Cited by 100Death Anxiety and Social ExclusionDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

Disgust, creatureliness and the accessibility of death‐related thoughts

Cox, Cathy R., Goldenberg, Jamie L., Pyszczynski, Tom, Weise, David·2007·European Journal of Social Psychology

Abstract

From an existential terror management theory perspective, disgusting stimuli are threatening to human beings because they make salient people's vulnerability to death. Two studies were designed to assess this proposition by measuring implicit death‐related ideation after individuals were presented with stimuli that either were or were not disgusting, under conditions in which the similarities of humans to other animals or the uniquely human aspects of people were made salient. In Study 1, in which rather extreme disgust‐eliciting pictures were used, disgusting stimuli led to higher death‐thought accessibility than neutral pictures regardless of whether or not participants had previously been primed with similarities between humans and other animals. In Study 2, in which milder verbal disgust‐eliciting stimuli were used, disgusting stimuli led to heightened death‐thought accessibility only when human‐animal similarities were first primed. Implications for the regulation and humanization of the human body and its functions are discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ejsp.370

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • To be reminded that one is an animal is to be reminded that one is a bleeding, defecating, and ultimately expiring organism.

    “To be reminded that one is an animal is in effect to be reminded that one is a bleeding, defecating, and ultimately expiring organism”

    From Disgusting Bodies, Disgusting Religion: The Biology of Tantra (2011) · cites this paper as Cox et al. 2007

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cox, C. R., Goldenberg, J. L., Pyszczynski, T., & Weise, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • University of Colorado Colorado Springs (US)
Corresponding author
Cox, Cathy R.
Venue
European Journal of Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-04-25
Volume
37
Issue
3
Pages
494-507
ISSN
  • 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0992
OpenAlex
W1993252160
Cited by
100
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
disgust, fear of death, terror management theory, human-animal similarity, human uniqueness, implicit cognition, priming

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review