| Abstract: | This paper reports two studies which investigate the effects of different definitions of the natural upon human preferences. The first study is designed to show that items are deemed more acceptable when defined as natural than when defined as non-natural. Subjects rated the acceptability of cannabis use after reading a text which either described it as a natural herb or as a drug. Acceptability ratings were significantly higher in the former condition. The second study examines how the way in which the category ‘nature’ is defined affects the acceptability of changes to the environment. Subjects watched videos which showed pictures of landscapes and then superimposed changes which consisted either of wild, non-human elements (W), human elements which fitted with the colour, texture and contours of the original (F), or human elements which were unfitting in terms of these criteria (U). It was predicted that, when we defined nature as virgin territory, W changes would be more acceptable than F or U changes. However when we defined nature as visual harmony, it was predicted that W and F changes would be equally acceptable but U changes would be less so. The results largely confirm these predictions. In discussion we argue for the importance of studying how processes of defining nature affect environment action, and for the use of experimental techniques to complement discursive investigations of such processes. |
