Bugs are blech, butterflies are beautiful, but both are bad to bite : Admired animals are disgusting to eat but are themselves neither disgusting nor contaminating
Bugs are blech, butterflies are beautiful, but both are bad to bite : Admired animals are disgusting to eat but are themselves neither disgusting nor contaminating
No Thumbnail Available
Files
There are no files associated with this item.
Date
2020
Authors
Rozin, Paul
Editors
Journal ISSN
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliographical data
Publisher
Series
DOI (citable link)
International patent number
Link to the license
EU project number
Project
Open Access publication
Collections
Title in another language
Publication type
Journal article
Publication status
Published
Published in
Emotion ; 20 (2020), 5. - pp. 854-865. - PsycArticles. - ISSN 1528-3542. - eISSN 1931-1516
Abstract
It is often assumed that things that are disgusting to eat are, themselves, disgusting, and that things that are disgusting to eat are also contaminating. We present data that counters both of these assumptions. In adult American and Indian samples, Study 1 provides evidence that, in contrast to many other insects, participants have positive attitudes toward butterflies. Participants are relatively unbothered by touching them or eating food that they have contacted but are very disgusted by the thought of eating them. Study 2 extends these findings with an adult American sample, comparing four pairs of animals, one admired and one disgusting: butterflies and cockroaches, canaries and vultures, koalas and rats, and dogs and hyenas. In all 4 cases, the positive animals themselves are rated as very low in disgustingness but rated as very disgusting to consume-almost as disgusting as the negative animals. However, although contact between the negative animals and a favorite food produces a strong disgust response to the favorite food, this contamination effect is much smaller, and sometimes absent, with the positive animals. We present evidence that the perceived immorality of killing admired animals is related to the disgust at consuming them. Disgust at eating an admired animal may have a moral component because it involves, at least indirectly, killing the animal. An admired animal that has contacted a favored food does not reliably make that food disgusting. In this scenario, as opposed to eating, there is no harm to the animal. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Summary in another language
Subject (DDC)
150 Psychology
Keywords
Conference
Review
undefined / . - undefined, undefined. - (undefined; undefined)
Cite This
ISO 690
ROZIN, Paul, Matthew B. RUBY, 2020. Bugs are blech, butterflies are beautiful, but both are bad to bite : Admired animals are disgusting to eat but are themselves neither disgusting nor contaminating. In: Emotion. PsycArticles. 20(5), pp. 854-865. ISSN 1528-3542. eISSN 1931-1516. Available under: doi: 10.1037/emo0000587BibTex
@article{Rozin2020-08blech-53697, year={2020}, doi={10.1037/emo0000587}, title={Bugs are blech, butterflies are beautiful, but both are bad to bite : Admired animals are disgusting to eat but are themselves neither disgusting nor contaminating}, number={5}, volume={20}, issn={1528-3542}, journal={Emotion}, pages={854--865}, author={Rozin, Paul and Ruby, Matthew B.} }
RDF
<rdf:RDF xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/" xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/53697"> <dcterms:issued>2020-08</dcterms:issued> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2021-05-18T10:00:50Z</dc:date> <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/> <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2021-05-18T10:00:50Z</dcterms:available> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/> <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/53697"/> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/> <dc:contributor>Rozin, Paul</dc:contributor> <dc:creator>Rozin, Paul</dc:creator> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/> <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/> <dcterms:title>Bugs are blech, butterflies are beautiful, but both are bad to bite : Admired animals are disgusting to eat but are themselves neither disgusting nor contaminating</dcterms:title> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">It is often assumed that things that are disgusting to eat are, themselves, disgusting, and that things that are disgusting to eat are also contaminating. We present data that counters both of these assumptions. In adult American and Indian samples, Study 1 provides evidence that, in contrast to many other insects, participants have positive attitudes toward butterflies. Participants are relatively unbothered by touching them or eating food that they have contacted but are very disgusted by the thought of eating them. Study 2 extends these findings with an adult American sample, comparing four pairs of animals, one admired and one disgusting: butterflies and cockroaches, canaries and vultures, koalas and rats, and dogs and hyenas. In all 4 cases, the positive animals themselves are rated as very low in disgustingness but rated as very disgusting to consume-almost as disgusting as the negative animals. However, although contact between the negative animals and a favorite food produces a strong disgust response to the favorite food, this contamination effect is much smaller, and sometimes absent, with the positive animals. We present evidence that the perceived immorality of killing admired animals is related to the disgust at consuming them. Disgust at eating an admired animal may have a moral component because it involves, at least indirectly, killing the animal. An admired animal that has contacted a favored food does not reliably make that food disgusting. In this scenario, as opposed to eating, there is no harm to the animal. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).</dcterms:abstract> <dc:contributor>Ruby, Matthew B.</dc:contributor> <dc:creator>Ruby, Matthew B.</dc:creator> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>
Internal note
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Examination date of dissertation
Method of financing
Comment on publication
Alliance license
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
International Co-Authors
Bibliography of Konstanz
Refereed
Yes