Research on perceived risks of scientific issues has largely overlooked the influence of disgust as a predictor. Here, we examine the impact of disgust on perceived risks of modifying microbiomes using a 2 (emotion) × 2 (focus) experiment embedded in an online survey. We find evidence of moderated mediation where individuals exposed to an article about microbiome research and therapies with explicit references to disgusting stimuli perceived greater risk through a mediating variable, elicited disgust. This indirect effect is moderated by the focus of the article; those who viewed a human-focused article experienced greater disgust and reported greater perceived risks. These findings have implications for assessing and addressing lay audiences’ reactions to an emerging issue that has significant societal implications.
AlhakamiASSlovicP (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis14(6): 1085–1096.
2.
AlivisatosAPBlaserMJBrodieELChunMDangJLDonohueTJet al. (2015) A unified initiative to harness Earth’s microbiomes. Science350(6260): 507–508.
3.
BecharaADamasioHDamasioAR (2000) Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex10(3): 295–307.
4.
BentlerPM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin107(2): 238–246.
BinderARCacciatoreMAScheufeleDAShawBRCorleyEA. (2012) Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science. Public Understanding of Science21(7): 830–847.
7.
BlaserMJCardonZGChoMKDanglJLDonohueTJGreenJLet al. (2016) Toward a predictive understanding of Earth’s microbiomes to address 21st century challenges. mBio7(3): e00714–e00716.
8.
BollenKA (1989) Structural Equation Models with Latent Variables. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
CacciatoreMABrowningNScheufeleDABrossardDXenosMACorleyEA (2018) Opposing ends of the spectrum: Exploring trust in scientific and religious authorities. Public Understanding of Science27(1): 11–28.
11.
CacciatoreMAScheufeleDACorleyEA (2011) From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science20(3): 385–404.
ChuongKHO’DohertyKCSeckoDM (2015) Media discourse on the social acceptability of fecal transplants. Qualitative Health Research25(10): 1359–1371.
15.
ClaytonRBLeshnerGBollsPDThorsonE (2017) Discard the smoking cues—Keep the disgust: An investigation of tobacco smokers’ motivated processing of anti-tobacco commercials. Health Communication32(11): 1319–1330.
16.
CohenJ (2016) Vaginal microbiome affects HIV risk. Science353(6297): 331–331.
17.
CurtisVde BarraMAungerR (2011) Disgust as an adaptive system for disease avoidance behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences366(1563): 389–401.
18.
DillardJPPeckE (2001) Persuasion and the structure of affect. Human Communication Research27(1): 38–68.
19.
DinanTGCryanJF (2017) Gut–brain axis in 2016: Brain–Gut–Microbiota axis—Mood, metabolism and behaviour. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology14: 69–70.
20.
DsouzaMGilbertJA (2017) Microbiome: Beyond the gut. Microbiology Today44(2): 66–69.
21.
DunlopSMWakefieldMKashimaY (2008) Can you feel it? Negative emotion, risk, and narrative in health communication. Media Psychology11(1): 52–75.
22.
EkmanP (1999) Basic emotions. In: RobinsonMDHarmon-JonesE (eds) Handbook of Cognition and Emotion. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 45–60.
23.
FinucaneMLAlhakamiASlovicPJohnsonSM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making13(1): 1–17.
24.
FranzosaEAHuangKMeadowJFGeversDLemonKPBohannanBJet al. (2015) Identifying personal microbiomes using metagenomic codes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America112(22): E2930–E2938.
25.
FrijdaNH (1986) The Emotions. London: Cambridge University Press.
26.
GoodboyAKKlineRB (2017) Statistical and practical concerns with published communication research featuring structural equation modeling. Communication Research Reports34(1): 68–77.
HayesAF (2009) Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs76(4): 408–420.
29.
HayesAFMatthesJ (2009) Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods41(3): 924–936.
30.
HoSSScheufeleDACorleyEA (2013) Factors influencing public risk-benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing. Public Understanding of Science22(5): 606–623.
31.
HolbertRLStephensonMT (2008) Commentary on the uses and misuses of structural equation modeling in communication research. In: HayesAFSlaterMDSnyderLB (eds) The SAGE Sourcebook of Advanced Data Analysis Methods for Communication Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 185–218.
32.
HovlandCIJanisILKelleyHH (1953) Communications and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
33.
HuL-TBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal6(1): 1–55.
IzardCE (2010) The many meanings/aspects of emotion: Definitions, functions, activation, and regulation. Emotion Review2(4): 363–370.
36.
KellerCVisschersVSiegristM (2012) Affective imagery and acceptance of replacing nuclear power plants. Risk Analysis32(3): 464–477.
37.
KlineRB (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Publications, Inc.
38.
KühneRSchemerC (2015) The emotional effects of news frames on information processing and opinion formation. Communication Research42(3): 387–407.
39.
LeeC-JScheufeleDA (2006) The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly83(4): 819–834.
40.
LenchHCFloresSABenchSW (2011) Discrete emotions predict changes in cognition, judgment, experience, behavior, and physiology: A meta-analysis of experimental emotion elicitations. Psychological Bulletin137(5): 834–855.
41.
LernerJSKeltnerD (2000) Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition & Emotion14(4): 473–493.
42.
LernerJSKeltnerD (2001) Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology81(1): 146–159.
43.
LernerJSLiYValdesoloPKassamKS (2015) Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology66(1): 799–823.
44.
LeshnerGBollsPThomasE (2009) Scare ’em or disgust ’em: The effects of graphic health promotion messages. Health Communication24(5): 447–458.
45.
MaYChenHLanCRenJ (2018) Help, hope and hype: Ethical considerations of human microbiome research and applications. Protein & Cell9(5): 404–415.
46.
MarchesiJRRavelJ (2015) The vocabulary of microbiome research: A proposal. Microbiome3: 31.
47.
MetselaarSWiddershovenG (2017) Ethical issues in fecal microbiota transplantion: Taking into account identity and family relations. The American Journal of Bioethics17(5): 53–55.
48.
MillerJD (1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science7(3): 203–223.
49.
MoralesACWuECFitzsimonsGJ (2012) How disgust enhances the effectiveness of fear appeals. Journal of Marketing Research49(3): 383–393.
50.
MouYLinCA (2014) Communicating food safety via the social media: The role of knowledge and emotions on risk perception and prevention. Science Communication36(5): 593–616.
51.
MullerDJuddCMYzerbytVY (2005) When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology89(6): 852–863.
52.
NabiRL (1998) The effect of disgust-eliciting visuals on attitudes toward animal experimentation. Communication Quarterly46(4): 472–484.
53.
NabiRL (1999) A cognitive-functional model for the effects of discrete negative emotions on information processing, attitude change, and recall. Communication Theory9(3): 292–320.
54.
NabiRL (2002) The theoretical versus the lay meaning of disgust: Implications for emotion research. Cognition & Emotion16(5): 695–703.
NetemeyerRGBurtonSAndrewsJCKeesJ (2016) Graphic health warnings on cigarette packages: The role of emotions in affecting adolescent smoking consideration and secondhand smoke beliefs. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing35(1): 124–143.
57.
NewhagenJE (1998) TV news images that induce anger, fear, and disgust: Effects on approach-avoidance and memory. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media42(2): 265–276.
58.
OatenMStevensonRJCaseTI (2009) Disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism. Psychological Bulletin135(2): 303–321.
59.
O’KeefeDJ (2003) Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory13(3): 251–274.
60.
PankseppJWattD (2011) What is basic about basic emotions? Lasting lessons from affective neuroscience. Emotion Review3(4): 387–396.
61.
PetersESlovicP (1996) The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology26(16): 1427–1453.
62.
PlutchikR (2001) The nature of emotions. American Scientist89(4): 344–350.
RozinPHaidtJMcCauleyCR (2016) Disgust. In: BarrettLFLewisMHaviland-JonesJM (eds) Handbook of Emotions, 4th edn.New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 815–834.
66.
RubenkingBLangA (2014) Captivated and grossed out: An examination of processing core and sociomoral disgusts in entertainment media. Journal of Communication64(3): 543–565.
67.
RungeKKChungJHSuLY-FBrossardDScheufeleaDA (2018) Pink slimed: Media framing of novel food technologies and risk related to ground beef and processed foods in the U.S. Meat Science143: 242–251.
68.
SauterDAEisnerFEkmanPScottSK (2010) Cross-cultural recognition of basic emotions through nonverbal emotional vocalizations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America107(6): 2408–2412.
69.
SchnallSHaidtJCloreGLJordanAH (2008) Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin34(8): 1096–1109.
70.
ShadishWRCookTDCampbellDT (2002) Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
71.
ShamarinaDStoyantchevaIMasonCEBibbyKElhaikE (2017) Communicating the promise, risks, and ethics of large-scale, open space microbiome and metagenome research. Microbiome5: 132.
72.
ShimpTAStuartEW (2004) The role of disgust as an emotional mediator of advertising effects. Journal of Advertising33(1): 43–53.
73.
SinghBKTrivediP (2017) Microbiome and the future for food and nutrient security. Microbial Biotechnology10(1): 50–53.
74.
SlovicP (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield (Reprinted from Environment, Ethics, and Behavior, pp. 277–313, 1997). Risk Analysis19(4): 689–701.
75.
SlovicPFlynnJHLaymanM (1991) Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science254(5038): 1603–1607.
76.
SteigerJH (1990) Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research25(2): 173–180.
77.
SunYYeoSKMcKasyMShugartE (2019) Disgust, need for affect, and responses to microbiome research. Mass Communication and Society. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2019.1565786
78.
TyburJMLiebermanDKurzbanRDeScioliP (2013) Disgust: Evolved function and structure. Psychological Review120(1): 65–84.
79.
Van RossumTPylatukMMOsachoffHLGriffithsEJLoRQuachMet al. (2016) Microbiome analysis across a natural copper gradient at a proposed northern Canadian mine site. Microbiotechnology, Ecotoxicology and Bioremediation. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00084/full
80.
VytalKHamannS (2010) Neuroimaging support for discrete neural correlates of basic emotions: A voxel-based meta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience22(12): 2864–2885.
81.
WatsonDTellegenA (1985) Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin98(2): 219–235.
82.
YeoSKCacciatoreMABrossardDScheufeleaDARungeaKSuLYet al. (2014) Partisan amplification of risk: American perceptions of nuclear energy risk in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Energy Policy67: 727–736.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
