“May I present you: my disgust!” – Declared disgust sensitivity in the presence of attractive models

Disgust sensitivity differs among men and women, and this phenomenon has been observed across numerous cultures. It remains unknown why such sex differences occur, but one of the reasons may relate to differences in self-presentation. We tested that hypothesis in an experiment comprising 299 participants (49% women) randomly allocated into three groups. Each group completed the Three Domains Disgust Scale (TDDS) and rated how disgusting they found olfactory, visual, gustatory, and tactile disgust elicitors either when a male experimenter was present, a female experimenter was present, or no experimenter was present. We hypothesised that male participants in the female experimenter group would declare decreased levels of disgust sensitivity, and female participants in the male experimenter group would declare increased levels of disgust sensitivity. Results showed that despite sex differences in pathogen and sexual disgust, attractive experimenters did not evoke any differences in declared disgust across groups with one exception–both men and women self-presented as more sensitive to sexual disgust in the presence of the female experimenter. We discuss our findings in the light of evolutionary and social theories.     

Disgust in Emotion Theory,Development, and Clinical Work: A Discussion of Josephs

Disgust is one of the primal emotions described by Darwin and strongly influences human motivation, behavior, and psychopathology. Disgust has sensory aspects, but when combined with certain cognitions it can take on moral implications. Although the biological source of disgust is protection from harmful substances, it can be manipulated to achieve political ends. Disgust combined with lust can sometimes lead to heightened sexual excitement. Disgust reactions may also be a defensive denial of our hidden desires. Psychotherapists must be careful to distinguish their own disgust reactions from the patient’s lovemap. In couples therapy, disgust reactions and mutual shaming processes can be clarified and restructured.     

Pavlovian Disgust Conditioning and Generalization: Specificity and Associations With Individual Differences

Although studies have identified differences between fear and disgust conditioning, much less is known about the generalization of conditioned disgust. This is an important gap in the literature given that overgeneralization of conditioned disgust to neutral stimuli may have clinical implications. To address this knowledge gap, female participants (n = 80) completed a Pavlovian conditioning procedure in which one neutral food item (conditioned stimulus; CS+) was followed by disgusting videos of individuals vomiting (unconditioned stimulus; US) and another neutral food item (CS–) was not reinforced with the disgusting video. Following this acquisition phase, there was an extinction phase in which both CSs were presented unreinforced. Importantly, participants also evaluated generalization stimuli (GS+, GS?) that resembled, but were distinct from, the CS after each conditioning phase. As predicted, the CS+ was rated as significantly more disgusting and fear inducing than the CS? after acquisition and this pattern persisted after extinction. However, disgust ratings of the CS+ after acquisition were significantly larger than fear ratings. Participants also rated the GS+ as significantly more disgusting, but not fear inducing, than the GS? after acquisition. However, this effect was not observed after extinction. Disgust proneness did predict a greater increase in disgust and fear ratings of the CS+ relative to the CS? after acquisition and extinction. In contrast, trait anxiety predicted only higher fear ratings to the CS+ relative to the CS? after acquisition and extinction. Disgust proneness nor trait anxiety predicted the greater increase in disgust to the GS+ relative to the GS? after acquisition. These findings suggest that while conditioned disgust can generalize, individual difference variables that predict generalization remain unclear. The implications of these findings for disorders of disgust are discussed.     

Disgust as embodied moral judgment

How, and for whom, does disgust influence moral judgment? In four experiments participants made moral judgments while experiencing extraneous feelings of disgust. Disgust was induced in Experiment 1 by exposure to a bad smell, in Experiment 2 by working in a disgusting room, in Experiment 3 by recalling a physically disgusting experience, and in Experiment 4 through a video induction. In each case, the results showed that disgust can increase the severity of moral judgments relative to controls. Experiment 4 found that disgust had a different effect on moral judgment than did sadness. In addition, Experiments 2-4 showed that the role of disgust in severity of moral judgments depends on participants' sensitivity to their own bodily sensations. Taken together, these data indicate the importance-and specificity-of gut feelings in moral judgments.     

That's disgusting! …, but very amusing: Mixed feelings of amusement and disgust

This study examines mixed feelings of amusement and disgust. Participants (N=102) reported their affect before and after watching a film clip depicting disgusting humour. While watching the clip participants were instructed to take the perspective of either an uninvolved observer or of the clip's protagonist. As expected this clip produced mixed feelings of amusement and disgust, and perspective moderated changes in affect and mixed feelings. Disgust increased equally in both conditions and amusement increased only in the observer condition. As a result mixed feelings of amusement and disgust were more intense in the observer condition. As the first study to demonstrate moderation of mixed feelings, this work adds to the extant literature on mixed feelings and has implications for emotion research.     

Individual Differences in Disgust Sensitivity: Comparisons and Evaluations of Paper-and-Pencil versus Behavioral Measures

Sixty-eight undergraduate students experienced 32 hands-on tasks designed to provide a behavioral validation for the paper-and-pencil Disgust Scale, which the students had completed 2 months before. Tasks assessed participant-determined degree of exposure (looking at, picking up, touching, and in some cases eating) to objects such as a cockroach, cremated ashes, and a freshly killed pig's head and to disgusting video clips (seconds watching). These tasks elicited strong negative affect in a way that was ethical and not very disturbing to participants; they may be useful for future laboratory study of emotion. Participants also experienced nondisgusting control tasks, such as imitating a chicken or holding one's hand in ice-water. Analysis of task intercorrelations indicated four factors: food-related disgust, body-violation-and-death-related disgust, compliance motivation, and embarrassability. Only the two disgust factors correlated significantly with the paper-and-pencil Disgust Scale; a combination of the two correlated .58 with Disgust Scale scores obtained months before the laboratory assessment and correlated .71 with scores obtained immediately after this assessment. Most generally, these results are a reminder that there is no gold standard for personality assessment. As with paper-and-pencil measures, behavioral measures require getting beyond face validity to assess threats to validity from factors such as embarrassment and compliance motivation.     

Sex differences and sex similarities in disgust sensitivity

Across two studies, we test for sex differences in the factor structure, factor loadings, concurrent validity, and means of the Three Domain Disgust Scale. In Study 1, we find that the Three Domain Disgust Scale has indistinguishable factor structure and factor loadings for men and women. In Study 2, we find a small sex difference in sensitivity to pathogen and moral disgust and a large sex difference in sensitivity to sexual disgust, with women more sensitive to disgust across domains. However, correlations between Three Domain Disgust Scale factors and the five factors and 30 facets of the NEO Personality Inventory were indistinguishable between the sexes. These findings suggest that, despite mean sex differences in disgust sensitivity, the Three Domain Disgust Scale measures similar constructs in men and women. Implications for understanding the constructs measured by the Three Domain Disgust Scale are discussed.     

The Treatment of Oedipal Disgust: When One Person’s Sexual Delight Is Another’s Disgust

Sexual disgust has been conceptualized in terms of drive theory and preoedipal dynamics. Sexual disgust can also be conceptualized from a relational perspective that draws on oedipal psychodynamics as well as recent research on disgust as a form of embodied moral cognition. From a subjective viewpoint, sexual disgust is self-affirming, as it preserves the purity, sanctity, and desirability of the self in the face of polluting sexual contact. Yet from an other-centered viewpoint, sexual disgust precludes empathic recognition when it shames the object of sexual disgust and rationalizes its mistreatment. This dialectic of assertion (i.e., refusal to submit to something sexually disgusting) and recognition (i.e., affirmation as an object of sexual desire) plays out in adult romantic relationships when one partner’s sexual delight is the other partner’s sexual disgust.     

Core,animal reminder,and contamination disgust: Three kinds of disgust with distinct personality,behavioral, physiological,and clinical correlates

We examined the relationships between sensitivity to three kinds of disgust (core, animal-reminder, and contamination) and personality traits, behavioral avoidance, physiological responding, and anxiety disorder symptoms. Study 1 revealed that these disgusts are particularly associated with neuroticism and behavioral inhibition. Moreover, the three disgusts showed a theoretically consistent pattern of relations on four disgust-relevant behavioral avoidance tasks in Study 2. Similar results were found in Study 3 such that core disgust was significantly related to increased physiological responding during exposure to vomit, while animal-reminder disgust was specifically related to physiological responding during exposure to blood. Lastly, Study 4 revealed that each of the three disgusts showed a different pattern of relations with fear of contamination, fear of animals, and fear of blood–injury relevant stimuli. These findings provide support for the convergent and divergent validity of core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust. These findings also highlight the possibility that the three kinds of disgust may manifest as a function of different psychological mechanisms (i.e., oral incorporation, mortality defense, disease avoidance) that may give rise to different clinical conditions. However, empirical examination of the mechanisms that underlie the three disgusts will require further refinement of the psychometric properties of the disgust scale.     

A taxometric study of the latent structure of disgust sensitivity: converging evidence for dimensionality

Disgust sensitivity has recently been implicated as a specific vulnerability factor for several anxiety-related disorders. However, it is not clear whether disgust sensitivity is a dimensional or categorical phenomenon. The present study examined the latent structure of disgust by applying three taxometric procedures (maximum eigenvalue, mean above minus below a cut, and latent-mode factor analysis) to data collected from 2 large nonclinical samples on 2 different measures of disgust sensitivity. Disgust sensitivity in the first sample (n=1,153) was operationalized by disgust reactions to food, animals, body products, sex, body envelope violations, death, hygiene, and sympathetic magic, as assessed by the Disgust Sensitivity Scale (J. Haidt, C. McCauley, & P. Rozin, 1994). Disgust Sensitivity Scale indicators of core, animal reminder, and contamination disgust were also examined in the 1st sample. Disgust sensitivity in the 2nd independent sample (n=1,318) was operationalized by disgust reactions to animals, injections and blood draws, mutilation and death, rotting foods, and odors, as assessed by the Disgust Emotion Scale (R. A. Kleinknecht, E. E. Kleinknecht, & R. M. Thorndike, 1997). Results across both samples provide converging evidence that disgust sensitivity is best conceptualized as a dimensional construct, present to a greater or lesser extent in all individuals. These findings are discussed in relation to the conceptualization and assessment of disgust sensitivity as a specific dimensional vulnerability for certain anxiety and related disorders.     

Imagine no religion: Heretical disgust,anger and the symbolic purity of mind

Immoral actions, including physical/sexual (e.g., incest) and social (e.g., unfairness) taboos, are often described as disgusting. But what about immoral thoughts, more specifically, thoughts that violate religious beliefs? Do heretical thoughts taint the purity of mind? The present research examined heretical disgust using self-report measures and facial electromyography. Religious thought violations consistently elicited both self-reported disgust and anger. Feelings of disgust also predicted harsh moral judgement, independent of anger, and were mediated by feelings of “contamination”. However, religious thought violations were not associated with a disgust facial expression (i.e., levator labii muscle activity) that was elicited by physically disgusting stimuli. We conclude that people (especially more religious people) do feel disgust in response to heretical thoughts that is meaningfully distinct from anger as a moral emotion. However, heretical disgust is not embodied in a physical disgust response. Rather, disgust has a symbolic moral value that marks heretical thoughts as harmful and aversive.     

Heteronormativity,Disgust Sensitivity,and Hostile Attitudes toward Gay Men: Potential Mechanisms to Maintain Social Hierarchies

Within a social hierarchy based on sexual orientation, heteronormative ideology serves as a social force that maintains dominant group members’ status (e.g., heterosexual men). Disgust may be an emotional reaction to gay men’s violation of heteronormativity (i.e., same-sex sexual behavior) and motivate hostile attitudes toward gay men to promote interpersonal and intergroup boundaries. Based on this theoretical framework, we hypothesized that sexual disgust—compared to pathogen or moral disgust—would be most strongly associated with antigay hostility and would statistically mediate its relationship with heteronormativity. Heterosexual men in the United States (n?=?409) completed an online questionnaire assessing heteronormative ideology, disgust sensitivity, and hostile attitudes toward gay men. Results support the hypotheses and suggest that gay men’s sexual behavior is the most likely elicitor of disgust and antigay hostility, as opposed to a perceived pathogen threat or moral transgression. The findings indicate that heteronormative attitudes and sexual disgust are likely contributors to antigay hostility. Thus, intervention efforts should seek to improve tolerance of same-sex sexual behavior among heterosexual men, which may mitigate emotional reactions and hostile attitudes toward gay men.

     

厌恶情绪影响道德判断的发展研究

厌恶情绪的产生是为了回避潜在的病菌的威胁。研究发现,相比中性情绪状态下,厌恶情绪让人们更反对违背道德的行为,认为这些行为更错。目前,对于厌恶情绪对道德判断影响的发展还没有相关的研究。本实验以小学一年级,四年级及成人为研究对象来考察厌恶情绪对道德判断影响的发展。实验中被试被随机分入厌恶启动组和控制组,完成厌恶情绪任务和行为的道德判断任务。研究结果显示,在启动厌恶情绪之后,四年级和成人被试对道德违背行为的错误程度判断更为严格,同时四年级被试对行为的回避程度更高。一年级被试在厌恶情绪和控制条件下道德判断差异不显著。研究结果说明厌恶情绪对道德判断的影响是从无到有逐渐发展的。     

Consequences of agreement versus disagreement on physical disgust: How do people perceive the cleanliness and morality of someone who expresses inappropriate disgust

We examined how people perceived a person who expressed inappropriate physical disgust—a person who was either under-disgusted by physically disgusting stimuli or over-disgusted by neutral stimuli. Participants formed an impression of a target after receiving information on how s/he rated disgusting (Studies 1, 2) or neutral (Studies 2, 3) pictures, and disgusting or angering scenarios (Study 4). Studies 1, 2 and 4 found that a target person who failed to experience disgust was seen as disgusting, immoral (but only to the extent that s/he was also seen unclean), and not socially desirable. A target who rated neutral stimuli as disgusting was not judged as disgusting but was nevertheless judged as immoral and not socially desirable (Studies 2, 3). Our results show that a target whose judgments of physical disgust deviate from one's own by showing either too much or too little disgust is perceived to be immoral.     

Gross gods and icky atheism: Disgust responses to rejected religious beliefs

Disgust is an emotional response that helps to maintain and protect physical and spiritual purity by signaling contamination and motivating the restoration of personal cleanliness. In the present research we predicted that disgust may be elicited by contact with outgroup religious beliefs, as these beliefs pose a threat to spiritual purity. Two experiments tested this prediction using a repeated taste-test paradigm in which participants tasted and rated a drink before and after copying a passage from an outgroup religion. In Experiment 1, Christian participants showed increased disgust after writing a passage from the Qur'an or Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, but not a control text. Experiment 2 replicated this effect, and also showed that contact with an ingroup religious belief (Christians copying from the Bible) did not elicit disgust. Moreover, Experiment 2 showed that disgust to rejected beliefs was eliminated when participants were allowed to wash their hands after copying the passage, symbolically restoring spiritual cleanliness. Together, these results provide evidence that contact with rejected religious beliefs elicits disgust by symbolically violating spiritual purity. Implications for intergroup relations between religious groups is discussed, and the role of disgust in the protection of beliefs that hold moral value.     

厌恶加工的神经基础

厌恶是由令人不愉悦、反感的事物诱发的情绪。根据刺激类型的不同, 厌恶可以分为不同的类型。脑岛和基底节是厌恶加工的主要脑区, 前扣带回、杏仁核、丘脑、内侧前额叶也参与厌恶加工。对已有研究的总结发现, 不同类型的厌恶、不同感觉通道的厌恶加工可能具有不同的神经基础。在未来的研究中, 应当注重研究厌恶加工的认知机制、神经基础以及与厌恶相关的神经递质等问题。     

Will you touch a dirty diaper? Attitudes towards disgust and behaviour

Individuals differ in their willingness to engage with disgusting stimuli (e.g., dirty diapers). We propose that such differences are associated with attitudes towards disgust. Specifically, we predicted that people with less negative attitudes towards disgust (i.e., those who evaluate disgust less negatively) would be more willing to engage with disgusting stimuli. We asked participants to engage with disgusting stimuli in the laboratory and used two measures that assess behavioural and affective or cognitive components of attitudes towards disgust. As predicted, less negative attitudes towards disgust were associated with greater engagement with disgusting stimuli, above and beyond the current experience of disgust and the tendency to experience disgust. These findings stress the importance of attitudes towards emotions in understanding emotion-relevant behaviour.     

The Three Domains of Disgust Scale: factor structure, psychometric properties, and conceptual limitations

This investigation examined the measurement properties of the Three Domains of Disgust Scale (TDDS). Principal components analysis in Study 1 (n = 206) revealed three factors of Pathogen, Sexual, and Moral Disgust that demonstrated excellent reliability, including test-retest over 12 weeks. Confirmatory factor analyses in Study 2 (n = 406) supported the three factors. Supportive evidence for the validity of the Pathogen and Sexual Disgust subscales was found in Study 1 and Study 2 with strong associations with disgust/contamination and weak associations with negative affect. However, the validity of the Moral Disgust subscale was limited. Study 3 (n = 200) showed that the TDDS subscales differentially related to personality traits. Study 4 (n = 47) provided evidence for the validity of the TDDS subscales in relation to multiple indices of disgust/contamination aversion in a select sample. Study 5 (n = 70) further highlighted limitations of the Moral Disgust subscale given the lack of a theoretically consistent association with moral attitudes. Lastly, Study 6 (n = 178) showed that responses on the Moral Disgust scale were more intense when anger was the response option compared with when disgust was the response option. The implications of these findings for the assessment of disgust are discussed.     

Pecunia olet: the role of incidental disgust in the ultimatum game

We address the role of the incidental emotion of disgust in the Ultimatum Game. Participants had to choose whether or not to accept a ? offer from a ?0 pot made by another participant; 120 were in a room where a disgusting smell was released and 120 were in a room with no particular smell. Acceptance rates were higher in the room with the disgusting smell. The effect was mainly carried by the male participants who also reported more disgust with the disgusting smell and judged the offer as less unfair than females. We propose a spontaneous discounting explanation. Acceptance rates were higher in the room with the disgusting smell because participants misattributed the disgust induced by the offer to the ambient disgusting smell.