Perceived Naturalness, Whether Real or Framed, Leads to Human Acceptance of Sustainable and Climate Tech, According to Social Psychologists

      The naturalistic bias, where humans favor something natural over something made by humans, is well known and well documented, and according to new social psychology research, is still a strong force that often determines whether new climate technologies are accepted or not by the public. The researchers found that it does not matter whether that naturalness is real or if it is framed in such a way that makes it seem natural. Thus, it is ‘perceived naturalness’ that leads to greater acceptance.

     The study was led by Sarah Gonzalez-Coffin at the University of Colorado Boulder. The naturalistic bias was found to hold regardless of political ideology, although I did notice from the supplementary materials that most survey participants identified as liberal and urban or suburban.

"We found that naturalness predicts support over and above a lot of other things you might think matter, like risk and benefit perceptions or how much people understand the technology," said first author Sarah Gonzalez-Coffin, who earned her doctorate in social psychology from CU Boulder in May.    

     As noted above, the study found that shifts in framing toward framing a technology as natural can lead to more public acceptance. Senior author and psychology professor Leaf Van Boven noted:

 "Our study shows that often it is not the technology itself, but the way we communicate about it that shapes public response."

     The study found that lab-grown meat was regarded as unnatural and not easy to support. It was also found that technologies with minimal human intervention were more supportable.

"We ask ourselves all the time: Is this natural? And we have a deep aversion to things that are artificial," said Van Boven, noting that this has been shown to hold true across genders and among urban and rural populations. "It's part of being human."

     According to Phys.org:

“In a second study, the authors manipulated their descriptions to frame technologies in a natural light. For instance, direct-air carbon capture was described as a technology "that mimics natural processes to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, similar to the way that plants pull carbon from the atmosphere through their leaves."

“This simple wording change led to higher levels of support across the board.”

     Van Boven did note the “dark side” of the naturalistic fallacy, as it is also known. The simple facts are that many human-created, or synthetic, technologies are incredibly beneficial and some nature-based technologies are harmful, and the preference for naturalness is not rooted in rationality and science. Thus, I would say the findings here, again of mostly liberal, urban, and suburban participants, are bad news. People are clinging to biases that give no real basis for preference. As a case in point, I would say that if synthetic fertilizers were banned so that only natural, organic fertilizers were permitted, it would likely lead to mass human death through loss of yields, with much more land farmed to try and make up the difference, and difficulty in maintaining soil fertility. 

     In another sense, the study is saying that so-called greenwashing works, in this case by framing something as natural to garner support. While human tampering can make things harmful, it can also make them beneficial, and I would bet that the beneficial far outweighs the harmful. Is this bias human nature, or is it itself a product of human psychological tampering through prevailing opinions about technology and the fearmongering of catastrophism and technophobia? Since liberals more often espouse catastrophism and technophobia, it is probably good that the study has more liberals.

 

References:

 

Perceived naturalness emerges as key driver of public support for climate technology. Lisa Marshall. Phys.org. August 11, 2026. Perceived naturalness emerges as key driver of public support for climate technology

Naturalness catalyzes public support for carbon dioxide removal and low-carbon energy technologies. Sarah Gonzalez-Coffin, Shahzeen Z. Attari, Holly Buck, Amanda R. Carrico, Yoel Inbar, Ezra Markowitz, Kaitlin T. Raimi, Jonathon P. Schuldt, Trisha Shrum & Leaf Van Boven. Communications Earth & Environment (2026). July 20, 2026. Naturalness catalyzes public support for carbon dioxide removal and low-carbon energy technologies | Communications Earth & Environment