The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Anger, disgust, and presumption of harm as reactions to taboo-breaking behaviors.
Open accessAbstract
Three experiments investigated the relationship between the presumption of harm in harmfree violations of creatural norms (taboos) and the moral emotions of anger and disgust. In Experiment 1, participants made a presumption of harm to others from taboo violations, even in conditions described as harmless and not involving other people; this presumption was predicted by anger and not disgust. Experiment 2 manipulated taboo violation and included a cognitive load task to clarify the post hoc nature of presumption of harm. Experiment 3 was similar but more accurately measured presumed harm. In Experiments 2 and 3, only without load was symbolic harm presumed, indicating its post hoc function to justify moral anger, which was not affected by load. In general, manipulations of harmfulness to others predicted moral anger better than moral disgust, whereas manipulations of taboo predicted disgust better. The presumption of harm was found on measures of symbolic rather than actual harm when a choice existed. These studies clarify understanding of the relationship between emotions and their justification when people consider victimless, offensive acts.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lazarus, R. S. (1991) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195069945.001.0001 · Cited by 12,691
The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.
Haidt, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814 · Cited by 8,048
The Cognitive Structure of Emotions
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571299 · Cited by 6,208
Moral Emotions and Moral Behavior
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145 · Cited by 3,222
Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845 · Cited by 2,452
Hypnotic Disgust Makes Moral Judgments More Severe
Wheatley, T., & Haidt, J. (2005) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01614.x · Cited by 851
Sexual Morality: The Cultures and Emotions of Conservatives and Liberals1
Haidt, J., & Hersh, M. A. (2001) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02489.x · Cited by 416
I am not an animal: Mortality salience, disgust, and the denial of human creatureliness.
Goldenberg, J. L., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Kluck, B., & Cornwell, R. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.427 · Cited by 323
Death, sex, love, and neuroticism: Why is sex such a problem?
Goldenberg, J. L., Pyszczynski, T., McCoy, S. K., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (1999) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1173 · Cited by 189
Cited by
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Cohen, G. L., Gastil, J., & Slovic, P. (2010) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9201-0 · Cited by 99
Wheeler, M. A., & Laham, S. M. (2016) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167216653374 · Cited by 27
Perceived Shared Condemnation Intensifies Punitive Moral Emotions
Konishi, N., Oe, T., Shimizu, H., Tanaka, K., & Ohtsubo, Y. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-07916-z · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Gutierrez, R., & Giner-Sorolla, R.
- Venue
- Emotion
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 853-868
- ISSN
- 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
- 1931-1516
- OpenAlex
- W2038684221
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 2.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
