Specificity Versus Generality: A Meta-Analytic Review Of The Association Between Trait Disgust Sensitivity And Moral Judgment

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Michael R. Donner, Shaheed Azaad, Garth A. Warren, S. Laham
{"title":"Specificity Versus Generality: A Meta-Analytic Review Of The Association Between Trait Disgust Sensitivity And Moral Judgment","authors":"Michael R. Donner, Shaheed Azaad, Garth A. Warren, S. Laham","doi":"10.1177/17540739221114643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Disgust seems to play an important role in moral judgment. However, it is unclear whether the role of disgust in moral judgment is limited to certain kinds of moral domains (versus many) and/or certain types of disgust (versus many). To clarify these questions, we conducted a multilevel meta-analysis (k = 512; N = 72,443) on relations between trait disgust sensitivity and moral judgment (disgust-immorality association). Main analyses revealed a significant overall mean disgust-immorality association (r = .23). Additionally, moderator analyses revealed significant specificity in disgust type and moral domain (grounded in Moral Foundations Theory): effects were stronger for (a) sexual disgust compared to pathogen disgust, (b) sanctity moral judgments compared to other domains of moral judgments, and (c) sexual-sanctity associations compared to other disgust type-moral domain pairings.","PeriodicalId":48064,"journal":{"name":"Emotion Review","volume":"15 1","pages":"63 - 84"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emotion Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739221114643","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Disgust seems to play an important role in moral judgment. However, it is unclear whether the role of disgust in moral judgment is limited to certain kinds of moral domains (versus many) and/or certain types of disgust (versus many). To clarify these questions, we conducted a multilevel meta-analysis (k = 512; N = 72,443) on relations between trait disgust sensitivity and moral judgment (disgust-immorality association). Main analyses revealed a significant overall mean disgust-immorality association (r = .23). Additionally, moderator analyses revealed significant specificity in disgust type and moral domain (grounded in Moral Foundations Theory): effects were stronger for (a) sexual disgust compared to pathogen disgust, (b) sanctity moral judgments compared to other domains of moral judgments, and (c) sexual-sanctity associations compared to other disgust type-moral domain pairings.
特定性与一般性:特质厌恶敏感性与道德判断关系的元分析述评
厌恶似乎在道德判断中扮演着重要的角色。然而,尚不清楚厌恶在道德判断中的作用是否仅限于某些类型的道德领域(相对于许多)和/或某些类型的厌恶(相对于许多)。为了澄清这些问题,我们进行了一项多水平荟萃分析(k = 512;N = 72,443)对特质厌恶敏感性与道德判断的关系(厌恶-不道德关联)进行了研究。主要分析显示总体平均厌恶与不道德有显著的关联(r = .23)。此外,调节分析揭示了厌恶类型和道德领域(基于道德基础理论)的显著特异性:(a)性厌恶比病原体厌恶,(b)神圣性道德判断比其他道德判断领域,以及(c)性-神圣性关联比其他厌恶类型-道德领域配对更强。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Emotion Review
Emotion Review PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
3.70%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Emotion Review is a fully peer reviewed scholarly journal. It adheres to a blinded peer review process in which the reviewer"s name is routinely withheld from the author unless the reviewer requests a preference for their identity to be revealed. All manuscripts are reviewed initially by the Editors and only those papers that meet the scientific and editorial standards of the journal, and fit within the aims and scope of the journal, will be sent for outside review. Emotion Review will focus on ideas about emotion, with "emotion" broadly defined. The Review will publish articles presenting new theories, offering conceptual analyses, reviewing the literature, and debating and critiquing conceptual issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信