorio, E., Dillard, A. J., & Lappas, C. M. (2019). A behavioral confirmation and reduction of the natural versus synthetic drug bias. Medical Decision Making, 39, 359–369.
- Migliore, G., Borrello, M., Lombardi, A., & Schifani, G. (2018). Consumers' willingness to pay for natural food: Evidence from an artefactual field experiment. Agricultural and Food Economics, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-018-0117-1
10.1186/s40100-018-0117-1 Google Scholar
- Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L. (2009). The fit of thinking style and situation: New measures of situation-specific experiential and rational cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1086/596026
- Organic standards. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-standards.
- Petty, R. E., & Brinol, P. (2008). Persuasion: From single to multiple to metacognitive processes. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 3, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00071.x
- Roman, S., Sanchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 67, 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.010
- Rozin, P. (2005). The meaning of “natural”: Process more important than content. Psychological Science, 16, 652–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01589.x
- Rozin, P., Fischler, C., & Shields-Argeles, C. (2012). European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite, 59, 448–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.06.001
- Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surrillo, D., Swerdlin, A., & Wood, K. (2004). Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43, 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.03.005
- Rudski, J. M., Osei, W., Jacobson, A. R., & Lynch, C. R. (2011). Would you rather be injured by lightening or a downed power line? Preference for natural hazards. Judgment and Decision making, 6, 314–322.
- Scott, S. E., & Rozin, P. (2017). Are additives unnatural? Generality and mechanisms of additivity dominance. Judgment and Decision making, 12, 572–583.
- Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2002). Accepting threatening information: Self-affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00182
- Skubisz, C. (2017). Naturally good: Front-of-package claims as message cues. Appetite, 108, 506–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.10.030
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2012). The tobacco industry's influences on the use of tobacco among youth and young adults. In C. L. Perry, M. H. Stigler, L. Norman, & P. L. Taylor (Eds.), Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults: A report of the surgeon general (pp. 483–603). Atlanta, GA, US: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
- Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249
- Wilson, E. (1984). Biophilia. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.4159/9780674045231 Google Scholar
