Models of moral judgment have linked generalized emotionality with deontological moral judgment. The evidence, however, is mixed. Other research has linked the specific emotion of disgust with generalized moral condemnation. Here too, the evidence is mixed. We suggest that a synthesis of these two literatures points to one specific emotion (disgust) that reliably predicts one specific type of moral judgment (deontological). In all three studies, we found that trait disgust sensitivity predicted more extreme deontological judgment. In Study 3, with deontological endorsement and consequentialist endorsement operationalized as independent constructs, we found that disgust was positively associated with deontological endorsement but was unrelated to consequentialist endorsement. Across studies, the disgust–deontology link was mediated by individual difference variables related to preference for order (right-wing authoritarianism and intolerance for ambiguity). These data suggest a more precise model of emotion and moral judgment that identifies specific emotions, specific types of moral judgment, and specific motivational pathways.
BlockJ.BlockJ. (1951). An investigation of the relationship between intolerance for ambiguity and ethnocentrism. Journal of Personality, 19, 303–311.
4.
BochnerS. (1965). Defining intolerance for ambiguity. Psychological Record, 15, 393–400.
5.
BudnerS. (1962). Intolerance for ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 29–50.
6.
CannonP. R.SchnallS.WhiteM. (2011). Transgressions and expressions: Affective facial muscle activity predicts moral judgments. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 325–331.
7.
ChapmanH. A.AndersonA. K. (2013). Things rank and gross in nature: A review and synthesis of moral disgust. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 300–327.
8.
ChapmanH. A.AndersonA. K. (2014). Trait physical disgust is related to moral judgments outside of the purity domain. Emotion, 14, 341–8.
9.
ChoeS. Y.MinK. H. (2011). Who makes utilitarian judgments? The influences of emotions on utilitarian judgments. Judgment & Decision Making, 6, 580–592.
10.
ConwayP.GawronskiB. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision-making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 216–235.
11.
CrawfordJ. T.InbarY.MaloneyV. (2014). Disgust sensitivity selectively predicts attitudes toward groups that threaten (or uphold) traditional sexual morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 218–223.
12.
CushmanF.GrayK.GaffeyA.MendesW. B. (2012). Simulating murder: The aversion to harmful action. Emotion, 12, 2–7.
13.
DeYoungC. G.QuiltyL. C.PetersonJ. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896.
14.
EkmanP.FriesenW. V. (1975). Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.
Frenkel-BrunswikE. (1949). Intolerance for ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18, 108–143.
16.
Gamez-DjokicM.MoldenD. (2016). Beyond affective influences on deontological moral judgment: The role of motivations for prevention in the moral condemnation of harm. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1522–1537.
17.
Giner-SorollaR.ChapmanH. A. (2017). Beyond purity: Moral disgust toward bad character. Psychological Science, 28, 80–91.
18.
GreeneJ. D.MorelliS. A.LowenbergK.NystromL. E.CohenJ. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107, 1144–1154.
19.
GreeneJ. D.NystromL. E.AndrewD.DarleyJ. M.CohenJ. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44, 389–400.
20.
GreeneJ. D.SommervilleR. B.NystromL. E.DarleyJ. M.CohenJ. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–8.
21.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 18, 814–834.
22.
HaidtJ.McCauleyC.RozinP. (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 701–713.
23.
HannikainenI.MillerR. M.CushmanF.A. (in press). Act versus impact: Conservatives and liberals exhibit different structural emphases in moral judgment. Ratio: Special Issue on ‘Experimental Philosophy as Applied Philosophy'.
24.
HorbergE. J.OveisC.KeltnerD.CohenA. B. (2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 963–976.
25.
HutchersonC. A.GrossJ. J. (2011). The moral emotions: A social-functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 719–737.
26.
InbarY.PizarroD. A.BloomP. (2012). Disgusting smells cause decreased liking of gay men. Emotion, 12, 23–27.
27.
JohnsonD. J.WortmanJ.CheungF.HeinM.LucasR. E.DonnellanM. B.…NarrR. K. (2016). The effects of disgust on moral judgments: Testing moderators. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 640–647.
28.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
29.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
30.
KörnerA.VolkS. (2014). Concrete and abstract ways to deontology: Cognitive capacity moderates construal level effects on moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 139–145.
31.
LandyJ. F.GoodwinG. P. (2015). Does incidental disgust amplify moral judgment? A meta-analytic review of experimental evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 518–536.
32.
MooreA. B.StevensJ.ConwayA. R. A. (2011). Individual differences in sensitivity to reward and punishment predict moral judgment. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 621–625.
33.
OlatunjiB. O.WilliamsN. L.TolinD. F.AbramowitzJ. S.SawchukC. N.LohrJ. M.ElwoodL. S. (2007). The disgust scale: Item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions for refinement. Psychological Assessment, 19, 281–297.
34.
PiazzaJ.SousaP. (2014). Religiosity, political orientation, and consequentialist moral thinking. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 334–342.
35.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.
36.
RobinsonJ. S.ForbesR. C.PlaksJ. E. (2017). Appealing to anger and sadness: Differential use of emotion language when justifying deontological and consequentialist moral judgments. Manuscript in preparation.
37.
RobinsonJ. S.JoelS.PlaksJ. E. (2015). Empathy for the group versus indifference toward the victim: Effects of anxious avoidant attachment on moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 139–152.
38.
RobinsonJ. S.Page-GouldEPlaksJ. E. (2017). I appreciate your effort: Asymmetric effects of actors’ exertion on observers’ consequentialist versus deontological judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 50–64.
39.
RussellP. S.Giner-SorollaR. (2010). Moral anger is more flexible than moral disgust. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 360–364.
SchnallS.HaidtJ.CloreG. L.JordanA. H. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1096–1109.
42.
ThomsonJ. J. (1985). The trolley problem. The Yale Law Journal, 94, 1395–1415.
43.
TyburJ. M.LiebermanD.GriskeviciusV. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: Individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 103–122.
44.
WebsterD. M.KruglanskiA. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.
45.
XuX.ChapmanH.KarinenM.PlaksJ. E.PetersonJ. B. (2017). An orderly personality partially explains the link between disgust sensitivity and political conservatism. Manuscript under review.
46.
XuX.PlaksJ. E.PetersonJ. B. (2016). From dispositions to goals to ideology: Toward a synthesis of personality and social psychological approaches to political orientation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 267–280.
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.
