Author's personal copy

Core, animal reminder, and contamination disgust: Three kindsof disgust with distinct personality, behavioral, physiological,and clinical correlates

Bunmi O. Olatunji a,*, Jonathan Haidt b, Dean McKay c, Bieke David a

aDepartment of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, 301 Wilson Hall, 111 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37203, USAbUniversity of Virginia, USAc Fordham University, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 6 April 2008

Keywords:Core disgustAnimal reminder disgustContamination disgustEmotionPersonality

a b s t r a c t

We examined the relationships between sensitivity to three kinds of disgust (core, animal-reminder, and contamination) and personality traits, behavioral avoidance, physiologicalresponding, and anxiety disorder symptoms. Study 1 revealed that these disgusts are par-ticularly associated with neuroticism and behavioral inhibition. Moreover, the three dis-gusts showed a theoretically consistent pattern of relations on four disgust-relevantbehavioral avoidance tasks in Study 2. Similar results were found in Study 3 such that coredisgust was significantly related to increased physiological responding during exposure tovomit, while animal-reminder disgust was specifically related to physiological respondingduring exposure to blood. Lastly, Study 4 revealed that each of the three disgusts showed adifferent pattern of relations with fear of contamination, fear of animals, and fear of blood–injury relevant stimuli. These findings provide support for the convergent and divergentvalidity of core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust. These findings also highlightthe possibility that the three kinds of disgust may manifest as a function of different psy-chological mechanisms (i.e., oral incorporation, mortality defense, disease avoidance) thatmay give rise to different clinical conditions. However, empirical examination of the mech-anisms that underlie the three disgusts will require further refinement of the psychometricproperties of the disgust scale.

� 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Disgust is often said to be one of the basic emotions, recognizable across cultures (Ekman, 1992). The study of disgust canbe traced back to Darwin (1872/1965) who noted that disgust ‘‘. . .refers to something revolting, primarily in relation to thesense of taste, as actually perceived or vividly imagined; and secondarily to anything which causes a similar feeling, throughthe sense of smell, touch and even of eyesight” (p. 253). Accordingly, it has been suggested that disgust may function pri-marily as a guardian of the mouth (Rozin & Fallon, 1987; Rozin, Haidt, & McCauley, 2000). Indeed, a basic theme of manyearly definitions was food rejection (Angyal, 1941; Tomkins, 1963). This approach has contributed to a large literature fo-cused on identifying specific characteristics of foods that facilitate rejection based on disgust (Martins & Pliner, 2006; Rozin,Millman, & Nemeroff, 1986). However, as one moves beyond the evolutionary function of disgust as a guardian of the mouth,disgust seems to expand its domain and respond to a diverse and puzzling array of elicitors (Haidt, McCauley, & Rozin, 1994).

0092-6566/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.03.009

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: olubunmi.o.olatunji@vanderbilt.edu (B.O. Olatunji).

Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Research in Personality

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate / j rp

Author's personal copy

The heterogeneity of disgust elicitors has stimulated the creation of several theory-driven classification systems. Forexample, Rozin and Fallon (1987) initially proposed the consolidation of disgust elicitors into the following domains: animal-ness, spoilage and decay, distance from humans, anomaly, and feces. Subsequent revisions of this classification system byRozin and colleagues (2000) resulted in four broad categories of disgust: core, animal-reminder, interpersonal, and socio-moral disgust elicitors. Core disgust elicitors are characterized by a real or perceived threat of oral incorporation and a reac-tive sense of offensiveness. Foods (e.g., spoiled milk), bodily waste products (e.g., feces), and small animals, particularly thoseassociated with garbage and waste (e.g., rats, cockroaches) are subsumed within this category. Animal-reminder disgust elic-itors consist of reminders of our own mortality and inherent animalistic nature. Attitudes and practices surrounding sex, in-jury to the body or violations of its outer envelope, and death are subsumed within this category. Interpersonal disgust iselicited by contact with individuals who are unknown, ill, or tainted by disease, misfortune, or immorality. Lastly, socio-mor-al disgust is a reaction to a subclass of moral violations—those that reveal that a person is morally ‘‘sick,” or ‘‘twisted,” or,more generally, lacking the normal human motives. Interpersonal disgust and socio-moral disgust work together to protectand preserve social order, and historically, have shaped and been shaped by religious and legal institutions (Rozin et al.,2000).

Recent empirical work has provided supportive evidence for the distinctiveness of the disgust classification system pro-posed by Rozin and colleagues (2000). For example, Simpson, Carter, Anthony, and Overton (2006) found that disgust re-sponses to images of core elicitors weakened over time whereas socio-moral disgust responses intensified. Males andfemales showed similar levels of disgust towards socio-moral disgust elicitors, but females showed higher levels towardscore elicitors. Furthermore, research using hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis (Marzillier & Davey, 2004) has re-vealed three distinct clusters corresponding to: (1) non-disgust or ‘‘disgust-irrelevant” items, (2) ‘‘primary” disgust itemscontaining a range of disgust-relevant items characterized by their ability to elicit fear of oral incorporation and their animalorigin; and (3) ‘‘complex” disgusts, consisting mainly of behaviors or activities that are considered to be socially or morallyunacceptable. Overall, these findings suggest that different types of disgust may be activated by different categories ofstimuli.

Research attempting to examine disgust as a multidimensional construct has benefited from the development and vali-dation of the Disgust Scale (DS; Haidt et al., 1994; Rozin, Haidt, McCauley, Dunlop, & Ashmore, 1999), the most commonlyused measure of disgust to date. The DS was developed largely to examine individual differences in a wide range of disgustdomains. Although a large and diverse set of items was generated in the development of the DS, psychometric analysis led tothe inclusion of eight domains corresponding to animals, body products, death, body envelope violations, food, hygiene, sex,and sympathetic magic (improbable contamination). Importantly, the socio-moral items (e.g., stealing from a blind beggar)were removed because they did not reliably correlate with the total score and the only moral items that did correlate reliablywith the total score were those that dealt with sexuality (i.e., incest). These findings raise the possibility that when peopleuse the word disgust for actions that have no physical disgust component, the emotional reaction may not necessarily in-volve disgust. However, moral disgust may often involve the physiology and phenomenology of disgust, blended with ele-ments of anger (Sherman, Haidt, & Coan, 2008).

The scaling of multiple disgust domains on the DS has allowed for the empirical evaluation of many interesting ideas inthe social and clinical psychology literature (Olatunji & Sawchuk, 2005). Within the field of clinical research, drawing fromRozin and colleagues (2000), the subscales of the DS have been categorized into core (i.e., animals, body products, food) andanimal reminder (i.e., death, envelope violations, sex) disgust. This approach has led to the finding that reactivity to core dis-gust elicitors is a specific risk factor for the development of spider phobia and contamination-based obsessive–compulsivedisorder (OCD), and reactivity to animal reminder disgust is a specific risk factor for the development of blood–injection–injury (BII) phobia (de Jong & Merckelbach, 1998; Olatunji, Arrindell, & Lohr, 2005a, Olatunji, Lohr, Sawchuk, & Westendorf,2005b, 2005c).

The DS has given researchers the opportunity to assess reactions to a wide variety of disgust elicitors. However, the reli-ability of the 8 subscales of the DS is questionable (Schienle, Stark, Walter, & Vaitl, 2003). In the original validation study ofthe DS, internal consistency estimates for the eight subscales were consistently poor (a’s < 0.63) prompting the cautionarynote that ‘‘the alpha reliabilities of the eight domain subscales are not high enough for interpretation of individual patternsof subscale scores” (Haidt et al., 1994, p. 711). Despite the limited psychometric properties of the eight subscales of the DS(each only 4 items long), numerous studies have provided evidence for the utility of the eight disgust scores of the DS (Olat-unji, Sawchuk, Lohr, & de Jong, 2004).

Given the disconnect between the low alphas and the demonstrated utility of the scores, Olatunji and colleagues (2007)conducted a converging set of analyses evaluating the item properties of the DS with the goal of refining its factor structure.Based on the results of this study, the removal of seven problematic items was recommended (i.e., items that detracted fromreliability of the DS). Removing these items resulted in the Disgust Scale-Revised (DS-R) and CFA revealed 3 distinct DS-Rfactors conceptualized as: core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust. Importantly, these three new disgust factorsyield more acceptable internal consistency estimates (a’s > 0.70). The three factors also correspond with disgust dimensionsthat have been outlined by Rozin and colleagues (2000). The core disgust factor of the DS-R is characterized primarily as afood-rejection response centered on oral incorporation of offensive stimuli (e.g., eating monkey meat). The animal-reminderfactor highlights stimuli or behaviors that serve as reminders of the animal origins of humans (e.g., touching a dead body).Lastly, Rozin and colleagues note that direct or indirect contact with others can elicit interpersonal disgust. One key compo-nent of interpersonal disgust is disease probability and this aspect bares striking similarity to the DS-R contamination dis-

1244 B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259

Author's personal copy

gust factor (e.g., accidentally drinking from someone else’s cup). Although the three kinds of disgust assessed by the DS-R arerelatively distinct, disease concerns appear to be common to core and contamination disgust. Core disgust reflects diseasespread by objects, whereas contamination disgust appears to reflect disease spread by people.

The core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust subscales of the DS-R offer a tool for studying the role of disgust invarious disorders, and for examining the affective, cognitive, and social mechanisms associated with disgust. The three sub-scales of the DS-R have improved psychometric properties (relative to the original eight subscales of the DS) and they aregrounded in an existing theory of disgust. However, the common and unique correlates of the three subscales remain largelyunknown.

1.1. Overview of study predictions

The present series of studies utilized multiple approaches in examining the shared and unique correlates of core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust domains as assessed by the DS-R. Based largely on the conceptualization of disgust as adefensive emotion (Haidt et al., 1994) and in line with previous research (Druschel & Sherman, 1999), we predicted that core,animal-reminder, and contamination disgust scores would be positively correlated with personality traits such as neuroti-cism, and negatively correlated with personality traits such as low self-esteem in Study 1. As a defense emotion, disgustshould also be related differentially to sensitivities in the behavioral activation system BAS, which controls appetitive moti-vation and the behavioral inhibition system, and BIS, which is associated with withdrawal behaviors and negative affect(Gray, 1994). The BIS inhibits behaviors that could lead to punishment and should be uniquely associated with a with-drawal-related negative emotion such as disgust. Thus, Study 1 examined the relations between different types of disgustand various personality characteristics. Study 2 examined the relation between the three types of disgust and behavioralavoidance on four thematically distinct tasks. A pattern of correlations was predicted to emerge such that a given disgustdomain (e.g., core disgust) would be strongly related to a theoretically related behavioral task (e.g., drinking spit). Physio-logical correlates of the three disgust subscales during exposure to disgust-relevant stimuli were then examined in Study3. Based on the emphasis on oral incorporation and disease avoidance, core and contamination disgust were predicted tobe highly related to physiological responding during exposure to vomit. However, animal-reminder disgust, which is markedby blood and mutilation, was predicted to be highly related to physiological responding during exposure to blood.

In Study 4, we examined the association between the three kinds of disgust and repugnance of different aversive stimuli.It was predicted that core and contamination disgust would be uniquely associated with repugnance towards animals, rot-ting foods, and smells. Animal-reminder disgust was hypothesized to be uniquely associated with repugnance towards injec-tions and mutilation. Lastly, Study 4 examined the relation between the three disgust scores and measures of anxietydisorder symptoms. Consistent with prior research (i.e., de Jong & Merckelbach, 1998), a domain specific pattern of relationswas predicted such that core disgust would be highly associated with phobic fear of animals, animal-reminder disgust wouldbe highly associated with phobic fear of BII relevant stimuli, and contamination disgust would be highly associated withsymptoms of contamination-based OCD.

2. Study 1: Personality correlates of the three kinds of disgust

2.1. Methods

2.1.1. ParticipantsTwo hundred and forty-seven students in an introductory psychology class at the University of Virginia (66% women;

mean age = 18.34, SD = 0.73; 80% Caucasian) volunteered to participate as part of a semester-long class research projecton personality.

2.1.2. MeasuresThe 25-item DS-R was given as a web-based survey (Haidt et al., 1994; See Appendix A). The DS-R consists of three

subscales (a 12-item core disgust scale, an 8-item animal-reminder scale, and a 5-item contamination disgust scale) of theDS-R (Olatunji, Sawchuk, de Jong, & Lohr, 2007a, 2007b). These scales include 13 true/false items and 12 items that arerated on a 3-point scale (0, .5, and 1) with regards to the extent to which participants find the experience ‘‘Not Disgust-ing At All, Slightly Disgusting, or Very Disgusting”. Two of the true/false items are reverse-scored. For each respondent,two scores were calculated: a mean of the 13 true/false items and a mean of the 12 items on a 3-point scale. A totalscore for overall disgust sensitivity may be calculated by computing the mean of these two scores (scores thus rangefrom 0 to 1). The DS-R has demonstrated adequate internal consistency and convergent and discriminant validity (Olat-unji et al., 2007a, 2007b).

The NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a short form of the revised NEO personality inventory. Itconsists of 60 items, with five 12-item subscales to measure the ‘‘big five” personality dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion,openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The answer format is a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from ‘‘Strongly dis-agree” (0) to ‘‘Strongly agree” (4). Numerous studies have used this instrument in the assessment of personality given itsdemonstrated internal consistency and external validity (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2003).

B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259 1245

Author's personal copy

The Behavioral Inhibition System and Behavioral Approach System Scales(BIS/BAS scales; Carver & White, 1994) is a measurecomprising a BIS scale and a BAS (Reward Responsiveness, Drive and Fun Seeking) scale. Each item is answered using a fourpoint Likert scale, ranging from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 4 (‘strongly agree’). Cronbach’s alphas for the BIS and BAS scales werepreviously observed to be adequate (Jorm et al., 1999).

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965) is a 10-item self-report scale, designed to measure global self-esteem. RSES items are rated on a 4 point Likert scale and range from ‘‘Strongly Agree” to ‘‘Strongly Disagree.” The RSEShas demonstrated good reliability and validity across a large number of different sample groups (Fleming & Courtney, 1984).

2.1.3. ProcedureAll members of the class were sent an email with a link to a web-based survey, which guaranteed their anonymity. Inter-

net survey methods, which are receiving increased use in psychological research, demonstrate comparable levels of perfor-mance when compared to paper and pencil methodology (e.g., Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004). Approximately 75%of the class responded. All data was collected before any lectures were given on personality.

2.2. Results

2.2.1. Preliminary analysisDescriptive statistics for the DS-R and its three factors for Study 1 though 4 are presented in Table 1. Independent

sample t-tests across the 4 studies indicated that scores were higher for women than men on the DS-R total score, core,animal-reminder, and contamination subscales (p’s <.06). The DS-R total score, core, animal-reminder, and contaminationdisgust subscales were significantly correlated with one another across the 4 studies (r’s range from .23 to .86, p’s <.001).Based on the criterion of .30 as an acceptable corrected item-total correlation (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), 23 of the 25items performed adequately (range = .31 to .59) in Study 1. Two of the items on the contamination disgust subscaleyielded a corrected item-total correlation <.30 (‘I never let any part of my body touch the toilet seat in public rest-rooms’; item-total correlation = .25 and ‘You take a sip of soda, and then realize that you drank from the glass thatan acquaintance of yours had been drinking from’; item-total correlation = .25). In Study 2, 23 of the 25 items performedadequately (range = .31 to .67). One item on the core disgust scale (‘You see someone put ketchup on vanilla ice cream,and eat it’; item-total correlation = .17) and one item on the contamination disgust subscale yielded a corrected item-total correlation <.30 (‘As part of a sex education class, you are required to inflate a new unlubricated condom, usingyour mouth’; item-total correlation = .25). All of the items performed adequately in Study 3 (range = .37 to .72) andStudy 4 (range = .30 to .67).

2.2.2. Personality correlates of the three kinds of disgustZero-order Pearson correlations between core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust and measures of personality

are presented in Table 2. The three disgust domains were significantly associated with neuroticism and behavioral inhibition.The three disgust domains also showed marginally to highly significant associations with self-esteem. However, the threedisgust domains were also not associated with positive personality traits of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,and behavioral approach. The three disgust domains did show a specific pattern of associations with measures of personality.Core and contamination disgust demonstrated marginal to significant negative associations with openness, while animal-reminder disgust was not associated with openness.

Table 1Descriptive statistics for Study 1–4

DS-R total Core Disgust Animal-reminder disgust Contamination disgust

Study 1Mean 0.48 0.58 0.61 0.26SD 0.18 0.20 0.26 0.22Alpha 0.83 0.71 0.77 0.37

Study 2Mean 0.46 0.54 0.57 0.26SD 0.20 0.22 0.26 0.24Alpha 0.86 0.76 0.80 0.54

Study 3Mean 0.68 0.61 0.67 0.71SD 0.24 0.22 0.26 0.29Alpha 0.93 0.80 0.78 0.61

Study 4Mean 0.46 0.56 0.54 0.30SD 0.20 0.21 0.27 0.24Alpha 0.86 0.74 0.78 0.50

1246 B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259

Author's personal copy

2.2.3. Unique disgust domain predictors of personality traitsWe conducted a series of multiple linear regression analyses to examine the extent to which the three kinds of disgust

uniquely predicted three types of personality traits: neuroticism, behavioral inhibition, and low self esteem. In each regres-sion equation, gender was entered in step 1 and the core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust factors were simul-taneously entered as predictor variables in step 2. These analyses provided a stringent test of the construct validity of thedisgust factors since each of the other predictor variables were theoretically expected to contribute to personality traits.In the first analysis we examined the incremental validity of the disgust factors in predicting neuroticism. Together, the pre-dictor variables explained a significant portion of the variance in neuroticism (R2 = .24, p < .001; see Table 3). However, onlyanimal-reminder disgust (partial r = .19, p < .05) and contamination disgust (partial r = .30, p < .01) accounted for unique var-iance in neuroticism. In the second regression, we examined the incremental validity of the three kinds of disgust in predict-ing behavioral inhibition. As shown in Table 3, these variables accounted for 26% of the variance in behavioral inhibition(p < .001). Core disgust (partial r = .18, p < .05), animal-reminder disgust (partial r = .20, p < .01), and contamination disgust(partial r = .15, p < .05) explained significant, unique variance in behavioral inhibition after controlling for the other predic-tors. In the third analysis we examined the incremental validity of the disgust factors in predicting self esteem. Together, thepredictor variables explained a significant portion of the variance in self esteem (R2 = .13, p < .05; see Table 3). However, noneof the three disgust factors accounted for unique variance in self-esteem.

2.3. Discussion

Findings from Study 1 suggest that core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust subscales are significantly associ-ated with one another. Core and animal-reminder disgust were found to demonstrate adequate reliability. However, internalconsistency for the contamination disgust subscale was weak. Subsequent analysis did show that two items of the contam-ination disgust subscale yielded a corrected item-total correlation <.30 which may partially account for the low internal con-sistency of the contamination disgust subscale in this sample. Prior research has shown a positive relationship betweenneuroticism and disgust as well as a negative relationship between openness to experience and disgust (Druschel & Sher-man, 1999). In line with such research, the three kinds of disgust were most strongly associated with neuroticism and behav-ioral inhibition. Core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust were generally not significantly associated withmeasures of positive personality traits (i.e., conscientiousness). Examination of specificity did show that only animal-remin-der disgust and contamination disgust accounted for unique variance in neuroticism. The three kinds of disgust contributed

Table 2Personality correlates of core, animal reminder, and contamination disgust

Personality measure DS-R total Core disgust Animal-reminder disgust Contamination disgust Mean (SD)

Neuroticism .46** .33** .34** .35** 3.16 (0.81)Extraversion �.06 .03 �.04 �.12 3.52 (0.73)Openness �.16 ± �.20* �.06 �.16 ± 3.82 (0.45)Agreeableness .11 .13 .06 .05 4.08 (0.60)Conscientiousness .04 .03 .00 .07 3.98 (0.49)Behavioral inhibition .50** .46** .41** .31** 3.24 (0.51)Behavioral Approach .07 .09 .08 �.00 3.03 (0.36)Self Esteem �.30** �.28** �.20 ± �.18 ± 3.07 (0.48)

Note. ±p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01. The value of n’s varies from 88 to 173.

Table 3The three kinds of disgust as predictors of negative personality traits

Disgust domain B SE B B t P Partial r

Predicting neuroticisma

Core .17 .44 .04 0.39 Ns .03Animal-reminder .60 .28 .20 2.15 <.05 .19Contamination 1.03 .30 .30 3.37 <.01 .30

Predicting behavioral inhibitionb

Core .58 .24 .23 2.39 <.05 .18Animal-reminder .40 .15 .21 2.66 <.01 .20Contamination .35 .17 .15 1.99 <.05 .15

Predicting self esteemc

Core �.17 .33 �.07 �0.51 Ns �.05Animal-reminder �.12 .21 �.06 �0.56 Ns �.06Contamination �.27 .23 �.13 �1.17 Ns �.12

Note. aR2 = 0.24, F (4, 117) = 9.06, p < .001; bR2 = 0.26, F (4, 167) = 14.96, p<.001; cR2 = 0.13, F (4, 83) = 3.09, p<.05; ns = not significant. All three regressionswere conducted controlling for gender in step 1.

B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259 1247

Author's personal copy

unique variance to behavioral inhibition when controlling for gender and the each of the other kinds of disgust. However,similar analyses indicated that none of the three disgust factors accounted for unique variance in low self- esteem. Thesefindings represent the first report on the personality correlates of the core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust sub-scales as assessed by the DS-R. To extend upon these findings, we examine next the behavioral correlates of the three kindsof disgust.

3. Study 2: Behavioral correlates of the three kinds of disgust

3.1. Methods

3.1.1. ParticipantsEighty nine students in an introductory psychology class at the University of Virginia (60% women; mean age = 19.07,

SD = 1.02) volunteered to participate as part of an in-class project that preceded a lecture on disgust and other emotions.

3.1.2. Measures and ProceduresParticipants were asked to take the original 32-item DS (Haidt et al., 1994) as a web-based survey a few days before the

in-class experiment. As in Study 1, we analyzed only the 25 items that comprise the DS-R (Olatunji et al., 2007a, 2007b).When participants entered the lecture hall on the day of the experiment, they were invited to take a grape from a bowl of

freshly washed grapes, and put it in a small paper cup. They also picked up a data recording sheet. A fewminutes later, after abrief introduction to the general topic of emotion, the professor told the class that he wanted the class to feel some emotions.He put up an overhead slide that said:

I will ask you to watch 3 video clips, and make ratings after each one. Then I will ask you to do something else. PLEASEDON’T DO ANYTHING THAT BOTHERS OR DISGUSTS YOU! Look away from the clips whenever you want to.

The professor read aloud the text on the overhead, and told the class that, as with all in-class studies, their responses wereanonymous, participation was optional, and they could choose afterwards whether to hand in their data recording sheets tobe analyzed. The professor then said: ‘‘Now, I will show you three very short video clips. All three are taken from documen-tary films, and I chose them because they are all somewhat disgusting. The first one is the least disgusting, and the last one isthe most disgusting. I am going to play them one at a time and ask you to make ratings after each one.” The professor thenintroduced the first video (the Core Disgust video), saying ‘‘This is from the Desmond Morris series ‘‘The Human Animal” It isabout human food habits.” The professor then showed a video clip (roughly 90 s) about a group of Kenyan pastoralists whosubsisted primarily off of their cattle. The scene showed them making a coagulated mix of cow blood and milk, and thenlicking the sticky mix off of a stick. After the video was over, the professor asked participants to fill out the top block of ques-tions on the data recording sheet, which asked participants to indicate if they had watched none, some, or all of the video.Visual avoidance for each video was rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (‘watched none of the video’) to 5 (‘watchedall of the video’).

The professor then introduced the Contamination Video, saying: ‘‘This is from a BBC documentary on the emotion of dis-gust. It is a collection of images that most people find disgusting” He then showed a montage (roughly 30 s) from a docu-mentary on disgust, which showed images of toilets, garbage, and other dirty, contaminating objects. Participants thenfilled out the second block of questions. The professor then introduced the Animal-Reminder video, saying: ‘‘This is froma documentary on open heart surgery. ‘‘ He then played a video clip (roughly 90 sec.) showing a chest cavity being cut openby an electric saw, and then pried apart to reveal the beating heart. Heart surgery is considered animal-reminder disgust as itdepicts violation of the body envelope.

After the three video tasks were completed, participants were asked to do the Spit task. The professor told participants totake their cup (with the grape in it) and put it on their desks. He then said: ‘‘I am going to ask you to do a two-step action; Irepeat; you do not need to do it. I do not care if you do it or not.” He explained that step one was to chew up the grape andthen spit it out into the cup, and he invited anyone willing to take step one to do so. Next, the professor explained that steptwo was to drink the contents of the cup, and he invited anyone willing to take step 2 to do so. He pointed out that researchassistants would soon circulate with trash bags to collect all cups, empty or full. After the cups were cleared away, partic-ipants were asked to fill out the fourth and final section of their data recording sheet indicating if they complied with thetwo-step action, complied with only the first step, or if they did not comply with either step. The order of the presentationof the tasks was not randomized and habituation may have occurred as a result.

3.2. Results

3.2.1. The three kinds of disgust as correlates of behavioral avoidanceTable 4 shows that with the possible exception of the spit task, avoidance, on the different tasks was generally correlated.

Table 5 presents zero-order Pearson correlations between core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust and measuresof behavioral avoidance. Of the three disgust domains, only core disgust was significantly (p < .01) associated with avoidanceon the Spit Task. Core and contamination disgust were significantly associated with visual avoidance on the core disgust vi-deo (p’s <.05). However, only core and animal-reminder disgust were significantly associated with visual avoidance on the

1248 B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259

Author's personal copy

animal-reminder video (p’s <.05). Lastly, core and contamination disgust were significantly associated with visual avoidanceon the contamination disgust video (p’s <.05).

Four multiple regression analyses with core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust entered simultaneously as theindependent variables and the behavioral avoidance measures as the dependent variables were conducted to examine thespecific contribution of the three kinds of disgust. In the first analysis, predicting avoidance on the core disgust video, themodel was significant [F (3, 63) = 3.30, p < .05, R2=.14] with only core disgust explaining significant unique variance(B = �.34, p < .05). In the second analysis, predicting avoidance on the contamination video, the model approached signifi-cance [F (3, 63) = 2.50, p < .07, R2 = .11]. However, none of the three types of disgust explained significant unique variance.In the third regression, predicting avoidance on the animal-reminder video, the model was significant [F (3, 59) = 3.15,p < .05, R2 = .14] with only animal-reminder disgust explaining unique variance (B = �.33, p = .05). Lastly, when predictingavoidance on the spit task, the model was significant [F (3, 59) = 3.40, p < .05, R2 = .15] with only core disgust explaining un-ique variance (B = �.50, p < .01).

3.3. Discussion

Findings from Study 2 are largely consistent with those of Study 1 regarding the psychometric properties of the three DS-R factors. The three scales were found to be significantly associated with one another and core and animal-reminder disgustwere found to demonstrate adequate reliability. However, the internal consistency for the contamination disgust subscalewas still low, although higher than in Study 1. Regarding behavioral correlates, only core disgust was significantly associatedwith avoidance on the Spit Task. This is consistent with the notion that core disgust makes us cautious about what we putinto our mouths (Rozin & Fallon, 1987). Core disgust was also uniquely associated with visual avoidance on the core disgustvideo that depicted a Kenyan group eating a mixture of coagulated cow blood and milk. Animal-reminder disgust was un-iquely associated with visual avoidance of the animal-reminder video that depicted a surgery, and contamination disgustwas significantly associated with visual avoidance on the contamination disgust video that depicted images of potential con-taminants. These findings suggest that knowing a person’s scores on each of the three subtypes of disgust may be useful forpredicting specific behaviors. Although the regression analyses provided evidence for specificity, the correlational analysesdid show that core and contamination disgust were significantly associated with avoidance of the core disgust video, coreand animal-reminder disgust were associated with avoidance of the animal-reminder video, and core and contamination dis-gust were associated with avoidance of the contamination disgust video. The limited specificity of the contamination videomay reflect a limitation of this task. For eample, the contamination video does not depict physical contact with the entities,suggesting that it may tap processes related to core disgust. On the other hand, these findings suggest that some disgust do-mains (core and contamination) may share a ‘‘common factor” (disease) that motivates specific behavioral tendencies(avoidance). Next, we examine the physiological correlates of the three disgust dimensions.

4. Study 3: Physiological correlates of the three kinds of disgust

4.1. Methods

4.1.1. ParticipantsThree hundred sixty three undergraduate students (Mage = 19.98, SD = 1.55, range 17 to 30; 74% female; 73% Caucasian)

from Fordham University were recruited to participate in a screening test session in order to identify individuals with ele-

Table 4Correlation between the four modalities of behavioral avoidance

Behavioral avoidance 1 2 3 4

1. Core disgust video — .46** .43** .192. Contamination disgust video — .28* .223. Animal-reminder disgust video — .30*

4. Spit task —

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01. The value of n’s varies from 60 to 68.

Table 5Behavioral correlates of core, animal reminder, and contamination disgust

Behavioral avoidance DS-R total Core disgust Animal-reminder disgust Contamination disgust Mean (SD)

Core disgust video �.30* �.34** �.20 �.24* 4.88 (0.47)Contamination disgust video �.29* �.26* �.18 �.29* 4.90 (0.49)Animal-reminder disgust video �.25* �.27* �.32** �.06 4.08 (1.32)Spit task �.17 �.33** �.09 �.03 0.95 (0.93)

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01. The value of n’s varies from 63 to 68. Corresponding task and disgust dimension are bolded.

B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259 1249

Author's personal copy

vated levels of blood–injury–injection (BII) fear or elevated trait anxiety (ANXIETY) without BII. A control group was alsorecruited. Participants were screened for BII fear with the Medical Fear Survey (MFS; Kleinknect, Thorndike, & Walls,1996; described below). Individuals with scores greater than one standard deviation above the mean reported in Kleinknectet al. (1996) were considered to have BII fear. Screening for ANXIETY was completed using the State Trait Anxiety Inventory(STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vog, & Jacobs, 1983). Individuals were considered to have elevated ANXIETY withscores about the 75 percentile rank according to the published norms by Spielberger et al. (1983). A control group was re-cruited for individuals who scored below the 25 percentile on the STAI and one standard deviation below the mean reportedin Kleinknect et al. for the MFS. Following this screening procedure, a total of 14 participants were recruited for each group(total N = 42; 76% Caucasian) and given an incentive of two movie ticket vouchers (approximately $20 value) forparticipation.

4.1.2. MeasuresParticipants were asked to take the original 32-item DS (Haidt et al., 1994) in the screening session along with the mea-

sures administered to determine recruitment and classification to groups, and we analyzed only the 25 items that comprisethe DS-R (Olatunji et al., 2007a, 2007b).

The Medical Fear Survey (MFS; Kleinknect et al., 1996) is a 50-item self-report measure that assesses the severity of med-ical fears. Participants are asked to rate their degree of fear or tension if they were exposed to each item on a five-point scaleranging from 0 (no fear or tension) to 4 (terror). The MFS is composed of five subscales (each with ten items): Injections andBlood Draws, Sharp Objects, Blood, Mutilation, and Examinations and Symptoms.

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger et al., 1983), trait portion, assesses enduring (trait) propensities toanxiety. It is comprised of 20 items tapping experiences of anxiety symptoms, such as feelings of fear, tension, apprehensionand high autonomic nervous system activity. Items are scored on a 4 point Likert scale, from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so)with total scores ranging from 20 to 80.

4.1.3. ProcedureParticipants arrived at the lab and were informed that the second part of the study was to examine physical reactions to

different video stimuli. Physiological data were recorded by The ProComp Infiniti Encoder from Thought Technology Ltd.(Montreal, Canada). Heart rate was measured through the BVP-Flex/Pro Blood Volume Pulse Sensor (SA9308M), whichwas attached to the palm side of a finger. Surface facial electromyography (EMG) was measured using miniature Ag/AgClelectrodes with.25 cm detection surfaces. Electrodes were attached to the levator labii region. Facial EMG at the levator labiiregion was chosen given its high correspondence to expressions of disgust (Vrana, 1993). Surface EMG Signals were ampli-fied through the MyoScan-Pro EMG Sensor (SA9401M). The channel for the BVP-Flex/Pro Blood Pulse Sensor recorded foursamples per second while the MyoScan-Pro EMG Sensors recorded 32 samples per second. For the present study, baselinepsychophysiological responses to two different 14 s video clips (an individual vomiting into a toilet (VOMIT), a close upof a blood test drawn (BTD) from the forearm) were correlated with the subscales of the DS-R. Analyses were aggregatedbecause all three groups of participants recruited as respondents came from the same sample and were originally separatedbased on scores from measures with no known taxonomic characteristics.

4.2. Results

4.2.1. Psychophysiological correlates of disgust sensitivityThe relationship between the psychophysiological outcomes was first examined. Facial electromyography during the VO-

MIT video was highly correlated with facial electromyography during the BTD video (r = .82). This was also the case for heartrate during the VOMIT and BTD video (r = .91). Although not statistically significant, the findings showed that facial electro-myography and heart rate during exposure to the VOMIT video were moderately correlated (r = .31). However, the associa-tion between facial electromyography and heart rate during exposure to the BTD video was mild (r = .21). The associationbetween facial electromyography during the VOMIT video and heart rate during the BTD video was relatively moderate(r = .37) as was the association between facial electromyography during the BTD video and heart rate during the VOMIT vi-deo (r = .29).

4.2.2. Facial electromyographyDuring exposure to the VOMIT video, facial muscle tension was significantly correlated with core disgust scores on

the DS-R (mean log change in lV = 0.81) [r (40) = .54, p < .001] and with contamination disgust scores [r (40) = .43,p < .01]. It was not significantly correlated with animal-reminder disgust scores [r (40) = .07, ns]. For the BTD video,facial muscle tension was significantly correlated with animal-reminder disgust (mean log change in lV = 0.59) [r(40) =.53, p < .001], but not significantly related to either core disgust [r (40) = .22, ns] or contamination disgust [r(40) = .19, ns].

4.2.3. Heart rateDuring exposure to the VOMIT video, heart rate was significantly correlated with contamination disgust (mean log

change from baseline = 0.62 bpm lower) [r (40) = �.33, p < .05], but was not significantly related to core disgust

1250 B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259

Author's personal copy

[r (40) = �.22, ns] or animal-reminder disgust [r (40) = .04, ns]. During exposure to the BTD video, animal-reminder dis-gust was significantly correlated with heart rate (mean log change from baseline = 0.51 bpm higher) [r (40) = �.33,p < .05], but was not significantly correlated with core disgust [r (40) = �.14, ns] or contamination disgust [r(40) = �.23, ns].

Four multiple regression analyses with core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust entered simultaneously as theindependent variables and the psychophysiological outcomes as the dependent variables were conducted to examine thespecific contribution of the three kinds of disgust. In the first analysis, predicting facial electromyography during the VOMITvideo, the model was significant [F (3, 38) = 5.92, p < .01, R2 = .39] with only core disgust explaining significant unique var-iance (B = .31, p < .05). In the second analysis, predicting facial electromyography during the BTD video, the model was sig-nificant [F (3, 38) = 4.41, p < .05, R2 = .27] with only animal-reminder disgust explaining significant unique variance (B = .27,p < .05). In the third regression, predicting heart rate during the VOMIT video, the model was significant [F (3, 38) = 7.22,p < .01, R2 = .47] with only core disgust explaining unique variance (B = �.48, p < .01). Lastly, when predicting heart rate dur-ing the BTD video, the model was significant [F (3, 38) = 6.01, p < .01, R2 = .41] with only animal-reminder disgust explainingunique variance (B = �.39, p < .01).

4.3. Discussion

The results of this study show that the different kinds of disgust could potentially be differentially correlated withpsychophysiological responding to specific disgust elicitors. Here, exposure to the VOMIT video clip was associatedwith greater facial muscle tension for higher levels of core disgust, as well as contamination disgust. This was likewisetrue for heart rate in its correlation with contamination disgust. These findings further support the notion that coreand contamination disgust may share a common disease aversion factor. Alternatively, the BTD video was associatedwith higher facial muscle tension and lower heart rate for animal-reminder disgust only. As further evidence for spec-ificity, regression analyses revealed a unique association between core disgust and physiological responding during theVOMIT video, and animal-reminder disgust and physiological responding during the BTD video. The apparent differen-tial physiological correlates of core, contamination, and animal-reminder disgust suggest that the three kinds of disgustmay be regulated by different processes that may give rise to different forms of psychopathology, particularly anxietydisorders.

5. Study 4: Anxiety disorder symptom correlates of the three kinds of disgust

5.1. Methods

Emerging research has begun to implicate disgust in the development and maintenance of various psychological dis-orders, particularly anxious psychopathology related to obsessions and compulsions and various phobic fears (Olatunji &McKay, 2007). Studies 1, 2, and 3 of the present investigations clearly indicate that the three kinds of disgust assessedby the DS-R have distinct personality, behavioral, and physiological correlates. Study 4 examines if the different kinds ofdisgust also relate differentially to various anxiety disorder symptoms. Identification of the different kinds of disgust thatmay be specifically related to different anxiety symptoms could potentially inform current models of the etiology of spe-cific anxiety disorders.

5.1.1. ParticipantsOne hundred participants from the University of Arkansas (57% women; mean age = 22.60, SD = 4.94) were recruited from

undergraduate psychology courses and participated in exchange for research credit.

5.1.2. MeasureParticipants were asked to take the original 32-item Disgust Scale (Haidt et al., 1994) and we analyzed only the 25 items

that comprise the DS-R (Olatunji et al., 2007a, 2007b).The Disgust Emotion Scale (DES; Kleinknecht, Kleinknecht, & Thorndike, 1997) is a 30-item scale measuring disgust and

repugnance across five domains: Animals, Injections, Mutilation, Rotting Foods, and Smells. Ratings are given on a 5-point Likertscale, ranging from 0 = ‘‘No disgust or repugnance at all” to 4 = ‘‘Extreme disgust or repugnance.” The DES and its subscalesdemonstrated excellent psychometric properties (Olatunji et al., 2007a, 2007b).

The Padua Inventory (PI; Burns, Keortge, Formea, & Sternberger, 1996) contamination fear subscale consists of 10 itemsassessing contamination obsessions and washing compulsions. Items are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 = ‘‘Notat all” to 4 = ‘‘Very much”. Research using the PI contamination fear subscale has reported good internal consistency and con-vergent validity (Deacon & Olatunji, 2007).

The Fear Survey Schedule (FSS; Geer, 1965) is a well established 51-item measure designed to assess one’s general fearresponse. Items are scored on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘None” to 7 = ‘‘Terror”. In line with the findings of Arrindelland colleagues (1991), a Fear of Interpersonal Events or Situations (FOI) score, a Fear of Death, Injuries, Illness, Blood and SurgicalProcedures (FOD) score, a Fear of Animals (FOA) score, and an Agoraphobic Fear (AF) score were computed from the relevantitems on the FSS.

B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259 1251

Author's personal copy

5.1.3. ProcedurePackets of the measures were distributed to the participants in groups of 5–10 and brief instructions were given on how

to complete the materials.

5.2. Results

5.2.1. Repugnance of aversive stimuli and the three kinds of disgustZero-order Pearson correlations between core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust and the five disgust domains

of the DES are presented in Table 6. The three disgust domains were significantly associated with the subscales of the DES.We then conducted a series of multiple linear regression analyses summarized in Table 7 to examine the extent to whichcore, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust uniquely predicted the five DES subscales. In each regression equation,gender was entered in step 1 and the three DS-R factors were simultaneously entered as predictor variables in step 2. Theseanalyses provided a stringent test of the convergent validity of the core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust factorssince each of the three factors were theoretically expected to contribute to repugnance on the five DES subscales.

In the first analysis, predicting repugnance towards animals, the predictor variables explained a significant portion of thevariance (R2 = .54, p < .001) with core (t = 2.65), animal-reminder (t = 2.42), and contamination disgust (t = 3.87) accountingfor unique variance in repugnance towards animals (p’s < .05). In the second regression, the predictor variables accountedfor 38% of the variance in repugnance towards injections. However, only animal-reminder disgust explained significant, un-ique variance (partial r = .41, p < .01). Contamination disgust did contribute marginally significant unique variance in pre-dicting repugnance towards injections (t = 1.92, p = .05). In the third analysis, the predictor variables explained asignificant portion of the variance (R2 = .64, p < .001) in predicting repugnance towards mutilation. However, only animal-reminder disgust explained significant, unique variance (partial r = .68, p < .01). In the fourth regression, the predictor vari-ables accounted for 31% of the variance in repugnance towards rotting foods with only core (t = 2.02) and contamination(t = 3.32) disgust explaining significant, unique variance, (p’s < .05). In the final analysis, the predictor variables explaineda significant portion of the variance (R2 = .37, p < .001) in predicting repugnance towards smells. However, only core (t =2.96) and contamination (t = 3.25) disgust explaining significant, unique variance (p’s < .01).

5.2.2. Unique disgust domain predictors of anxiety disorder symptomsZero-order Pearson correlations between core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust and measures of specific anx-

iety disorder symptoms are presented in Table 6. The three disgust domains were significantly associated with contamina-tion fear, the FOI, FOD, FOA, and AF subscales of the FSS. Examination of the pattern of correlations suggests that core disgustwas most strongly associated with the fear of animals, animal-reminder disgust was more strongly associated with the fearof death, injuries, illness, blood and surgical procedures, and contamination disgust was most strongly associated the fear ofcontamination. As outlined in Table 8, we then conducted a series of multiple linear regression analyses to examine the ex-tent to which core, animal reminder, and contamination disgust uniquely predicted the anxiety disorder symptommeasures.In each regression equation, gender was entered in step 1 and the core, animal reminder, and contamination disgust factorswere simultaneously entered as predictor variables in step 2.

The predictor variables explained a significant portion of the variance in the first analysis predicting contamination fear(R2 = .35, p < .001) with only contamination disgust contributing significant unique variance (partial r = .46, p < .01). In thesecond regression, the predictor variables accounted for 22% of the variance in FOI. However, none of the three kinds of dis-gust contributed significant unique variance in FOI. In the third analysis, predicting FOD the three kinds of disgust explaineda significant portion of the variance (R2 = .36, p < .001) with only animal-reminder disgust explaining significant, unique var-iance (partial r = .33, p < .01). In the fourth analysis, predicting FOA, the three kinds of disgust explained a significant portion

Table 6Disgust and anxiety disorder symptom correlates of core, animal reminder, and contamination disgust

Personality measure DS-R total Core disgust Animal-reminder disgust Contamination disgust Mean (SD)

DisgustAnimals .71 .61 .54 .61 6.44 (4.55)Injections .59 .43 .57 .44 6.25 (5.56)Mutilation .67 .47 .77 .38 11.25 (5.28)Rotting foods .53 .50 .35 .49 7.97 (4.70)Smells .55 .53 .33 .53 11.91 (4.77)

Anxiety symptomsContamination Fear .52 .40 .31 .59 7.66 (5.84)FOI .41 .40 .28 .35 43.80 (15.92)FOD .56 .43 .53 .43 55.21 (18.24)FOA .64 .53 .52 .54 15.06 (7.00)AF .43 .35 .36 .35 20.01 (8.14)

Note. All r’s significant at p < .01. The value of n’s varies from 98 to 100; FOI, fear of interpersonal events or situations; FOD, fear of death, injuries, illness,blood and surgical procedures; FOA, fear of animals; AF, agoraphobic fear (AF).

1252 B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259

Author's personal copy

of the variance (R2 = .46, p < .001). However, only animal-reminder disgust (partial r = .25) and contamination disgust (partialr = .30) explained significant, unique variance in FOA (p’s < .05). In the final regression, the predictor variables accounted for26% of the variance in AF. However, none of the three disgust dimensions contributed significant unique variance.

5.3. Discussion

Findings from Study 4 revealed relatively intact item level properties of the DS-R (i.e., all item-total correlations P.30).Although core and animal-reminder disgust were found to demonstrate adequate reliability, the contamination disgust scaleagain demonstrated low internal consistency in this sample. As evidence of convergent validity, the three kinds of disgustwerestrongly correlatedwith the disgust subscales of theDES. Some evidencewas also found for a specific associationbetween core,

Table 7Specificity of core, animal reminder, and contamination disgust in predicting Disgust Emotion Scale (DES) domains

DES domain B SE B B T P Partial r

Predicting animalsa

Core 5.53 2.08 .25 2.65 <.01 .26Animal-reminder 3.54 1.46 .21 2.42 <.05 .24Contamination 6.48 1.67 .34 3.87 <.01 .37

Predicting injectionsb

Core 1.79 2.93 .06 0.61 Ns .06Animal-reminder 9.01 2.05 .43 4.37 <.01 .41Contamination 4.55 2.36 .20 1.92 Ns .19

Predicting mutilationsc

Core 0.55 2.12 .02 0.26 ns .02Animal-reminder 13.57 1.49 .69 9.10 <.01 .68Contamination 0.36 1.71 .01 0.21 Ns .02

Predicting rotting foodsd

Core 6.30 2.58 .28 2.43 <.05 .24Animal-reminder 0.91 1.81 .05 0.49 Ns .05Contamination 5.73 2.08 .29 2.75 <.01 .27

Predicting smellse

Core 7.48 2.52 .32 2.96 <.01 .29Animal-reminder �0.36 1.77 �.02 �0.20 Ns �.02Contamination 6.60 2.03 .33 3.25 <.01 .31

Note. aR2 = 0.54, F (4, 93) = 26.75, p < .001; bR2 = 0.38, F (4, 93) = 14.37, p < .001; cR2 = 0.64, F (4, 93) = 41.47, p < .001; dR2 = 0.31, F (4, 93) = 10.78, p < .001;eR2 = 0.37, F (4, 93) = 13.90, p < .001; ns = not significant. The regressions were conducted controlling for gender in step 1.

Table 8The three kinds of disgust as predictors of anxiety disorder symptoms

Disgust domain B SE B B T P Partial r

Predicting contamination feara

Core 2.05 3.15 .07 0.65 ns .06Animal-reminder 0.43 2.20 .02 0.19 Ns .02Contamination 12.93 2.53 .52 5.10 <.01 .46

Predicting fear of interpersonal events or situationsb

Core 15.55 8.84 .21 1.75 Ns .16Animal-reminder 1.47 6.12 .02 0.24 Ns .02Contamination 10.28 7.10 .16 1.44 Ns .13

Predicting fear of death, injuries, illness, blood and surgical proceduresc

Core 7.79 9.76 .09 0.79 Ns .08Animal-reminder 23.39 6.79 .35 3.44 <.01 .33Contamination 12.54 8.20 .16 1.53 Ns .15

Predicting fear of animalsd

Core 5.42 3.44 .16 1.57 Ns .16Animal-reminder 6.21 2.41 .23 2.56 <.05 .25Contamination 8.65 2.77 .29 3.11 <.01 .30

Predicting agoraphobic feare

Core 2.51 4.72 .06 0.53 Ns .05Animal-reminder 4.93 3.31 .16 1.48 Ns .15Contamination 6.13 3.80 .17 1.61 Ns .16

Note. aR2 = 0.35, F (4, 93) = 12.94, p < .001; bR2 = 0.22, F (4, 91) = 6.75, p < .001; cR2 = 0.36, F (4, 91) = 13.15, p < .001; dR2 = 0.46, F (4, 93) = 20.07, p < .001;eR2 = 0.26, F (4, 93) = 8.20, p < .001; ns = not significant. The regressions were conducted controlling for gender in step 1.

B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259 1253

Author's personal copy

animal-reminder, and contamination disgust and repugnance towards various stimuli. Indeed, core, animal-reminder, andcontamination disgust each contributed significant unique variance in predicting repugnance of small animals. However, onlyanimal-reminder disgust contributed significant unique variance in predicting repugnance of injections and bodilymutilation.Contaminationdisgust did contributemarginally significantunique variance in predicting repugnance towards injections, sug-gesting that disease concerns (i.e., HIV) may also underlie revulsion of needles. Repugnance of rotting foods and smells wasuniquely predicted by core and contamination disgust but not animal-reminder disgust. The three kinds of disgust assessedby the DS-R also demonstrated significant associations with measures of anxiety symptoms. Specifically, only contaminationdisgust contributed significant unique variance in predicting contamination fear observed inOCDwhereas only animal-remin-der disgust explained significant, unique variance in fear of death, injuries, illness, blood, and surgical procedures. These find-ings suggest that the three disgust domains demonstrate significant relations with some anxiety disorder symptoms.

5.4. General discussion

Although disgust has long been recognized as a defensive emotion, there has been a paucity of empirical research on dis-gust, relative to other defensive emotions (i.e., fear) in the literature (Olatunji & Sawchuk, 2005). However, the developmentof the DS has facilitated more programmatic examination of the causes, correlates, and consequences of disgust. Initial psy-chometric analysis of the structure of the DS identified eight domains of disgust: food, animals, body products, sex, envelopeviolations, death, hygiene, and sympathetic magic (Haidt et al., 1994). However, the psychometric integrity of each of theeight disgust domains has been questioned (Schienle et al., 2003). A recent refinement and re-examination of the factorstructure of the DS (the DS-R) has identified three broad domains of core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust thatappear to have better psychometric properties than the original eight domains (Olatunji et al., 2007a, 2007b). The presentstudy examined the psychometric properties and the unique personality, behavioral, physiological, and clinical correlatesof the three types of disgust assessed by the DS-R.

5.5. Internal consistency of the three DS-R Factors

Across the four studies, the internal consistency for core disgust (a’s range from .71 to .80) and animal-reminder disgust(a’s range from .77 to .80) were adequate. Although comparable to (and in some cases better than) the alpha reliabilities ofsome of the original eight domains of the DS, the internal consistency for contamination disgust (a’s range from .37 to .61)was consistently weaker. The weak internal consistency may be partially attributed to the relatively low number of items(just five) as well as the diversity and perhaps quality of the items. Although the present investigation suggests that contam-ination disgust is an empirically distinct construct that provides unique information, the reliability of this DS-R subscale maybe substantially improved with the inclusion of more items that more adequately tap into the underlying contamination dis-gust construct. This may require the inclusion of items that more directly tap interpersonal dynamics (‘‘I have no problembuying and wearing shirts from used clothing stores”). All three subscales of the DS-R might be improved by adopting re-sponse scales that allow for more than just 2 (true–false) or 3 (disgust–rating) response options. We are currently investi-gating the properties of a version of the DS-R in which all questions are answered using 5-point scales (The DS-R andaccompanying information is available at: http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/disgustscale.html).

5.6. The three DS-R factors and personality traits

Disgust is conceptualized as a defensive emotion (Rozin & Fallon, 1987), thus it was predicted that the three kinds of dis-gust assessed by the DS-R would correlate with personality traits. Indeed, the three kinds of disgust were found to be asso-ciated with neuroticism, behavioral inhibition, and low self-esteem. This finding is consistent with prior research (Druschel& Sherman, 1999) and suggests that core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust, as assessed by the DS-R are associ-ated with general psychological distress, sensitivity to conditioned signals of punishment or frustrative non-reward (behav-ioral inhibition), and low self-esteem. A differential pattern of relations was observed between the three disgust domainsand some other measures of personality.

The three DS-R factors were significantly intercorrelated in the present study, suggesting a moderate degree of homoge-neity. Consequently, it was important to evaluate the incremental validity of the three kinds of disgust. Only animal-remin-der and contamination disgust contributed unique variance to neuroticism. However, the three kinds of disgust allcontributed unique variance to behavioral inhibition. The specific association with the BIS suggests that the three kindsof disgust may function to generally regulate aversive motives (Gray, 1994). Accordingly, core, animal reminder, and con-tamination disgust stimuli may present unique and specific signals of impending punishment that have different sourcesof origin. Importantly, none of the three kinds of disgust accounted for unique variance in low self-esteem. However, disgustcan be elicited by a wide variety of culturally variable stimuli (Haidt et al., 1994), including the self. Perhaps more systematicinvestigation of perceptions of the self as a source of disgust may help identify a more specific association between disgustand low self-esteem (Satoh, 2001).

The pattern of findings with regard to different personality traits may inform our understanding of the nomological net-work surrounding the three disgust factors. As the results provided in Tables 2 and 3 indicate, the differential relation withmeasures of personality suggests that associations between the DS-R total score and criterion personality variables may

1254 B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259

Author's personal copy

mask unique correlations with its underlying three factors. This is in line with theoretical notions and empirical evidencesuggesting that disgust is not a unitary construct (Olatunji et al., 2004; Rozin et al., 2000). The differential relation betweenthe three DS-R factors and various personality traits also appears to substantiate the notion that core, animal-reminder, andcontamination disgust may be governed by different underlying psychological mechanisms (Olatunji et al., 2007a, 2007b).

5.7. The three DS-R factors and behavioral avoidance

Prior research has demonstrated convergence between self-reported levels of disgust and behavioral avoidance of differ-ent disgust stimuli (Rozin et al., 1999). Consequently, the present investigation also provides evidence of the convergentvalidity of the three factors of the DS-R by examining behavioral correlates. Core disgust was found to be significantly asso-ciated with avoidance of drinking spit from a cup and visual avoidance of a video of people eating a mixture of coagulatedcow blood and milk. Animal-reminder disgust was significantly correlated with visual avoidance of a surgery video, and thecontamination disgust subscale of the DS-R was significantly correlated with visual avoidance on a video showing potentialsources of contamination. These behavioral findings highlight mechanisms that may govern the distinctiveness of the threesubscales. Core disgust has been described as a guardian of the mouth in that it makes us cautious about what we put intoour mouths including food, animals, and body products, which can be contaminators of food (Rozin & Fallon, 1987). The oral/food focus of the spit task and the video of the Kenyan group and their association with the core DS-R subscale support thenotion that core disgust may function specifically to regulate what is going into the mouth (i.e., oral defense).

It has been proposed that core disgust has expanded through cultural evolution into broader forms of disgust (Haidt et al.,1994). This follows the observation that certain categories of stimuli, such as fresh corpses, surgery, and deviations from thenormal shape of the human body (including obesity and anorexia) are not principally associated with defense against oralincorporation or even with disease more broadly. This form of disgust is termed animal-reminder disgust because it consistsof stimuli that are hypothesized to be aversive given that they remind us of our animal nature (Rozin et al., 2000). The findingthat those that were more sensitive to animal-reminder disgust tended to avoid watching the surgery video suggests that thecommon factor may be an underlying defense of the temple of the physical body (Haidt, Rozin, McCauley, & Imada, 1997).Although bad tasting foods are not necessarily contaminants, contamination disgust may have also been culturally adaptedfrom core disgust. The significant association between the contamination DS-R subscale and visual avoidance of potentialsources of contagion supports an underlying mechanism that is marked by avoidance of contact (direct or indirect) withsources of pollution in order to prevent disease and infection.

5.8. The three DS-R factors and physiological responding

Although the adaptive function of disgust has been a focus of much research, conclusive data on its physiological responsepattern is limited (Vrana, in press). However, the most commonly reported finding is a decrease in heart rate, indicatingparasympathetic activation (Levenson, 1992). Indeed, the degree of self-reported disgust experienced during viewing of dis-gusting pictures has been shown to be significantly negatively correlated with heart rate (Stark, Walter, Schienle, & Vaitl,2005). Furthermore, there is emerging evidence that facial EMG at the levator labii region may be particularly sensitive tothe experience and subsequent expression of disgust (de Jong, Peters, & Vanderhallen, 2002; Vrana, 1993). Consistent withthe notion that core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust are differentiable constructs, a different pattern of rela-tions emerged with regard to the relation between the three DS-R factors and physiological responding during exposureto two video clips. Specifically, core disgust was significantly more related to physiological responding on the video depictingvomit, and animal-reminder disgust was more related to physiological responding on the video depicting blood.

The association between animal-reminder disgust and increased facial muscle tension and decreased heart rate duringthe blood video highlights an underlying aversion to situations in which the normal exterior envelope of the body is brea-ched (Haidt et al., 1994). Similarly, the association between core disgust and physiological responding to the vomit video isconsistent with the hypothesis that core disgust is a guardian of the mouth (Rozin & Fallon, 1987). Although these findingsprovide evidence of convergence of the three DS-R factors, they do not speak directly to potential differences that may beobserved with regards to the physiological profiles of the factors. There is evidence that animal-reminder disgust stimuli(e.g., blood, injuries, mutilation) elicit a peculiar autonomic response pattern that is marked by larger and longer heart ratedecreases by healthy subjects (Palomba, Sarlo, Angrilli, Mini, & Stegagno, 2000). However, it remains unclear if the physio-logical response pattern to animal-reminder disgust is distinct from that of other kinds of disgust (see Yartz & Hawk, 2002).Development of stimulus materials based on the item content of the three DS-R factors could prove to be instrumental ininvestigating differences in physiological responding to distinctive kinds of disgust.

5.9. The three DS-R factors and clinical symptoms

Given that disgust appears to be adaptively employed as a defensive emotion, researchers have begun to examine the roleof disgust in various clinical conditions, particularly in anxiety disorders (Olatunji & McKay, 2007). Such research has spe-cifically implicated disgust sensitivity in the development and maintenance of spider phobia (Mulkens, de Jong, & Merckel-bach, 1996), BII phobia (Page, 2003; Olatunji et al., 2005a, 2005b, Olatunji, Williams, Lohr, & Sawchuk, 2005c), andcontamination-based OCD (Deacon & Olatunji, 2007). In the present study, contamination disgust contributed unique vari-

B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259 1255

Author's personal copy

ance in predicting symptoms of contamination-based OCD and fear of animals, and animal-reminder disgust explained un-ique variance in fear of BII-relevant stimuli and fear of animals. Although the three kinds of disgust were significantly asso-ciated with interpersonal and agoraphobic fears commonly observed in social anxiety disorder and panic disorder, theyfailed to contribute unique variances in predicting these clinical symptoms when controlling for gender and shared variancebetween the three disgust subscales. These findings suggest that after accounting for shared variance with the other sub-scales, the DS-R factors has some discriminability.

These findings are consistent with prior research suggesting that specific disgust domains may have unique relationshipswith some anxiety disorder symptoms (de Jong & Merckelbach, 1998; Olatunji, Sawchuk, de Jong, & Lohr, 2006). The predic-tive utility of the DS-R factors appears to be particularly evident with animal-reminder and contamination disgust. Indeed,only animal-reminder and contamination disgust predicted neuroticism in Study 1 after accounting for other disgust sub-scale scores. Animal-reminder disgust is predicated upon mortality concerns which may evoke distress (Goldenberg et al.,2001). Contamination disgust on the other hand may evoke distress based on the concern that contact with others will resultin disease acquisition (Rozin, Markwith, & McCauley, 1994). Such dysfunctional beliefs have been observed in specific OCDsubtypes (see Olatunji & McKay, 2007 for review). Although it has been suggested that highly disgust sensitive individualsare prone to vigilance for external threats that may result in a chronic state of apprehension (Haidt et al., 1994), this inter-pretation may be misleading and largely limited to those high in animal-reminder and contamination disgust, domains thatalso share a unique relation with neuroticism.

Future research may benefit from the examination of the predictive utility of the three DS-R factors in relation to otherclinical symptoms. For example, it has been shown that eating disorder participants report higher levels of disgust towardsfoodstuffs of animal origin and to the human body and its products than controls (Troop, Treasure, & Serpell, 2002). Accord-ingly, eating disorder symptoms should yield specific associations with the DS-R core disgust subscale. Disgust has also beenimplicated in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Dalgleish & Power, 2004). The DS-R factors may also demonstrate utilityin discriminating variants of PTSD such that combat-related PTSD (exposure to bodily wounds) may be particularly associ-ated with animal-reminder disgust whereas contamination disgust may be associated to PTSD marked by sexual assault(exposure to unwanted physical contact).

5.10. Future research with the three DS-R factors

5.10.1. Distinct featuresAlthough the DS-R is not homogenous, there is considerable shared variance between the subscales. Thus, convergent

validity may prove to be difficult. For example, Table 5 also shows a significant correlation between avoidance of the coredisgust video and contamination disgust. Although animal-reminder disgust was most correlated with visual avoidanceon the surgery video, a similar correlation was observed between core disgust and avoidance of the surgery video. Similarnon-specific correlations were observed with psychophysiological assessments. Indeed, facial muscle responses duringthe core disgust (vomit) were significantly correlated with both core and contamination disgust. These findings highlightthe need to identify correlates that truly distinguish various kinds of disgust. Although some overlap is expected givenshared variance between different dimensions of disgust, identification of distinct features in future research will be neces-sary in order to proceed with dimensional models of disgust.

5.10.2. Gender differencesConsistent with prior research on disgust (i.e., Olatunji et al., 2005a, 2005b, 2005c), women scored significantly higher

than men on the three DS-R subscales. Despite research evidence consistently demonstrating elevated levels of disgustamong women relative to men, investigators have yet to agree on a theoretical framework beyond socialization and socialdesirability that may explain this difference. Drawing from the observation that disgust functions to prevent contamination,Fessler, Pillsworth, and Flamson (2004) have recently proposed that heightened disgust levels in females may emerge as afunction of the costs of female reproductive immunosuppression as the process of organogenesis is highly susceptible to per-turbation, pathogens, and parasites that can disrupt embryonic and fetal development. Although this model identifies a spe-cific biological origin for the gender differences in disgust, it has yet to be rigorously evaluated in the research literature.Indeed, disease concerns are common to core and contamination disgust. However, it remains unclear if the reproductiveimmunosuppression hypothesis can fully account for the gender differences in animal-reminder disgust.

5.10.3. Imaging disgustThe insula has been identified as potentially a specific neural substrate for disgust (Phillips et al., 1997). Indeed, studies

have found increased insula activation during exposure to disgust (Phillips et al., 2000; Shapira et al., 2003). Consistent withtheoretical accounts (Royzman & Sabini, 2001) and experimental research (Simpson et al., 2006) however, the present studysuggests that disgust is not a homogenous emotion. Core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust may be marked byimportant differences in underlying neural substrates. In a recent study, participants viewed film-clips depicting surgery(animal-reminder disgust), cockroach invasion (core disgust), human attack and neutral landscape (Sarlo, Buodo, Poli, & Pa-lomba, 2005). Independent of location, the highest cortical activation was found during the viewing of the surgery scene andthe activation was most prominent over the right posterior regions. Similarly, Schienle and colleagues (2006) found thatalthough images of animal-reminder disgust and contamination disgust received comparable ratings for disgust, fear, and

1256 B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259

Author's personal copy

arousal, animal-reminder disgust images induced greater inferior parietal activity than images of contamination disgust.These findings converge with the available psychophysiological evidence in highlighting the potential distinctiveness of ani-mal-reminder disgust. A multi-method approach that incorporates the three DS-R subscales, examination of neural activityduring exposure to stimuli thematically related to the subscales, and psychophysiological recording may have importantimplications for refining current disgust assessment approaches as well as better understanding the mechanism that mayaccount for the distinctiveness of some kinds of disgust versus others.

6. Conclusion

The present investigation is limited by the exclusive use of undergraduate samples. Although convenient, undergraduatesamplesmayconstrain thegeneralizability of ourfindings. Similar researchexamining the correlatesof the core, animal-remin-der, and contaminationdisgust subscale of theDS-R in diverse community samples and in different culturesmayprovideusefulinformation on its generalizability. The examination of the correlates of the three DS-R factors in different countriesmay proveto be especially informative as there are important cross-cultural language differences in the semantic domains of words fordisgust (Quigley, Sherman, & Sherman, 1997). Examination of the correlates of the three DS-R subscales in clinical samples isalso warranted given that distinct relations with clinical symptoms were revealed in the present study. Indeed, the three DS-R factors may have incremental utility as an outcome indicator in the treatment of different anxiety disorders. With the newscaling of the DS-R, perhaps the three different domains will be more ‘‘reactive” to the treatment outcome of related clinicalconditions (e.g., animal-reminder disgust and BII phobia; contamination disgust and OCD). However, before confident infer-ences can be drawn regarding the utility of core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust domains, as assessed by theDS-R, researchers will need to continue to examine the reliability and validity of this measure across more diverse samples.

Appendix A.Disgust Scale-Revised (DS-R): Items, scaling, and scoring

DS-R Part I: Please circle true or false Scaling

1. I might be willing to try eating monkey meat, under some circumstances (R) False True2. It would bother me to see a rat run across my path in a park False True3. Seeing a cockroach in someone else’s house does not bother me (R) False True4. It bothers me to hear someone clear a throat full of mucus False True5. If I see someone vomit, it makes me sick to my stomach False True6. It would bother me to be in a science class, and see a human hand preserved in a jar False True7. It would not upset me at all to watch a person with a glass eye take the eye out of the socket (R) False True8. It would bother me tremendously to touch a dead body False True9. I would go out of my way to avoid walking through a graveyard False True10. I never let any part of my body touch the toilet seat in a public washroom False True11. I probably would not go to my favorite restaurant if I found out that the cook had a cold False True12. Even if I was hungry, I would not drink a bowl of my favorite soup it if had been stirred with a

used but thoroughly washed flyswatterFalse True

13. It would bother me to sleep in a nice hotel room if I knew that a man had died of a heart attackin that room the night before

False True

DS-R Part II: Please rate how disgusting you would find the following experiences14. If you see someone put ketchup on vanilla ice cream and eat it Not Slightly Very15. You are about to drink a glass of milk when you smell that it is spoiled Not Slightly Very16. You see maggots on a piece of meat in an outdoor garbage pail Not Slightly Very17. You are walking barefoot on concrete and step on an earthworm Not Slightly Very18. While you are walking through a tunnel under a railroad track, you smell urine Not Slightly Very19. You see a man with his intestines exposed after an accident Not Slightly Very20. Your friend’s pet cat dies and you have to pick up the dead body with your bare hands Not Slightly Very21. You accidentally touch the ashes of a person who has been cremated Not Slightly Very22. You take a sip of soda and realize that you drank from the glass that an acquaintance of yours

had been drinking fromNot Slightly Very

23. You discover that a friend of your changes underwear only once a week Not Slightly Very24. A friend offers you a piece of chocolate shaped like dog-doo Not Slightly Very25. As part of a sex education class, you are required to inflate a new lubricated condom, using

your mouthNot Slightly Very

Scoring: Items with (R) are reverse scored; True = 1, False = 0; Not disgusting = 0, Slightly disgusting = 0.5, Very disgusting = 1. A total disgust sensitivityscore can be calculated by summing responses to the 25 items (0–25). Scores for each of three subscales are calculated as follows. Core disgust: Sum ofitems 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 23. Animal-reminder disgust: Sum of items 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 19, 20, and 21. Contamination-based disgust: Sum ofitems 10, 11, 22, 24, and 25. For information on using and scoring the DS-R, please see http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/disgustscale.html.

B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259 1257

Author's personal copy

References

Angyal, A. (1941). Disgust and related aversions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 36, 393–412.Arrindell, W. A., Pickersgill, M. J., Merckelbach, H., Ardon, A. M., & Cornet, F. C. (1991). Phobic dimensions: III. Factor analytic approaches to the study of

common phobic fears; an updated review of findings obtained with adult subjects. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 13, 73–130.Burns, G. L., Keortge, S. G., Formea, G. M., & Sternberger, L. G. (1996). Revision of the Padua inventory of obsessive compulsive disorder symptoms:

Distinctiveness between worry, obsessions, and compulsions. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 163–173.Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS

Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5–13.Dalgleish, T., & Power, M. (2004). Emotion-specific and emotion-non-specific components of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): Implications for a

taxonomy of related psychopathology. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1069–1088.Darwin, C. (1872/1965). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Deacon, B., & Olatunji, B. O. (2007). Specificity of disgust sensitivity in the prediction of behavioral avoidance in contamination fear. Behaviour Research and

Therapy, 45, 2110–2120.de Jong, P., & Merckelbach, H. (1998). Blood–injection–injury phobia and fear of spiders: domain specific individual differences in disgust sensitivity.

Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 153–158.de Jong, P. J., Peters, M., & Vanderhallen, I. (2002). Disgust and disgust sensitivity in spider phobia: Facial EMG in response to spider and oral disgust

imagery. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 16, 477–493.Druschel, B. A., & Sherman, M. F. (1999). Disgust sensitivity as a function of the big five and gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 739–748.Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 169–200.Fessler, D. M. T., Pillsworth, E. G., & Flamson, T. J. (2004). Angry men and disgusted women: An evolutionary approach to the influence of emotions on risk-

taking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 107–123.Fleming, J. S., & Courtney, B. E. (1984). The dimensionality of self-esteem: II. Hierarchical facet models for revised measurement scales. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 46, 404–421.Geer, J. H. (1965). The development of a scale to measure fear. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 3, 45–53.Goldenberg, J. L., Pyszcznski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Kluck, B., & Cornwell, R. (2001). I am not an animal: Mortality salience, disgust, and the denial of

human creatureliness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 427–435.Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies: A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet

questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–105.Gray, J. A. (1994). Framework for a taxonomy of psychiatric disorder. In S. H. M. van Goozen, N. E. van de Poll, & J. Sergeant (Eds.), Emotions: Essays on

emotion theory (pp. 29–59). Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.Haidt, J., McCauley, C., & Rozin, P. (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and

Individual Differences, 16, 701–713.Haidt, J., Rozin, P., McCauley, C., & Imada, S. (1997). Body, psyche, and culture: The relationship between disgust and morality. Psychology and Developing

Societies, 9, 107–131.Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Henderson, A. S., Jacom, P. A., Korten, A. E., & Rodgers, B. (1999). Using the BIS/BAS scales to measure behavioural inhibition and

behavioural activation: Factor structure, validity and norms in a large community sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 49–58.Kleinknecht, R. A., Kleinknecht, E. E., & Thorndike, R. M. (1997). The role of disgust and fear in blood and injection-related fainting symptoms: A structural

equation model. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 1075–1087.Kleinknect, R. A., Thorndike, R. M., & Walls, M. M. (1996). Factorial dimensions and correlates of blood, injury, injection and related medical fears: Cross

validation of the medical fear survey. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 323–331.Levenson, R. W. (1992). Autonomic nervous system differences among emotions. Psychological Science, 3, 23–27.Marzillier, S. L., & Davey, G. C. L. (2004). The emotional profiling of disgust-eliciting stimuli: Evidence for primary and complex disgusts. Cognition and

Emotion, 18, 313–336.Matthews, G., Deary, I., & Whiteman, M. (2003). Personality traits (2nd edition.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Martins, Y., & Pliner, P. (2006). ‘‘Ugh! That’s disgusting!”: Identification of the characteristics of foods underlying rejections based on disgust. Appetite, 46,

75–85.Mulkens, S. A., de Jong, P. J., & Merckelbach, H. (1996). Disgust and spider phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 464–468.Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Olatunji, B. O., Arrindell, W., & Lohr, J. M. (2005a). Can the sex differences in disgust sensitivity account for the sex differences in blood–injection–injury

fears? Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 61–71.Olatunji, B. O., Lohr, J. M., Sawchuk, C. N., & Westendorf, D. (2005b). Using facial expressions as CSs and fearsome and disgusting pictures as UCSs: Affective

responding and evaluative learning of fear and disgust in BII phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 539–555.Olatunji, B. O., & McKay, D. (2007). Disgust and psychiatric illness: Have we remembered? British Journal of Psychiatry, 190, 457–459.Olatunji, B. O., & Sawchuk, C. N. (2005). Disgust: characteristic features, social implications, and clinical manifestations. Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology, 24, 932–962.Olatunji, B. O., Sawchuk, C. N., de Jong, P. J., & Lohr, J. M. (2006). The structural relation between disgust sensitivity and blood–injection–injury fears: A cross-

cultural comparison of U.S. and Dutch data. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 37, 16–29.Olatunji, B. O., Sawchuk, C. N., de Jong, P. J., & Lohr, J. M. (2007a). Disgust sensitivity in anxiety disorder symptoms: Factor structure and psychometric

properties of the Disgust Emotion Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29, 115–124.Olatunji, B. O., Sawchuk, C. N., Lohr, J. M., & de Jong, P. J. (2004). Disgust domains in the prediction of contamination fear. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42,

93–104.Olatunji, B. O., Williams, N. L., Lohr, J. M., & Sawchuk, C. N. (2005c). The structure of disgust: Domain specificity in relation to contamination ideation and

excessive washing. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 1069–1086.Olatunji, B. O., Williams, N. L., Tolin, D. F., Sawchuk, C. N., Abramowitz, J. S., Lohr, J. M., et al (2007b). The Disgust Scale: Item analysis, factor structure, and

suggestions for refinement. Psychological Assessment, 19, 281–297.Page, A. C. (2003). The role of disgust in faintness elicited by blood and injection stimuli. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 17, 45–58.Palomba, D., Sarlo, M., Angrilli, A., Mini, A., & Stegagno, L. (2000). Cardiac responses associated with affective processing of unpleasant film stimuli.

International Journal of Psychophysiology, 36, 45–57.Phillips, M. L., Young, A. W., Senior, C., Brammer, M., Andrews, C., Calder, A. J., et al (1997). A specific neural substrate for perceiving facial expressions of

disgust. Nature, 389, 495–498.Phillips, M. L., Marks, M., Senior, C., Lythgoe, D., O’Dwyer, A.-M., Meehan, O., et al (2000). A differential neural response in obsessive–compulsive disorder

patients with washing compared with checking symptoms to disgust. Psychological Medicine, 30, 1037–1050.Quigley, J. F., Sherman, M. F., & Sherman, N. C. (1997). Personality disorder symptoms, gender, and age as predictors of adolescent disgust sensitivity.

Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 661–667.Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Royzman, E. B., & Sabini, J. (2001). Something it takes to be an emotion: The interesting case of disgust. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 31, 29–59.Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94, 32–41.

1258 B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259

Author's personal copy

Rozin, P., Haidt, J., & McCauley, C. R. (2000). Disgust. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions. New York: Guilford Publications.Rozin, P., Haidt, J., McCauley, C., Dunlop, L., & Ashmore, M. (1999). Individual differences in disgust sensitivity: Comparisons and evaluations of paper-and-

pencil versus behavioral measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 330–351.Rozin, P., Markwith, M., & McCauley, C. R. (1994). The nature of aversion to indirect contact with other persons: AIDS aversion as a composite of aversion to

strangers, infection, moral taint and misfortune. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 495–504.Rozin, P., Millman, L., & Nemeroff, C. (1986). Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 50, 703–712.Sarlo, M., Buodo, G., Poli, S., & Palomba, D. (2005). Changes in EEG alpha power to different disgust elicitors: The specificity of mutilations. Neuroscience

Letters, 382, 291–296.Satoh, Y. (2001). Self-disgust and self-affirmation in university students. The Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 347–358.Schienle, A., Schafer, A., Herman, A., Walter, B., Stark, R., & Vaitl, D. (2006). fMRI responses to pictures of mutilation and contamination. Neuroscience Letters,

393, 174–178.Schienle, A., Stark, R., Walter, B., & Vaitl, D. (2003). The connection between disgust sensitivity and blood-related fears, faintness symptoms, and obsessive–

compulsiveness in a non-clinical sample. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 16, 185–193.Shapira, N. A., Liu, Y., He, A. G., Bradley, M. M., Lessig, M. C., James, G. A., et al (2003). Brain activation by disgust-inducing pictures in obsessive–compulsive

disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 54, 751–756.Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J., & Coan, J. A. (2008). The psychophysiology of moral disgust: Throat tightness and heart rate deceleration. Manscript submitted for

publication.Simpson, J., Carter, S., Anthony, S., & Overton, P. (2006). Is disgust a homogenous emotion? Motivation and Emotion, 30, 31–41.Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vog, V. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for adults. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press, Inc..Stark, R., Walter, B., Schienle, A., & Vaitl, D. (2005). Psychophysiological correlates of disgust and disgust sensitivity. Journal of Psychophysiology, 19, 50–60.Tomkins, S. S. (1963). Affect, imagery, consciousness. Vol. II. The negative affects. New York: Springer.Troop, N. A., Treasure, J. L., & Serpell, L. (2002). A further exploration of disgust in eating disorders. European Eating Disorders Review, 10, 218–226.Vrana, S. R. (1993). The psychophysiology of disgust: Differentiating negative emotional contexts with facial EMG. Psychophysiology, 30, 279–286.Vrana, S.R. (in press). The psychophysiology of disgust: motivation, action, and autonomic support. In B.O. Olatunji, & D. McKay (Eds.), Disgust and its

disorders: Theory, assessment, and treatment. Washington, DC: APA.Yartz, A. R., & Hawk, L. W. (2002). Addressing the specificity of affective startle modulation: Fear versus disgust. Biological Psychology, 59, 55–68.

B.O. Olatunji et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 1243–1259 1259