CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 814Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorEmotions and Moral Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 232 of the 232 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Disgust: evolved function and structure

Tybur, Joshua M., Lieberman, Debra, Kurzban, Robert, DeScioli, Peter·2013·Psychological Review
DOI 10.1037/a0030778
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Interest in and research on disgust has surged over the past few decades. The field, however, still lacks a coherent theoretical framework for understanding the evolved function or functions of disgust. Here we present such a framework, emphasizing 2 levels of analysis: that of evolved function and that of information processing. Although there is widespread agreement that disgust evolved to motivate the avoidance of contact with disease-causing organisms, there is no consensus about the functions disgust serves when evoked by acts unrelated to pathogen avoidance. Here we suggest that in addition to motivating pathogen avoidance, disgust evolved to regulate decisions in the domains of mate choice and morality. For each proposed evolved function, we posit distinct information processing systems that integrate function-relevant information and account for the trade-offs required of each disgust system. By refocusing the discussion of disgust on computational mechanisms, we recast prior theorizing on disgust into a framework that can generate new lines of empirical and theoretical inquiry.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0030778

Cites

232 of 232 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 232 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 814

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., Kurzban, R., & DeScioli, P.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Miami (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Brandeis University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Review
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2013-01
Volume
120
Issue
1
Pages
65-84
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
DOI
10.1037/a0030778
OpenAlex
W2143523401
Semantic Scholar
eb58d867cb60702f4e5ba988aeff27e895483d72
Cited by
810
References
232
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 89 · 2021: 113 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 52 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 12
FWCI
16.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
Keywords
disgust, pathogen avoidance, mate choice, morality, information processing, computational model, evolutionary psychology
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Biological, Avoidance Learning, Cognition, Emotions, Humans, Psychological Theory

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