The Aversion to Tampering with Nature (ATN) Scale: Individual Differences in (Dis)comfort with Altering the Natural World

Abstract

People differ in their comfort with tampering with the natural world. Although some see altering nature as a sign of human progress, others see it as dangerous or hubristic. Across four studies, we investigate discomfort with tampering with the natural world. To do so, we develop the Aversion to Tampering with Nature (ATN) Scale, a short scale that is the first to directly measure this discomfort. We identify six activities that people believe tamper with nature (geoengineering, genetically modified organisms, pesticides, cloning, gene therapy, and nanoparticles) and show that ATN scores are associated with opposition to these activities. Furthermore, the ATN Scale predicts actual behavior: donations to an anti‐tampering cause. We demonstrate that ATN is related to previously identified constructs including trust in technology, naturalness bias, purity values, disgust sensitivity, aversion to playing God, and environmental beliefs and values. By illuminating who is concerned about tampering with nature and what predicts these beliefs, the ATN Scale provides opportunities to better understand public opposition to technological innovations, consumer preferences for “natural” products, and strategies for science communication.

Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research

“…Along mechanistically similar lines, a more specific value scale that measures people's comfort with tampering with nature has recently been proposed (Raimi, Wolske, Hart, & Campbell-Arvai, 2020). Here, people who are strongly opposed to tampering with nature showed less support for technologies such as genetically modified organisms, pesticides, and geoengineering compared with people accepting tampering with nature.…”

“…Concerns about tampering with nature (Sjöberg & af Wahlberg, 2002) are related to the natural-isbetter heuristic. Geoengineering, gene technology, pesticide use, and cloning are technologies that are predominantly perceived as tampering with nature (Raimi et al, 2020). People differ in how tampering with nature a technology is perceived, and it has been shown that support for carbon dioxide removal techniques is influenced by perceptions of tampering with nature (Wolske, Raimi, Campbell-Arvai, & Hart, 2019).…”

Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review

“…However, it should be acknowledged that recent research on the construct “aversion to tampering with nature” has contributed to the literature by proposing a definition as well as by developing a scale to measure this construct (Raimi et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the construct ”aversion to tampering with nature” differs from the construct “tampering with nature.” The former emphasizes the individual differences between people in their perception whether humans, in general, should tamper with nature, while the latter focuses on differences in the perception of tampering with nature between technologies and behaviors.…”

“…General measures of tampering with nature aim to assess whether people hold the belief that, in general, humans should not tamper with nature. Others have referred to general tampering with nature as an “aversion to tampering with nature” (Raimi et al., 2020; Wolske et al., 2019). Thus, the general measure of tampering with nature measures a part of people's general views on the relation between humans and nature, rather than whether they perceive a specific entity as tampering with nature.…”

“…Moreover, tampering with nature is used to refer to people's belief as to whether humans, in general, should tamper with nature (also referred to as “aversion to tampering with nature,” Raimi, Wolske, Hart, & Campbell‐Arvai, 2020; Wolske, Raimi, Campbell‐Arvai, & Hart, 2019), as well as to the specific perception that a technology or behavior tampers with nature. The former focuses on differences in the general perception of tampering with nature between humans, while the latter emphasizes differences in tampering with nature between technologies and behaviors.…”