当前位置: X-MOL 学术Emotion › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Bugs are blech, butterflies are beautiful, but both are bad to bite: Admired animals are disgusting to eat but are themselves neither disgusting nor contaminating.
Emotion ( IF 3.4 ) Pub Date : 2020-08-01 , DOI: 10.1037/emo0000587
Paul Rozin , Matthew B. Ruby

It is often assumed that things that are disgusting to eat are, themselves, disgusting, and that things that are disgusting to eat are also contaminating. We present data that counters both of these assumptions. In adult American and Indian samples, Study 1 provides evidence that, in contrast to many other insects, participants have positive attitudes toward butterflies. Participants are relatively unbothered by touching them or eating food that they have contacted but are very disgusted by the thought of eating them. Study 2 extends these findings with an adult American sample, comparing four pairs of animals, one admired and one disgusting: butterflies and cockroaches, canaries and vultures, koalas and rats, and dogs and hyenas. In all 4 cases, the positive animals themselves are rated as very low in disgustingness but rated as very disgusting to consume-almost as disgusting as the negative animals. However, although contact between the negative animals and a favorite food produces a strong disgust response to the favorite food, this contamination effect is much smaller, and sometimes absent, with the positive animals. We present evidence that the perceived immorality of killing admired animals is related to the disgust at consuming them. Disgust at eating an admired animal may have a moral component because it involves, at least indirectly, killing the animal. An admired animal that has contacted a favored food does not reliably make that food disgusting. In this scenario, as opposed to eating, there is no harm to the animal. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译:

虫子很刺眼,蝴蝶很漂亮,但两者都不好咬:受敬仰的动物讨厌吃东西,但它们本身既不讨厌也不污染。

通常认为,令人讨厌的食物本身就是令人恶心的,并且令人讨厌的食物也会污染。我们提出的数据可以反驳这两个假设。在成年的美洲和印度样本中,研究1提供了证据,与许多其他昆虫相比,参与者对蝴蝶持积极态度。通过触摸他们或吃他们接触过的食物,参与者相对不感到束手无策,但是对吃掉他们的想法感到非常厌恶。研究2通过美国成年样本对这些发现进行了扩展,比较了四对动物,其中一只被钦佩,另一只令人作呕:蝴蝶和蟑螂,金丝雀和秃鹰,考拉和老鼠以及狗和鬣狗。在所有4种情况下,阳性动物本身的恶心程度很低,但食用起来却非常恶心,几乎与阴性动物一样令人恶心。但是,尽管阴性动物和喜欢的食物之间的接触会对喜欢的食物产生强烈的厌恶反应,但是对于阳性动物来说,这种污染效果要小得多,有时甚至不存在。我们提供的证据表明,杀死令人敬佩的动物的不道德行为与食用它们的厌恶有关。厌恶食用令人敬佩的动物可能有道德上的原因,因为它至少间接地涉及杀死动物。钦佩的动物接触了喜欢的食物并不能可靠地使该食物令人恶心。在这种情况下,与进食相反,对动物没有伤害。(PsycINFO数据库记录(c)2019 APA,保留所有权利)。
更新日期:2020-08-01
down
wechat
bug