Biophobia refers to a fear of living things, which leads to alienation from nature. The literature examining the underlying mechanisms and treatment of biophobia is sparse. This review aims to increase the readers' understanding of biophobia by examining the more extensive literature on specific phobias, namely animal phobia, as it most closely resembles biophobia. Fear, anxiety and disgust play an important role in specific phobias. Their triggers and functions are reviewed in the context of animal phobia. Theoretical models for specific phobias suggest that phobias develop because genetically linked behavioural patterns interact with normal development fears and environmental factors. Phobias are then maintained by cognitive and behavioural mechanisms. Exposure therapy, the gold standard treatment for specific phobia, functions to override the maladaptive stimulus–stimulus and stimulus‐response associations responsible for animal and other specific phobias. Its delivery and efficacy are reviewed. We recommend that readers interested in biophobia use the existing knowledge on animal phobia and specific phobia in general to treat biophobia and generate research hypotheses for future study. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

No abstract

Disgust serves to defend the body from the entry of toxins and disease. Central to this function is a strong relationship with the proximate senses of smell, taste, and touch. Theory suggests that distinct and reflexive facial movements should be evoked by gustatory and olfactory disgusts, serving to impede bodily entry. While this hypothesis has received some support from facial recognition studies, whether smell and taste disgusts actually produce distinct facial responses, is unknown. Moreover, there has been no assessment of the facial response evoked by contact with disgusting objects. To address these issues, this study compared facial responses to touch, smell, and taste disgusts. Sixty-four participants were asked to touch, smell, and taste disgust-evoking and neutral control stimuli, and rate them on disgust, on two occasions-first, while they were video recorded and second, with facial electromyography (EMG) applied (measuring levator labii and corrugator supercilii activity). Videos were coded for facial expressions by humans and for facial action units (FAUs) by machines. Self-report data confirmed the disgust stimuli as highly disgusting. Comparison of the overall pattern of FAUs evoked by touch, smell, and taste disgusts, indicated two distinct facial disgusts for the proximate senses-a chemosensory and a tactile-disgust face. The nose wrinkle and upper lip raise were central to all facial disgusts, indicating their centrality to the disgust face. Several facial disgusts appear to exist, each with different functional goals.

No abstract

Several studies have examined if disgust can be evoked by contacting an object – yet none have examined if reported disgust changes when the hand leaves the object. This is surprising given that post-contact tactile disgust is probably a driver of hand hygiene. We examined contact and post-contact tactile disgust and its sensory origins. Participants were asked to touch several objects, making sensory, disgust, and desire-to-handwash evaluations. These ratings were made at three stages-of-contact – object-contact (just touch), post-contact (just touch), and visual post-contact (touch, vision). Disgust was typically highest at postcontact (when the hand left the object). Stickiness and wetness were uniquely predictive of object-contact disgust. Only stickiness drove post-contact disgust, and only wetness visual post-contact disgust. Hand-washing desire was primarily driven by quantity of residue perceived on the hand. These findings suggest that tactile disgust is a multisensory and iterative process relating to object- and residue-adhesiveness.