To address ongoing debates about whether feelings of disgust are causally related to moral judgments, we pharmacologically inhibited spontaneous disgust responses to moral infractions and examined effects on moral thinking. Findings demonstrated, first, that the antiemetic ginger (Zingiber officinale), known to inhibit nausea, reduces feelings of disgust toward nonmoral purity-offending stimuli (e.g., bodily fluids), providing the first experimental evidence that disgust is causally rooted in physiological nausea (Study 1). Second, this same physiological experience was causally related to moral thinking: ginger reduced the severity of judgments toward purity-based moral violations (Studies 2 and 4) or eliminated the tendency for people higher in bodily sensation awareness to make harsher moral judgments than those low in this dispositional tendency (Study 3). In all studies, effects were restricted to moderately severe purity-offending stimuli, consistent with preregistered predictions. Together, findings provide the first evidence that psychological disgust can be disrupted by an antiemetic and that doing so has consequences for moral judgments.

The rise of polarization over the past 25 years has many Americans worried about the state of politics. This worry is understandable: up to a point, polarization can help democracies, but when it becomes too vast, such that entire swaths of the population refuse to consider each other's views, this thwarts democratic methods for solving societal problems. Given widespread polarization in America, what lies ahead? We describe two possible futures, each based on different sets of theory and evidence. On one hand, polarization may be on a self-reinforcing upward trajectory fueled by misperception and avoidance; on the other hand it may have recently reached the apex of its pendulum swing. We conclude that it is too early to know which future we are approaching, but that our ability to address misperceptions may be one key factor.

Six preregistered studies ( N = 2,421) examined how people respond to copartisan political-perspective seekers: political allies who attempt to hear from shared opponents and better understand their views. We found that North American adults and students generally like copartisan seekers (meta-analytic Cohen’s d = 0.83 across 4,231 participants, representing all available data points). People like copartisan perspective seekers because they seem tolerant, cooperative, and rational, but this liking is diminished because seekers seem to validate—and may even adopt—opponents’ illegitimate views. Participants liked copartisan seekers across a range of different motivations guiding these seekers’ actions but, consistent with our theorizing, their liking decreased (though rarely disappeared entirely) when seekers lacked partisan commitments or when they sought especially illegitimate beliefs. Despite evidence of rising political intolerance in recent decades, these findings suggest that people nonetheless celebrate political allies who tolerate and seriously consider their opponents’ views.

Teachers use injunctive norms when telling students what they should be doing. But researchers find that sometimes descriptive norms, information about what others are doing, more powerfully influence behavior. Currently, we examine which norm is more effective at increasing self-regulated studying and performance in an online college course. We found injunctive norms increased study behaviors aimed at fulfilling course requirements (completion of assigned activities), but did not improve learning outcomes. Descriptive norms increased

Teachers use injunctive norms when telling students what they should be doing. But researchers find that sometimes descriptive norms, information about what others are doing, more powerfully influence behavior. Currently, we examine which norm is more effective at increasing self-regulated studying and performance in an online college course. We found injunctive norms increased study behaviors aimed at fulfilling course requirements (completion of assigned activities), but did not improve learning outcomes. Descriptive norms increased behaviors aimed at improving knowledge (ungraded practice with activities after they were due), and improved performance. These results imply norms have a stronger influence over behavior when there is a match between the goal of the behavior (fulfilling course requirements vs. learning goals) and the pull of a stated norm (social approval vs. efficacy). Because the goal of education is learning, this suggests descriptive norms have a greater value for motivating self-regulated study in authentic learning environments.