Specificity Versus Generality: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Association Between Trait Disgust Sensitivity and Moral Judgment

Abstract

Disgust seems to play an important role in moral judgment. However, it is unclear whether the role of disgust in moral judgment is limited to certain kinds of moral domains (versus many) and/or certain types of disgust (versus many). To clarify these questions, we conducted a multilevel meta-analysis ( k = 512; N = 72,443) on relations between trait disgust sensitivity and moral judgment (disgust-immorality association). Main analyses revealed a significant overall mean disgust-immorality association ( r = .23). Additionally, moderator analyses revealed significant specificity in disgust type and moral domain (grounded in Moral Foundations Theory): effects were stronger for (a) sexual disgust compared to pathogen disgust, (b) sanctity moral judgments compared to other domains of moral judgments, and (c) sexual-sanctity associations compared to other disgust type-moral domain pairings.

Pathogens or promiscuity? Testing two accounts of the relation between disgust sensitivity and binding moral values.

“…Decades of theory and research have suggested that disgust sensitivity is associated with greater moralization of the binding moral domains (and particularly the sanctity moral domain; for reviews, see Donner et al, 2023;Inbar & Pizarro, 2022). This body of work maintains that binding norms are linked to disgust by virtue of disgust's evolved function as a pathogen avoidance mechanism (Graham et al, 2011(Graham et al, , 2013.…”

“…There are numerous studies showing a positive relationship between disgust sensitivity and concern for a range of moral norms (i.e., greater endorsement of moral norms and/or greater condemnation toward those who violate moral norms; Donner et al, 2023). While these effects emerge primarily for sanctity moral norms (e.g., Black & Barnes, 2017;Dungan et al, 2017;Garvey & Ford, 2014;Inbar et al, 2009;Olatunji et al, 2016;van Dijke et al, 2018; SEXUAL DISGUST AND MORALITY Wagemans et al, 2018Wagemans et al, , 2019, they also emerge for binding moral norms, albeit smaller in size (e.g., Makhanova et al, 2019;Murray et al, 2019;Steiger & Reyna, 2017).…”

“…While these effects emerge primarily for sanctity moral norms (e.g., Black & Barnes, 2017;Dungan et al, 2017;Garvey & Ford, 2014;Inbar et al, 2009;Olatunji et al, 2016;van Dijke et al, 2018; SEXUAL DISGUST AND MORALITY Wagemans et al, 2018Wagemans et al, , 2019, they also emerge for binding moral norms, albeit smaller in size (e.g., Makhanova et al, 2019;Murray et al, 2019;Steiger & Reyna, 2017). A recent meta-analysis revealed that these relationships generalize to (a) validated measures and unvalidated ad hoc measures of disgust sensitivity, (b) validated measures and unvalidated ad hoc measures of moral judgments, (c) preregistered and nonpreregistered reports, (d) different cultures, (e) different ages and genders, and (f) student and online (e.g., Mturk) samples (Donner et al, 2023). Moreover, potential confounds, such as other emotions (e.g., anger and negative affectivity) or political orientation, do not appear to account for the effects (e.g., Chapman & Anderson, 2014;Horberg et al, 2009).…”

Immoral, infectious, or both? How disgust sensitivity predicts judgments of violations against COVID‐19 mitigation actions

“…Disgust (Oaten et al., 2009) is one mechanism of the behavioral immune system (BIS; Schaller & Park, 2011), further differentiating between pathogen, sexual, and moral disgust (Donner et al., 2022; Tybur et al., 2009, 2013). From this perspective, pathogen disgust evolved to foster avoidance of contact with infectious diseases and is triggered by cues like poor hygiene.…”

“…Disgust (Oaten et al, 2009) is one mechanism of the behavioral immune system (BIS; Schaller & Park, 2011), further differentiating between pathogen, sexual, and moral disgust (Donner et al, 2022;Tybur et al, 2009Tybur et al, , 2013.…”