The Psychology of Disgust, Morality, and Politics

I've brushed on this issue a number of times over time, but now papers are appearing, I thought it might be worth making a post about it.

Background

So, recently, psychology has taken on the issue of morality moving away from the more 'dry' or 'cold' cognitive ideas of the likes of Kohlberg. For example, Jonathan Haidt is a leader in the area and has clearly demonstrated that morals are to a large degree emotion-based and 'embodied', rather than a purely rational process. Indeed, the major emotion involved is disgust. However, many people use higher executive processes to regulate the more reflexive emotional moral reactions.

Haidt has also made a distinction between different types of morality - Harm/Care, Fairness, Purity, Ingroup loyalty, Respect/Authority. His studies indicate that liberals and conservatives differ in the weight they give to each of these moral factors. So, liberals view Harm/Care and Fairness as most important cf. Respect, Purity, and Ingroup loyalty. Whereas conservatives overly weight Respect, Purity, and Ingroup loyalty, value Harm/Care to a degree, but less so Fairness. This difference likely underpins much of the 'culture war' that permeates American society. I suppose you could say that conservatives care little for Fairness, but liberals care little for Purity. More here (Haidt & Graham, 2007). Now these differences do have important consequences...

Two papers have appeared (one in press) recently from Paul Bloom and colleagues about the relation of disgust, conservatism, and morality.

1. Conservatives are more easily disgusted than Liberals

The study includes two experiments, the first demonstrates that disgust sensitivity, a measure of an individuals reaction to disgust-inducing scenarios (e.g., "I try to avoid letting any part of my body touch the toilet seat in a public restroom, even when it appears clean’’), is correlated to self-reported conservative political attitudes.

The second experiment demostrates that the relationship is most robust for those political attitudes related to 'purity' (e.g., gay marriage, abortion), but also attitudes to tax cuts, (lol; higher disgust sensitivity = less taxes, please!), and even produced a marginal statistically significant result for bombing Iran (p = .07; eek!) and gun control (p = .08).

Now, of course, this is a correlational study. Whether conservatism leads to higher disgust sensitivity, or higher disgust sensitivity underpins conservatism is an open question. Perhaps a third variable intervenes in this relationship. Time will tell.

link 1

2. Disgust sensitivity predicts intuitive disapproval of gays

In this second series of experiments (an in press study), Bloom et al. demostrated that 'unconscious' negative attitudes to homosexuals were significantly predicted by disgust sensitivity.

The first experiment depends on an experimental paradigm created by Josh Knobe, it essentially measures the way in which people tend to associate intentionality with behaviours they view as moral violations, but not the reverse. It's an interesting paradigm I can explain if need be. In sum, the data showed that those most sensitive to disgust were more likely to see intentionality in scenarios that produced an outcome where gays kissed (e.g., music video producer makes video that eventually leads to gays kissing in public. Did he intentionally cause that action?).

In the second experiment, they used the gay attitude version of the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which measures indirect or 'implicit' attitudes to various social issues (race, age, gender). Here, again, disgust sensitivity significantly predicted negative attitudes on the IAT.

So, this study shows that disgust sensitivity appears to support reflexive emotion-based anti-gay reactions.

link 2

Summary

In sum, it appears that parts of the culture war in the US is based on the differences in moral values between liberals and conservatives (no, sheeet sherlock, lol). Liberals particularly weight issues of fairness as much more important than conservatives - thus the focus on 'social justice'. However, conservatives put much stronger weight on purity (and Ingroup, Respect) and tend to rely on embodied reflexive disgust-based reactions to particular issues. For example, the conservative anti-gay movement could well be the result of the reliance on intuitive disgust towards gays. Indeed, many of the conservative bugbears (abortion, bombing Iran, taxes) appear related to disgust sensitivity, and Leon Kass, a conservative bioethicist, talks about the 'wisdom of repugnance'.

Such research might allow the Obama-like 'coming together' of the two opposing groups via a greater understanding of what motivates each. I would suggest that relying on primitive and reflexive disgust reactions to inform morality in modern society is not optimal. But that's what a 'liberal' would say, eh? On the reverse, the liberal progressive push for fairness and social justice is not the most important issue for conservatives. Perhaps we need to use more baby-steps to move to a 'fairer' society.

I think this is an important topic to explore, and could explain a number of current culture war issues in the US - war on christmas, lol. What war? Is this purely an attempt to bolster ingroup loyalty? Indeed, disgust sensitivity & disgust appears related to an enhanced ingroup-outgroup distinction (linky), prejudice & dehumanisation (e.g., Harris & Fiske, 2006), and perhaps even tribal instincts (linky).

Enjoy.

[edit on 20-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


I see what the studies are getting at, but I think they didn't think it out all that well - it seems just a little too simple or biased to be a real study

...Even if social justice researchers never come to care about group cohesion, institutional integrity, or divinity as much as conservatives do, it will still be crucial for them to understand these cares, especially when they conflict with the virtues of compassion, justice, and equality that the social justice community values so dearly...

sounds like the "researchers" are coming from a pretty solid liberal position - trying to understand what makes the conservatives tick

I don't necessarily disagree with the point they're trying to make - and who wouldn't appreciate the attempt to bridge the gap - but, it doesn't strike me as unbiased research

also they should offer a better explanation (or some explanation) of the terms they use throughout - for instance, purity and sanctity

We agree with Jost et al. (2003) that much of conservatism can be understood as motivated social cognition, but we add this caveat: many of these motives are moral motives. The same, of course, goes for liberals. Social justice researchers might therefore benefit from stepping out of the good versus evil mindset that is often present in our conferences, our academic publications, and our private conversations. One psychological universal (part of the ingroup foundation) is that when you call someone evil you erect a protective moral wall between yourself and the other, and this wall prevents you from seeing or respecting the other s point of view (Baumeister, 1997, calls this process the myth of pure evil. ) We end our paper with an appeal to a great liberal moral value: tolerance. If social justice researchers and activists want to make progress and be consistent with their own values, they will have to understand, respect, and work with the moral concerns of people with whom they disagree.

the emphasis is mine

again - I can't argue with any of this - who's going to argue against understanding, tolerance and inclusion

I'm just not sure that they could come to a useful conclusion with such ingrained ideas about which values automatically belong to which individuals or groups - before they've even begun their research

from one of your links:

APPENDIX 2 Core disgust items from the Disgust Sensitivity Scale Version 2 Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements, or how true it is about you.
1. I might be willing to try eating monkey meat, under some circumstances.
2. If I see someone vomit, it makes me sick to my stomach.
3. Seeing a cockroach in someone else’s house does not bother me. (Reverse coded)
4. Even if I was hungry, I would not drink a bowl of my favourite soup if it had been stirred by a used but thoroughly washed fly swatter.

How disgusting would you find each of the following experiences?
5. You see maggots on a piece of meat in an outdoor garbage pail.
6. While you are walking through a tunnel under a railroad track, you smell urine.
7. A friend offers you a piece of chocolate shaped like dog-doo.
8. You see a bowel movement left unflushed in a public toilet.

I don't care if you're Jimmy Carter or Dick Cheney - mostly disgusting :-)

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
I see what the studies are getting at, but I think they didn't think it out all that well - it seems just a little too simple or biased to be a real study

As they say, reality does have a liberal bias, lol.

Haidt actually has a very pragmatic position on his research, and doesn't really suggest that conservatism is inherently wrong. Indeed, he suggests that educated liberalism is more the 'new kid on the block'.

sounds like the "researchers" are coming from a pretty solid liberal position - trying to understand what makes the conservatives tick

I disagree, Haidt is just trying to understand what makes us all 'tick'. In fact, he was led to this line of research due to his anthropological studies in more 'conservative' societies. He actually noted the bias that it was edumacated western liberal academics discussing the basis of morality from their ivory towers, which was quite inconsistent with what he was observing on the ground.

I don't necessarily disagree with the point they're trying to make - and who wouldn't appreciate the attempt to bridge the gap - but, it doesn't strike me as unbiased research

also they should offer a better explanation (or some explanation) of the terms they use throughout - for instance, purity and sanctity

The Haidt and Graham article covers these issues (p8+). It's about the body as temple sort of thing and contamination thereof. A very disgust-based area.

again - I can't argue with any of this - who's going to argue against understanding, tolerance and inclusion

I'm just not sure that they could come to a useful conclusion with such ingrained ideas about which values automatically belong to which individuals or groups - before they've even begun their research

Nope, the research is showing how different groups tend to focus on particular aspects of the moral domain. As I noted, Haidt actually has a very fair view of this, IMHO.

I don't care if you're Jimmy Carter or Dick Cheney - mostly disgusting :-)

lol, probably. But the point is that conservatives tend to view those behaviours as even more disgusting than liberals.

ABE: here's a nice quote from Haidt which sort of sums up his thinking about this area, and I really don't think he is saying that liberal = good, conservative = bad:

My conclusion is not that secular liberal societies should be made more religious and conservative in a utilitarian bid to increase happiness, charity, longevity, and social capital. Too many valuable rights would be at risk, too many people would be excluded, and societies are so complex that it's impossible to do such social engineering and get only what you bargained for. My point is just that every longstanding ideology and way of life contains some wisdom, some insights into ways of suppressing selfishness, enhancing cooperation, and ultimately enhancing human flourishing.

link



[edit on 20-12-2008 by melatonin]

I disagree, Haidt is just trying to understand what makes us all 'tick'. In fact, he was led to this line of research due to his anthropological studies in more 'conservative' societies. He actually noted the bias that it was edumacated western liberal academics discussing the basis of morality from their ivory towers, which was quite inconsistent with what he was observing on the ground.

perhaps it was just his choice of words that confused me

the title of the thread immediately got my attention - because it is a very interesting idea - what is it that makes us more open to certain things - or closed off?

is it biology - or are we taught which things are repellent (a word that I think works better than disgust - but maybe the word disgust just disgusts me?)

or is it - like usual - both?

there was a comment somewhere in one of your two sources - about Jon Stewart I believe - finally realizing he'd come up against a wall he couldn't move when confronting a guest about his position on homosexuality

this is the part that's the most interesting - that point where two people just can't understand each other - and it clearly goes both ways.

I know we've all been there - where you're not even really arguing - but - even while you or the other person is completely willing to consider the other persons point of view - intellectually - as an abstract concept even - it just can't happen.

It's as if the mind is in the position of being able to shut off your ability to think - without your conscious permission.

it stops being about not wanting or trying to understand the other point of view - there's actually a point where they just can't

what's happening in someone's brain at that moment?

[edit on 12/20/2008 by Spiramirabilis]

you can't really figure out everyone

I do things randomly

for random reasons

because I like to do things

you could never crack me it's foolish to try.

Well in as much as I agree to the differences their does seem to be gradient lines of demarcation between liberals and conservatives.

I can see this may be how many presumptions are getting voiced here on ATS as well. Yesterday I had posted in a political thread about Obama, and a response came back suggesting I think feeding brown people is a tax waste when spending money on bombs to kill them all was a much better solution as if to say this is the typical "neocon" mindset.

Another was Budski when I had defended John McCain's service record, albeit true we are both veterans serving on board aircraft carriers may have been some reason for my bias but suggesting I also must enjoy bombing innocent children seemed a little curious coming from a liberal who doesn't see a damn thing wrong with abortion killing innocent babies while at the same time he is not for capital punishment.

I believe their is truth in many stereotypes however and have seen many of them cultivated and brought to life as new ones here also.

It always seemed strange to me that one person could be pro choice and want to see someone who had murdered a pregnant woman get charged with two murders while at the same time they see nothing wrong with Obama's stance on the born alive abortion act.

I would say I am a hawk when it comes to national defense and like to hook up with my buddies Jsobecky, and bigwhammy on issues like that also because they are hawkish. It seems it is true that conservatives DO seem to be more hawks and liberals seem to be doves.

Yes doves always disgust me especially the men that are and speak up for womans right to choose, I see this as one hell of a strange dichotomy they would be so hawkish to kill a little defenseless baby seems a little gutless to me and I get more angry at them than I do the woman.

As for gays, again I have softened my stance a little regarding my judgement of that but when they start threads saying the Bible doesn't condemn gays or Jesus never said anything about gay sex, it just begs to be corrected and is tantamount to the most obvious kind of baiting for getting Christians into violations of TC rules I have ever seen perpetrated here. If I had a nickel for everytime I saw someone disagree with gay marriage not mentioning a word about their faith and be summarily subjected to all kinds of Bible bashing because of it, I'd be rich with nickles. Gay sex seems to be something liberals are more open about and I have had a post removed once for mentioning seeing two guys kissing disgusted me. It wasn't meant in a personal way, it just happens to make me want to throw up when I see that kind of thing.

It isn't like I am wanting to be nauseated at all, it just does that which is the reason I have a hard time trying to figure out how a dude can want to kiss a dude over the sweet soft kissable lips of a female not having a five oclock shadow. I just think woman are the coolest thing God put on this earth and having sex with a female is one of the MOST obvious match up's ergonomically speaking, one could easily figure out.

Why liberals have a harder time with that one is a mystery hehe

I had wanted to do some research of my own here and try to see if their was a connection between Atheist's and 911 truthers debunkers and Christians also to see which of each would be the majority interested in the other.

Your study seems to be more focused on what Ill say seems to be a slant against conservatism as it really doesn't go into much about liberals and when it does, the findings are always something seen as a plus.

Which by the way would

disgust me lol

Haidt has been doing a lot of interesting research lately.

Excuse me if I missed it, but did he manage to come up with concrete definitions of liberalism and conservatism. If so, what were they?

I also must admit I am curious as to the following hypothetical.

What if he had asked them to rate levels of disgust on race-based crimes?

For example, a black man was lynched in the South for "looking at a white woman twice".

To make things more interesting we would have a "worse" situation listed before they reached that question. We could use Hitler's systematic extermination of the Jews for instance. Since many people are likely to rate such a thing as disgusting as possible, I think it would increase their chances of not putting the racist crime as simply the most disgusting thing possible.

It would be very interesting to compare the results between liberals and conservatives on that one.