IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v19y2024ip-_18.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Americans believe in the benevolence of nature, and this belief is not lower in people who have experienced natural disasters

Author

Listed:
  • Rozin, Paul
  • Chen, Richard
  • Scott, Sydney E.
  • Cusimano, Corey

Abstract

American and European adults prefer natural products and often pay premiums to purchase natural products. They may do this because they believe natural products are better, either functionally or inherently. We present a measure that assesses belief in the ‘benevolence of nature’ across a range of products and a range of situations, including safety, sensory appeal, and effectiveness. American adults show a substantial belief in the benevolence of nature. This belief is sometimes erroneous, with participants attributing higher quality to some natural products that are in fact inferior to their artificial counterparts. In support of the belief that natural products are inherently better, many participants express a preference for a natural as opposed to an artificial product when both are stipulated to be chemically identical or to have identical effects. An original set of 24 items to measure belief in the benevolence of nature is refined into a more useful 10-item scale, and correlations with related scales are assessed. Belief in the benevolence of nature is not lower in participants who have experienced at least one natural disaster.

Suggested Citation

  • Rozin, Paul & Chen, Richard & Scott, Sydney E. & Cusimano, Corey, 2024. "Americans believe in the benevolence of nature, and this belief is not lower in people who have experienced natural disasters," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19, pages 1-1, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:19:y:2024:i::p:-_18
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S193029752300044X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:19:y:2024:i::p:-_18. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.