What Makes Moral Disgust Special? An Integrative Functional Review

People who seem disgusting seem more immoral

Despite unresolved questions about replicability, a substantial number of studies find that disgust influences and arises from evaluations of immoral behavior and people. Departing from prior emphases, the current research examines a novel, related question: Are people who are viewed as disgusting (i.e., people whose habits seem disgusting) perceived as more immoral than typical or unusual people? Four experiments examined this, also exploring the downstream impacts of moral character judgments. Adults who seemed disgusting were regarded as more immoral for purity and non-purity violations (Experiment 1) and less praiseworthy for prosocial acts (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, an 8-year-old with typical (but seemingly disgusting) habits was rated as "naughtier" and likelier to misbehave than an atypical child who loved vegetables and disliked sweets. Experiment 4 revealed how, when no behavioral information is available, beliefs about target disgust influence beliefs about future behavior, helping explain why seemingly disgusting targets are viewed as more immoral, but not always more punishable for their bad behavior.

Anger and disgust shape judgments of social sanctions across cultures, especially in high individual autonomy societies

When someone violates a social norm, others may think that some sanction would be appropriate. We examine how the experience of emotions like anger and disgust relate to the judged appropriateness of sanctions, in a pre-registered analysis of data from a large-scale study in 56 societies. Across the world, we find that individuals who experience anger and disgust over a norm violation are more likely to endorse confrontation, ostracism and, to a smaller extent, gossip. Moreover, we find that the experience of anger is consistently the strongest predictor of judgments of confrontation, compared to other emotions. Although the link between state-based emotions and judgments may seem universal, its strength varies across countries. Aligned with theoretical predictions, this link is stronger in societies, and among individuals, that place higher value on individual autonomy. Thus, autonomy values may increase the role that emotions play in guiding judgments of social sanctions.

Human emotional evaluation of ancestral and modern threats: fear, disgust, and anger

Introduction

Animal and human ancestors developed complex physiological and behavioral response systems to cope with two types of threats: immediate physical harm from predators or conspecifics, triggering fear, and the risk of infections from parasites and pathogens leading to the evolution of the behavioral immune system with disgust as the key emotion. Integration of the evolutionary concepts of the fear module and behavioral immune systems has been infrequent, despite the significant survival advantages of disgust in various contexts. Studies comparing attention to ancestral and modern threats accompanied by fear have yielded ambiguous results and what qualifies as salient modern disgusting stimuli remains unclear. We do not know whether disgust or the behavioral immune system, as inherent aspects of human psychology, have adapted to safeguard us from pandemic risks or poisoning by modern toxic substances.

Methods

To test these effects, we have developed a survey comprised of 60 short vignettes describing threats evoking fear and disgust belonging to one of the three main categories of threats: (1) ancestral (phylogenetic), (2) modern (ontogenetic), and (3) pandemics of airborne disease. Each vignette was evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale based on fear, disgust, and anger. In total, 660 respondents completed the survey. The data were analysed using a factor analysis and general linear model with the respondent as a random factor.

Results

The results show that the strongest fear is triggered by modern threats (electricity, car accidents), while the highest disgust is evoked by ancient threats (body waste products, worms, etc.). Interestingly, disgust does not respond to modern threat stimuli such as toxic substances or radioactivity as these evoke mainly fear and anger. Finally, a distinct response pattern was found for pandemic threats, in which both fear (e.g., of disease and death) and disgust (e.g., of used face masks) are employed.

Discussion

Our study offers valuable insights into the emotional responses to ancestral and modern threats and their adaptation to pandemic challenges. Ancestral threats are not always more powerful stimuli than adequate threats of the modern type, but they function specifically. Thus, snakes and heights as fear-inducing ancestral threats form separate factors in a multivariate analysis, whereas all ancestral disgust stimuli group together. The threat of a pandemic forms a specific category and people process it emotionally and cognitively. These insights contribute to our understanding of human psychology and behavior in an ever-changing world.

Third-party punishers who express emotions are trusted more

Third party punishment (TPP) is thought to be crucial to the evolution and maintenance of human cooperation. However, this type of punishment is often not rewarded, perhaps because punishers' underlying motives are unclear. We propose that the expression of moral emotions could solve this problem by advertising such motives. In each of three experiments (n = 1711), a third-party punishment game was followed by a trust game. Third parties expressed anger or disgust instead of, or in addition to, financial punishment. Results showed that third parties who expressed these emotions were trusted more than those who didn't express (Experiment 1), and more than those who financially punished (Experiment 2). Moreover, third parties who expressed while financially punishing were trusted more than those who punished without expressing (Experiment 3). Findings suggest that emotion expression might play a role in the evolution and maintenance of cooperation by facilitating TPP.

Far from the eyes, far from the heart: COVID-19 confinement dampened sensitivity to painful facial features

In the last 2 years, governments of many countries imposed heavy social restrictions to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus, with consequent increase of bad mood, distress, or depression for the people involved. Few studies investigated the impact of these restrictive measures on individual social proficiency, and specifically the processing of emotional facial information, leading to mixed results. The present research aimed at investigating systematically whether, and to which extent, social isolation influences the processing of facial expressions. To this end, we manipulated the social exclusion experimentally through the well-known Cyberball game (within-subject factor), and we exploited the occurrence of the lockdown for the Swiss COVID-19 first wave by recruiting participants before and after being restricted at home (grouping factor). We then tested whether either form of social segregation influenced the processing of pain, disgust, or neutral expressions, across multiple tasks probing access to different components of affective facial responses (state-specific, shared across states). We found that the lockdown (but not game-induced exclusion) affected negatively the processing of pain-specific information, without influencing other components of the affective facial response related to disgust or broad unpleasantness. In addition, participants recruited after the confinement reported lower scores in empathy questionnaires. These results suggest that social isolation affected negatively individual sensitivity to other people's affect and, with specific reference to the processing of facial expressions, the processing of pain-diagnostic information.

Are monetary gifts negatively labeled? Material benefits and prosocial motivation evaluation

We examined whether people perceive prosocial actors' prosocial motivations differently when prosocial actors gain monetary gifts and goods gifts. Across five studies, 1351 participants read different prosocial scenarios that depicted prosocial actors who gained either monetary or goods gifts. Then, they evaluated the prosocial motivations of the prosocial actors. Studies 1-5 consistently found that people perceived prosocial motivations to be less authentic when prosocial actors chose to receive monetary gifts compared with goods gifts. In addition, moral disgust and moral character evaluation mediated this effect (Studies 3-4). Moreover, the negative effect of monetary gifts on people's perception of prosocial motivation further undermined their helping intention to prosocial actors (Study 5). Our research expanded the understanding of people's perception of material gifts in prosocial behavior by proposing the model of monetary benefits aggravated tainted altruism. Besides, our findings provide insights into public policy and charity rules.

Followers forever: Prior commitment predicts post-scandal support of a social media celebrity