CAD or MAD? Anger (not disgust) as the predominant response to pathogen-free violations of the divinity code.

Royzman, Edward B.; Atanasov, Pavel; Landy, Justin F.; Parks, A. Lee; Gepty, Andrew A.

doi:10.1037/a0036829

Cited by 99 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, it might be that the dissociation between the self-reported and fMRI data in the present study is an artifact of the data collection method. That is, participants may be relying on lay meanings of disgust—e.g., reflecting greater anger than repulsion—when appraising moral violations in the vignettes and are consequently misattributing the label of disgust to their experienced affect (Royzman et al, 2014), a suggestion that is consistent with our fMRI data.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Moral Violations and the Experience of Disgust and Anger

Oaten

Stevenson

Williams

et al. 2018

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disgust is a natural defensive emotion that has evolved to protect against potential sources of contamination and has been recently linked to moral judgements in many studies. However, that people often report feelings of disgust when thinking about feces or moral transgressions alike does not necessarily mean that the same mechanisms mediate these reactions. The present study used functional magnetic resonance imaging (n = 22) to investigate whether core and moral disgusts entrain common neural systems. We provide evidence that: (i) activation of overlapping brain regions between core and moral disgust is the result of content overlap in the vignettes—core disgust elicitors—across conditions, and not from moral violations per se, and (ii) moral residue (i.e., the remaining or “residual” activation after the influence of core disgust elicitors have been taken into account) produced a pattern of activation that is more consistent with moral anger, than one of “residual disgust.” These findings run contrary to the premise that our “moral center” is connected to the area of the brain in which physical revulsion is located.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Moral Violations and the Experience of Disgust and Anger

Oaten

Stevenson

Williams

et al. 2018

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, the threat that refugee care will not be guaranteed seems to elicit associations with suffering and one's own responsibility. Disgust is linked to situations involving core disgust cues (e.g., Royzman, Atanasov, Landy, Parks, & Gepty, ) or attributions of bad character (Giner‐Sorolla & Chapman, ). Hence, prejudice threat might elicit stronger associations with core disgust cues or bad character than the other threat types.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is threatening about refugees? Identifying different types of threat and their association with emotional responses and attitudes towards refugee migration

Landmann

Gaschler

Rohmann

2019

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Threat is one of the most important predictors for attitudes towards refugees and migration. The current research addresses the role of different threat types and emotional reactions in the context of refugee migration with a multi‐method approach. Using qualitative (Study 1, N = 202) and quantitative (Studies 2–4, N = 873) methods, we identified six types of threat that majority group members in Germany experience in the face of refugee migration: Concerns about cultural differences (symbolic threat), financial strain (realistic threat), criminal acts (safety threat), conflicts within society (cohesion threat), increasing xenophobia (prejudice threat), and refugee care (altruistic threat). All these threat types elicited negative emotions and were associated with negative attitudes towards refugees and support for restrictive migration policies. Paradoxically, concerns about refugee care predicted support for restrictive migration policies particularly well (altruistic threat paradox), which can be explained by a lack of emotional responses to this type of threat. Based on these findings, we propose a bidirectional model of intergroup threat.

show abstract

“…Can the emotions underlying outrage provide insight into people’s responses to moral violations? And, specifically, does the distinction between anger and disgust—the moral emotions that most strongly underlie outrage (Gutierrez & Giner-Sorolla, 2007; Hutcherson & Gross, 2011; Royzman, Atanasov, Landy, Parks, & Gepty, 2014; Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999)—capture meaningful differences in how people respond to moral violations? Or are differences in the emotions underlying condemnation illusions of language—idiosyncratic preferences for communicating outrage?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Disgust and Anger Relate to Different Aggressive Responses to Moral Violations

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to the same moral violation, some people report experiencing anger, and others report feeling disgust. Do differences in emotional responses to moral violations reflect idiosyncratic differences in the communication of outrage, or do they reflect differences in motivational states? Whereas equivalence accounts suggest that anger and disgust are interchangeable expressions of condemnation, sociofunctional accounts suggest that they have distinct antecedents and consequences. We tested these accounts by investigating whether anger and disgust vary depending on the costs imposed by moral violations and whether they differentially correspond with aggressive tendencies. Results across four studies favor a sociofunctional account: When the target of a moral violation shifts from the self to another person, anger decreases, but disgust increases. Whereas anger is associated with high-cost, direct aggression, disgust is associated with less costly indirect aggression. Finally, whether the target of a moral violation is the self or another person influences direct aggression partially via anger and influences indirect aggression partially via disgust.

show abstract

CAD or MAD? Anger (not disgust) as the predominant response to pathogen-free violations of the divinity code.

Cited by 99 publications

References 77 publications

Moral Violations and the Experience of Disgust and Anger

Moral Violations and the Experience of Disgust and Anger

What is threatening about refugees? Identifying different types of threat and their association with emotional responses and attitudes towards refugee migration

Disgust and Anger Relate to Different Aggressive Responses to Moral Violations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About