DisgustandPublicOpinion
CindyD.Kam
ProfessorofPoliticalScience
VanderbiltUniversity
[email protected]
BethEstes
DoctoralStudent
VanderbiltUniversity
[email protected]
WethankBunmiOlatunji,LizZechmeister,theResearchonIndividuals,Politics&Society
LabGroup,andseminarparticipantsattheBehavioralResearchWorkshopatVanderbilt
University,theClinicalPsychologyBrownbagseriesatVanderbiltUniversity,andtheVan
EkLectureattheUniversityofColorado‐Boulder,forconstructivefeedback.
ABSTRACT
Wecontributetothegrowingliteratureonemotionsandpoliticsbyfocusingonthe
politicalrelevanceofdisgust,abasicemotioncharacterizedbyvisceralaversiontoa
potentiallyoffensivestimulus.Weofferaconceptualclarificationofdisgust’spotential
connectiontopoliticsandweevaluatehowindividualsensitivitytofeelingdisgusted
affectspublicopinion.Althoughthelimitedworkondisgustandpublicopinionsuggestsa
relationshipbetweendisgustsensitivityandpoliticalconservatism,weshowthatdisgust
sensitivityoperatesindependentlyofpoliticalideologyandinformsawidearrayof
protectionistpolicypreferencesacrosstheideologicalspectrum,evencontrollingforother
relevantpredispositions.Ouranalysessuggestthatdisgustisdistinctfromsimple
outgrouphostilityandtherelationshipbetweendisgustsensitivityandopiniononpolicies
regardingoutgroupsdependsuponthecontentofthosepolicies.Finally,survey
experimentalresultsdemonstratethatpoliticalcommunicationcanactivatedisgust
sensitivityinpublicopinion.
Iaimedatthepublic'sheart,andbyaccidentIhititinthestomach.–UptonSinclair
UptonSinclair’snovel,TheJungle,chroniclesthestrugglesofaLithuanian
immigrantworkinginChicago’smeatpackingindustry.Sinclair,ajournalist,novelist,and
two‐timeSocialistcandidateforCongress,aimedtouseTheJungletospotlightthe
heartbreakingconditionsofAmericanwageworkers,livingatthemercyofacorruptand
mercilesswagesystem.Thepress,thepublic,andpoliticiansseizeduponthenovel,notso
muchforitsharrowingportrayaloftheplightofwageworkers,butforitsgraphic
descriptionsoftoxicpracticesinthemeat‐packingindustry.ThroughTheJungle,
Americanslearnedthattheirsausageswerelacedwithrancidbeefandpork,orworse,rat
meat;thatthecanned“chicken”theyatewasactuallybeefheartsandotherorgans;thata
workercoulddieandbeabsorbedintothelardsoldontheirneighborhoodgroceryshelves.
Then‐PresidentTheodoreRoosevelt,takingadvantageofthepublicoutcry,orderedtwo
separateinvestigationsofthemeatinspectionandpackingindustries.Withinfourmonths
ofTheJungle’sdebut,CongresspassedthePureFoodandDrugsActandtheMeat
InspectionAct.
TheJungleisbutonehistoricalexampleofthepotentialpotencyoftheemotionof
disgustinanimatingpoliticaldebateandinshapingpublicopinion.Contemporary
examplesalongtheselinesareeasytofindaswell.Anti‐abortiondemonstratorsroutinely
usegraphicphotographsofabortedfetuses.PeoplefortheEthicalTreatmentofAnimals
(PETA)hasstagedprotestsatFashionWeekeventsacrosstheglobe–withactivists
wearing(nothingbut)skinnedfoxes,protestorsholdingbloodyphotosofharmedanimals,
anddemonstratorscoveringthemselves(andothers)withfaux‐blood.And,disgusthas
workeditswayintoelectoralcampaignsaswell:CarlP.Paladino,Republicancandidatein
the2010NewYorkStategubernatorialrace,sentgarbage‐scentedmailingstoprospective
voterswiththeheadline“ThestinkofcorruptioninAlbanyisoverpowering”(Chen2010).
Ifpoliticallifeistingedwithdisgust‐ladenrhetoric,disgust‐evokingimagery,and,
evendisgust‐inducingodors,doesthisnecessarilymeanthatdisgustworksitswayinto
publicopinion?Andifso,how?
UNDERSTANDINGDISGUST
Nearly150yearsago,CharlesDarwindescribeddisgustas“somethingrevolting,
primarilyinrelationtothesenseoftaste,asactuallyperceivedorvividlyimagined;and
secondarilytoanythingwhichcausesasimilarfeeling,throughthesenseofsmell,touch,
andevenofeyesight”(1872,p.254).Inhisearlyworkondiscreteemotions,psychologist
PaulEkman(1984)identifieddisgust(alongwithsurprise,anger,fear,sadness,and
happiness)asa“basicemotion,”characterizedbyadistinctivesetofuniversally
recognizablesignalsandadistinctivephysiologicalresponse,andaccompaniedby
automaticappraisalofastimulus.Psychologistslargelyagreethatdisgustoccurswhenan
individualperceivesandseekstorejectcontactwithanimpureobject,action,orevent(e.g.,
Rozinetal.2008).Disgustedindividualsfeelthesensationofnausea(aphysiological
responseassociatedwiththeexpulsionofoffendingmatter)andhaveadistinctfacial
expression:awrinklednose,gape,andretractionoftheupperlip(physiologicalresponses
associatedwithcreatingabarriertowardofentryofoffendingmatterandtoallowthe
expulsionofit;e.g.,Rozinetal.1994).1Inlinewiththisnotionofdisgustascreating
barriersbetweentheselfandoffendingstimuli,Miller(2004)entitlesherbookDisgust:The
GatekeeperEmotion.
1Attestingtotheinnatenessofphysiologicalresponsesofdisgust,eventhecongenitallyblindmakethese
facialexpressionswhendisgusted(Galatietal.1997).
2
Evolutionarypsychologistsbelievethatdisgustdevelopedasadefensivemechanism
toprotectthebodyagainstpathogens.2Thisaspectofdisgust,namelyCoreDisgust,asitis
nowcalled,is“anoraldefenseagainstharmfrompotentialfoods,orthingsthatcaneasily
contaminatefoodssuchasbodyproductsandsomeanimals”(Rozinetal.2008,p.761).
Rozinetal.(2008)distinguishotheraspectsofdisgustthateach,inturn,expandtodefense
ofthebody,soul,andsocialorder.3InterpersonalContaminationDisgustextendsbeyond
thebodytothesoulandthesocialorder:thisisdisgustcharacterizedbyanaversionto
particulargroupsofpeoplesuchasstrangers/outsidersandtosocialbehaviorsthatare
culturallydeemedtobeunacceptable(Rozinetal.2008).Thiscontaminationdisgustalso
containsanaspectofsympatheticmagicalthinking–thattheemotionofdisgustcan
emergeevenwhenthereisno“real”threatofcontamination.Forexample,subjectsfinda
pieceofchocolate(thathappenstobeshapedlikedogfeces)disgusting:eventhoughthe
chocolateitselfisnotlikelytocontaminate,thesympatheticlawofsimilarity(Rozinetal.
1986)impartstheobjectionablequalitiesofdogfecestoachocolateshapedlikethat
object.Contamination,thus,mayberealorimaginary.Importantly,judgmentsabout
whichgroupsofpeopleorwhichbehaviorsaredeemed“disgusting”areculturally
constructed:justbecausesocietyfeelsdisgusttowardaparticulargrouporactiondoesnot
meanthatthegrouporactionactuallypresentarealharm;indeedweoftenunfairly
fabricateareasonsomethingorsomeonedisgustsusasawaytostigmatizethebehavioror
groupandlegislateagainstit(Nussbaum2010).Regardlessofanytrueharmbroughton
2Foradetailedaccountofthisdisease‐avoidancemechanism,see,e.g.,Oatenetal.2009.
3AnimalReminderDisgustextendstoallpartsofthebodyandincludesreminders(suchasthefluidsinvolved
insexualreproductionanddecayingorganisms)thathumansareanimalisticbeings(Rozinetal.2008).We
setasidethisparticularaspectofdisgust,aswebelieveitislesscentrallyrelatedtopoliticscomparedwith
theothertwo.
3
bypurportedobjectsofdisgust,disgustseemstobeapowerfulemotionthatcanbeusedas
protectionagainstphysical,spiritual,andsocietalharm.
Althoughevolutionarypsychologistsfocusondisgustasanadaptivemechanism,
presentinallsocieties,muchoftheexistingempiricalworkondisgustfocusesoneither
state‐basedortrait‐baseddisgust(aswellastheirinteraction).4Here,weareprimarily
interestedintrait‐baseddisgust:individualdifferencesinpeople’ssensitivityto
experiencingdisgust,andtheattitudinalandbehavioralcorrelatesoftrait‐baseddisgust.
Workalongthisveinhasdevelopedvariousscales(andsubscales)toidentifyindividuals’
self‐reportedlikelihoodofexperiencingdifferenttypesofdisgustwhenfacedwithvarious
scenarios.MostworkpointstothepioneeringresearchbyHaidt,McCauley,andRozin
(1994)thatdevelopedandvalidatedtheoriginal32‐itemDisgustScale.5Theoriginalscale
wasaimedattappingsevenaspectsofdisgust:“food,animals,bodyproducts,sex,envelope
violations,death,andhygiene”(Haidtetal.1994,p.710).Subsequentworkhasrevised
4Theempiricalworkonstate‐baseddisgustexamineshowsituationaltriggers(suchasimagesofdisgust‐
evokingobjects,offensivesmells,orbittertastes)inducetheemotionofdisgustandtherebyshape
subsequentattitudesandbehaviors.Onestreamofworkinvestigatesdisgustwithrespecttothe
human/animaldivide:visualexposuretoaspectsofcoredisgust(feces,vomit),byemphasizingthe
“creatureliness”ofhumanbeings,increasestheaccessibilityofdeath‐relatedthoughts(Coxetal.2007).
Anotherstreamofworklooksattheroleofdisgustonsocialjudgments(relatingtodisgustasatriggerfor
protectionofthesocialorder).Forexample,subjectswhowereexposedtooffensivesmells(Schnalletal.
2008),disgustingworkspace(Schnalletal.2008),disgustingvideos(Schnalletal.2008),andbittertastes
(Eskineetal.2011),andwhowereaskedtorecalldisgustingexperiences(Schnalletal.2008)rendered
harsherjudgmentsonmoraltransgressionsthansubjectsintherespectivecontrolconditions.Inanother
streamofwork,Lerneretal.(2004)examinetheendowmenteffectamongsubjectsexposedtoadisgust‐
evokingfilmclip,findingthatdisgustedsubjectswhoparticipateinsubsequenteconomicgameshavelower
sellingprices(theyaremoreeagertoridthemselvesofanendowment)andhigherbuyingprices(theyare
lesseagertoadoptnewitems).Inaseriesofbehavioralstudies,Porzig‐Drummondetal.(2009)examinethe
effectofdisgust‐inducingvideosandpostersonhand‐washingbehaviors,findingsignificantincreasesin
hand‐washinghygieneinbothlabandfieldinterventions.
5Thereareseveralotherindividualdifferencemeasuresondisgustaswell.TheDisgustEmotionscale(DES,
Walls&Kleinknecht1996)isa30‐itemmeasuretappingthepropensitytoexperiencedisgusttowardsfive
typesofstimuli.TheDisgustpropensityandsensitivityscale‐revised(DPSS‐R,vanOverveldetal.2006)isa
twelve‐itemscalethattapspropensitytoexperiencedisgustaswellassensitivity(“tendencytoevaluate
experiencingdisgustnegatively”,Overveldetal.2011,p.327).
4
andreanalyzedthepsychometricpropertiesofthisscale,producingtherevised25‐item
DisgustScale,orDS‐R(Haidt,McCauleyandRozin,1994,modifiedbyOlatunjietal.2007).6
Inlinewiththenotionthatdisgustisaprotectivereactiondesignedtowardoff
contamination,psychologistshaveuncoveredarelationshipbetweendisgustsensitivity
andclinicalconditionssuchasobsessive‐compulsivedisordersandspecificphobias
(OlatunjiandSawchuk2005,Olatunjietal.2007;Tolinetal.2006).Anotherlineofwork
hasuncoveredarelationshipbetweendisgustsensitivityandintergroupattitudes,withthe
ideathatdisgustarisesoutofadesiretoprotectthebody,soul,andsocietyfrom
contamination.Inbaretal.(2009b)demonstrateacorrelationbetweendisgustsensitivity
andimplicitattitudestowardshomosexuals,andNavaretteandFessler(2006)showthat
disgustsensitivityiscorrelatedwithfavoritismtowardsAmericansandhostilitytowards
foreigners.
DISGUSTAND…POLITICS?
Tosaythatdisgustinfluencesourchoicesaboutwhattoeat,whentowash,andwho
toavoidisperhapsindisputable.Buthowmuchofaroledoesdisgustplayinpolitical
attitudes?Asmatteringofexistingwork,mostofitpublishedinthepastfiveyears,offers
suggestivebut,toourmind,notdispositiveevidenceinthisregard.
Someofthisworkcentersontheroleofdisgustinpolicingthesocialorder,withthe
ideathatdisgustservestocontrolthepossibilityofcontagionacrossgroupsofpeople.For
example,Dasguptaetal.(2009)findthatdisgustmanipulationsincreasebiasagainst
disgust‐relevantgroups.Existingworkcitedaboveondisgustsensitivityshowsa
6Theoriginalandrevisedscaleshavebeentranslatedintoatleastelevenlanguagesforusearoundtheworld.
Formoreonthedisgustscale,seehttp://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/disgustscale.html.
5
relationshipbetweendisgustsensitivityandintergroupattitudes.Althoughthesestudies
donotexplicitlylinkdisgustwithpublicpolicypreferences,itisnotdifficulttoseehow
feelingsaboutparticulargroups,ingroupbias,andoutgroupantipathymightleadto
supportoroppositionforcertainpublicpolicies.
Arecentbodyofworkhasbeguntodirectlyexploretherelevanceofdisgust
sensitivityforpolitics.Disgustsensitivityisoftenlinkedtoconservatismthrougha
behavioralimmunesystemaccount:conservativeideology(typicallyconceptualizedas
social,asopposedtoeconomic,conservatism)operatestominimizepathogenentryand
contamination.7Acrossseveralconveniencesamples,Inbarandcolleagues(Inbaretal.
2009a,2012)findasignificant(thoughsubstantivelysmall)correlationbetweendisgust
sensitivityandpoliticalconservatismintheUnitedStates.Forexample,thebivariate
correlationbetweenoveralldisgustsensitivityandideologicalidentificationinInbaretal.
(2012)wasr=0.17.Inbaretal.(2012)alsoutilizealarge‐scalecross‐nationalconvenience
sampletouncoverasignificantbivariaterelationship(r=0.22)betweendisgustsensitivity
andpoliticalconservatismin121separatecountriesoftheworld.Inaddition,Inbaretal.
(2009a)alsoidentifyarelationshipbetweenself‐reporteddisgustsensitivityandspecific
policyattitudes,particularlythoserelatedtomoral,socialissuessuchasabortionandgay
marriageasopposedtoeconomicissuesorforeignpolicy(alsoseeInbaretal.2012),and
Terrizzietal.(2010)uncoverasignificantbivariaterelationshipbetweendisgust
sensitivityandsocialissues(gaymarriage,stemcellresearch,abortion,euthanasia,
medicinalmarijuana)butdonotcontrolforconfoundingfactors.And,therelationship
7ButTyburetal.(2010)explicitlytestforthismechanismand,inthreeseparatestudies,uncoverno
relationshipbetweensensitivitytopathogendisgustandpoliticalconservatism.Theyalsofailedtouncovera
significantrelationshipbetweenoveralldisgustsensitivityandpoliticalconservatism(r=0.06).
6
betweendisgustsensitivityandpoliticsmayalsotranslatetoelectoralchoice:Inbaretal.
(2012)uncoverasuggestivebivariaterelationshipbetweendisgustsensitivityand
intendedpresidentialvotechoice:peoplehighindisgustsensitivityreportedalower
likelihoodthattheywouldvoteforObamain2008(r=‐0.10).
Whilethisworkprovidesafruitfulstartingpointforworkrelatingdisgust
sensitivitytomattersofpoliticalrelevance,webelievefurtherworkisneeded.Mostofthis
workutilizesconveniencesamples;theInbaretal.(2009b)evidenceisbasedonlaboratory
studiesofstudentsandtheInbaretal.(2012)demonstrationsarebasedononline
conveniencesamples.Whilewehavenoapriorioppositiontoconveniencesamplesperse,
thefactisthattheseparticularconveniencesamplesaresharplyskewedintheliberal
direction,makingitdifficulttodiscerntheextenttowhichtherearesubstantialdifferences
acrosstheentireideologicalspectrumoramongliberalsthemselves.8Additionally,mostof
thesignificantbivariatecorrelationsaremodestinmagnitude(inthe0.10to0.20range).
And,muchofthisworkutilizesbivariatecorrelationsthatputasideotherstandard
predictorsofpublicopinion,usesadhocmeasuresyettobevalidatedinthepolitical
scienceliterature(Inbaretal.2009,Study2),orreportsmixedresultsontherelationship
betweendisgustsensitivityandconservatism,whenmeasuredwithpartisanshipor
ideologicalidentification(e.g.,Inbaretal.2009,Study1).
8Forexample,inthelargeUSconveniencesampleusedinStudy1ofInbaretal.(2012),only11.8%ofthe
25,588respondentsareslightlytoveryconservative;10.5%aremoderate,andtheremainder(77.6%)are
verytoslightlyliberal.Inthelarge‐scalestudyofrespondentsfrom121countries,only9.3%ofrespondents
reportedbeingslightlytoveryconservativecomparedwiththe77.5%ofrespondentsreportingbeingslightly
toveryliberal).
7
Ourresearchbuildsonexistingscholarshipinfourways.First,weexaminethe
relationshipbetweendisgustsensitivityandpoliticalideologyusinganationally
representativesampleandastandardpoliticalsciencemeasureofideology.
Second,whilepreviousresearchprovidessuggestiveevidencelinkingdisgust
sensitivitywithconservativeideology,conservativepolicypreferences,andconservative
voting,wewillarguethatdisgustsensitivityshouldhaveadistincteffectonpublicopinion,
onethatmayeitherrunalongsideordivergefrompoliticalconservatism.Althoughwe
entertainthepotentialrelationshipbetweendisgustandideology,wealsoviewdisgustasa
distinctfactorthatcanpotentiallyinfluencepublicopinioninwaysquitedivorcedfrom
standardideologicalaccounts.Wewilltestthispossibilitysystematicallybyinvestigating
therelationshipbetweendisgustsensitivityandawidevarietyofpolicypreferences
Third,weaimtodisentangletherelativeimpactoftwotypesofdisgust—coreand
contamination—ontheconnectionbetweendisgustandpolitics.AlthoughInbaretal.
(2009a)removetheexplicitlysex‐relateditemsfromtheirmeasuretomakesurethese
itemswerenotdrivingtherelationshipbetweendisgustandopinionsonissueslikegay
marriage,theydonotexplicitlycomparecoreandcontaminationdisgust.WhenInbaretal.
(2012)doexaminetheconnectionbetweeneachtypeofdisgustandconservativeattitudes,
theyfindthatcontaminationdisgustseemstohaveastrongerrelationshiptooverall
conservatism,socialconservatism,economicconservatism,foreignpolicyconservatism,
andvotechoicethancoredisgust,butseveraloftheanalysesaresimplebivariate
correlationswithmodestcorrelations.Ultimately,moreworkisneededtobetter
8
understandhowthedifferenttypesofdisgustinfluencepublicopinion,underwhich
circumstances.9
Beyondthesecontributions,wealsoseektoexaminetheextenttowhichpolitical
rhetoriccanactivatedisgustsensitivity.Becausepoliciescanbeframedinmultipleways,
thisallowsforthepossibilitythatpoliticalentrepreneurscanusedisgust‐evokingrhetoric
tomarshaldisgustinpublicopinion.Assuch,wewillexaminetheextenttowhichpolitical
policiescanbeframedinwaystoaccentuateandattenuatetheroleofdisgustinpublic
opinionusingarandomizedsurveyexperiment.
ADISGUSTSENSITIVITYSCALEFORPUBLICOPINION
Beforewecanassesstheeffectofdispositionaldisgustonpublicopinionitishelpful
tounderstandhowwemeasuredisgustsensitivity,thereliabilityofourmeasure,andits
structuralcorrelates.Perhapsthemostcommonlyusedmeasureofdisgustsensitivityis
the25‐itemDS‐R.TheDS‐Rconsistsoftwobatteriesofquestions,askedwithdistinct
formats.Thefirstbatteryofquestionspresentstherespondentwitharangeofnon‐
politicalsituations(e.g.,“IfIseesomeonevomit,itmakesmesicktomystomach.”)and
assessestheiragreementordisagreementwithreactionstovarioussituations.Thesecond
batteryofquestionspresentstherespondentwithascenario(e.g.,“Youseemaggotsona
pieceofmeatinanoutdoorgarbagepail.”)andaskstherespondenttoreportthelevelof
disgustthatscenarioelicits.10
9SeeOatenetal.(2009)foradiscussionofthedistinctionbetweendisgustandcontamination.
10Researchinthisapproachreliesuponself‐reportedassessmentsofsensitivitytodisgust.WorkbyHibbing
andcolleagues(2009)suggeststhatphysiologicalmeasuresofdisgustsensitivitymayalsobeinformative:
theyfindthatrespondentswhoexperiencehigherlevelsofskinconductanceafterthepresentationof
disgust‐evokingimagesvoicemorerestrictiveviewsonhomosexualitythanthosewhoarenotphysiologically
responsivetotheimages.
9
TheDS‐Rtapsthreerelatedbutseparableaspectsofdisgust.Thefirst,CoreDisgust,
isdefinedas“asenseofoffensivenessandthethreatofdisease,consistingofstimulisuch
asrottingfoods,wasteproducts,andsmallanimals”(Olatunjietal.2007,285).Thesecond,
ContaminationDisgust,consistsof“disgustreactionsbasedontheperceivedthreatof
transmissionofcontagion”(Olatunjietal.2007,285).Andthethird,AnimalReminder,
represents“theaversionofstimulithatserveasremindersoftheanimaloriginsof
humans”(Olatunjietal.2007,282).Althoughthe25‐itemDS‐Rhasverygood
psychometricproperties(Olatunjietal.2007;vanOverveldetal.2011)11,theuseof
twenty‐fiveseparateitemstomeasureasingleconstructcanbecost‐prohibitive,time‐
intensive,andunusualinstandardpoliticalsciencesurveys.Assuch,wemeasureDisgust
SensitivityusingeightitemsfromtheDisgustScale(DS‐R).Theseitemswerefieldedona
moduleofthe2012CooperativeCongressionalElectionStudy(CCES).12
ToselectoureightitemsfromtheDS‐R,wefirstdiscardeditemsrelatingtoAnimal
ReminderDisgust,ontheideathat,forthemostpart,CoreDisgustandContamination
DisgustweremorelikelytobepoliticallyrelevantthanAnimalReminderDisgust.TheDS‐
Rcontains12itemstappingCoreDisgust.Ofthose12items,weselectedthetwoitems
fromtheCoreDisgustbatterythathadthehighestfactorloadingsperOlatunjietal.2007
(Study1):DS1andDS6,andtwoitemsfromtheContaminationDisgustbatterythathadthe
highestfactorloadings(DS18andDS19).TheDS‐Rcontainsfiveitemsthattap
ContaminationDisgust.Ofthesefiveitems,oneexplicitlyasksabouta“sexeducation
11Olatunjietal.(2007)demonstrateitsconvergentvalidityusingexistingpsychometricscalestotapfearof
contamination,stateanxiety,theDisgustEmotionScale,andobsessive‐compulsivebehaviors,andvan
Overveldetal.(2011)givefurthervalidationtothethree‐factorstructureanditscross‐culturalportability.
12The2012CCEStookplaceintwowaves.Atwenty‐minuteinternetsurveywasfieldedinOctober2012
beforethegeneralelection,andaten‐minuteinternetsurveywasfieldedduringthetwoweeksfollowingthe
election.FormoreontheCCES2012,seeAnsolabehere(2013)andAnsolabehereandRivers(2013).When
weighted,theCCESisanationallyrepresentativesampleofUSadults.
10
class,”atopicthatcouldhavepoliticalrelevanceandthatmayhavemoreresonanceforan
undergraduateconveniencesample.Hence,whenweexcludethatitem,itleavesuswith
twoitemsfromthefirstbattery(DS13andDS14)andtwoitemsfromthesecondbattery
(DS29andDS31).13
Next,weexaminethedistributionandreliabilityofouroverallscaleandthetwo
subscales.Our8‐itemadditivescale(whichwewillrefertoastheDSR‐8)isrescaledto
rangefrom0(leastdisgustsensitive)to1(mostdisgustsensitive).Ithasnicevariation
withameanof0.58(s.e.=0.01),abell‐shapeddistribution,andaveryhighresponserate
foralleightitems(97.8%ofrespondentsansweredalleight).Thescalealsohasgood
reliability(α=0.71).Wealsoconstructtwoadditivesubscales:a4‐itemCoreDisgustscale
(M=0.69,s.e.=0.01,α=0.63)anda4‐itemContaminationDisgustscale(M=0.46,s.e.=
0.01,α=0.60).Thetwosubscalescorrelateat0.45(p<0.0001).Figure1displaysthe
distributionsoftheoverallscaleandthetwosubscales.14
[Figure1here]
Wenextanalyzethestructuralcorrelatesofourscales.Existingworksuggeststhat
certaintypesofpeoplearemoredisgustsensitivethanothers.Webeginwithtwo
demographiccharacteristics:sexandrace.Existingworkdemonstratesthatwomentend
toscorehigheronthetraditionaldisgustscalethanmen(Haidtetal.1994;Inbaretal.
2008),andthisisthecasewithourmeasureaswell.Themeanscoreformenis0.53
(s.e.=0.01),andthemeanscoreforwomenonthescaleis0.62(s.e.=0.01),witha
13AppendixAdisplaysthefulltextanddescriptivesforeachoftheseitems.There,weseethatthereisgood
variationinhowindividualsrespondtotheseitems.AppendixBdisplaysinter‐itemcorrelations.AppendixC
displaysstandardizedfactorloadingsfromConfirmatoryFactorAnalysis.
14Wealsocreatedaversionoftheoverallscaleandthetwosubscalesbasedonfactorscores.Theresults
weresubstantivelyandstatisticallyidentical;theadditiveandfactor‐scorebasedversionsforoveralland
subscaledisgusteachcorrelateatr>0.95.
11
significantdifferenceofmeansatp<0.001.Existingworkalsoshowsthatblacksaremore
disgust‐pronethanwhites(Haidtetal.1994),andthisisalsothecasewithourmeasure:
themeanscoreforblacksis0.67(s.e.=0.02)andthemeanscoreforwhitesis0.56(s.e.=
0.01),withasignificantdifferenceofmeansatp<0.001.15
Recentevidencesuggeststhatpoliticalconservativesmaybemoredisgustsensitive
thanliberals(Inbaretal.2009a,Inbaretal.2012,Terrizietal.2010),butwebelievethere
ismixedevidenceonthisfront(e.g.,Inbaretal.2009aStudy1showsnocorrelation
betweenpartisanshipanddisgustsensitivity;andTyburetal.2010uncoveran
insignificantcorrelationbetweenideologyanddisgustsensitivity).Inourdataset,the
weightedbivariatecorrelationbetweenpoliticalideology,measuredonaseven‐pointscale
rangingfrom0=VeryLiberalto1=VeryConservative,anddisgustisjustaboutzero(r=
0.0019,ns).Theweightedbivariatepairwisecorrelationbetweenpartisanship,measured
withthestandardbranch‐stemquestionandrangingfromstrongDemocratat0tostrong
Republicanat1,actuallyrunsthewrongway:itis‐0.05(ns),implyingthatstrong
DemocratsonaveragereporthigherlevelsofdisgustsensitivitythanstrongRepublicans.16
Probingfurtherintothedata,weexaminethecorrelationsbetweenideologyand
partisanshipandeachofthedisgustsubscales.Wefindamodestnegativepairwise
correlationbetweencoredisgustandpoliticalideology(r=‐0.069,p<0.06)andbetween
coredisgustandpartisanship(r=‐0.069,p<0.05),suggestingthatliberalsandDemocrats
aremore(notless)disgustsensitivethanconservativesandRepublicans,respectively.
15ThemeanforHispanicsisindistinguishablefromthatofwhites(M=0.57,s.e.=0.02).
16Wealsolookedfornonlinearitiesintherelationshipbetweendisgustsensitivityandideologyand
partisanship.Whenwelookedatthemeanlevelsofdisgustbytheseven‐categoriesofideological
identification,nodiscerniblepatternsemerged.Lookingthemeanlevelsofdisgustbytheseven‐category
partisanshipmeasure,itappearstheremaybeacurvilinearrelationshipbetweenpartisanshipanddisgust
sensitivity,withstrongerpartisans(MstrongDem=0.61,s.e.=0.01;MstrongRep=0.58,s.e.=0.02)expressing
somewhathigherlevelsofdisgustsensitivitythanindependents(M=0.55,s.e.=0.02).
12
And,thepairwisecorrelationbetweenpartisanshipandcontaminationdisgustis‐0.02(ns).
Wedouncoveramodestpositivepairwisecorrelationbetweencontaminationdisgustand
politicalideology(r=0.067)thatismarginallysignificant(p<0.10).
Whilethesepairwisecorrelationsareinteresting,examiningtheneteffectofthese
covariates,aftercontrollingforotherdemographics,isadvisable.Todoso,weregressour
DisgustScale(andseparatelythetwosubscalesforCoreDisgustandContamination
Disgust)onasuiteofdemographicvariables.TheseresultsappearinTable1.There,we
seethatwhilewomenscorehigherontheoverallscaleaswellaseachofthesubscales–
thedifferencebetweenwomenandmenemergesmorestronglyonCoreDisgust.Wealso
seethatalthoughblacksscorehigherontheoverallscale,thisemergesasaresultoftheir
significantlyhigherscoresontheContaminationDisgustscale.WealsoseethatHispanics
scorehigherontheContaminationDisgustscalethanwhites.Finally,partisanshipisnot
significantlylinkedtotheoverallscalenoreitherofthesubscales.Ideological
conservativesscorehigheronContaminationDisgustbutnotCoreDisgust,butthiseffectis
onlymarginallydistinguishablefromzeroatagenerousp<0.10.Thusfar,ouranalyses,
whicharethefirstofwhichweareawarethatarebasedonaweightednationally
representativesample,providelittleevidencesuggestingalinearrelationshipbetween
disgustandpoliticalconservatism.17
17Wealsoconductedananalysisofrespondents’presidentialvotechoicein2012andself‐reportedvote
choicefrom2008.Inbaretal.(2012)findasignificantnegativerelationshipbetweenvoteintentionand
disgust(r=‐0.10forthefulldisgustscale,r=‐0.21forcontaminationsubscale,andr=‐0.07forthecore
disgustsubscale).Weuncoveraninsignificantpairwisecorrelationbetweendisgustandvotechoicein2012
(r=0.008forthewholesampleandr=‐00.065,nsamongwhitesonly)betweendisgustandvotechoicein
2008(r=0.04forthewholesampleandr=‐0.01forwhitesonly).Whenweconductprobitregressionon
whiterespondents,controllingfortheusualcovariates,wefindthatdisgustsensitivitydecreasesthe
likelihoodofvotingforObamain2012(b=‐0.73,s.e.=0.51,ns)andincreasesthelikelihoodofvotingfor
Obamain2008byjustasmuch(b=0.72,s.e.=0.46,ns).Inshort,wehavefoundnoclearevidenceofa
relationshipbetweendisgustsensitivityandpresidentialvotechoice.
13
DISGUSTSENSITIVITYANDPROTECTIONISTPUBLICOPINION
Havingestablishedthatdisgustsensitivityisnotsynonymouswithpolitical
conservatism,ourmaingoalinthissectionistoassesstheextenttowhichoveralldisgust
sensitivityanditssubscalesinformpublicopiniononpolices.Ourprimaryexpectationis
thatpeoplewhoscorehigheronthedisgustsensitivityscale(anditssubscales)willbe
moresupportiveofpoliciesthatservetoprotecttheselfandtheingroupfromphysicalor
moralcontaminationcomparedwithpeoplewhoscoreloweronthescale(andits
subscales).
Wetestthisexpectationusinganarrayofissuesrangingfromfoodsafety
regulation,abortion,immigration,gayrightspolicies,andracialattitudes.18Whilewe
believethereisnonecessaryconnectionbetweendisgustsensitivityandpublicopinion,we
buildourexpectationsherebasedonthecontentoftheissuesandthemostprevalent
framingoftheissues.Someissues,wethink,resonatemorenaturallywiththecontentof
disgust,wheretheissueliterally(ratherthanmetaphorically)dealswithobjectsofcore
disgust(e.g.,pathogensortheexchangeofbodilyfluids).Here,inhomagetoUpton
Sinclair,weexpectfoodsafetyconcernstoelicitthesupportofthedisgust‐sensitive.Oaten
etal.(2009)arguethatmoralissuesarelikelytoevokedisgust“wherethereisaclear
connectionbacktoconcretedisgustelicitors”(p.316).Basedonthis,wesuspecttoseea
relationshipbetweendisgustsensitivityandabortionopinion,particularlygiventhePro‐
LifeMovement’sfrequentuseofgraphicdepictionsofabortions.Weexpectthedisgust
sensitivetoregistermorehostilitytoimmigration;thisexpectationhasitsrootsinthe
behavioralimmunehypothesisfromevolutionarypsychology(Tybur2010).Forgayrights
18Questiontext,responseoptions,andfrequenciesappearinAppendixD.Inter‐itemcorrelationsappearin
AppendixE.
14
policiesandracialattitudes,weprobeintonuanceswithinthesedomains.Weexpect
disgustsensitivitytobemoreconsequentialformattersrelatingtothebodyandcore
elementsofdisgust:thatis,topoliciesandattitudesrelatingtotheintimatejoiningof
bodies–perhapsbestexemplifiedbythetopicsofgaymarriage,interracialdating,and
interracialmarriage.Incontrast,wesuspectdisgustsensitivitytobeoflessconsequence
forthemorepublic,lessintimatepoliciesrelatingto,say,fairemploymentlawsand
affirmativeaction.Oursisthefirststudytopushbeyondasimpleoutgroupprejudicestory
andtoconsidertheparticularitiesofhowfeaturesofpoliciesmayormaynotdrawfrom
disgustsensitivity.
Tosummarize,acrossthesevariousissues,weexpectthatthedisgustsensitivewill
bemoresupportiveoffoodsafetyregulation,lesssupportiveofabortionrights,less
supportiveofimmigrantrights,lesssupportiveofgayrights,andtakemoreracially
conservativepositions–particularlyintheprivateasopposedtopublicdomain.
Importantly,foodsafetyregulationistypicallyconsideredaliberalpolicypreferencewhile
theotherprotectioniststancesalignmorecloselywiththeconservativeside.Usingissues
thatcrosspoliticallinesallowsustoaddfurthercredibilitytoourargumentthatdisgust
propensityisdistinctfrompoliticalconservatism.
Totesttheseexpectations,weanalyzeeachdependentvariableusinganordered
probitmodel,witheachdependentvariablecodedsuchthathighervaluesrepresentthe
moreprotectionistposition.Wecontrolforbasicdemographicssuchasideology,party
identification,education,income,gender,race(onthenon‐racialpolicyitems;blackand
Hispanicrespondentswereomittedfromtheracialattitudesmodels),andagetomakeour
resultsmorecredible.
15
TheresultsinTable2demonstrateasignificantrelationshipbetweenour8‐item
DisgustSensitivityscaleandseveralofthedependentvariables,andFigure2illustratesthe
magnitudeoftheseeffects.19Evenafteraccountingfortheeffectsofsex,race,age,income,
education,ideology,andpartisanship,weseeastrongandsubstantialeffectfordisgust
sensitivityinTable2.Forexample,wecanseethatthosewhoaremoredisgustsensitive
are,indeed,morelikelytosupportlawsformorestringentfoodsafety;thepredicted
probabilityofsupportingalawthatwouldincreasegovernmentregulationoffoodsafety
risesfromabout0.62amongtheleastdisgustsensitivetoover0.88amongthemost
disgustsensitive.20Predictedsupportforrestrictionsonabortion(combiningthetwomost
restrictiveresponses:neverallowedandallowedonlyinthecaseofrapeorincest)rises
from0.19to0.54acrosstherangeofdisgustsensitivity.Peoplewhoaredisgustsensitive
aremoresupportiveofdetainingillegalimmigrantswhocannotprovetheirimmigration
status:thepredictedprobabilityrisesfrom0.49to0.85.
Onthetopicofgayrightsandracialpreferences,weseesomedivergencebetween
governmentpoliciesinthepublicdomainversuspoliciesandpreferencesintheprivate
domain.Therelationshipbetweendisgustsensitivityandthesevariousindicatorssuggests
thatwearepickingupnuancesbeyondsimpleoutgrouphostility.Forexample,weseethat
disgustsensitivityregistersasubstantiallybiggereffectonoppositiontogaymarriage–a
moreprivatematterinwhichthepoliticalrhetoric,asNussbaum(2010)describes,has
beensaturatedwithdisgust‐ladentriggers–comparedwithoppositiontojobprotections
19Thesepredictedprobabilitiessetallcontrolvariablestotheirsamplemeanormodes:whitefemalesaged
40withfamilyincomebetween$50,000‐$59,999,somecollege,whoarepureindependentsandideologically
middle‐of‐the‐road.
20Thesepredictedprobabilitiessetallcontrolvariablestotheirsamplemeanormodes:whitefemalesaged
40withfamilyincomebetween$50,000‐$59,999,somecollege,whoarepureindependentsandideologically
middle‐of‐the‐road.
16
forgays–apublicmatterarguablymoreoftenframedintermsofequalrights.Predicted
oppositiontogaymarriageskyrocketsfrom0.16to0.63acrosstherangeofdisgust
sensitivity,butpredictedoppositiontojobprotectionsforgaysonlymovesfrom0.09to
0.21.Onthetopicofracialpreferences,weseenosignificanteffectofdisgustsensitivityfor
affirmativeaction,butwedoseeasignificanteffectforsocialpreferences:disgust‐sensitive
whitesaremoreopposedtointerracialdatingandmarriage,againsignalingadistinction
betweenthosemattersinthepublicarenaandothersmoreintimatelytiedtotheprivate
andmorecloselyborderingtheterrainofdisgust.Indeed,predictedoppositionto
interracialmarriagerisesnearlyten‐fold,from0.05amongtheleastdisgust‐sensitive
whitesto0.49amongthemostdisgust‐sensitivewhites.
Importantly,theeffectofdisgustsensitivityonthesepreferencesrivalsandinsome
casessurpassesthatofideologyandpartyidentification,makingtheeffectsquite
substantial.Furthermore,andasexpected,disgustsensitivityworksinwaysthat
sometimesruncountertoconservativeinclinations(supportforstricterfoodsafetylaws)
andothertimesalongsideconservativeinclinations(oppositiontoabortion,hostility
towardsimmigrants,andoppositiontogaymarriageandmiscegenation).
[Table2Here]
[Figure2Here]
Aretheseresultsattributabletodisgustsensitivityorsomethingelse?Asnoted,we
havealreadycontrolledforthelikeliestsuspectsinTable2.But,toprobefurther,we
includeamoraltraditionalismscaleinourmodeltoensureourresultsdonotconflate
17
disgustpropensitywithadesiretoadheretotraditionalnotionsofmorality.21Thenew
results,presentedinTable3,suggestthatthisisnotthecase.Evenwhenweincludemoral
traditionalisminthemodeldisgustsensitivitymaintainsastrongeffectonpolicy
preferencesinallcasesexceptforone:theitemspeakingtojobprotectionsfor
homosexuals.Eveninthecaseofgaymarriage,evenaftercontrollingformoral
traditionalism,disgustsensitivityisstillasignificantandsizablepredictorofopinion.
[Table3Here]
Althoughtheeffectofdisgustsensitivityonpolicypreferencescannotbeexplained
awaybymoraltraditionalism,itispossiblethatourresultsaredrivenprimarilybybroader
personalitytraitsthatcorrelatewithbothdisgustsensitivityandpublicopinion.22When
weincludetheBigFivepersonalitytraitsintoourbasemodelwedo,infact,findthat
opennesstoexperience,agreeableness,andconscientiousnesshaveaneffectonatleast
someofthedependentvariables.Importantly,however,wealsofindthatdisgust
sensitivitymaintainsitseffectthroughout.Table3showsthekeyresultsfromthismodel.
Ultimately,theresultshereshowthatdispositionaldisgusthasarobusteffectonavariety
ofpoliticalrelevantissuesandpolicypreferencesthatrivalsthatofeventhemost
predictiveinfluencessuchasideologyandpartisanship.
21Moraltraditionalismisafour‐itemadditiveindex,developedbywithmeanof0.52,s.e.=0.01,andα=0.77.
Itcorrelateswithdisgustsensitivityat0.08(p<0.03).
22WemeasurepersonalitywiththestandardTen‐ItemPersonalityIndex(TIPI).Theweightedpairwise
correlationbetweenthedisgustscaleandtheBigFivepersonalitytraitsare:‐0.010(ns)foropennessto
experience,0.18(p<0.01)forconscientiousness,0.02(ns)forextraversion,0.17(p<0.01)foragreeableness,
and0.02(ns)forneuroticism.
18
Next,weincludetwoothercommonly‐analyzedpredictorsofopinion:
authoritarianismandracialresentment.23Weseethatauthoritarianism(whichismodestly
correlatedwithdisgustsensitivityatr=0.21,p<0.01)exertsanindependenteffectonpublic
opinion–butimportantlyforourpurposes–onlybarelychangestheeffectofdisgust
sensitivitythroughout.Nextwedropinameasureofracialresentment(whichisnot
correlatedwithdisgustsensitivity,r=‐0.02,ns).Noticethatracialresentmenthasan
enormouseffectwhenitcomestoaffirmativeactionandasizableeffectfortheothertwo
racialitems.24But,thedistinctionintheeffectofdisgustsensitivityweobservedabove
betweenthe“publicdomain”itemofaffirmativeactionandthe“privatedomain”items
regardingdatingandmarriageremains.
Asafinalinvestigation,wereanalyzedthemodelsinTable2,thistimebreaking
aparttheDisgustScaleintoitstwocomponents:CoreDisgustandContaminationDisgust.
TheseresultsappearinthelastrowsofTable3.There,weseethattheeffectsofCore
Disgustareinconsistentacrossthedependentvariables,sometimessignificant,but
sometimessignedinthewrongdirection.WealsoseethattheeffectsofContamination
Disgustareconsistentlysigned,largeinmagnitude,andstatisticallysignificantinnearly
everycase(theoneexceptionisaffirmativeaction,wherewewerenotexpectinganeffect,
perthediscussionabove).Here,theevidencesuggeststhatthestrongermechanism
undergirdingtherelationshipbetweendisgustandpublicopiniononprotectionistpolicies
23Authoritarianismisthestandardadditivefour‐itemindexofchild‐rearingvalues(Stenner200x),with
mean0.56,s.e.=0.01,α=0.60.Racialresentmentisthestandardadditivefour‐itemindex(Kinderand
Sanders1996),withmean0.62,s.e.=0.01,α=0.86.
24ConsistentwithKinderandSanders(1996),wefindthatracialresentmenthasaneffectacrossnonrace‐
relateddomainsaswell.
19
isnotagut‐levelreactionofdistastetocoreelementsofdisgust,butafear(whether
groundedorungroundedinreality)ofcontamination.
ACTIVATIONOFDISGUSTSENSITIVITY
Inthislastsection,weexaminetheextenttowhichpoliticaldiscoursecanheighten
theeffectofdisgustsensitivity.Inparticular,wenotethatissuescanbedescribedin
multipleways,andemotionallyevocativelanguagethathighlightssourcesofcoreor
contaminationdisgustmayresonatestronglywiththedisgustsensitive.Tothisend,we
designedanexperimentonfoodsafetytotestthisidea.Recentyearshaveseenasurgein
thefrequencyandscaleofconsumerproductrecallsduetopotentialfoodbornedisease.
TheCentersforDiseaseControlandPreventionestimatethat1in6Americansfallsvictim
tofoodborneillness.25Suchillnessesrangefromminorgastro‐intestinaldiscomfortto
nauseatomoreserioussymptomsthatleadtohospitalizationandevendeath.
Ourexperiment,whichwasfieldedinthepost‐electionwaveofthe2012CCES,
askedrespondentstoreadastoryaboutfood‐borneillnessandfoodsafetyregulation.The
articlewasbaseduponexistingnewsmediacoverageoftheissue.Eacharticleprovided
informationunderthefollowingheadings:“Symptoms,”“Causes,”and“AToothlessLaw?”
Respondentswererandomlyassignedtothetreatmentorcontrolcondition.Thetreatment
conditionexposedsubjectstovivid,disgust‐evokinglanguagethattapscoreaspectsof
disgust.Forexample,wherethecontrolconditionmentions“intestinaldistress,”the
treatmentconditionmentions“projectilevomiting,wateryandbloodydiarrhea,andsevere
cramping.”26Wherethecontrolconditionmentions“contaminants”reachingproduce,the
25http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/facts.html
26ThefulltreatmentsappearinAppendixF.
20
treatmentconditionmentions“animalorhumanfeces.”Weexpectthelanguageinthe
treatmentconditiontoactivatedisgustsensitivityandthusinfluencerespondents’views
onwhatthefederalgovernmentshoulddotoregulatefoodsafetyinthecountry.27
Followingexposuretothearticle,respondentswereasked,“Doyouthinkspending
forFDAenforcementoftheNewFoodSafetyLawshouldbeincreased,keptthesameasit
is,ordecreased?”Inthesampleasawhole,abaremajorityofrespondentssupported
increasedspending(17.5%recommendedalotmorespendingand36.2%recommendeda
littlemorespending).Aboutathirdofrespondentsthoughtspendingshouldremainat
currentlevels,andabout14%ofrespondentsrecommendedcuttingspending.Weare
primarilyinterestedinwhetherthedisgust‐evokinglanguageaccentuatestheroleof
disgustsensitivityinpublicopinion.Assuch,wemodelsupportforincreasedspendingon
theFDAasafunctionoftheDisgustScaleandourbasicsetofcovariates,acrossthe
treatmentandcontrolgroups.28
TheresultsinTable4suggestthatthevividlanguagedidactivatedisgustsensitivity
forpublicopinion.Inthecontrolcondition,thereisnostatisticallysignificantrelationship
betweendisgustsensitivityandspendingpreferences;thosemorepronetofeeldisgusted
arenomorelikelytosupportanincreaseinspendingthanthosewhoarelesspronetofeel
disgusted.Othervariablesdopredictcitizens’viewsonFDAspending,includingage,
householdincome,partisanship,andideology.
27Wealsoinvestigatedstate‐baseddisgust,elicitedinabatteryofemotionquestionsimmediatelyfollowing
thearticle.However,wedonotfindastatisticallyhigherlevelofstate‐baseddisgustamongthoseinthe
treatmentconditioncomparedwiththecontrolcondition.Wedo,however,findarelationshipbetween
disgustsensitivityandself‐reporteddisgustafterviewingtheinformation.
28Tocheckforbalance,weconductedpredictedtreatmentassignmentwithourstandarddemographic
covariates.Noneweresignificantlypredictive(p>F~0.83).
21
Inthetreatmentcondition,however,thereisstrongrelationshipbetweendisgust
sensitivityandsupportforFDAspending.Inthetreatmentcondition,thepredicted
probabilityofsupportinggreaterFDAspendingis0.34amongtheleastdisgustsensitive;it
nearlydoubles(to0.65)amongthemostdisgustsensitive.29Wealsoseethatage
positivelycorrelateswithsupport,witholderpeoplemorelikelytosupportgreaterfood
safetyspending.Andthisisacasewheredisgustcanbemarshaledtoworkagainstthe
grainofideologyandpartisanship.
[Table4Here]
Whatkindofdisgustisdrivingtheseeffects?Wedesignedourtreatmentswith
aspectsofcoredisgustinmind.Assuch,ourprimaryexpectationisthatcoredisgustwill
beactivatedbythevividlanguage.Itisalsopossible,though,thatthevividlanguage
enhancesrespondents’concernsaboutbeingcontaminated–andthusitwouldalsobe
reasonableifcontaminationdisgustwereactivated.Asabove,wesubstitutedouroverall
DisgustScaleforthetwosubscalesandre‐analyzedthemodelinTable4,asshowninthe
lasttwocolumnsofTable4.WefindthatneitherCoreDisgustnorContaminationDisgust
issignificantlyrelatedtosupportforFDAspendinginthecontrolcondition.However,in
thetreatmentcondition,botheffectsrunintheexpecteddirection,butonlyCoreDisgustis
significantlydistinguishablefromzero.Thus,inthiscase,weshowthatremindersofcore
elementsofdisgustcanindeedtriggertheactivationofCoreDisgustanditsapplicationto
publicopinion.30
29Inafullyinteractiveordered‐probitmodel,wherewetestforamoderatingrelationshipbetweendisgust
sensitivityandexperimentalcondition,wefindthattheeffectofdisgustisstrongerinthetreatmentcondition
(p<0.05,one‐tailed).
30Inafinalsetofanalyses,weexploredwhetherouranalysesweresensitivetotheinclusionofanother
potentiallyrelevantcovariate:generalhealth.TheCCEScarriesameasureoftherespondent’sself‐reported
generalstateofhealth.ThisquestionwasadministeredintheProfileSurvey,whichprecededthepre‐
22
CONCLUSIONS
“…thespecificcognitivecontentofdisgustmakesitofdubiousreliabilityinsocial
life,butespeciallyinthelifeofthelaw…itwilldowelltocastdisgustontothe
garbageheapwhereitwouldliketocastsomanyofus.”–MarthaNussbaum,
HidingfromHumanity(2004),p.74‐75
Prominentpoliticaltheoristandlegalscholar,MarthaNussbaum,repudiatesthe
roleofdisgustinthelaw.As“anespeciallyvisceralemotion”(2010,p.13),disgust,
Nussbaumargues,hasnolegitimateplaceinpolicymakingandthepublicsphere.But,to
argueagainsttheplaceofdisgustinpoliticallifeistoassumeitspresence–totakefor
grantedthatitplaysaroleinpolicymakingandpublicopinion.Ourpurposeherehasbeen
toofferaconceptualclarificationontheemotionofdisgust,asitrelatestopolitics,andto
shedempiricallightontheextenttowhich,andtheconditionsunderwhich,disgustfigures
intopublicopinion.
Ourresultsprovidestrongevidencethatdisgustshapespublicopinion.Disgust
sensitivity,wehaveshown,isonlybarelyrelatedtopoliticalideology.Assuch,itcan
provideanindependentsourceofexplanationforcitizens’opinionsandsocialpreferences,
sometimesrunningintandemwithandsometimesmovinginoppositiontopolitical
ideology.Wefindthatdisgustsensitivityinformsawidearrayofprotectionistsocialand
policypreferencesacrosstheideologicalspectrum.Ouranalysessuggestthattheroleof
disgustsensitivityisstrongestonpoliciesthatmostovertlylendthemselvestoconcerns
aboutbodilyandsocietalcontamination.Wealsoshowthattheeffectofdisgustsensitivity
isunaffectedbytheinclusionofother,potentiallyrelatedpredispositions,suchasmoral
electionwaveoftheCCES.Perhapsthedisgustsensitivitymeasureissimplypickingupageneralconcern
aboutone’shealth(andconcomitantdesiretoavoidbecomingill).Thisappearsnottobethecase:disgust
sensitivityandpoorgeneralhealthareunrelated:r=0.01fortheoveralldisgustsensitivityscale,r=0.03(ns)
forCoreDisgust,andr=‐0.01(ns)forContaminationDisgust.Moreover,includingpoorgeneralhealthin
ourmodelmakesnodifferencefortheeffectofdisgustsensitivity:disgustsensitivityremainsinsignificantin
thecontrolconditionandsignificantinthetreatmentcondition.
23
traditionalism,personality,authoritarianism,andracialresentment.Wehaveshownthat
disgustsensitivityisnotmerelyoutgrouphostility.And,wefindthatmostoftheworkin
thesegeneralpolicyopinionandsocialpreferenceeffectsisattributabletothefour‐
questionContaminationDisgustsubscale.
Wehavealsoshownthatdisgustsensitivitycanbeactivatedbypublicdiscourse.In
oursurveyexperiment,disgust‐evokingcommunicationscanactivatedisgustsensitivity
andmarshalitintopublicopinion.Ourresults,webelieve,areallthemoreimpressive
givenourresearchdesign.Recallthatthedisgustsensitivitybatterywasaskedinthepre‐
electionwaveoftheCCES.Thefoodsafetyexperimentwasadministeredamonthlaterin
thepost‐electionwave.Thetreatmentwedesignedwasrelativelymild:itwasconfinedto
asmallproportionofdisgust‐evokingtext–comprisingabout15%ofthewordsinthe
article–thatwasscatteredthroughoutthenewsreport.Weuseddisgust‐evokingtext,as
opposedtodisgust‐evokingimages,andwestillfoundeffects.Wesuspect,giventhat
emotionally‐evocativeimagescanbequicklyandevensubconsciouslyprocessed(e.g.,
BradleyandLang2007),thatusingdisgust‐evokingimagesmighthaveprovokedaneven
strongerresponse.Inpoliticallife,communicationsfromcandidates,activists,andthe
mediacantaketheformofdisgust‐evokingtext(aswehaveemployed),disgust‐evoking
images,oreven,aswithPaladino’srunfortheNewYorkgovernorshipsuggests,disgust‐
evokingsmells.Anyofthesedisgustinductionshasthepotentialforshiftingpublicopinion
inaprotectionistdirection.
Istheconnectionbetweendisgustandpublicopinionsociallyconstructedorinnate
toparticularissues?Althoughdisgusthasitsevolutionaryrootsingut‐levelself‐
protection,manycurrentdisgust‐linkedissueshavebeenarbitrarily—anddangerously,
24
Nussbaumwouldcontend—framedtodrawontheseevolutionarytendenciesandelicit
particularreactions.Hence,wesuspectthatsocialconstructiondoesquiteabitofwork,
notleastbecauseissuescanbeframedinmultipleways.Herewehaveprovidedevidence
thatdisgustinfluencespublicopinion,andwesuspectthatbothvertical(themedia,
politicalentrepreneurs,opinionleaders)andhorizontal(family,peers)networksplaya
roleinforgingtheconnectionbetweendisgustandopinion.
Whilewebelieveourevidenceprovidesastrongfoundationfortheimportanceof
disgustsensitivityinpublicopinion,itbynomeansexhaustsallpossibleinvestigationsof
theroleofdisgustinpolitics.Oneinvestigationbeyondthescopeofthecurrentprojectis
theconnectionbetweendisgustandpoliticalbehavior.Aswehaveshown,disgust
influencespolicypreferences.Butdoesitspurpoliticalaction?Thepotentialeffectof
disgustoncitizens’willingnesstoengageinthepoliticalprocessonbehalfofthoseissuesis
unclear.Whenemotionsarecategorizedonanapproach‐avoidancespectrum,disgustis,at
itscore,anavoidanceemotion.Peoplewhoaredisgustedseektorejecttheoffending
stimuli.Itishardtoimaginethatdisgustwouldservetomotivatepoliticalparticipation–
thatis,toencouragetheproactiveapproachtowardspolitics;itismorelikelythatdisgust
wouldturnpeopleofffrompolitics.Veryrecentworksuggeststhistobethecase:disgust
withpoliticsseemstodepresspoliticalparticipation(Vandenbroek2011)andpolitical
information‐seeking(Vandenbroek2012).Butifdisgustisdemobilizing,whydopolitical
elitesuseit?Wesuspectthatdisgustmaybeusedstrategicallytopersuadetheundecided
andtoenfeebletheopposition,ratherthantomobilizeactivesupportamongbelievers.
Ourfindingsarethefirstthatweknowoftoestablishaclearconnectionbetween
disgustsensitivityandpublicopiniononanationallyrepresentativesample.Wehave
25
shownthatpeoplewhoaremoreeasilydisgustedalsoreportpoliticalandsocial
preferencesaimedatprotectingtheselfandsocietyfromcontamination–beitrealor
imaginary.Andwehaveshownthatthisdisgustsensitivitycanbemarshaledintopublic
opinionbypoliticalrhetoric.Ifdisgustissuchavisceral,physiologicalreactionthatcan
potentiallybeevokedbystrategicpoliticalelites,weworryandwonderiftheconnection
betweendisgustandpublicpolicies,politicalcandidates,andsocialgroups,onceforged,
caneffectivelybeundone.
26
0
5
Percent
10
15
Figure1:DistributionofScoresonDisgustScaleandSubscales
0
.2
.4
.6
DSR-8 scale
.8
1
15
10
Percent
5
0
0
5
Percent
10
15
0
.2
.4
.6
Core Disgust
.8
1
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
Contamination Disgust
Note:Weighteddata
27
1
Figure2:PredictedProbabilityofTakingProtectionistPosition,byDisgustSensitivity
1
.8
Pr(Support)
.4
.6
.8
.2
.4
.6
DSR-8 scale
.8
1
0
.2
0
.2
Pr(Oppose)
.4
.6
.8
Pr(Vote)
.4
.6
.2
0
0
0
.2
.8
1
.8
1
0
.2
.4
.6
DSR-8 scale
.8
1
1
.8
0
.2
Pr(Oppose)
.4
.6
.8
Pr(Oppose)
.4
.6
.2
0
0
.2
.4
.6
DSR-8 scale
.8
1
0
.2
.4
.6
DSR-8 scale
0
.2
.4
.6
DSR-8 scale
.8
1
.8
0
.2
Pr(Oppose)
.4
.6
.8
Pr(Oppose)
.4
.6
.2
0
0
.2
Pr(Oppose)
.4
.6
.8
1
Pr(Interracial Marriage)
1
Pr(Interracial Dating)
1
Affirmative Action
.4
.6
DSR-8 scale
Gay Marriage
1
Job Protections for Gays
Detain Immigrant
1
Abortion
1
Food Safety Law
0
.2
.4
.6
DSR-8 scale
.8
1
EstimatesfromTable2.
28
0
.2
.4
.6
DSR-8 scale
.8
1
Table1.StructuralCorrelatesofDisgustScales
Overall
Core
Contamination
Disgust
Disgust
Disgust
Scale
Female
0.09*** 0.13*** 0.05***
0.01
0.02
0.02
Black
0.08*** ‐0.01
0.18***
0.02
0.02
0.03
Hispanic
0.02
‐0.02
0.05*
0.02
0.02
0.03
Age
‐0.02
‐0.04
‐0.01
0.03
0.03
0.04
HouseholdIncome ‐0.03
‐0.04
‐0.02
0.04
0.04
0.04
IncomeRefused
‐0.03
‐0.05
‐0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
Education
‐0.03
‐0.02
‐0.04
0.02
0.03
0.03
Ideology
0.04
0.00
0.07*
0.03
0.03
0.04
Partisanship
‐0.02
‐0.03
‐0.01
0.03
0.03
0.03
Intercept
0.53
0.68
0.38
0.03
0.03
0.03
p>F
0.00
0.00
0.00
R2
0.11
0.12
0.13
N
1309 1333 1311
Note:TableentryistheOLSregressioncoefficientwithstandarderrorbelow.
Weightedanalysis.
*p<0.10;**p<0.05;***p<0.01.
29
Table2:DisgustScaleandSupportforProtectionistPolicies
Food
Safety
Abortion Detain
Immigrant
Gay
Affirmative
Marriage Action
Interracial Interracial
Dating
Marriage
1.06***
0.30
‐0.18*
0.10
‐0.19
0.12
‐0.67***
0.21
0.60***
0.24
‐0.36
0.23
‐0.06
0.19
‐0.68***
0.17
1.51***
0.24
0.51***
0.19
0.03
0.27
0.73
0.28
1.77
0.29
Job
Protections
forGays
0.53*
0.32
‐0.33***
0.11
‐0.00
0.15
0.06
0.19
0.24
0.28
0.05
0.26
0.15
0.19
‐0.36**
0.18
0.65**
0.29
0.96***
0.19
0.88
0.28
1.80
0.30
2.30
0.31
Disgust
Sensitivity
Female
Black
Hispanic
Age
Income
IncomeRefused
Education
Ideology
Partisanship
τ1
τ2
τ3
τ4
p>F
N
0.90***
0.30
‐0.06
0.10
0.37***
0.13
0.16
0.20
0.07
0.23
‐0.08
0.22
‐0.15
0.21
‐0.07
0.18
‐0.82***
0.24
‐0.89***
0.18
‐2.22
0.26
‐1.23
0.24
0.28
0.24
0.00
1304
0.97***
0.32
0.01
0.11
‐0.18
0.16
0.18
0.19
‐0.28
0.25
‐0.58**
0.26
‐0.34
0.22
‐0.37*
0.19
1.24***
0.28
0.75***
0.20
1.00
0.26
1.45
0.27
2.61
0.29
1.33***
0.36
‐0.26*
0.14
0.54***
0.18
0.15
0.24
0.91***
0.34
‐0.48
0.35
‐0.45*
0.24
‐0.61***
0.22
1.35***
0.35
1.26***
0.26
2.02
0.35
0.00
1304
0.00
1299
0.00
1300
1.23***
0.30
‐0.31**
0.12
(omitted)
(omitted)
1.97***
0.33
‐0.36
0.32
‐0.35*
0.19
‐1.05***
0.20
1.22***
0.43
‐0.14
0.25
1.26
0.31
1.82
0.33
2.49
0.35
3.16
0.35
0.00
1026
0.00
1301
‐0.25
0.30
0.07
0.11
(omitted)
(omitted)
0.40
0.25
0.78***
0.28
0.19
0.22
‐0.52***
0.19
1.72***
0.26
0.73***
0.22
‐0.51
0.25
0.69
0.25
1.73
0.26
0.00
1025
Note:Tableentryistheorderedprobitcoefficientwithstandarderrorbelow.
Weightedanalysis.
*p<0.10;**p<0.05;***p<0.01.
30
1.63***
0.31
‐0.28***
0.11
(omitted)
(omitted)
1.80***
0.25
‐0.21
0.24
‐0.23
0.19
‐0.66***
0.18
0.80***
0.27
0.21
0.20
0.79
0.26
1.16
0.26
2.26
0.26
2.88
0.27
0.00
1026
Table3:EffectofDisgustonPublicOpinion,RobustnessChecks
Food
Safety
Abortion Detain
Immigrant
JobProtections Gay
Affirmative
forGays
Marriage Action
Interracial Interracial
Dating
Marriage
AddingMoralTraditionalism
DisgustSensitivity
MoralTraditionalism
AddingPersonality
DisgustSensitivity
Openness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
AddingAuthoritarianism
DisgustSensitivity
Authoritarianism
AddingRacialResentment
DisgustSensitivity
RacialResentment
BreakingDisgustintoSubscales
CoreDisgust
ContaminationDisgust
0.87***
0.28
‐0.57**
0.26
0.79***
0.29
0.43*
0.26
0.18
0.30
0.13
0.21
0.72**
0.28
‐0.10
0.27
0.96***
0.31
‐0.20
0.20
0.81***
0.28
‐0.86***
0.26
0.20
0.23
0.61**
0.26
0.96***
0.29
1.24***
0.27
0.95***
0.27
1.61***
0.25
1.00***
0.29
‐0.05
0.30
1.17***
0.29
0.08
0.22
‐0.71**
0.30
‐0.12
0.26
0.30
0.33
0.80***
0.18
1.19***
0.27
‐0.10
0.23
0.61**
0.26
0.56**
0.25
0.65**
0.32
‐0.84***
0.27
‐0.35
0.33
0.23
0.21
‐0.47
0.29
‐0.23
0.28
0.69**
0.33
0.99***
0.18
1.16***
0.30
1.44***
0.22
0.41
0.29
1.95***
0.28
1.01***
0.32
‐0.13
0.28
0.01
0.29
‐0.24
0.23
‐0.00
0.34
‐0.46*
0.25
0.96***
0.30
0.33*
0.18
0.67**
0.29
0.58***
0.21
0.57**
0.26
0.62**
0.26
1.22***
0.38
3.19***
0.37
1.43***
0.36
‐0.31
0.34
‐0.08
0.41
‐0.31
0.29
0.10
0.38
‐0.55
0.34
1.11***
0.38
0.94***
0.22
1.48***
0.34
0.54*
0.28
0.10
0.32
1.36***
0.34
‐0.26
0.26
0.90***
0.26
‐0.41
0.31
1.35***
0.29
1.16***
0.30
1.14***
0.35
‐0.30
0.30
‐0.12
0.32
0.76**
0.31
0.33
0.23
‐0.89***
0.31
0.14
0.28
1.44***
0.31
‐0.74**
0.31
‐0.34
0.42
‐0.18
0.25
‐0.62*
0.35
0.03
0.31
‐0.26
0.30
0.04
0.17
1.04***
0.30
0.74***
0.19
‐0.32
0.35
3.20***
0.35
1.54***
0.31
0.34*
0.19
1.31***
0.30
1.02***
0.26
‐0.17
0.28
‐0.15
0.29
1.68***
0.31
‐0.75***
0.27
0.19
0.31
0.03
0.23
‐0.34
0.35
‐0.01
0.28
1.47***
0.31
1.25***
0.28
Note:Tableentryistheorderedprobitcoefficientwithstandarderrorbelow.
Weightedanalysis.AllmodelscontrolforcovariatesinTable2.
*p<0.10;**p<0.05;***p<0.01.
31
1.70***
0.31
1.78***
0.26
0.06
0.29
1.24***
0.32
0.57**
0.27
1.12***
0.29
Table4:DisgustSensitivityandVividLanguage
Control
Treatment Control Treatment
DisgustSensitivity ‐0.06
0.86** 0.43
0.35
CoreDisgust
0.12
0.61*
0.38
0.33
Contamination
‐0.15
0.19
Disgust
0.37
0.35
Female
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.14
Black
0.19
0.58** 0.22
0.62***
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.23
Hispanic
0.08
‐0.15
0.09
‐0.10
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.29
Age
0.58* 1.07*** 0.59*
1.06***
0.31
0.36
0.31
0.37
Householdincome ‐0.89*** 0.24
‐0.90*** 0.27
0.33
0.35
0.34
0.35
Incomerefused
‐0.37
0.46
‐0.37
0.46
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Education
0.22
‐0.17
0.23
‐0.16
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.21
Ideology
‐0.59* ‐2.02*** ‐0.57*
‐2.00***
0.30
0.38
0.30
0.38
Partisanship
‐1.02*** ‐0.25
‐1.01*** ‐0.26
0.26
0.34
0.26
0.33
τ1
‐2.55
‐1.97
‐2.49
‐1.92
0.34
0.32
0.38
0.32
τ2
‐2.07
‐1.50
‐2.01
‐1.46
0.31
0.30
0.35
0.30
‐0.88
‐0.25
‐0.83
‐0.20
τ3
0.32
0.31
0.37
0.31
τ4
0.30
0.98
0.36
1.02
0.34
0.31
0.39
0.31
p>F
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N
537
540
537
541
Note:Tableentryistheorderedprobitcoefficientwithstandarderrorbelow.
Weightedanalysis.
*p<0.10;**p<0.05;***p<0.01
32
APPENDIX
AppendixA.DisgustScaleItemTextandDescriptives.
Item
Fulltext
Disgust
Mean
Subscale
Q1‐Q4:Pleaseindicatehowmuchyouagreewitheachofthefollowingstatements,orhow
trueitisaboutyou.
Stronglydisagree(veryuntrueaboutme)/Mildlydisagree(somewhatuntrueabout
me)/Neitheragreenordisagree/Mildlyagree(somewhattrueaboutme)/Stronglyagree
(verytrueaboutme)
Q1.Monkey
Imightbewillingtotryeatingmonkeymeat,
Core
0.75
undersomecircumstances.(R)(DS1)
0.01
Q2.Vomit
IfIseesomeonevomit,itmakesmesicktomy
Core
0.61
stomach.(DS6)
0.01
Q3.Toilet
Ineverletanypartofmybodytouchthetoilet
Contamination 0.53
seatinpublicrestrooms.(DS13)
0.01
Q4.Cook
Iprobablywouldnotgotomyfavorite
Contamination 0.57
restaurantifIfoundoutthatthecookhadacold.
0.01
(DS14)
Q5‐Q8:Howdisgustingwouldyoufindeachofthefollowingexperiences?
Notdisgustingatall/Slightlydisgusting/Moderatelydisgusting/Verydisgusting/
Extremelydisgusting
Q5.Milk
Youareabouttodrinkaglassofmilkwhenyou Core
0.69
smellthatitisspoiled.(DS18)
0.01
Q6.Maggot
Q6.Youseemaggotsonapieceofmeatinan
Core
0.72
outdoorgarbagepail.(DS19)
0.01
Q7.Chocolate
Q7.Afriendoffersyouapieceofchocolate
Contamination 0.44
shapedlikedogdoo.(DS31)
0.01
Q8.Soda
Q8.Youtakeasipofsoda,andthenrealizethat Contamination 0.29
youdrankfromtheglassthatanacquaintanceof
0.01
yourshadbeendrinkingfrom.(DS29)
Tableentryistheweightedmeanwithstandarderrorbelow.Rindicatesreverse‐coded.
DS(#)indicatesoriginalscaleitemfromoriginalDisgustScale.
Allitemsrescaledtorangefrom0(lowest)to1(highest)indisgust.
33
AppendixB:PairwiseInter‐ItemCorrelationsBetweenDisgustItems
Item
Q1.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
Q5.
Q6.
Q1.Monkey 1.00
Q2.Vomit
0.08** 1.00
Q3.Toilet
0.17*** 0.01
1.00
Q4.Cook
0.15*** 0.14*** 0.41*** 1.00
Q5.Milk
0.17*** 0.25*** 0.16*** 0.22*** 1.00
Q6.Maggot
0.28*** 0.26*** 0.25*** 0.18*** 0.54*** 1.00
Q7.Chocolate 0.22*** 0.22*** 0.14*** 0.26*** 0.35*** 0.38***
Q8.Soda
0.09** 0.21*** 0.24*** 0.27*** 0.28*** 0.29***
Weightedanalysis.
*p<0.10;**p<0.05;***p<0.01.
34
Q7.
1.00
0.35***
Q8.
1.00
AppendixC:ConfirmatoryFactorAnalysisResults
Item
OneFactor Core
Contamination
Model
Disgust Disgust
Q1.Monkey
0.33
0.33
0.04
0.04
‐‐‐‐‐
Q2.Vomit
0.36
0.35
0.04
0.04
‐‐‐‐‐
Q3.Toilet
0.35
0.43
0.05
‐‐‐‐‐
0.06
Q4.Cook
0.39
0.49
0.05
‐‐‐‐‐
0.05
Q5.Milk
0.66
0.69
0.03
0.03
‐‐‐‐‐
Q6.Maggot
0.71
0.78
0.04
0.04
‐‐‐‐‐
Q7.Chocolate
0.56
0.59
0.04
‐‐‐‐‐
0.05
Q8.Soda
0.48
0.56
0.04
‐‐‐‐‐
0.05
Corr(Core,Contamination) 0.72
0.05
N
1456
1456
PseudolnL
‐2244.66 ‐2191.82
SRMR
0.059
0.051
Coefficientofdetermination 0.761
0.861
Tableentryisthestandardizedfactorloadingwithrobuststandarderrorbelow.
Weighteddata.MaximumLikelihoodEstimation.
Allloadingssignificantatp<0.01.
35
AppendixD.PublicOpinionItemTextandDescriptives.
Item
Fulltext
Mean
FoodSafety
SupposethatonElectionDayyoucouldvoteonkeyissuesaswell 0.68
ascandidates.Wouldyouvotefororagainstalawthatwould
(0.01)
increasegovernmentregulationoffoodsafety?
Definitelyvotefor(1)/Probablyvotefor/Probablyvoteagainst
/Definitelyvoteagainst(0)
Abortion
Risaskedtoindicateagreementwithoneoffourstatementsor
0.33
decreasingrestrictiveness,from“Bylaw,abortionshouldneverbe (0.01)
permitted”(coded1)to“Bylaw,awomanshouldalwaysbeable
toobtainanabortion”(coded0)
Detain
Doyoufavororopposeallowinglocalandstatepolicetodetain
0.61
anyonewhocannotprovetheirimmigrationstatus?
(0.01)
Favorstrongly(1)/Favorsomewhat/Opposesomewhat/
Opposestrongly(0)
Job
Doyoufavororopposelawstoprotecthomosexualsagainstjob
0.27
Protections
discrimination?
(0.01)
forGays
Favorstrongly(0)/Favorsomewhat/Opposesomewhat/
Opposestrongly(1)
GayMarriage Doyoufavororopposeallowinggaysandlesbianstomarry
0.46
legally?
(0.02)
Affirmative
Affirmativeactionprogramsgivepreferencetoracialminoritiesin 0.68+
Action
employmentandcollegeadmissionsinordertocorrectforpast
(0.01)
discrimination.Doyousupportoropposeaffirmative
action?Stronglysupport(0)/Somewhatsupport/Somewhat
oppose/Stronglyoppose(1)
B/WDating
Ithinkit’sallrightforblacksandwhitestodateeachother.
0.28+
Stronglyagree(0)/Somewhatagree/Neitheragreenordisagree (0.02)
/Somewhatdisagree/Stronglydisagree(1)
Interracial
Ipreferthatmycloserelativesmarryspousesfromtheirsame
0.48+
Marriage
race.
(0.02)
Stronglyagree(1)/Somewhatagree/Neitheragreenordisagree
/Somewhatdisagree/Stronglydisagree(0)
Tableentryistheweightedmeanwithstandarderrorbelow.
Allitemsrescaledtorangefrom0(leastprotectionist)to1(mostprotectionist).
+Whitesonly.
36
AppendixE.PairwiseInter‐ItemCorrelationsBetweenPublicOpinionItems
Item
Food
Safety
FoodSafety
1.00
Abortion
‐0.15***
Detain
‐0.20***
JobProtections ‐0.28***
forGays
GayMarriage
‐0.22***
‐0.34***
Affirmative
Action+
B/WDating+
‐0.05
‐0.10**
Interracial
Marriage+
Abortion Detain
Gay
Marriage
Affirmative B/W
Action
Dating
1.00
0.31***
0.33***
1.00
0.23*** 1.00
0.52***
0.17***
0.39*** 0.45***
0.45*** 0.31***
1.00
0.30***
1.00
0.19***
0.15***
0.30*** 0.36***
0.32*** 0.34***
0.37***
0.34***
0.25***
0.29***
Weightedanalysis.+Whitesonly.
*p<0.10;**p<0.05;***p<0.01.
Job
Protections
37
1.00
0.63***
AppendixF:ExperimentalStimuli
ControlCondition
TreatmentCondition
38
REFERENCES
Ansolabehere,Stephen.2013."Guidetothe2012CooperativeCongressionalElectionSurvey."
March11,2013.Availableathttp://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/21447.
Ansolabehere,Stephen,andDouglasR.Rivers.2013.Cooperativesurveyresearch.Annualreviews
ofpoliticalscience16:307‐329.
Darwin,Charles.1872.Theexpressionoftheemotionsinmanandanimals.London:JohnMurray.
Dasgupta,Nilanjana,DAvidDeSteno,LisaA.Williams,andMatthewHunsinger.2009.Fanningthe
flamesofprejudice:Theinfluenceofspecificincidentalemotionsonimplicitprejudice.
Emotion9(4):585‐591.
Haidt,Jonathan,andJesseGraham.2007.Whenmoralityopposesjustice:Conservativeshavemoral
intutionsthatliberalsmaynotrecognize.Socialjusticeresearch20(1):98‐116.
Haidt,Jonathan,ClarkR.McCauley,andPaulRozin.1994.Individualdifferencesinsensitivityto
disgust:Ascalesamplingsevendomainsofdisgustelicitors.Personalityandindividual
differences16(5):701‐713.
Hibbing,MatthewV.,JohnR.Alford,KevinB.Smith,andDouglasR.Oxley.2009."Theickfactor:
Disgustsensitivityasapredictorofpoliticalattitudes."PaperpresentedattheAnnual
MeetingsoftheMidwestPoliticalScienceAssociation,Chicago,IL.
Inbar,Yoel,DavidA.Pizarro,andPaulBloom.2009.Conservativesaremoreeasilydisgustedthan
liberals.Cognitionandemotion23(4):714‐725.
Inbar,Yoel,DavidA.Pizarro,JoshuaKnobe,andPaulBloom.2009.Disgustsensitivitypredicts
intuitivedisapprovalofgays.Emotion9(3):435‐439.
Keltner,Dacher,andJenniferS.Lerner.2010."Emotion."InHandbookofsocialpsychology,fifth
edition,eds.SusanT.Fiske,DanielT.GilbertandGardnerLIndzey.NewYork:JohnWiley&
Sons.317‐352.
McDermott,Rose,andPeterK.Hatemi.2012.Policingtheperimeter:Disgustandpurityin
democraticdebate.PS:Politicalscience&politics45(4):675‐687.
Miller,SusanB.2004.Disgust:Thegatekeeperemotion.Hillsdale,NJ:TheAnalyticPress.
Navarette,CarlosDavid,andDanielM.T.Fessler.2006.Diseaseavoidanceandethnocentrism:The
effectsofdiseasevulnerabilityanddisgustsensitivityonintergroupattitudes.Evolutionand
humanbehavior27:270‐282.
Nussbaum,MarthaC.2004.Hidingfromhumanity:Disgust,shame,andthelaw.Princeton:Princeton
UniversityPress.
———.2010.Fromdisgusttohumanity.NewYork:Oxford.
Oaten,Megan,RichardJ.Stevenson,andTrevorI.Case.2009.Disgustasadisease‐avoidance
mechanism.Psychologicalbulletin135(2):303‐321.
Olatunji,BumniO.,andCraigN.Sawchuk.2005.Disgust:Characteristicfeatures,social
manifestations,andclinicalimplications.Journalofsocialandclinicalpsychology24(7):
932‐962.
Olatunji,BumniO.,NathanL.Williams,DavidF.Tolin,JonathanS.Abramowitz,CraigN.Sawchuk,
JeffreyM.Lohr,andLisaS.Elwood.2007.Thedisgustscale:Itemanalysis,factorstructure,
andsuggestionsforrefinement.Psychologicalassessment19(3):281‐297.
Rozin,Paul,JonathanHaidt,andClarkR.McCauley.2008."Disgust."InHandbookofemotions,eds.
MichaelLewis,JeannetteM.Haviland‐JonesandLisaFeldmanBarrett.NewYork:Guilford.
757‐776.
Rozin,Paul,LindaMillman,andCarolNemeroff.1986.Operationofthelawsofsympatheticmagic
indisgustandotherdomains.Journalofpersonalityandsocialpsychology50(4):703‐712.
Smith,CraigA.,andPhoebeC.Ellsworth.1985.Patternsofcognitiveappraisalinemotion.Journalof
personalityandsocialpsychology48:813‐838.
39
Tolin,DavidF.,CarolM.Woods,andJonathanS.Abramowitz.2006.Disgustsensitivityand
obsesive‐compulsivesymptomsinanon‐clinicalsample.Journalofbehaviortherapyand
experimentalpsychiatry37:30‐40.
Tybur,JoshuaM.,LeslieA.Merriman,AnnE.CaldwellHooper,MelissaM.McDonald,andCarlos
DavidNavarette.2010.Extendingthebehavioralimmunesystemtopoliticalpsychology:
Arepoliticalconservatismanddisgustsensitivityreallyrelated?Evolutionarypsychology8
(4):599‐616.
40