Disgust: Psychology, Contamination, and Moral Judgment
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 13, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Emotion & Affect Science · Written by Artificial Sapiens
Disgust is an emotion of aversion that often arises when a person encounters something perceived as contaminating, offensive, or unfit for contact or consumption. It commonly motivates withdrawal, rejection, and protective behavior. Rotten food, bodily waste, foul odors, and signs of illness are familiar triggers, but disgust can also be reported in response to sexual situations, reminders of mortality, and conduct judged morally objectionable. These domains overlap in experience without necessarily sharing one psychological mechanism.
The scientific account of disgust is especially important because the emotion can be useful, mistaken, learned, and socially consequential. A disgust reaction may alert someone to a possible hazard; it cannot establish that an object is infected, that another person is dangerous, or that a moral judgment is justified. The strongest evidence concerns pathogen avoidance and contamination-related learning. The relationship between disgust and moral judgment remains actively debated, as demonstrated by competing meta-analyses and recent reviews (Oaten et al., 2009; Landy, 2025).
What Is Disgust in Psychology?
In psychology, disgust refers to a family of emotional responses characterized by aversion and a tendency to reject, expel, avoid, or distance oneself from a perceived elicitor. Depending on the situation, a person may feel nausea, recoil, wrinkle the nose, close the mouth, turn away, or describe an impulse to get rid of something. Yet these reactions are variable: no single bodily response or facial configuration is necessary for every experience called disgust.
Classical work by Rozin and Fallon connected disgust to rejection of potentially offensive foods and the ways contact can transfer aversive meaning from one item to another. Later evolutionary accounts emphasized the role of disgust in reducing exposure to pathogens. Contemporary research treats disgust as a multifaceted phenomenon with several proposed elicitor domains and mechanisms (Rozin & Fallon, 1987; Curtis et al., 2011).
Disgust is an ordinary human emotion. Its presence, intensity, or frequency does not by itself indicate a mental-health disorder. Its significance depends on what evokes it, what a person believes it means, how they respond, and whether avoidance disrupts life.
Disgust, distaste, nausea, fear, and anger
Distaste is a reaction to an unpleasant taste or an oral stimulus. Disgust can be evoked by the expectation of contact, an image, a memory, an idea, or a social situation even when nothing enters the mouth. Nausea is a bodily sensation that may accompany disgust and can also result from illness, medications, vestibular disturbance, or other physiological conditions. The two are related but not interchangeable.
Fear is generally organized around anticipated harm or threat; disgust frequently centers on rejection and contamination. They often coexist. Someone approaching spoiled meat might simultaneously fear becoming ill and experience revulsion toward its odor. Anger tends to involve perceived wrongdoing, blocked goals, or confrontation, whereas disgust may motivate turning away, exclusion, or repudiation. Moral language can blur the distinction: calling an act disgusting does not prove that its emotional basis differs from anger or contempt (Chapman & Anderson, 2013; Hawkins et al., 2026).
Why Do Humans Experience Disgust?
The most strongly developed functional explanation is pathogen avoidance. Microorganisms are largely invisible, while many potentially infectious materials produce perceivable cues such as odor, discoloration, decay, or unusual texture. An aversive system that reduces unnecessary contact with some hazardous materials may lower exposure to pathogens. This is an evolutionary account of why avoidance mechanisms could have been advantageous; it does not imply that each modern disgust response correctly identifies a biological threat.
In a broad review, Oaten, Stevenson, and Case evaluated evidence for disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism and found support across most of their proposed hypotheses. Curtis, de Barra, and Aunger further characterized disgust-related hygienic behavior as flexible, shaped by learning, developmental circumstances, and social influence (Oaten et al., 2009; Curtis et al., 2011).
An evolutionary explanation also has boundaries. Many modern elicitors are highly symbolic or socially taught. A harmless food can produce strong revulsion because of its appearance or cultural meaning. A clean object can feel contaminated because of its imagined history. These examples show why ecological function, subjective experience, and actual danger must be examined separately.
Protection through anticipation rather than pathogen detection
Disgust may operate before contact occurs. Smelling something rotten, spotting what looks like mold, or seeing bodily waste can produce avoidance with little deliberate calculation. This anticipatory feature may be useful because waiting for proof of infection would sometimes come too late. It also produces false alarms: spoilage cues and actual microbial hazards are imperfectly aligned, and many dangerous pathogens cannot be detected by smell or appearance.
The practical implication is that disgust is information about a person's response to a cue. Decisions about food safety, sanitation, infection prevention, and medical risk require relevant objective evidence. A strong feeling of contamination is not a laboratory test.
The Major Types and Domains of Disgust
Researchers use several overlapping classifications, and their boundaries depend on the model and measurement instrument. The categories below are useful explanatory distinctions rather than a universally accepted list of separate biological modules.
Core and pathogen-related disgust
Core disgust commonly involves potentially contaminating materials, especially spoiled food, vomit, feces, bodily secretions, decomposing matter, and related odors or visual cues. The reaction can involve oral rejection, visceral unease, and avoidance of touching or consuming the elicitor. Pathogen disgust, as assessed in some scales, refers more broadly to responses to cues associated with infectious risk. Core and pathogen-related disgust overlap, but the labels originate in different research traditions (Oaten et al., 2009; Tybur et al., 2009).
Animal-reminder disgust
Some theories identify aversion to blood, injury, death, bodily vulnerability, or reminders of the body's animal nature as an additional domain. People may report similar subjective revulsion across these cases, but their elicitors, associations with fear, and physiological patterns are not necessarily identical. A systematic review published in 2026 emphasizes that comparisons of physical and moral disgust depend strongly on which specific elicitors investigators group together (Hawkins et al., 2026).
Sexual disgust
Sexual disgust is commonly studied through aversive responses to particular sexual situations or prospects. Some evolutionary models interpret this domain in relation to partner selection and costs of sexual contact, while recognizing that judgments are also shaped by personal history, consent, social learning, and cultural expectations. Variation in sexual disgust is not evidence that a person's identity, orientation, or consensual relationship is inherently impure or dangerous. Tybur and colleagues proposed pathogen, sexual, and moral disgust as three domains in a prominent individual-differences framework (Tybur et al., 2009).
Moral and social disgust
People often call betrayal, exploitation, corruption, hypocrisy, cruelty, or perceived social violations disgusting. Some studies support the view that particular violations genuinely elicit disgust-like states; others find that reports of moral disgust are confounded with anger, semantic conventions, or the specific kind of transgression. Whether moral disgust constitutes one distinct emotional category across contexts remains unresolved (Chapman & Anderson, 2013; Landy, 2025).
Contamination: Why Contact Can Make Something Feel Disgusting
Contamination in psychological research can describe an experienced sense that something has become tainted through contact, proximity, association, or its history. It is essential to distinguish subjective contamination from a demonstrable transfer of germs or harmful substances.
Imagine that a freshly washed spoon is placed on a visibly dirty counter. Concern about contamination may be proportionate to a genuine physical exposure. Now imagine that an equally clean spoon is associated with someone the observer considers unpleasant. It may feel unacceptable even when no physical hazard is present. The second response illustrates how disgust can incorporate knowledge, memory, symbolism, and social meaning.
The law of contagion and the importance of history
Classical work on disgust and food rejection proposed that the history of contact can influence how acceptable an object feels. What matters psychologically may be the belief that something touched a disgusting source, even when visible traces are absent. In everyday life, such beliefs can be reasonable, exaggerated, socially acquired, or purely symbolic. Their strength varies across individuals and contexts (Rozin & Fallon, 1987).
The perceived permanence of contamination helps explain why cleaning sometimes fails to erase disgust. An object may be objectively clean but continue to feel tainted because the person's representation of its history has not changed. This is a psychological description, not a conclusion that further cleaning is necessary.
Disgust and the behavioral immune system
The phrase behavioral immune system refers to proposed psychological processes that help organisms detect possible infection cues and avoid contact before physiological immune defenses are needed. Disgust is an important candidate component of this larger account. The concept is a theoretical framework for behavior and perception; it is not a replacement for the biological immune system or evidence that a disgusted person's immune function has changed (Curtis et al., 2011).
Researchers also investigate whether cues associated with disease shape judgments about social groups. This requires particular caution: perceived unfamiliarity, disability, or difference can become falsely associated with threat. A psychological mechanism that sometimes facilitates pathogen avoidance can also support unwarranted social exclusion. Emotional aversion is not evidence of infectiousness or moral character.
What Happens in the Brain and Body During Disgust?
Disgust can involve changes in autonomic activity, bodily sensation, movement, attention, interpretation, and social behavior. The precise pattern depends on stimulus type, task demands, individual differences, and measurement method. Researchers have studied facial movement, gastrointestinal responses, heart rate, skin conductance, and brain activation, but none supplies a universal biological signature for every instance of disgust.
The insula and broader neural networks
The insula frequently appears in studies of disgust, interoception, and processing of bodily states. However, it participates in many psychological functions and is not an exclusive disgust center. A neuroimaging meta-analysis by Gan and colleagues found overlapping as well as differentiable networks for core and social disgust, involving insular, frontal, temporal, occipital, and other regions. The researchers' results support complex distributed processing rather than a one-region explanation (Gan et al., 2022).
An important methodological principle follows: observing activation in a region associated with disgust does not prove that a participant experienced disgust. This inferential problem is particularly relevant when studies ask whether moral wrongdoing recruits the same bodily emotion as a foul odor.
Nausea, gagging, and withdrawal
Certain disgust elicitors can evoke queasiness, retching sensations, reduced willingness to ingest, muscle withdrawal, or an impulse to turn away. Such responses are compatible with protective functions, especially where ingestion or contact is implicated. Yet physiological reactions vary, and feeling disgust does not guarantee nausea or gagging. Likewise, nausea alone does not identify an emotional cause.
Facial expression and communication
Nose wrinkling, lifting the upper lip, or expressions resembling oral rejection are recognizable cues associated with disgust in some circumstances. Context and cultural learning affect how people produce and interpret them. A major scientific review found that facial configurations vary across people and situations and cannot be mapped to internal emotions by a rigid one-to-one code (Barrett et al., 2019).
A person can express politeness while feeling intense disgust, make a disgust-like face for comic effect, or show a similar facial action while reacting to something else. Automated facial classification may estimate a trained category of movement or expression; it does not directly measure subjective emotional experience.
Is Disgust a Basic Emotion?
Basic-emotion approaches have historically included disgust among candidate basic emotions because of characteristic elicitors, defensive functions, bodily responses, and communication signals. These accounts have encouraged productive research on food rejection, expression, learning, and evolved mechanisms.
Constructionist and appraisal-oriented approaches emphasize how an emotional episode takes shape through bodily information, situation appraisal, concepts, prediction, and social context. From these perspectives, instances labeled disgust can vary considerably, and a named emotion category need not correspond to one invariant biological program.
The field has not settled a single model that explains every manifestation of disgust. A robust account should distinguish evidence for recurring patterns from the stronger claim of universal neural or facial fingerprints. The broader debate is explored in the English Hub articles on Basic Emotion Theory and Types of Emotions. The caution about reading emotions from expressions is developed in Barrett et al. (2019).
How Disgust Is Learned and Changed
Disgust reactions can emerge through direct unpleasant experiences, observation of others, instruction, cultural practices, and repeated association. A child may observe a caregiver recoiling from a food, encounter warnings about an animal, or learn rules concerning cleanliness and bodily boundaries. Repeated exposure can sometimes reduce aversion; under other circumstances, negative experiences strengthen it.
Learning matters because disgust is neither entirely fixed nor freely chosen. Social context can determine which foods seem normal, which bodily processes are spoken about openly, and which symbolic violations are described as polluting. At the same time, there are recurring aversive patterns around decay and bodily waste across diverse settings.
Research on developmental and cultural differences therefore asks how biological preparedness interacts with shared practices and personal histories. It is more informative to identify the particular elicitor, learning history, and setting than to assume that a person's disgust reflects one universal standard of cleanliness or morality (Curtis et al., 2011; Tybur et al., 2009).
Disgust Sensitivity: Why Some People Feel More Disgust Than Others
Two individual-difference concepts are especially useful. Disgust propensity concerns how readily or frequently a person experiences disgust. Disgust sensitivity concerns how aversive or distressing the experience of disgust itself feels. A person might easily notice disgust without being particularly troubled by the feeling, whereas someone else may find even a modest response hard to tolerate. The concepts can be empirically related without being equivalent.
Other variation concerns domain specificity: a person may be highly disgusted by rotting food and relatively untroubled by blood, or vice versa. General measures that compress every elicitor into one score can conceal these differences.
Importantly, disgust proneness is a psychological trait measure, not a diagnosis. Cross-sectional associations between scores and symptoms cannot establish whether disgust causes a problem, results from it, or varies with a third factor such as distress or learning (Olatunji et al., 2010; Melli et al., 2019).
How Psychologists Measure Disgust
Researchers combine several approaches, ideally selecting measures suited to the question. Self-report questionnaires ask people to rate likely reactions to defined elicitors. Experience-sampling designs ask about emotion in ordinary settings. Laboratory paradigms present odors, pictures, descriptions, films, or other stimuli and record judgments, approach or avoidance behavior, facial movement, and physiological change.
The Three-Domain Disgust Scale, introduced by Tybur, Lieberman, and Griskevicius, organizes responses into pathogen, sexual, and moral domains. Its domains are theoretical constructs operationalized by specific items. A separate validation study found stronger support for the pathogen and sexual components than for the moral component; on some moral items, participants responded more strongly with anger than with disgust. That result cautions against treating a moral disgust questionnaire score as proof of a distinct emotion (Tybur et al., 2009; Olatunji et al., 2012).
Three common measurement errors
First, a word does not always identify an internal state. Someone may describe corruption as disgusting while primarily experiencing indignation. Second, a physiological marker or facial action can reflect multiple psychological processes. Third, an experiment that manipulates disgust may also change unpleasantness, arousal, attention, uncertainty, or perceived danger. Unless comparison conditions isolate those possibilities, causal interpretations are limited.
Strong studies therefore use converging indicators, clear elicitor definitions, appropriate comparison emotions, transparent analysis, and samples large and diverse enough for the claims being made. This is especially important in work connecting bodily disgust to political or moral judgments.
Moral Disgust: Does Feeling Disgusted Change What We Think Is Wrong?
Moral disgust refers to aversive responses toward conduct construed as a violation of moral expectations. The phenomenon raises two separable research questions. Can contemplating wrongdoing elicit experiences people identify as disgust? Can an unrelated disgust-inducing experience cause people to condemn a subsequent act more severely?
The first question concerns emotional responses to morally meaningful events. The second concerns causal spillover: whether, for example, an unpleasant smell makes a judgment harsher even when the smell is irrelevant to the act being evaluated. Evidence for one claim does not settle the other.
Moral transgressions can elicit aversion, but its form varies
Chapman and Anderson reviewed evidence that moral transgressions can produce disgust-related self-report and behavioral responses. Yet the definition and measurement of moral disgust remain contested, including whether certain cases are better explained by anger or other moral emotions (Chapman & Anderson, 2013).
The 2026 systematic review by Hawkins, Ypsilanti, and Examilioti similarly found that overlap between physical and moral disgust depends on the category of violation. Bodily or purity-related moral scenarios were more likely to resemble core physical disgust, while some social-moral violations elicited patterns closer to anger or fear. The finding argues for distinguishing the specific offense instead of assigning all condemnation to a common disgust mechanism (Hawkins et al., 2026).
Does incidental disgust make moral judgments harsher?
A 2015 meta-analysis by Landy and Goodwin reviewed 50 experimental studies and found a small overall effect of incidental disgust on moral condemnation. Importantly, when accounting for indications of publication bias, the estimated effect disappeared. The authors also highlighted confounds that restricted causal interpretation (Landy & Goodwin, 2015).
A more recent meta-analytic investigation by Salvo, Ottaviani, and Mancini reported evidence both that transgressions evoke disgust and that disgust induction is associated with harsher moral judgment, with substantial heterogeneity across designs, samples, and types of violations. Their analyses pooled broader bodies of work and reached conclusions that do not simply reproduce the earlier result. These differences require close attention to study inclusion, operational definitions, publication bias, and research design, rather than selecting whichever effect size appears more compelling (Salvo et al., 2025).
A 2025 scientific primer by Landy reviewed the remaining dispute and argued for integrating findings from induction studies, individual-difference correlations, and direct investigations of emotional responses to wrongdoing. The current evidence supports a relationship between disgust and some moral evaluations. It does not establish that momentary disgust is a consistent or dominant causal determinant of moral judgment across people and contexts (Landy, 2025).
Why moral purity is difficult to study
Researchers sometimes group sexuality, religion, bodily practices, cleanliness, and other rule violations into a single moral-purity category. A systematic conceptual review found that definitions and measures of purity vary substantially and can become entangled with perceived harm and other beliefs. This complicates claims that purity is one coherent domain uniquely linked to disgust (Gray et al., 2023).
A participant's moral evaluation may therefore reflect concern about harm, consent, rights, social convention, identity, or intention. Merely observing a high disgust rating cannot tell researchers which of these considerations is doing the explanatory work.
Disgust, Prejudice, and Social Judgment
Disgust words and metaphors can powerfully mark a person or group as unacceptable. Historically and socially, such framing has sometimes supported stigma and exclusion. The psychological fact that a reaction feels immediate does not give it moral or scientific authority.
When disgust is applied to other people, it matters whether the observer is responding to a genuine and relevant hazard, an unfamiliar practice, a learned taboo, or a stereotype. Disability, illness, cultural difference, and minority identity must not be interpreted as evidence of contamination. Researchers should also avoid treating associations between disgust measures and moral or political attitudes as proof of direct causation.
The evidence base remains heterogeneous. Some relationships are observed in self-report data and context-specific experiments; explanations that generalize from them to entire populations require substantially stronger designs. Keeping these distinctions explicit prevents the everyday language of disgust from becoming an unsupported account of other people's worth or intentions (Landy, 2025; Gray et al., 2023).
Disgust and Contamination-Related Mental Health Symptoms
Disgust has been examined in obsessive-compulsive symptoms involving contamination, washing, or feelings of being tainted. Reviews describe associations between disgust propensity, disgust sensitivity, avoidance, and contamination-related distress. These findings help researchers understand how some fears remain persistent even when a person recognizes that actual contamination is unlikely (Davey, 2011; Olatunji et al., 2010).
However, ordinary disgust, a preference for cleanliness, or avoidance of a repellent situation does not amount to obsessive-compulsive disorder. Clinical assessment considers the wider pattern, including intrusive thoughts, compulsions, impairment, distress, and relevant diagnostic criteria. The presence of disgust alone provides no diagnosis.
Does disgust cause contamination-related OCD?
This causal question remains unsettled. Cross-sectional studies can show that disgust-related scores and contamination symptoms covary, but their direction of influence cannot be read from a correlation. Melli and colleagues examined retrospective ratings of disgust propensity in clinical groups and reported findings that raised questions about heightened propensity as an antecedent risk factor. Other work suggests that changes in disgust and contamination-related symptoms can occur together during treatment, again without proving a single causal pathway (Melli et al., 2019; Davey, 2011).
Clinical questions about diagnosis and treatment belong to dedicated mental-health resources. This article addresses the emotional science of disgust and explains why subjective contamination, objective exposure, distress, and repetitive behavior must be assessed separately. Someone with persistent, impairing contamination fears can seek evaluation from a qualified mental-health professional.
Food, Health, and Everyday Decisions
Disgust shapes eating, hygiene, contact preferences, and attention. Sometimes it guides straightforward precaution: avoiding visibly spoiled food or washing hands after a relevant exposure. Sometimes it reflects familiarity and expectation rather than danger: a safe but unfamiliar food may produce intense aversion merely because its smell, texture, or cultural framing is unfamiliar.
Respect for bodily boundaries and personal preferences can coexist with an accurate understanding of risk. Pressuring someone to ignore a strong feeling can be counterproductive, while using revulsion as a substitute for food-safety guidance can also lead to poor decisions. Medical and public-health recommendations should be based on relevant evidence, not on whether a risk feels disgusting.
Disgust can also help explain advertising, political rhetoric, artistic imagery, and social influence. Such applications require care: an emotional reaction can direct attention and motivate avoidance, while the final interpretation remains dependent on knowledge, context, and prior beliefs.
What Disgust Research Can and Cannot Tell Us
Several conclusions are well supported. Disgust is associated with avoidance and rejection, pathogen-relevant cues are important elicitors, and emotional responses differ across people and contexts. Social learning and appraisal help explain why contact history and symbolic meaning matter. Objective measurements of bodily or facial responses can contribute evidence but cannot uniquely reveal inner experience.
Other questions remain theory dependent or contested: whether all disgust domains share one evolved program, the biological boundaries between moral disgust and anger, how strongly incidental disgust changes moral condemnation, and which measures isolate a genuinely distinct emotional state. Recent meta-analyses should be read alongside older conflicting reviews, with attention to the specific hypotheses tested rather than the headline category alone.
The strongest practical lesson is to treat disgust as an informative experience whose interpretation requires context. It may support protective behavior, but it does not validate every inference made in its presence. A sense that something is unclean may be a useful prompt to investigate; the same feeling can arise from learning, symbolism, uncertainty, or social pressure.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main purpose of disgust?
A prominent evolutionary account proposes that disgust helps people avoid sources of possible pathogens, especially through rejection of contaminated food and unnecessary contact. Contemporary models also investigate sexual and social domains. No single function explains every reported instance of disgust (Oaten et al., 2009).
Why do we feel disgusted by something that is harmless?
Learning, expectation, imagery, and beliefs about contact history can make a safe object feel unacceptable. A disgust reaction reflects the meaning of the stimulus to the person as well as its sensory properties. The feeling is therefore an imperfect guide to objective danger.
Is disgust the same as nausea?
No. Disgust is an emotional response involving aversion and possible withdrawal; nausea is a bodily sensation that can have many causes. They frequently occur together and can also occur separately.
What is the difference between disgust and fear?
Fear is commonly associated with anticipated threat or harm, while disgust typically emphasizes rejection or avoidance of something experienced as contaminating or repellent. Both may arise in the same situation, and their mechanisms can overlap.
Is disgust a basic emotion?
Many basic-emotion theories include disgust among proposed basic emotions. Other theoretical approaches emphasize variation, learning, appraisal, and construction. Disgust is a well-studied emotion category, while the claim of a universal invariant signature remains disputed.
What is moral disgust?
Moral disgust is aversion reported in response to perceived wrongdoing, impurity, or violation of social expectations. Researchers continue to examine when the reaction is distinguishable from anger, contempt, and moral disapproval (Landy, 2025).
Can a bad smell make people judge someone more harshly?
Some experiments report this effect, but meta-analyses disagree about its magnitude and robustness. Publication bias, comparison conditions, and the type of moral scenario matter. A reliable effect in every situation has not been established (Landy & Goodwin, 2015; Salvo et al., 2025).
Why do some people have stronger disgust reactions?
People vary in sensitivity to particular cues, response intensity, distress about the emotion, and learned associations. Family environment, experiences, context, and biological predispositions are relevant areas of research. Disgust-proneness questionnaires summarize some of this variation but cannot independently determine its cause.
Does strong disgust mean someone has OCD?
No. Disgust is common and normal. Some contamination-related OCD symptoms are associated with disgust measures, but diagnosing a disorder requires broader clinical assessment of symptoms and impairment (Davey, 2011).
Can disgust spread from one object to another without physical contamination?
Yes, at the level of subjective experience. Objects may feel tainted through association or the belief that contact occurred, even after cleaning or without measurable transfer of contaminants. This experience should be distinguished from actual exposure risk.
Can you identify disgust just by looking at someone's face?
A facial movement can provide contextual evidence about expression and communication, but no one-to-one facial code reliably identifies every person's internal emotional state. Similar movements can serve several purposes (Barrett et al., 2019).
Can artificial intelligence detect disgust from a camera?
Computer vision can classify patterns associated with expressions included in its training data. That output is an estimate about visible signals under particular conditions, not direct access to subjective disgust. Context, expression variability, bias, and measurement validity limit what the output means.
Does feeling disgusted prove that something is immoral?
No. Moral evaluation requires attention to facts, harm, consent, rights, intentions, and circumstances. Disgust can influence how a situation feels, but the feeling alone is not evidence that an act is harmful or wrong.
Related Articles
Types of Emotions: Basic, Complex, and Social Categories — the wider taxonomy of emotion categories and the limits of neat classification.
Basic Emotion Theory: Six Emotions and Scientific Debate — the theoretical debate about basic emotions, including disgust and emotional expression.
References
Barrett, L. F., Adolphs, R., Marsella, S., Martinez, A. M., & Pollak, S. D. (2019). Emotional expressions reconsidered: Challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(1), 1–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619832930
Chapman, H. A., & Anderson, A. K. (2013). Things rank and gross in nature: A review and synthesis of moral disgust. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 300–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030964
Curtis, V., de Barra, M., & Aunger, R. (2011). Disgust as an adaptive system for disease avoidance behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366(1563), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0117
Davey, G. C. L. (2011). Disgust: The disease-avoidance emotion and its dysfunctions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366(1583), 3453–3465. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0039
Gan, X., Zhou, X., Li, J., Jiao, G., Jiang, X., Biswal, B., Yao, S., Klugah-Brown, B., & Becker, B. (2022). Common and distinct neurofunctional representations of core and social disgust in the brain: Coordinate-based and network meta-analyses. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 135, 104553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104553
Gray, K., DiMaggio, N., Schein, C., & Kachanoff, F. (2023). The problem of purity in moral psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(3), 272–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221124741
Hawkins, O., Ypsilanti, A., & Examilioti, P. (2026). Determining neurophysiological responses to physical and moral disgust elicitors—A systematic literature review. Physiology & Behavior, 304, 115172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2025.115172
Landy, J. F. (2025). What does disgust have to do with moral judgment? WIREs Cognitive Science, 16(5), e70015. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.70015
Landy, J. F., & Goodwin, G. P. (2015). Does incidental disgust amplify moral judgment? A meta-analytic review of experimental evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(4), 518–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615583128
Melli, G., Poli, A., Chiorri, C., & Olatunji, B. O. (2019). Is heightened disgust propensity truly a risk factor for contamination-related obsessive-compulsive disorder? Behavior Therapy, 50(3), 621–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2018.10.002
Oaten, M., Stevenson, R. J., & Case, T. I. (2009). Disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014823
Olatunji, B. O., Adams, T., Ciesielski, B., David, B., Sarawgi, S., & Broman-Fulks, J. (2012). The Three Domains of Disgust Scale: Factor structure, psychometric properties, and conceptual limitations. Assessment, 19(2), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111432881
Olatunji, B. O., Moretz, M. W., Wolitzky-Taylor, K., McKay, D., McGrath, P. B., & Ciesielski, B. G. (2010). Disgust vulnerability and symptoms of contamination-based OCD: Descriptive tests of incremental specificity. Behavior Therapy, 41(4), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2009.11.005
Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94(1), 23–41. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3823304/
Salvo, G., Ottaviani, C., & Mancini, F. (2025). Bidirectional interplay of disgust and morality: Meta-analytic investigations. Personality and Individual Differences, 236, 113032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.113032
Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: Individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015474