http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/food/files/2012/03/disgust-darwint.jpg |
Disgust got off to a good start in Charles Darwin’s classic, The expression of the emotions in man and animals (1998/1872). Darwin listed disgust as one of 32 emotions and made it an important component of Chapter 11, “Disdain – Contempt – Disgust – Guilt – Pride, etc.” He even included a page with drawings of disgust expressions. As emotion research developed within psychology, however, disgust (and most of the other emotions mentioned by Darwin) dropped out of the picture. Attention converged on sadness, anger and fear (and only recently on happiness as well).
Thus, in William James’ (1890)
classic chapter on emotion, the word disgust (disgusted/disgusting) is
mentioned 3 times, in comparison to anger/angry (20 times, plus 11 for “rage”),
and fear/afraid/fright (42 mentions). We
examined the indices of 15 major
introductory psychology textbooks from 1890 to 1958 (The titles of these texts, a convenience
sample of the texts available in the University of Pennsylvania library, are
listed in the notes to Table 2, p. 368, of Rozin, 2006) indicates a total of 5
page references to disgust, as opposed to 46 for anger and 85 for fear.
This lack of interest in disgust is
surprising because disgust meets the standard criteria for being a basic
emotion as well as any other candidate, according to the criteria set forth by
Ekman (1992), and it is usually included in lists of basic emotions, which
typically also include anger, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. The landmark books on emotion (Izard, 1977;
Lazarus, 1991; Plutchick, 1980; Tomkins, 1963), give considerable attention to
disgust, and there is one classic paper (Angyal, 1941). But, as a topic for either research or
attention in the teaching of psychology, disgust was almost absent during the
20th century.
This
absence in the more recent literature was documented by Olatunji and Sawchuk
(2005), who carried out a search for anger, fear, and disgust on the PsycInfo
reference data base from 1960 to 2003.
There were virtually no papers on disgust until the 1990s.
There is no simple explanation for
this neglect but four factors may have contributed.
First, all human endeavors, starting with perception/attention,
involve information overload and filtering out most of the input. Limited cognitive resources for humans and
limited human resources for research in academic psychology virtually require a
selection of a small subset of possible topics for study and attention (Rozin,
2007a). So, of Darwin’s 32 candidate
emotions, it is not surprising that only a few became the targets for major
research programs.
Second, fear is easy to see and study in other animals, and is
obviously fundamental in many forms of psychopathology. Anger as a source of violence has clear
relevance to social problems. So it is not surprising that fear and anger
receive much more attention than disgust. As
already noted, from William James onward, psychologists have focused on fear
and anger in trying to understand both everyday problems and pathologies.
A search of two linguistic data bases (from the Linguistic Data
Consortium [www.ldc.upenn.edu]--a very large compendium of English language
news sources, and a more modest base of spoken English sampled from
transcriptions of telephone conversations--reveals the following. In the news database, there were 17,663
citations to disgust (disgust, disgusted, disgusting), compared to 177,018 for
anger/angry, and 285,194 for fear/afraid.
That is, relative to disgust, citations to anger were 10 times more
common and citations to fear were 16 times more common. In the conversation data base, however, the
ratios were 1.4 to 1 for anger and 7 to 1 for fear. These lower ratios suggest that in common
speech disgust is relatively more frequent than in writing.
A third reason may be that disgust, as its name suggests, is
particularly associated with food and eating.
Psychologists have sought general mechanisms of behavior rather than
focusing on specific domains of life (Rozin, 2006), and the food domain, in
particular, has received very little attention (Rozin, 2006. 2007).
A fourth reason for disgust avoidance may simply be that disgust is
disgusting. Pelham, Mirenberg, and Jones (2002) demonstrated that tiny flashes
of affective positivity influence people to choose marriage partners and
careers whose names resemble their own (e.g., men named Lawrence are more
likely than average to become lawyers and marry women named Laurie). It seems
likely, therefore, that when graduate students choose research topics, many are
steered away from the revolting subject matter of disgust.
Thus psychologists’ weak attention to disgust may be a result of
some combination of the following factors:
disgust was lost in Darwin’s long list of emotions; disgust lost out to
fear and anger in the race to be relevant to human problems; disgust was seen
as relevant to only that narrow part of human behavior related to food and
eating; and disgust research is avoided as disgust is avoided.
Why Now?: Documenting the Rise of Interest in Disgust
The analysis by Olatunji and Sawchuk (2005) indicates a notable rise
in disgust citations in the 1990s, stabilizing at around 50 a year in the last
decade. Compared to levels of about 500
for anger and 1200 for fear, the level is still modest but the increase is
impressive. In this time period, disgust
seems to have assumed the place that would be accorded to it in terms of its
relative frequency in English-language news sources although still well below
the level of English-language conversations (both estimated from the Linguistic
Data Consortium, see above, www.ldc,upenn.edu),
We are not aware of any academically oriented books on disgust
before 1997, but, since the publication of William Ian Miller’s (1997) The
Anatomy of Disgust, there has been at least one other book focused on
disgust (S. Miller, 2004), and two well-regarded psychology trade books with
prominent attention to disgust (Bloom, 2004; Pinker, 1997). Interest in the involvement of disgust in
anxiety disorders (particularly phobias and obsessive compulsive disorders) was
signaled by special issues devoted to disgust in the Journal of Anxiety
Disorders (McKay, 2002) and the Journal of Behavior Therapy and
Experimental Psychiatry (Olatunji & McKay, 2006).
We recently coded all 139 abstracts
in the PsycInfo database that mentioned disgust in the title, abstract, or key phrase
from 2001-2006. Our analysis showed that the largest focus of recent work is
the link between disgust and psychopathology (primarily but not entirely
phobias and OCD; 37% of references), followed by
neurological/neuroanatomical/neurochemical aspects of disgust (18% of
references). None of the remaining
topics had seven or more percent of the references. Some of the more common of these smaller
categories were the psychometrics and structure of disgust, contamination and
odor, dynamics of disgust (especially moment to moment changes and interactions
with other emotions), moral disgust, psychophysiology, development, and
expression.
The body-to-soul preadaptation theory of disgust
Highly recommended reading or viewing |
From Rozin, P., Haidt, J., & McCauley, C. R. (2008). Disgust: The body and soul emotion in the 21st century. In D. McKay & O. Olatunji (eds.), Disgust and its disorders. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. P. 9-29.
No comments:
Post a Comment