心理科学进展 ›› 2023, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (12): 2393-2405.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.02393
收稿日期:
2023-01-02
出版日期:
2023-12-15
发布日期:
2023-09-11
通讯作者:
喻丰, E-mail: psychpedia@whu.edu.cn
基金资助:
Received:
2023-01-02
Online:
2023-12-15
Published:
2023-09-11
摘要:
“自然”常常被人赋予神圣且仁慈的积极价值。尽管有时自然与人造的物品并无客观差别, 人们仍然推崇天然生成的事物和与生俱来的能力, 此即“自然性偏好(naturalness preference/naturalness bias)”。本文旨在梳理自然性偏好的概念定义, 提出“自然性偏好的三领域概念模型”, 从自然环境、自然物品和天赋偏好等领域总结自然性偏好的发展历程与具体表现, 并首次将其成因归纳为三种因素, 即认知(心理本质主义)、情感(积极与消极情绪)与规范(神圣道德价值观)。未来研究应深入探究自然性偏好的消极后果、文化心理差异及其对新兴科技接受度的影响。
中图分类号:
张昊天, 喻丰. (2023). 自然性偏好的概念、表现及成因. 心理科学进展 , 31(12), 2393-2405.
ZHANG Haotian, YU Feng. (2023). The concept, manifestation and cause of naturalness preference. Advances in Psychological Science, 31(12), 2393-2405.
所属范畴 | 概念内涵 | 具体表现 |
---|---|---|
环境 | 偏好来自大自然的、原生态且非人造的环境 | 自然环境 |
物 | 偏好天然生成的之物 | 自然物与手工制品 |
人 | 偏好与生俱来的能力与特质 | 天赋偏好 |
表1 自然性偏好的三领域概念模型
所属范畴 | 概念内涵 | 具体表现 |
---|---|---|
环境 | 偏好来自大自然的、原生态且非人造的环境 | 自然环境 |
物 | 偏好天然生成的之物 | 自然物与手工制品 |
人 | 偏好与生俱来的能力与特质 | 天赋偏好 |
[1] | 费孝通. (2012). 乡土中国. 北京大学出版社. |
[2] | 黄凯. (2020). 以“手作”传承创新工匠精神的价值与路径分析. 晋阳学刊, (3), 140-143. |
[3] | 李珍. (2020). 人工智能的自然之维. 云南社会科学, (1), 40-46. |
[4] | 徐刚. (2002). 自然哲学双峰: 朱熹与柏拉图比较研究. 上饶师范学院学报, 22(4), 23-29. |
[5] | 许丽颖, 喻丰. (2020). 机器人接受度的影响因素. 科学通报, 65(6), 496-510. |
[6] |
杨盈, 耿柳娜, 相鹏, 张晶, 朱丽芳. (2017). 自然关联性:概念、测量、功能及干预. 心理科学进展, 25(8), 1360-1374.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.01360 |
[7] | 喻丰. (2021). 中西方思维究竟有何差异? 山西师大学报(社会科学版), 48(2), 20-26. |
[8] |
Abouab, N., & Gomez, P. (2015). Human contact imagined during the production process increases food naturalness perceptions. Appetite, 91, 273-277. 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.002
doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.002 URL pmid: 25862979 |
[9] | Baig, S. A., Byron, M. J., Lazard, A. J., & Brewer, N. T. (2019). “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. 10.1093/ntr/nty036 |
[10] |
Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14(1), 5-28. 10.1177/0013916582141001
doi: 10.1177/0013916582141001 URL |
[11] |
Banks, J., Edwards, A. P., & Westerman, D. (2021). The space between: Nature and machine heuristics in evaluations of organisms, cyborgs, and robots. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(5), 324-331. 10.1089/cyber.2020.0165
doi: 10.1089/cyber.2020.0165 URL |
[12] |
Berry, C., Burton, S., & Howlett, E. (2017). It’s only natural: The mediating impact of consumers’ attribute inferences on the relationships between product claims, perceived product healthfulness, and purchase intentions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 698-719. 10.1007/s11747-016-0511-8
doi: 10.1007/s11747-016-0511-8 URL |
[13] |
Billet, M. I., Baimel, A., Sahakari, S. S., Schaller, M., & Norenzayan, A. (2023). Ecospirituality: The psychology of moral concern for nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 87, 102001. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102001
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102001 URL |
[14] |
Bonell, S., Murphy, S. C., Austen, E., & Griffiths, S. (2022). When (fake) beauty turns ugly: Plastic surgery as a moral violation. Current Psychology, 41(8), 5444-5457. 10.1007/s12144-020-01060-0
doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-01060-0 URL |
[15] | Bratman, G. N., Anderson, C. B., Berman, M. G., Cochran, B., de Vries, S., Flanders, J., … Daily, G. C. (2019). Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Science Advances, 5(7), eaax0903. 10.1126/sciadv.aax0903 |
[16] |
Brown, C. M., Troy, N. S., Jobson, K. R., & Link, J. K. (2018). Contextual and personal determinants of preferring success attributed to natural talent or striving. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 134-147. 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.017
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.017 URL |
[17] |
Cao, Y., & Li, H. (2022). Harmony between humanity and nature: Natural vs. synthetic drug preference in chinese atheists and taoists. Journal of Religion and Health, 61(4), 2743-2752. 10.1007/s10943-021-01314-6
doi: 10.1007/s10943-021-01314-6 URL |
[18] | Celniker, J. B., Gregory, A., Koo, H. J., Piff, P. K., Ditto, P. H., & Shariff, A. F. (2023). The moralization of effort. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(1), 60-79. 10.1037/xge0001259 |
[19] |
Chamberlain, R., Mullin, C., Scheerlinck, B., & Wagemans, J. (2018). Putting the art in artificial: Aesthetic responses to computer-generated art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(2), 177-192. 10.1037/aca0000136
doi: 10.1037/aca0000136 URL |
[20] |
Chambers, E., Chambers, E., & Castro, M. (2018). What is “natural”? Consumer responses to selected ingredients. Foods, 7(4), 65. 10.3390/foods7040065
doi: 10.3390/foods7040065 URL |
[21] |
Cusimano, C., Royzman, E. B., Leeman, R. F., & Metas, S. (2018). Measurement is the core disgust problem: Response to inbar and scott. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(6), 639-651.
doi: 10.1017/S1930297500006653 URL |
[22] |
d’Astous, A., & Labrecque, J . (2021). The impact of responsible food packaging perceptions on naturalness and healthiness inferences, and consumer buying intentions. Foods, 10(10), 2366. 10.3390/foods10102366
doi: 10.3390/foods10102366 URL |
[23] |
Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Genetic essentialism: On the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 800-818. 10.1037/a0021860
doi: 10.1037/a0021860 URL pmid: 21142350 |
[24] |
Droege, J. (2022). The handmade effect: A model of conscious shopping in an industrialised economy. Review of Industrial Organization, 60(2), 263-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-021-09844-9
doi: 10.1007/s11151-021-09844-9 URL |
[25] |
Etale, A., & Siegrist, M. (2021). Food processing and perceived naturalness: Is it more natural or just more traditional? Food Quality and Preference, 94, 104323. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104323
doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104323 URL |
[26] |
Frizzo, F., Dias, H. B. A., Duarte, N. P., Rodrigues, D. G., & Prado, P. H. M. (2020). The genuine handmade: How the production method influences consumers’ behavioral intentions through naturalness and authenticity. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 26(4), 279-296. 10.1080/10454446.2020.1765936
doi: 10.1080/10454446.2020.1765936 URL |
[27] |
Fuchs, C., Schreier, M., & van Osselaer, S. M. J. (2015). The handmade effect: What’s love got to do with it? Journal of Marketing, 79(2), 98-110. 10.1509/jm.14.0018
doi: 10.1509/jm.14.0018 URL |
[28] | Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J. (2007). Authenticity: What consumers really want. Harvard Business Press. |
[29] |
Girgis, H., & Nguyen, S. P. (2020). Grown or made? Children’s determination of the origins of natural versus processed foods. Cognitive Development, 56, 100887. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100887
doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100887 URL |
[30] |
Granulo, A., Fuchs, C., & Puntoni, S. (2021). Preference for human (vs. Robotic) labor is stronger in symbolic consumption contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(1), 72-80. 10.1002/jcpy.1181
doi: 10.1002/jcpy.v31.1 URL |
[31] |
Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619-619. 10.1126/science.1134475
URL pmid: 17272713 |
[32] |
Gray, K., & Schein, C. (2016). No absolutism here: Harm predicts moral judgment 30× better than disgust- Commentary on Scott, Inbar, & Rozin (2016). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 325-329. 10.1177/1745691616635598
doi: 10.1177/1745691616635598 URL |
[33] | Hingston, S. T. (2018). Essentialism, moral opposition, and the aversion to genetically modified foods [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. York University. |
[34] |
Inbar, Y., Phelps, J., & Rozin, P. (2020). Recency negativity: Newer food crops are evaluated less favorably. Appetite, 154, 104754. 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104754
doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104754 URL |
[35] |
Inbar, Y., & Scott, S. E. (2018). People respond to GM food with disgust more than fear: Comment on Royzman, Cusimano and Leeman (2017). Judgment and Decision Making, 13(6), 636-638.
doi: 10.1017/S1930297500006641 URL |
[36] |
Inzlicht, M., Shenhav, A., & Olivola, C. Y. (2018). The effort paradox: Effort is both costly and valued. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(4), 337-349. 10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.007
doi: S1364-6613(18)30020-2 URL pmid: 29477776 |
[37] |
Ji, L.-J., Lappas, C. M., Wang, X., & Meier, B. P. (2023). The naturalness bias influences drug and vaccine decisions across cultures. Medical Decision Making, 43(2), 252-262. 10.1177/0272989X221140803
doi: 10.1177/0272989X221140803 URL |
[38] | Jiang, Y., King, J. M., & Prinyawiwatkul, W. (2014). A review of measurement and relationships between food, eating behavior and emotion. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 36(1), 15-28. 10.1016/j.tifs.2013.12.005 |
[39] |
Job, V., Nikitin, J., Zhang, S. X., Carr, P. B., & Walton, G. M. (2017). Social traces of generic humans increase the value of everyday objects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(6), 785-792. 10.1177/0146167217697694
doi: 10.1177/0146167217697694 URL pmid: 28903674 |
[40] |
Judge, M., Fernando, J. W., Paladino, A., & Kashima, Y. (2020). Folk theories of artifact creation: How intuitions about human labor influence the value of artifacts. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(3), 195-211. 10.1177/1088868320905763
doi: 10.1177/1088868320905763 URL pmid: 32111140 |
[41] |
Judge, M., Fernando, J. W., Paladino, A., Mikolajczak, G., & Kashima, Y. (2020). Lay concepts of art, craft, and manufacture and the implications for sustainable consumption. Journal of Social Issues, 76(1), 19-34. 10.1111/josi.12368
doi: 10.1111/josi.v76.1 URL |
[42] | Kaplan, S. (1992). Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using organism. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 581-598). Oxford University Press. |
[43] |
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169-182. 10.1016/ 0272-4944(95)90001-2
doi: 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2 URL |
[44] |
Koch, J. A., Bolderdijk, J. W., & van Ittersum, K. (2021). Disgusting? No, just deviating from internalized norms. Understanding consumer skepticism toward sustainable food alternatives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 76, 101645. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101645
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101645 URL |
[45] |
Koverola, M., Kunnari, A., Drosinou, M., Palomäki, J., Hannikainen, I. R., Jirout Košová, M., … Laakasuo, M. (2022). Treatments approved, boosts eschewed: Moral limits of neurotechnological enhancement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 102, 104351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104351
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104351 URL |
[46] |
Krings, V. C., Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2022). Food technology neophobia as a psychological barrier to clean meat acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 96, 104409. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104409
doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104409 URL |
[47] |
Landy, J. F., Walco, D. K., & Bartels, D. M. (2017). What’s wrong with using steroids? Exploring whether and why people oppose the use of performance enhancing drugs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 377-392. 10.1037/pspa0000089
doi: 10.1037/pspa0000089 URL |
[48] |
Lang, M., & Rodrigues, A. C. (2022). A comparison of organic-certified versus non-certified natural foods: Perceptions and motives and their influence on purchase behaviors. Appetite, 168, 105698. 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105698
doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105698 URL |
[49] |
Lappas, C. M., Coyne, N., Dillard, A. J., & Meier, B. P. (2023). Do physicians prefer natural drugs? The natural versus synthetic drug bias in physicians. European Journal of Health Psychology, 30(1), 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000116
doi: 10.1027/2512-8442/a000116 URL |
[50] |
Li, H., & Cao, Y. (2020). For the love of nature: People who prefer natural versus synthetic drugs are higher in nature connectedness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101496. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101496
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101496 URL |
[51] |
Lockhart, K. L., Keil, F. C., & Aw, J. (2013). A bias for the natural? Children’s beliefs about traits acquired through effort, bribes, or medicine. Developmental Psychology, 49(9), 1669-1682. 10.1037/a0030769
doi: 10.1037/a0030769 URL pmid: 23163638 |
[52] | Lull, R. B., & Scheufele, D. A. (2017). Understanding and overcoming fear of the unnatural in discussion of GMOs. In K. H. Jamieson, D. M. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 409-412). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.44 |
[53] |
Ma, S., Tsay, C. J., & Chen, E. E. (2023). Preference for talented naturals over hard workers emerges in childhood and shapes behavior. Child Development, 94(3), 674-690. 10.1111/cdev.13886
doi: 10.1111/cdev.v94.3 URL |
[54] |
Mallinson, L., Russell, J., Cameron, D. D., Ton, J., Horton, P., & Barker, M. E. (2018). Why rational argument fails the genetic modification (GM) debate. Food Security, 10(5), 1145-1161. 10.1007/s12571-018-0832-1
doi: 10.1007/s12571-018-0832-1 URL |
[55] |
Marsh, L. E., Kanngiesser, P., & Hood, B. (2018). When and how does labour lead to love? The ontogeny and mechanisms of the IKEA effect. Cognition, 170, 245-253. 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.10.012
doi: S0010-0277(17)30274-3 URL pmid: 29080469 |
[56] |
McAllister, E., Bhullar, N., & Schutte, N. S. (2017). Into the woods or a stroll in the park: How virtual contact with nature impacts positive and negative affect. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(7), 786. 10.3390/ijerph14070786
doi: 10.3390/ijerph14070786 URL |
[57] |
Meidenbauer, K. L., Stenfors, C. U. D., Bratman, G. N., Gross, J. J., Schertz, K. E., Choe, K. W., & Berman, M. G. (2020). The affective benefits of nature exposure: What’s nature got to do with it? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72, 101498. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101498
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101498 URL |
[58] |
Meidenbauer, K. L., Stenfors, C. U. D., Young, J., Layden, E. A., Schertz, K. E., Kardan, O., Decety, J., & Berman, M. G. (2019). The gradual development of the preference for natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101328. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101328
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101328 URL |
[59] |
Meier, B. P., Dillard, A. J., Fetterman, A. K., Ji, L.-J., & Lappas, C. M. (2023). Religiosity and the naturalness bias in drug and vaccine choices. Journal of Religion and Health, 62(1), 702-719. 10.1007/s10943-022-01694-3
doi: 10.1007/s10943-022-01694-3 URL |
[60] |
Meier, B. P., Dillard, A. J., & Lappas, C. M. (2019). Naturally better? A review of the natural-is-better bias. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(8), e12494. 10.1111/spc3.12494
doi: 10.1111/spc3.v13.8 URL |
[61] |
Meier, B. P., Dillard, A. J., & Lappas, C. M. (2022). Predictors of the intention to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Journal of Public Health, 44(3), 713-715. 10.1093/pubmed/fdab013
doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdab013 URL |
[62] |
Meier, B. P., Dillard, A. J., Osorio, E., & Lappas, C. M. (2019). A behavioral confirmation and reduction of the natural versus synthetic drug bias. Medical Decision Making, 39(4), 360-370. 10.1177/0272989X19838527
doi: 10.1177/0272989X19838527 URL |
[63] |
Moscato, E. M., & Machin, J. E. (2018). Mother natural: Motivations and associations for consuming natural foods. Appetite, 121, 18-28. 10.1016/j.appet.2017.10.031
doi: S0195-6663(17)30473-7 URL pmid: 29080704 |
[64] |
Nemeroff, C., & Rozin, P. (2018). Back in touch with contagion: Some essential issues. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 3(4), 612-624. 10.1086/699971
doi: 10.1086/699971 URL |
[65] |
Newman, G. E. (2016). An essentialist account of authenticity. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 16(3-4), 294-321.
doi: 10.1163/15685373-12342181 URL |
[66] |
Newman, G. E. (2019). The psychology of authenticity. Review of General Psychology, 23(1), 8-18.
doi: 10.1037/gpr0000158 |
[67] |
Nozawa, C., Togawa, T., Velasco, C., & Motoki, K. (2022). Consumer responses to the use of artificial intelligence in luxury and non-luxury restaurants. Food Quality and Preference, 96, 104436. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104436
doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104436 URL |
[68] | Orians, G. H., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 555-579). Oxford University Press. |
[69] | Perkovic, S., Otterbring, T., Schärli, C., & Pachur, T. (2022). The perception of food products in adolescents, lay adults, and experts: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 10.1037/xap0000384 |
[70] | Philipp-Muller, A., Lee, S. W. S., & Petty, R. E. (2022). Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(30), e2120755119. 10.1073/pnas.2120755119 |
[71] |
Rahman, S., Zasadzinski, L., Zhu, L., Edirisinghe, I., & Burton-Freeman, B. (2020). Assessing consumers’ understanding of the term “Natural” on food labeling. Journal of Food Science, 85(6), 1891-1896. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.15128
doi: 10.1111/jfds.v85.6 URL |
[72] |
Richardson, M., McEwan, K., Maratos, F., & Sheffield, D. (2016). Joy and calm: How an evolutionary functional model of affect regulation informs positive emotions in nature. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2(4), 308-320. 10.1007/s40806-016-0065-5
doi: 10.1007/s40806-016-0065-5 URL |
[73] |
Royzman, E., Cusimano, C., & Leeman, R. F. (2017). What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(5), 466-480.
doi: 10.1017/S1930297500006495 URL |
[74] |
Rozin, P. (2005). The meaning of “natural”: Process more important than content. Psychological Science, 16(8), 652-658. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01589.x
URL pmid: 16102069 |
[75] |
Rozin, P., Fischler, C., & Shields-Argelès, C. (2012). European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite, 59(2), 448-455. 10.1016/j.appet.2012.06.001
doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.06.001 URL pmid: 22698976 |
[76] |
Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., & Wood, K. (2004). Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43(2), 147-154. 10.1016/j.appet.2004.03.005
URL pmid: 15458801 |
[77] |
Rutjens, B. T., Sutton, R. M., & van der Lee, R. (2018). Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 384-405. 10.1177/0146167217741314
doi: 10.1177/0146167217741314 URL pmid: 29191107 |
[78] |
Ryazanov, A. A., & Christenfeld, N. J. S. (2018). The strategic value of essentialism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(1), e12370. 10.1111/spc3.12370
doi: 10.1111/spc3.v12.1 URL |
[79] |
Sanyal, M., McAuliffe, W. H. B., & Curry, O. S. (2023). Gross values: Investigating the role of disgust in bioethics. Current Psychology, 42(4), 2888-2895. 10.1007/s12144-021-01609-7
doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01609-7 URL |
[80] |
Schirmacher, H., Elshiewy, O., & Boztug, Y. (2023). That’s not natural! Consumer response to disconfirmed expectations about ‘natural’ food. Appetite, 180, 106270. 10.1016/j.appet.2022.106270
doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2022.106270 URL |
[81] |
Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y., & Rozin, P. (2016). Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 315-324. 10.1177/1745691615621275
doi: 10.1177/1745691615621275 URL pmid: 27217243 |
[82] |
Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y., Wirz, C. D., Brossard, D., & Rozin, P. (2018). An overview of attitudes toward genetically engineered food. Annual Review of Nutrition, 38(1), 459-479. 10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-051223
doi: 10.1146/nutr.2018.38.issue-1 URL |
[83] |
Scott, S. E., & Rozin, P. (2017). Are additives unnatural? Generality and mechanisms of additivity dominance. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(6), 572-583.
doi: 10.1017/S1930297500006707 URL |
[84] |
Scott, S. E., & Rozin, P. (2020). Actually, natural is neutral. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(10), 989-990. 10.1038/s41562-020-0891-0
doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0891-0 URL |
[85] |
Scott, S. E., Rozin, P., & Small, D. A. (2020). Consumers prefer “natural” more for preventatives than for curatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(3), 454-471. 10.1093/jcr/ucaa034
doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucaa034 URL |
[86] |
Shtulman, A., Share, I., Silber-Marker, R., & Landrum, A. R. (2020). OMG GMO! Parent-child conversations about genetically modified foods. Cognitive Development, 55, 100895. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100895
doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100895 URL |
[87] |
Siegrist, M., Sütterlin, B., & Hartmann, C. (2018). Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat. Meat Science, 139, 213-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.02.007
doi: S0309-1740(17)30345-5 URL pmid: 29459297 |
[88] |
Silver, I., Newman, G., & Small, D. A. (2021). Inauthenticity aversion: Moral reactance toward tainted actors, actions, and objects. Consumer Psychology Review, 4(1), 70-82. 10.1002/arcp.1064
doi: 10.1002/arcp.v4.1 URL |
[89] |
Swiney, L. (2020). Intuitive biology, moral reasoning, and engineering life: Essentialist thinking and moral purity concerns shape risk assessments of synthetic biology technologies. Cognition, 201, 104264. 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104264
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104264 URL |
[90] | Szántó, V. (2018). Essentialism, vitalism, and the GMO debate. Philosophy & Technology, 31(2), 189-208. 10.1007/s13347-017-0276-0 |
[91] | Taylor, Z., & Stevenson, R. J. (2018). People believe and behave as if consumers of natural foods are especially virtuous. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1823. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01823 |
[92] |
Tsay, C.-J. (2016). Privileging naturals over strivers: The costs of the naturalness bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(1), 40-53. 10.1177/0146167215611638
doi: 10.1177/0146167215611638 URL |
[93] |
Tsay, C.-J., & Banaji, M. R. (2011). Naturals and strivers: Preferences and beliefs about sources of achievement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 460-465. 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.010
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.010 URL |
[94] |
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7 URL |
[95] |
van Gerven, D. J., Land-Zandstra, A. M., & Damsma, W. (2019). From Hitler’s sweater to dinosaur fossils: An essentialist outlook on authenticity. Review of General Psychology, 23(3), 371-381.
doi: 10.1177/1089268019858276 |
[96] | Waytz, A., & Young, L. (2019). Aversion to playing God and moral condemnation of technology and science. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 374(1771), 20180041. 10.1098/rstb.2018.0041 |
[97] |
Weinberger, A. B., Christensen, A. P., Coburn, A., & Chatterjee, A. (2021). Psychological responses to buildings and natural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 77, 101676. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101676
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101676 URL |
[98] | Wilks, M., & Bloom, P. (2022). Children prefer natural food, too. Developmental Psychology. 10.1037/dev0001387 |
[99] |
Wilks, M., Hornsey, M., & Bloom, P. (2021). What does it mean to say that cultured meat is unnatural? Appetite, 156, 104960. 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104960
doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104960 URL |
[100] | Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. |
[101] |
Yunes, M. C., Osório-Santos, Z., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., & Hötzel, M. J. (2021). Gene Editing for Improved Animal Welfare and Production Traits in Cattle: Will This Technology Be Embraced or Rejected by the Public? Sustainability, 13(9), 4966. 10.3390/su13094966
doi: 10.3390/su13094966 URL |
[102] | Zhang, H., Yu, F., & Ding, X. (2022). Why are people averse to becoming a cyborg? Untangling the roles of moral attitudes and perceived identity change in technological implant acceptance. Preprint, Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366200912_Why_are_people_averse_to_becoming_a_cyborg_Untangling_the_roles_of_moral_attitudes_and_perceived_identity_change_in_technological_implant_acceptance |
[103] |
Zheng, Y., & Alba, J. W. (2023). Origin versus Substance: Competing Determinants of Disruption in Duplication Technologies. Journal of Consumer Research, 49(6), 944-966. 10.1093/jcr/ucac031
doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucac031 URL |
[1] | 张昊天, 喻丰, 许丽颖, 玄哲理. 道德之一元论与多元论:缘起、内涵与论争[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(2): 301-314. |
[2] | 明晓东, 付静宇, 白新文, 杨建锋. 正念何以减少非伦理行为?双系统理论的视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(10): 1785-1799. |
[3] | 许丽颖, 喻丰, 彭凯平, 王学辉. 智慧时代的螺丝钉:机器人凸显对职场物化的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(9): 1905-1921. |
[4] | 程垦, 王艺霏, 林英晖, 王菁. 观察者对亲组织不道德行为的反应及其反馈效应[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(9): 1944-1954. |
[5] | 王修欣, 申怡凡. 何以应对道德自我威胁?道德记忆偏差的视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(7): 1604-1611. |
[6] | 朱麟, 刘瑾茹, 李静, 刘聪慧. 道德外语效应及其调节变量:来自元分析的证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(1): 32-50. |
[7] | 艾攀, 戴艳. 心理学视角下的道德损伤[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(1): 168-178. |
[8] | 刘传军, 廖江群. 道德困境研究的范式沿革及其理论价值[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(8): 1508-1520. |
[9] | 詹思群, 严瑜. 工作场所不文明行为与职场排斥间的螺旋效应[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(3): 560-570. |
[10] | 王博韬, 魏萍. 道德情绪:探寻道德与创造力关系的新视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(2): 268-275. |
[11] | 严秋斯, 隋杨, 郝雪晶. 亲组织不道德行为的解释机制与理论模型[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(2): 338-352. |
[12] | 胡家镜, 张梦, 马秀丽, 刘燕. 亲顾客偏离行为的顾客响应:基于道德情绪的理论模型[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(12): 2119-2130. |
[13] | 袁晓劲, 刘昌. 道德直觉合乎道义却不客观[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(11): 2083-2090. |
[14] | 沈蕾, 江黛苔, 陈宁, 刘伟. 自豪感的神经基础:比较的视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(1): 131-139. |
[15] | 王桃林, 张勇, 周浩, 张军伟. 亲组织不道德行为的负面效应及其作用机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(8): 1246-1255. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||