The Meaning of “Natural”

The meaning of the desirable attribute “natural” was explored in two samples, American college students and adults in the Philadelphia jury pool. Participants rated the naturalness of a variety of “natural” entities, before and after they were transformed by operations such as freezing, adding or removing components, mixing with other natural or unnatural entities, domestication, and genetic engineering. Results support four hypotheses. First, the principle of contagion accounts for many aspects of the reduction of naturalness by contact with unnatural entities. Second, chemical transformations reduce naturalness much more than physical transformations do. Third, the history of an entity's processing is more important in determining its naturalness than is the nature of the entity's contents. Fourth, mixing like natural entities (e.g., water from different sources) does not markedly reduce naturalness. The insertion of a gene from another species, the process used in producing genetically modified organisms, produces the biggest drop in naturalness; domestication, a human-accomplished activity that changes genotype and phenotype in major ways, is considered much less damaging to naturalness.

[1]  G. Gaskell,et al.  Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. , 1999, Science.

[2]  Paul Rozin,et al.  The Contagion Concept in Adult Thinking in the United States: Transmission of Germs and of Interpersonal Influence , 1994 .

[3]  James W. Stigler,et al.  Cultural psychology : essays on comparative human development , 1990 .

[4]  K. Rosengren,et al.  Imagining the impossible : magical, scientific, and religious thinking in children , 2000 .

[5]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology1 , 1999 .

[6]  P. Rozin,et al.  The makings of the magical mind: The nature and function of sympathetic magical thinking. , 2000 .

[7]  Paul Rozin,et al.  Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines , 2004, Appetite.

[8]  Edward B. Royzman,et al.  Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion , 2001 .

[9]  L. Bredahl,et al.  Consumers» Cognitions With Regard to Genetically Modified Foods. Results of a Qualitative Study in Four Countries , 1999, Appetite.

[10]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Genetic engineering and food: What determines consumer acceptance , 1995 .

[11]  E. Wilson,et al.  The biophilia hypothesis , 1993 .

[12]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  ‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering , 1997 .

[13]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study , 1994 .