Research shows that perceived naturalness can bias beliefs about the positivity of items such as food, human talent, and vaccines. Yet, this research focuses on self-reports, which leaves open the implications it has for behavior. In four studies (N = 492), we tested if perceived naturalness impacts trivial and meaningful behaviors. Participants were asked to consume a purported natural/synthetic performance drink (Study 1), test a purported natural/synthetic drug that would be injected (Study 2), eat chocolate containing a purported natural/synthetic cocoa described as causing stomach discomfort (Study 3), or choose a sticker purportedly made with natural/synthetic ink (Study 4). A significant majority of participants (66%–84%) chose and followed through with the natural versus synthetic option. Perceived naturalness guided behavior in contexts involving little (sticker choice) to substantial (drug injection) potential consequences. Self-reports can weakly predict behaviors, but the results revealed that perceived naturalness biases self-reports and behaviors in a similar fashion.
BaronJ.HolzmanG. B.SchulkinJ. (1998). Attitudes of obstetricians and gynecologists toward hormone replacement therapy. Medical Decision Making, 18, 406–411.
2.
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D.FunderD. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396–403.
3.
BernsteinR.ChadhaA.MontjoyR. (2001). Overreporting voting: Why it happens and why it matters. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 22–44.
4.
BrennerP. S.DeLamaterJ. D. (2014). Social desirability bias in self-reports of physical activity: Is an exercise identity the culprit?Social Indicators Research, 117, 489–504.
5.
CaoY.LiH. (2022). Harmony between humanity and nature: Natural vs. synthetic drug preference in Chinese Atheists and Taoists. Journal of Religion and Health, 61, 2743–2752.
6.
CaoY.LiH. (2023). Everything has a limit: How intellectual humility lowers the preference for naturalness as reflected in drug choice. Social Science & Medicine, 317, 15625.
7.
ChandlerJ. J.PaolacciG. (2017). Lie for a dime: When most prescreening responses are honest but most study participants are impostors. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 500–508.
8.
DangJ.KingK. M.InzlichtM. (2020). Why are self-report and behavioral measures weakly correlated?Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 267–269.
9.
DiBonaventuraM. D.ChapmanG. B. (2008). Do decision biases predict bad decisions? Omission bias, naturalness bias, and influenza vaccination. Medical Decision Making, 28, 532–539.
10.
GaigS.ByronM.LazardA.BrewerN. (2019). “Organic,” “natural,” and “additive-free” cigarettes: Comparing the effects of advertising claims and disclaimers on perceptions of harm. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 21, 933–939.
11.
JiL. J.LappasC. M.WangX.MeierB. P. (2023). The naturalness bias influences drug and vaccine decisions across cultures. Medical Decision Making, 43, 252–262.
12.
KellertR.WilsonE. O. (1995). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.
13.
KingB. M. (2022). The influence of social desirability on sexual behavior surveys: A review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51, 1495–1501.
14.
LappasC. M.CoyneN.DillardA. J.MeierB. P. (2023). Do physicians prefer natural drugs? The natural versus synthetic drug bias in physicians. European Journal of Health Psychology, 30, 40–47.
15.
LevinovitzA. (2020). Natural: How faith in nature's goodness leads to harmful fads, unjust laws, and flawed science. Beacon Press.
16.
LiH.CaoY. (2023). Exposure to nature leads to a stronger natural-is-better bias in Chinese people. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 79, 1–7.
17.
LiT.GalD. (2023). Consumers prefer natural medicines more when treating psychological than physical conditions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 34, 425–444.
18.
MeierB. P.DillardA. J.FettermanA. K.JiL. J.LappasC. M. (2023). Religiosity and the naturalness bias in drug and vaccine choices. Journal of Religion and Health, 62, 702–719.
19.
MeierB. P.DillardA. J.LappasC. M. (2019). Naturally better? A review of the natural-is-better bias. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13, e12494.
20.
MeierB. P.DillardA. J.LappasC. M. (2022). Predictors of the intention to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Journal of Public Health, 44, 713–715.
21.
MeierB. P.LappasC. M. (2016). The Influence of safety, efficacy, and medical condition severity on natural versus synthetic drug preference. Medical Decision Making, 36, 1011–1019.
22.
O’ConnorR. J.LewisM. J.AdkisonS. E.Bansal-TraversM.CummingsK. M. (2017). Perceptions of “natural” and “additive-free” cigarettes and intentions to purchase. Health Education & Behavior, 44, 222–226.
23.
RavelliM. N.SchoellerD. A. (2020). Traditional self-reported dietary instruments are prone to inaccuracies and new approaches are needed. Frontiers in Nutrition, 7, 90. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2020.00090
24.
RománS.Sánchez-SilesL. M.SiegristM. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 67, 44–57.
25.
RozinP. (2005). The meaning of “natural”: Process more important than content. Psychological Science, 16, 652–658.
26.
RozinP.FischlerC.Shields-ArgelesC. (2012). European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite, 59, 448–455.
27.
RozinP.SprancaM.KriegerZ.NeuhausR.SurilloD.SwerdlinA.WoodK. (2004). Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43, 47–154.
28.
RudskiJ. M.OseiW.JacobsonA. R.LynchC. 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.
29.
ScottS. E.RozinP. (2017). Are additives unnatural? Generality and mechanisms of additivity dominance. Judgment and Decision Making, 12, 572–583.
30.
ScottS. E.RozinP. (2020). Actually, natural is neutral. Nature Human Behavior, 10, 989–990.
31.
ScottS. E.RozinP.SmallD. A. (2020). Consumers prefer “natural” more for preventatives than for curatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 47, 454–471.
32.
TsayC.BanajiM. R. (2011). Naturals and strivers: Preferences and beliefs about sources of achievement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 460–465.
