Is it disgusting to be reminded that you are an animal?

Kollareth, Dolichan; Russell, James A.

doi:10.1080/02699931.2016.1221382

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Disgust functions to protect the human “soul” from distress caused by this knowledge (Rozin & Fallon, 1987; Rozin, Haidt, & McCauley, 2008). Because of the theoretical and empirical limitations of this account (see Tybur et al, 2009, for a full discussion), including the finding that many reminders of our animal nature do not elicit disgust (Kollareth & Russell, 2016), the current article focuses on comparing the empathy account of injury disgust with more recent pathogen-avoidance perspectives on disgust.…”

Section: An Empathy Account Of Injury Disgustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are injuries disgusting? Comparing pathogen avoidance and empathy accounts.

Kupfer

2018

Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to pathogen-avoidance perspectives on disgust, injuries, gore, mutilation, or body-envelope violations elicit disgust because they have infectious potential. Here, an alternative explanation is proposed: People empathically simulate an observed injury, leading to unpleasant vicarious feelings, and for lack of a more accurate word, they describe the feelings as disgust. In Study 1, factor analysis of participants' disgust ratings showed that injury items emerged as a separate factor from pathogen items. A behavioral experiment in Study 2 demonstrated that subjects were less willing to touch dressings that had ostensibly been in contact with infections compared with dressings that had contacted equally disgusting injuries, suggesting that the disgust reported toward injuries is not based on an appraisal of contamination threat. Analysis of participants' subjective feeling descriptions in Study 3 revealed that injury stimuli were predominantly associated with feelings of empathy and vicarious pain, rather than the prototypical disgust feelings associated with infection stimuli. Study 4 showed that the level of disgust reported toward injuries was more strongly predicted by perceived pain and horror than by perceived infectiousness, whereas disgust toward infections was equally well predicted by perceived infectiousness and perceived pain and horror. Together, these findings support the hypothesis that disgust reported toward injuries describes an unpleasant vicarious experience based on empathy, which is not the same emotion as the prototypical disgust elicited by pathogen cues. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

show abstract

Section: An Empathy Account Of Injury Disgustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are injuries disgusting? Comparing pathogen avoidance and empathy accounts.

Kupfer

2018

Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Disgust reactions in the two conditions. Because participants in the human-plus-animal condition were reminded of their animal nature more than were participants in the human-only condition, both Rozin et al's (2008) Animal Reminder Hypothesis and Kollareth and Russell's (2016) Unpleasant Animal Reminder Hypothesis predict greater disgust in the human-plus-animal condition than in the human-only condition. That prediction was not supported.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Animal reminders per se are not disgusting. In a previous set of studies, pleasant events that remind us of our animal nature did not elicit disgust (Kollareth & Russell, 2016). Thus, the remaining question was whether or not this was true for unpleasant animal reminders.…”

Section: Study 3: Animal Reminders For Physical Disgust Versus Norm V...mentioning

confidence: 91%

“…The finding poses a challenge to the hypothesis of an animal reminder as the cause of disgust. One previous study had challenged the generality of the Animal Reminder Hypothesis by showing that only unpleasant—but not pleasant—animal reminders are disgusting (Kollareth & Russell, 2016). The present study adds to this challenge by showing that not all unpleasant animal reminders are disgusting and that even the unpleasant animal reminders that do elicit disgust may not do so, because they remind us of our animal nature.…”

Section: Study 3: Animal Reminders For Physical Disgust Versus Norm V...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kollareth and Russell (2016) proposed and offered evidence for a modification of the Animal Reminder Hypothesis. In a series of six studies, participants indicated the intensity of their disgust reaction to pleasant and unpleasant animal-reminder stories and pictures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Even unpleasant reminders that you are an animal need not disgust you.

Kollareth

Russell

2018

Emotion

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three studies (Ns = 200, 400, 400) tested the hypothesis that we humans feel disgust when reminded of our animal nature. Participants verbally rated their disgust reaction to pictures of humans engaged in various unpleasant actions. For pictures of events that present danger or suffering, accompanied by an explicit and vivid reminder that animals face the same situation, participants reported fear and sadness rather than disgust. For pictures of events that present a norm violation, an explicit animal reminder (relative to a human picture alone) did not lead to a consequent increment in disgust. For pictures of events that present a physically disgusting contamination, an explicit animal reminder (relative to a human picture alone) led to a decrement in disgust. Thus, not all unpleasant animal reminders are disgusting. Some disgusting things may remind us of our animal nature, but they are not disgusting because they do so. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract