CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 203Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentEmotions and Moral BehaviorDeception detection and forensic psychology

Moral hypervigilance: The influence of disgust sensitivity in the moral domain

Jones, Andrew, Fitness, Julie·2008·Emotion
DOI 10.1037/a0013435
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Evidence exists that immoral behavior can elicit disgust. The authors thus proposed that highly disgust-sensitive individuals would be particularly repelled by exposure to transgressors and, consequently, would think and behave in ways aimed at reducing the risk of such exposure occurring--a syndrome the authors call moral hypervigilance. To examine these ideas, the authors began in Study 1 by testing the notion that people are disgusted by moral deviants. Evidence was found that participants exposed to descriptions of criminals experienced disgust. Across 2 further studies, disgust sensitivity (DS) was found to be associated with phenomena indicative of moral hypervigilance. In Study 2, mock jurors high on DS were biased toward conviction. In Study 3, DS predicted several hypothesized outcomes: higher estimates of the probability that suspects described in crime vignettes were culpable; a proclivity to attribute evilness to, and recommend lengthy sentences for, criminals; and inflated perceptions of community crime levels.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0013435

Cites

61 of 61 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?

  • Subjective perception of infection risk causes individuals to be more conformist, prefer conformity and obedience in others, respond more negatively toward nonconformists, and endorse more conservative socio-political attitudes.

    “empirical evidence reveals that the subjective perception of infection risk causes individuals to be more conformist, to prefer conformity and obedience in others, to respond more negatively toward others who fail to conform, and to endorse more conservative socio-political attitudes [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].”

    From Pathogens and Politics: Further Evidence That Parasite Prevalence Predicts Authoritarianism (2013) · cites this paper as [12]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jones, A., & Fitness, J.
Affiliations
Macquarie University (AU)
ORCID
Fitness, Julie
Venue
Emotion
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2008-10
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
613-627
ISSN
  • 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1516
DOI
10.1037/a0013435
OpenAlex
W2044722615
Cited by
203
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Emotion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
Keywords
disgust sensitivity, disgust, moral judgment, mock jurors, juror bias, criminal culpability, sentencing
MeSH terms
Adult, Anger, Anxiety, Attention, Character, Crime, Emotions, Female, Homicide, Humans, Judgment, Jurisprudence, Male, Morals, Social Values

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