IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v21y2026ip-_13.html

Relations between natural, technology, and sustainability: A common belief in a causal link between natural and sustainable

Author

Listed:
  • Rozin, Paul
  • Kim, Ellen
  • Mehra, Richa
  • Lusk, Jayson
  • Ruby, Matthew B.

Abstract

In two studies of attitudes and beliefs of American adults (N = 482), there is a substantial positive correlation between pro-natural and pro-sustainability, a weak negative correlation between pro-technology and pro-natural, and a moderate positive or negative correlation between pro-technology and pro-sustainability, depending on the way technology is framed. Participants also believe strongly that natural policies are ‘good for’ sustainability. Liberals are substantially more pro-sustainable than conservatives, but both political groups are strongly pro-natural. Most respondents explicitly believe that organic farming is ‘good for sustainability’, and many believe that genetically engineered foods are not good for sustainability. On open-ended explanations for their beliefs about positive linkages between natural and sustainability, respondents’ reasons are frequently vague, very generic, factually incorrect, or irrelevant to sustainability (e.g., claims that genetically modified organisms are unnatural or bad for human health). Respondents are inclined to believe in a positive association, often a causal link, between natural and sustainable, both concepts they favor. Additional results from a British adult sample show that 65% agree with the statement: ‘Generally, more natural things cause more sustainable outcomes.’ This may be an example of causal inference supported by congruent valences.

Suggested Citation

  • Rozin, Paul & Kim, Ellen & Mehra, Richa & Lusk, Jayson & Ruby, Matthew B., 2026. "Relations between natural, technology, and sustainability: A common belief in a causal link between natural and sustainable," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21, pages 1-1, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:21:y:2026:i::p:-_13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S193029752610028X/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:21:y:2026:i::p:-_13. 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.