Developing Disgust: Theory, Measurement, and Application

Rottman, Joshua; DeJesus, Jasmine M.; Greenebaum, Heather

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17332-6_12

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 224 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Study 1, a group of adults was surveyed about the items they and their children find disgusting. As we noted above, prior measures of disgust sensitivity for children were adapted from adult measures (Muris et al, 2012; Nadeau et al, 2017; Schienle & Schwab, 2019; Viar-Paxton et al, 2015), and theories of a mature theory of disgust focus on abstract concepts, rather than sensory properties (Rozin & Fallon, 1987; for a review, see Rottman et al, 2019). As such, these measures tend to omit questions about uncontaminated foods when examining disgust sensitivity.…”

Section: Study 1: Online Parent Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, rather than eliciting responses from children regarding what they find to be disgusting, disgust sensitivity scales for children have typically been directly adapted from existing adult scales (Muris et al, 2012; Nadeau et al, 2017; Schienle & Schwab, 2019; Viar-Paxton et al, 2015), but without items that might be inappropriate for young children (e.g., those dealing with sexual behavior). In addition, theories of the development of disgust have often focused on the transition from concrete to abstract thinking (for a review, see Rottman et al, 2019). Abstract, conceptual disgust elicitors (which are viewed as a more mature form of disgust) are difficult for younger children to understand (especially those younger than age 6), as these children are thought to lack the cognitive prerequisites to consider invisible entities, such as germs or other contaminants (Rozin & Fallon, 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Considering uncontaminated food as an early-emerging and previously ignored disgust elicitor.

DeJesus

Gerdin

Venkatesh

et al. 2021

Emotion

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present studies examine developmental changes in the elicitors of disgust by examining adults' and children's ideas of what is disgusting. In three experiments, we asked adults and children between the ages of 3 and 12 to report what is "disgusting," what is "gross," or what might have caused someone to make a disgust face. In Study 1, parents of 3-to 12-year-old children (n = 120) were asked what they thought was disgusting and what they thought their children would find disgusting and completed a picky eating questionnaire to examine the extent to which children's eating habits may be related to disgust. In Studies 2 and 3 (n = 98 per study), children were asked what they thought was disgusting. In Study 3, children's parents also completed a questionnaire about their child's food pickiness. Typically eaten foods that were not contaminated or spoiled were frequently mentioned in all studies, both by children and their parents. There was considerable diversity in the disgust elicitors that were mentioned across participants, highlighting the importance of examining individual differences in the development of disgust.

show abstract

Section: Study 1: Online Parent Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Considering uncontaminated food as an early-emerging and previously ignored disgust elicitor.

DeJesus

Gerdin

Venkatesh

et al. 2021

Emotion

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sensitivity to different types of disgust-inducing threats also emerges over early childhood, and is largely absent when infants and toddlers are most vulnerable to infection and disease. Feeling disgusted by other people (as opposed to bodily fluids or animals) appears particularly late, around 7 years of age [45].…”

Section: Origin Storiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political preferences and threat perception: opportunities for neuroimaging and developmental research

Landau-Wells¹,

Saxe²

2020

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People have preferences for how their social environment is organized and governed. One influential explanation of variation in these preferences focuses on individual differences in sensitivity to threats. Recent research demonstrates that this relationship is not only a function of the degree of sensitivity (greater or lesser), but also of the danger in question (i.e., immigration or climate change) and the kind of potential harm it poses (i.e., physical pain or contamination). Since many political issues are not unambiguously of one kind, the structure of an individual's reactions to perceived political threats is also uncertain. We argue that future research should (i) use functional neuroimaging to test these structures and (ii) investigate the role of social learning in their transmission.

show abstract

“…Preschoolers do not differentiate between eating a clean versus germ-contaminated food (DeJesus, Shutts, & Kinzler, 2015) and do not avoid contact with someone who is "sick" (Blacker & LoBue, 2016). In fact, it is not until age 5 or 6 that these capacities reliably emerge (for a review, see Rottman, DeJesus, & Greenebaum, 2019). It is important to note that some conceptual causal knowledge of germ contagion is relatively early-emerging (Blacker & LoBue, 2016;Raman & Gelman, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%