Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan;41(1):141-156.
doi: 10.1111/risa.13619. Epub 2020 Nov 3.

Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review

Gea Hoogendoorn  1 , Bernadette Sütterlin  1 , Michael Siegrist  1
Affiliations

Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review

Gea Hoogendoorn et al. Risk Anal. 2021 Jan.

Abstract

Tampering with nature has been shown to be a strong, and sometimes even the strongest, predictor of the risk perception and acceptance of various technologies and behaviors, including environmental technologies, such as geoengineering. It is therefore helpful to understand what tampering with nature is as a construct, to which factors it relates, and when a technology or behavior is perceived as such. By means of a systematic review, we show that very little systematic research has been conducted on tampering with nature. Because tampering with nature has not yet been clearly defined, no systematic operationalization of tampering with nature has been used in the current literature. We show that tampering with nature is often used interchangeably with other constructs, such as naturalness. Based on the literature, we suggest that tampering with nature is related to and possibly influenced by three other constructs, which are naturalness, morality, and controllability. We discuss the influence of tampering with nature on the acceptance and risk perception of various technologies and behaviors and make suggestions for future research needs in order to better understand this construct.

Keywords: Controllability; morality; naturalness; risk perception; tampering with nature.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Arentshorst, M. E., de Cock Buning, T., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2016). Exploring responsible innovation: Dutch public perceptions of the future of medical neuroimaging technology. Technology in Society, 45, 8-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.01.003
    1. Asayama, S., Sugiyama, M., & Ishii, A. (2017). Ambivalent climate of opinions: Tensions and dilemmas in understanding geoengineering experimentation. Geoforum, 80, 82-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.01.012
    1. Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., & Vaughan, N. E. (2016). Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisal of geoengineering. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 269-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514548628
    1. Besley, J. C., & Oh, S. H. (2014). The impact of accident attention, ideology, and environmentalism on American attitudes toward nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 34, 949-964. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12151
    1. Bett, C., Ouma, J. O., & Groote, H. D. (2010). Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food. Food Policy, 35, 332-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.01.003

Publication types