Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

Intentions to avoid sibling incest: the roles of disgust, anticipated guilt, and moral judgment

Published onOct 29, 2024
Intentions to avoid sibling incest: the roles of disgust, anticipated guilt, and moral judgment
·

Abstract

This study explores how disgust felt in response to a hypothetical scenario of sibling incest relates to individuals' intentions to avoid such behavior. A path model was employed to examine both direct and indirect associations: a direct route between felt disgust and intentions to engage in sibling incest, and indirect routes through anticipated guilt and moral judgment of the act. Self-reported data were gathered from 1,437 undergraduate participants who read a vignette about sibling incest involving the characters Julie and Mark, originally developed by Haidt and colleagues. The findings show that felt disgust is associated with intentions to avoid sibling incest, directly and indirectly, with moral judgment and anticipated guilt serving as intermediary variables. This study highlights the role of disgust as a protective response, acting both as a personal deterrent and a social mechanism that reinforces the moral norm against sibling incest. The study also discusses its relevance, limitations, and potential directions for future research.

Introduction

This study explores how disgust felt in response to a hypothetical scenario of sibling incest relates to intentions to avoid such behavior. Disgust has long been recognized as one of the basic and universal human emotions, elicited by a range of substances, objects, and behaviors (Darwin, 1872/1965; Ekman, 1992; Rozin, Haidt & McCauley, 2009). Although there is a well-established research tradition on the nature and function of disgust - particularly in evolutionary, moral, and social psychology - this emotion has been largely overlooked in criminological theories. This study aims to introduce the concept of disgust into criminological theorizing, focusing specifically on disgust felt in response to the idea of consensual sibling incest involving others (henceforth referred to as felt disgust). By examining how felt disgust relates to the moral judgment of sibling incest and anticipated guilt regarding the possibility of engaging in such behavior, this research seeks to build on the well-established connection between personal moral norms and anticipated moral emotions in criminological studies (e.g., De Buck & Pauwels, 2021, 2023; Svensson et al., 2013; Wikström et al., 2012, 2024). The goal is to enhance understanding of how disgust, as a complex emotion, may contribute to explanations of antisocial behavior, thereby informing discussions on the prevention of such behavior.

Direct route

There is currently broad agreement that disgust primarily evolved to motivate the avoidance of infectious diseases (e.g., Cepon-Robins, 2024; Curtis, 2011; Davey, 2011; Fessler & Navarrete, 2003). However, researchers argue that disgust also evolved to address various adaptive problems beyond merely avoiding disease-causing agents (Inbar & Pizarro, 2022). Tybur and colleagues (2013) expanded on the notion of disgust as a multifaceted emotion that aids in solving distinct adaptive challenges faced by our ancestors, including the avoidance of sexual partners and behaviors that could compromise long-term reproductive success, such as sibling incest. Sibling incest refers to sexual contact between close relatives or family members (Phillips-Green, 2002). The actual prevalence of sibling incest remains uncertain due to difficulties in measuring it (Gekoski, Davidson & Horvath, 2016). From an evolutionary perspective, sibling incest poses a significant threat to the biological fitness of offspring, as sexual relations between genetically related individuals can lead to inbreeding depression, where deleterious recessive homozygotes are more likely to increase in frequency, negatively affecting offspring survival and reproduction (Charlesworth & Willis, 2009; Wolf & Durham, 2005), especially when compounded by the presence of pathogens (Thornhill & Fincher, 2014; Tooby, 1982). Consequently, there would have been strong selection pressures for the evolution of mechanisms that induce an aversion to sexual attraction toward close relatives (Kresanov, Kotler, Seto et al., 2018). Disgust1 is one such emotion believed to have evolved to help avoid incest (Tybur et al., 2009). Empirical evidence supports the notion that disgust has a direct inhibitory effect on incestuous sexual interest (e.g. Antfolk et al. 2012; Kresanov et al.,2018; Lieberman, Tooby & Cosmides, 2003; Lieberman, Tooby & Cosmides, 2007; Pullman, Babchishin & Seto, 2019).

Indirect routes

A recent meta-analytic review by Donner et al. (2023) provides robust evidence for a significant overall relationship between disgust sensitivity and increased condemnation of various moral transgressions. This relationship is particularly strong in the purity or sanctity domain, including sibling incest (Haidt, 2012). Beyond legal prohibitions, many societies view sibling incest as a social taboo and an unacceptable cultural practice2 (Wolf, 2014; Wolf & Durham, 2005). The moralization of sibling incest as unacceptable carries important moral and social implications (Rhee, Schein & Bastian, 2019). Societal norms and practices are internalized through individual development and social learning (Henrich & Muthukrishna, 2021; Hoppitt & Laland, 2013). When individuals perceive sibling incest as morally wrong, they are more likely to condemn the practice. Specifically, violations of the incest taboo may evoke particularly strong feelings of disgust, even when the act is consensual and does not cause harm (Haidt, Björklund, & Murphy, 2000). Positive correlations have been found between disgust and moral criticism of specific sexual acts (Giner-Sorolla, Bosson, Caswell & Hettinger, 2012; Inbar, Pizarro, Knobe & Bloom, 2009; Lieberman & Lobel, 2012). At the turn of the twentieth century, the Finnish philosopher, sociologist, and anthropologist Westermarck (1891/1921) suggested that personal avoidance of sibling incest extends to the condemnation of sibling incest in others. Thus, it is expected that an individual’s avoidance of incest will correlate with their moral judgment of incestuous relationships involving others (Lieberman, Tooby & Cosmides, 2003). Consequently, moral judgment of sibling incest may influence personal choices, aligning with internalized social norms and leading individuals to avoid incestuous relationships.

Failing to adhere to internalized social norms can lead to feelings of guilt (Baumeister et al., 2007). While much empirical attention has focused on disgust, less research has explored whether guilt motivates the avoidance of potentially fitness-compromising sexual partners. Disgust can be mediated by negative emotions (Oaten, Stevenson, & Case, 2009). Guilt, considered a negative emotion, typically emerges later in development compared to disgust, which is a basic emotion due to its universal features, evolutionary origin, and biological basis (Ekman, 1992). Guilt is a self-conscious and social emotion (e.g., Sznycer, 2019; Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Tracy & Robins, 2004; Turner, 2021). People often make choices based on anticipated guilt because they learn what will elicit feelings of guilt (Baumeister et al., 1994). In this context, anticipated guilt refers to the expectation or fear of feeling guilty about behaviors that contradict one’s internalized sense of right and wrong. Consequently, anticipated guilt can influence behavior by encouraging individuals to align their actions with valued, socially desirable norms and rules (Baumeister et al., 2007), such as the moral norm against sibling incest. Thus, the anticipation of guilt—an internalized response elicited by aversion to socially unacceptable behavior (Rozin, 1999)—may motivate individuals to refrain from engaging in behaviors deemed unacceptable (Tangney, Stuewig & Mashek, 2007).

Rationale of Path Model

Figure 1 presents a path model that outlines the routes through which disgust felt in response to an act of consensual sibling incest relates to intentions to avoid sibling incest.

  1. Direct relationship between disgust and intentions to avoid sibling incest

Disgust functions as a primary emotional response to the idea of consensual sibling incest. The disgust triggered by this notion motivates individuals to avoid engaging in such behavior themselves. This reaction serves as a protective mechanism, safeguarding individuals from potentially fitness-compromising sexual behaviors, such as incestuous relationships with siblings.

  1. Indirect relationship between disgust and intentions to avoid sibling incest via moral judgment and anticipated guilt

Felt disgust also operates as a social mechanism by triggering moral judgment of sibling incest. This moral judgment may be further reinforced by the anticipated guilt an individual might experience at the prospect of engaging in such behavior. Together, these factors serve as cognitive and emotional deterrents against incestuous relationships, contributing to intentions to avoid sibling incest and reinforcing societal moral norms.

Figure 1

Testable path model of the relationships between intentions to avoid sibling incest, disgust, anticipated guilt, and moral judgment

Afbeelding met schermopname, plein, ontwerp Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving

Methods

Participants

Data were collected from undergraduates3 at a major university in Ghent, Belgium, between September and October 2019. Students were invited to participate in a research project on human cooperation. To promote the survey, one of the authors attended lectures in person, distributing informational flyers that outlined the study’s purpose and provided a link to the online survey. Additionally, a dedicated Facebook page was created and shared with various student associations across different faculties, also including a link to the survey.

Before beginning the online survey, participants provided informed consent, and their anonymity was assured. The survey took approximately 20-25 minutes to complete, and participants had the opportunity to enter a lottery for gift cards worth 25 euros4 as compensation. Participants were required to stay online for the duration of the survey. Demographic questions about biological sex and age were included at the end. The final sample comprised 1,437 undergraduates with a mean age of 19.49 (SD= 1.80), including 29.1% male participants, and representing a diverse range of scientific disciplines.

Material and procedure

The online questionnaire featured a hypothetical scenario adapted from the story created by Haidt, Björklund, and Murphy (2000), depicting a consensual incestuous relationship between two adult siblings. The narrative is presented as follows:

"Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night, they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark used a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide never to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it okay for them to make love?"

Immediately after reading the scenario, participants answered four questions to assess (1) Moral judgment: Their level of moral judgment of consensual sibling incest; (2) Felt disgust: How disgusting they perceived the behavior of Julie and Mark to be; (3) Intentions to avoid sibling incest: Their inclination to avoid engaging in similar behavior; and (4) Anticipated guilt: The anticipated feelings of guilt they might experience if they acted like the main characters Julie and Mark.

Measures

The outcome variable, Intentions to avoid sibling incest, was measured by asking participants: "Considering what Julie and Mark do, would you do the same?". Response options ranged from 1 (no, definitely not) to 5 (yes, definitely). The responses were reverse-scored, ensuring that higher scores indicated stronger intentions to avoid sibling incest.

Disgust: Disgust was operationalized as felt disgust, referring to the specific emotional response to a particular disgust-relevant stimulus (Olatunji et al., 2007). It was measured using the question: Considering what Julie and Mark do, does their behavior disgust you?” Participants responded on a 5-point scale from 1 (no, not at all) to 5 (yes, very much) with higher scores reflecting greater felt disgust.

Anticipated guilt was assessed with the question: “Suppose you were to act like Julie and Mark, would you feel guilty afterward for what you did?” Response options ranged from 1 (no, not at all) to 5 (yes, definitely), with higher scores indicating increased anticipated guilt.

Moral judgment was evaluated by asking: “Do you think what Julie and Mark do is wrong?” Response options ranged from 1 (not wrong at all) to 5 (completely wrong) with higher scores indicating stronger moral condemnation of sibling incest.

Demographic information: Basic demographic information, including participants’ biological sex and age, was collected at the end of the survey. Participant ages ranged from 17 to 24 years, with a mean age of 19.49 (SD= 1.80).

Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlation matrices for all variables were computed using IBM SPSS 29 and are available in the online supporting information.5 The highest bivariate correlation among the predictors was observed between felt disgust and moral judgment (r= .68). Intercorrelations of .80 or higher among predictors suggest potential multicollinearity (Pituch & Stevens, 2016). The average variance inflation factor (VIF) was 1.93; with the highest VIF at 2.09. According to Myers (1990), a VIF exceeding 10 indicates significant multicollinearity (p. 369). Based on these findings, all predictors were interpreted as distinct determinants of intentions to avoid sibling incest.

A path model was employed to examine both the direct relationship between felt disgust and intentions to avoid sibling incest, as well as the relationships with moral judgment and anticipated guilt. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to define the path model, connecting the constructs measured with observed variables. SEM is commonly utilized for theory testing in nonexperimental research designs (Hayduk et al., 2007). The analysis was conducted using Mplus 7.11 version (Muthén & Muthén, 2012), with the WLSMV (Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance adjusted) procedure selected for ordinal Likert scale variables, as this method is preferred over others for such data. Kline (2023) advises against using estimation methods for continuous variables with Likert scale data that has few categories (five or fewer) or highly skewed distributions. The analysis proceeded by testing direct relationships first, followed by indirect relationships. The significance of indirect effects was assessed using 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals calculated with bootstrap methods, involving 10.000 resamples, as advised by MacKinnon et al., (2004) and MacKinnon (2008).

Results

An examination of the standardized coefficients in the path model (Figure 2 and Table 1)6. All paths are statistically significant (p<.000), and the model accounts for 52.3% of the variance in intentions to avoid sibling incest, as indicated by the squared multiple correlation (R²).

Direct route

The relationship between disgust and intentions to avoid sibling incest is both positive and highly significant (β= .370; p<.000). This finding indicates that greater disgust felt towards sibling incest corresponds with an increased likelihood of avoiding such behavior. Felt disgust also demonstrates a strong positive association with both anticipated guilt (β= .566; p<.000), and moral judgment ((β= .689; p<.000). Higher levels of disgust are linked to increased anticipated guilt regarding the possibility of engaging in the act, as well as stronger moral judgment of sibling incest.

Additionally, anticipated guilt shows a positive association with intentions to avoid sibling incest (β= .191; p<.000), as does moral judgment (β= .248; p<.000). Thus, greater anticipated guilt and higher levels of moral judgment relate to increased personal avoidance of sibling incest.

Indirect routes

Table 1 presents the decomposition of the path coefficients, including significance tests of direct, indirect, and total associations. The findings reveal that the indirect paths of disgust with intentions to avoid sibling incest are significant through both moral judgment (β= .171; p<.000) and anticipated guilt (β= .108; p<.000). Although these associations are significant, the direct path from felt disgust to intentions to avoid sibling incest remains the largest (β= .370; p<.000)7. This highlights that disgust maintains a distinct role in intentions to avoid sibling incest, independent of moral considerations and anticipated guilt.

Figure 2

Path results of the relationships between disgust, anticipated guilt, moral judgment, and intentions to avoid sibling incest (full sample (n=1437))

Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, Lettertype, ontwerp Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving

Note. Standardized coefficients are displayed. Significant at ***p<.000

Table 1

Results of path analysis for the relationships between intentions to avoid sibling incest, felt disgust, moral judgment, and anticipated guilt (decomposition of the path coefficients)

Outcome

Predictor

β

SE

p

95% CI

____________________

BootLL

BootUL

FULL SAMPLE (n=1437)

Direct effects

Intentions to avoid sibling incest

R²= 52.3%

ß Moral judgment

ß Disgust

ß Anticipated guilt

.248***

.370***

.191***

.042

.048

.036

.000

.000

.000

.308

.432

Moral judgment

R²= 47.5%

ß Disgust

.689***

.043

.000

Anticipated guilt

R²= 32.1%

ß Disgust

.566***

.027

.000

Indirect effects

Intentions to avoid sibling incest

ß Moral judgment ß Disgust

.171***

.117

.225

Intentions to avoid sibling incest

ß Anticipated guilt ß Disgust

.108***

.075

.141

Total indirect effect

Intentions to avoid sibling incest

ß Moral judgment ß Disgust

ß Anticipated guilt ß Disgust

.279***

.220

.338

Total effect

Intentions to avoid sibling incest

ß Disgust

ß Moral judgment ß Disgust

ß Anticipated guilt ß Disgust

.649***

.606

.691

Significant ***p<.000 , **p<.01 , *p<.05

General Discussion

Despite extensive research into the nature and function of disgust within evolutionary, moral, and social psychology, its role in criminological theories remains underexplored. This study addresses this gap by integrating disgust into criminological research, particularly focusing on its relationship with personal moral norms, anticipated guilt, and antisocial behavior. Specifically, we investigated how disgust in response to sibling incest is related to individuals’ tendencies to avoid engaging in similar behaviors. Our findings reveal the following: (1) Felt disgust in response to sibling incest shows an independent association with intentions to avoid such behavior, beyond the impact of moral judgment of sibling incest and anticipated guilt. This indicates that disgust alone significantly impacts the decision to avoid sibling incest. (2) Felt disgust is associated with both moral judgment and anticipated guilt, which together significantly contribute to intentions to avoid such behavior.

Interestingly, the direct association between disgust with intentions to avoid sibling incest remains strong. This observation suggests that disgust, as a primary emotion, holds a substantial and distinct role in intentions to avoid sibling incest compared to anticipated guilt, which is a secondary, socially mediated emotion. From an evolutionary perspective, this may imply that disgust serves as a rapid aversive response aimed at protecting individuals from potentially harmful behaviors.

Understanding the roles of felt disgust and anticipated guilt in the context of antisocial behaviors such as sibling incest can provide valuable insights for prevention strategies. Emphasizing the roles of disgust and disgust-driven moral judgments may enhance the effectiveness of interventions aimed at mitigating such behaviors.

Limitations

Our study has several theoretical and methodological limitations.

  1. Sample characteristics: Data were collected from undergraduate students at a major university in Ghent, Belgium, representing a portion of the WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) population (Henrich, 2020). This demographic may limit the generalizability of our findings. Future research may explore these relationships in non-WEIRD societies to enhance cross-cultural generalizability (Cepon-Robins, 2024).

  2. Measurement issues: We used the Julie and Mark sibling incest scenario (Haidt et al., 2000) and online self-report measures. While self-reported behavioral intentions provide valuable insights into participant attitudes, they may lack ecological validity compared to actual decisions (Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder, 2007). Factors such as lying and social desirability bias could influence responses. Although self-reported surveys are important in criminological studies (e.g., International Self-Report Delinquency Study (Enzmann et al., 2018)), the use of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with cross-sectional data requires caution in interpreting correlational findings and causal relationships. While our path model aligns with the data, alternative models suggesting that personal avoidance behavior may influence moral judgment (e.g., Lieberman et al., 2003; Lieberman & Lobel, 212), or that moral judgment may influence disgust (e.g., Giner-Sorolla & Chapman, 2017) could also be relevant (Hox & Bechger, 1998). Future research could investigate these alternative configurations to further elucidate the relationships and dynamics between these variables.

  3. Single-item indicators: We used single-item indicators rather than multiple-item scales. While single-item measures can be practical (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2009), they have limitations, including biases related to over-surveying and social desirability. Antonaccio and Tittle (2008) caution against drawing specific predictions from moral judgments due to potential artificial associations. This caution is particularly relevant to our study’s single-item measures of “state”-like judgments and intentions concerning the sibling incest scenario. Participants' reports of personal incestuous intentions may be influenced by the social undesirability of admitting such attractions. Measuring moral opposition to sibling incest of others might provide an alternative approach, as participants may feel more comfortable reporting on moral judgment than on personal inclinations (Lieberman, Cosmides & Tooby, 2003). This could result in stronger associations between reports of intentions to avoid sibling incest and moral judgment of sibling incest of others. The relationships were moderately strong in our study (Pearson correlation: .42 for women and .61 for men).

  4. Disgust cues: Our study did not account for various cues that may contribute to feelings of disgust, such as sibling relationships or the presence of sexually mature, opposite-sex siblings in the family (Antfolk et al., 2012; Lieberman, Tooby & Cosmides, 2007; Lieberman & Lobel, 2012). Future studies should include these additional measures to comprehensively assess the proposed pathways. Additionally, exploring the relationship between disgust and other non-sexual forms of antisocial behavior (e.g., lying, stealing, aggression) is important, especially concerning perceived out-groups. Disgust may have evolved as a pathogen-avoidance strategy (pathogen disgust) but could also have adapted for functions over evolutionary time (Tybur et al., 2013). Pathogen avoidance strategies may also involve preferences for ingroup interactions or avoidance of outgroups (Curtis, 2011; Haidt, 1997).

Relevance

Disgust is a powerful and multifaceted emotion that has been extensively studied within evolutionary, moral, and social psychology, particularly concerning moral and social judgment. However, its role in criminological theories, examining the etiology of antisocial behavior has received comparatively little attention. Previous research has established links between disgust and aggression (see e.g., Molho et al., 2017; Pond, DeWall, Lambert et al., 2012; Ray & Parkhill, 2020), yet a comprehensive understanding of disgust’s relevance to criminology remains underexplored.

In certain contexts, disgust can become maladaptive, a critical nuance often overlooked in criminological research. Humans, as highly social beings, are sensitive to various disgust-relevant cues, allowing for adaptations to new challenges, particularly regarding social information about potential infections or contamination (Curtis, de Barra & Aunger, 2011).

Additionally, this disgust sensitivity can be manipulated to enhance ingroup cohesion by stigmatizing outgroups as "diseased," which may facilitate their dehumanization and justify acts of cruelty, discrimination, and exclusion (Buckels & Trapnell, 2013). Understanding the nature, development, adaptability, and potential modification of disgust is crucial, as it has significant implications for promoting a healthy, humane, and cooperative society (Curtis, 2011).

References

Antfolk, J., Karlsson, M., Bäckström, A., & Santtila, P. (2012). Disgust elicited by third-party incest: the roles of biological relatedness, co-residence, and family relationship. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(3), 217-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.09.005

Antonaccio, O., & Tittle, C. R. (2008). Morality, self‐control, and crime. Criminology, 46(2), 479-510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00116.x

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: an interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 243. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.243

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396-403.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Nathan DeWall, C., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 167-203. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1088868307301033

Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175-184. https://doi.org/10.1509%2Fjmkr.44.2.175

Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2009). Tailor-made single-item measures of doubly concrete constructs. International Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 607-621. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0265048709200783

Bittles, A.H. (2012). Consanguinity in context. Cambridge University Press.

Buckels, E. E., & Trapnell, P. D. (2013). Disgust facilitates outgroup dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(6), 771-780 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1368430212471738

Cepon-Robins, T.J. (2024). Disgust: An emotion for pathogen avoidance. In Laith Al-Shawaf & Todd K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolution and the emotions (pp. 181-202). Oxford University Press.

Curtis, V. (2011). Why disgust matters. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1583), 3478-3490. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0165

Curtis, V., de Barra, M., & Aunger, R. (2011). Disgust as an adaptive system for disease avoidance behavior. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366(1563), 389-401. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0117

Davey, G.C.L. (2011). Disgust: the disease-avoidance emotion and its dysfunctions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(15383), 3453-3465.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0039

Darwin, C. (1872/1965). The expression of emotions in man and animal. University of Chicago Press.

De Buck, A., & Pauwels, L. J. (2021). Empathy and theft by finding: The intermediary role of moral emotions and norms. Journal of Community Psychology, 49(6), 1648-1676.

De Buck, A., & Pauwels, L. J. (2023). Intentions to Steal: How Equal is the Interplay Between Anticipated Moral Emotions and Self-Serving Justifications Across Male and Female Young People?. Victims & Offenders, 1-33.

Enzmann, D., Kivivuori, J., Marshall, I. H., Steketee, M., Hough, M., & Killias, M. (2018). A global perspective on young people as offenders and victims: First results from the ISRD3 study. Springer International Publishing.

Fessler, D.M.T., & Navarrete, C.D. (2003). Domain-specific variation in disgust sensitivity across the menstrual cycle. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 406-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00054-0

Fessler, D.M.T., & Navarrete, C.D. (2004). Third-party attitudes toward sibling incest: Evidence for Westermarck's hypotheses. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(5), 277-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.05.004

Gekoski, A., Davidson, J.C., Horvath, M.A.H. (2016). The prevalence, nature, and impact of intrafamilial child sexual abuse: findings from a rapid evidence assessment, Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 2(4), 231 – 243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-05-2016-0008

Giner-Sorolla, R., Bosson, J.K., Caswell, T.A., & Hettinger, V.E. (2012). Emotions in sexual morality: testing the separate elicitors of anger and disgust. Cognition & Emotion, 26(7), 1208-1222. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.645278

Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chapman, H.A. (2017). Beyond purity: moral disgust toward bad character. Psychological Science, 28(1), 80-91.

Giner-Sorolla, R., & Russell, P.S. (2013). Anger, disgust, and sexual crimes. In Miranda A.H. Horvath & Jennifer M. Brown (Eds.), Rape. Challenging contemporary thinking – 10 years on (2nd Edition, pp. 46-73). Willan.

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Penguin Books.

Haidt, J., Björklund, F., & Murphy, S. (2000). Moral dumbfounding: when intuition finds no reason. Unpublished manuscript. University of Virginia. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Moral-dumbfounding%3A-when-intuition-finds-no-reason-Bj%C3%B6rklund-Haidt/d415e7fa2c2df922dac194441516a509ba5eb7ec

Hayduk, L., Cummings, G., Boadu, K., Pazderka-Robinson, H., & Boulianne, S. (2007). Testing! testing! one, two, three–Testing the theory in structural equation models! Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 841-850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.001

Henrich, J., & Muthukrishna, M. (2021). The origins and psychology of human cooperation. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 207-240. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-081920-042106

Hox, J.J., & Bechger, T.M. (1998). An Introduction to Structural Equation Modelling. Family Science Review, 11(4), 354-373.

Hoppitt, W., & Laland, K.N. (2013). Social learning. An introduction to mechanisms, methods, and models. Princeton University Press.

Horberg, E.J., Oveis, C., Keltner, D., & Cohen, A.B. (2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97,963-976. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0017423

Inbar, Y., & Pizarro, D. (2022). How disgust affects social judgments. In Bertram Gawronski (Ed), Advances in experimental social psychology. (Vol. 65, pp. 109-166). Elsevier Inc.

Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., Knobe, J., & Bloom, P. (2009). Disgust sensitivity predicts intuitive disapproval of gays. Emotion, 9(3), 435–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015960

Kline, R.B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Fifth Edition. The Guilford Press.

Kresanov, P., Kotler, J., Seto, M., Lieberman, D., Santtila, P., & Antfolk, J. (2018). Intergenerational incest aversion: self-reported sexual arousal and disgust to hypothetical sexual contact with family members. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(6), 664-674.

Lieberman, D., & Lobel, T. (2012). Kinship on the Kibbutz: coresidence duration predicts altruism, personal sexual aversions and moral attitudes among communally reared peers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33,26-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.05.002

Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2003). Does morality have a biological basis? An empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270(1517), 819-826. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2290

Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445, 727-731.

MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Erlbaum.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99-128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4

Molho, C., Tybur, J. M., Güler, E., Balliet, D., & Hofmann, W. (2017). Disgust and Anger Relate to Different Aggressive Responses to Moral Violations. Psychological Science, 28(5), 609-619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617692000

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus. Statistical analysis with latent variables. User’s Guide. Seventh Edition.

Myers, R. (1990). Classical and modern regression with applications (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Duxbury.

Oaten, M., Stevenson, R.J., & Case, T.I. (2009). Disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 303-321. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014823

Olatunji, B. O., Williams, N. L., Tolin, D. F., Abramowitz, J. S., Sawchuk, C. N., Lohr, J. M., & Elwood, L. S. (2007). The Disgust Scale: item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions for refinement. Psychological Assessment, 19(3), 281-297.

Pituch, K.A., & Stevens, J.P. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (6th ed.). Routledge.

Phillips-Green, M. J. (2002). Sibling incest. The Family Journal, 10(2), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1066480702102009

Pond, R. S., Jr., DeWall, C. N., Lambert, N. M., Deckman, T., Bonser, I. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Repulsed by violence: Disgust sensitivity buffers trait, behavioral, and daily aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 175-188. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024296

Pullman, L. E., Babchishin, K., & Seto, M. C. (2019). An examination of the Westermarck hypothesis and the role of disgust in incest avoidance among fathers. Evolutionary Psychology, 17(2), https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1474704919849924

Ray, T.N., & Parkhill, M.R. (2020). Examining disgust and emotion regulation difficulties as components of aggression toward perceived gay men. Psychology of Violence, 10(4), 462-471. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/vio0000265

Rhee, J.J., Schein, C., & Bastian, B. (2019). The what, how, and why of moralization: a review of current definitions, methods, and evidence in moralization research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(12), e12511. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12511

Rozin, P. (1999). The process of moralization. Psychological Science, 10(3), 218-221. https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-9280.00139

Rozin, P., Haidt, J., & McCauley, C. (2009). Disgust: The body and soul emotion in the 21st century. In B. O. Olatunji & D. McKay (Eds.), Disgust and its disorders: Theory, assessment, and treatment implications (pp. 9–29). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11856-001

Svensson, R., Weerman, F. M., Pauwels, L. J., Bruinsma, G. J., & Bernasco, W. (2013). Moral emotions and offending: Do feelings of anticipated shame and guilt mediate the effect of socialization on offending? European Journal of Criminology, 10(1), 22-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370812454393

Sznycer, D. (2019). Forms and functions of the self-conscious emotions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(2), 143-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.11.007

Tangney, J.P., & Dearing, R. (2002). Shame and guilt. The Guilford Press.

Tangney, J.P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D.J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345-372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145

Thornberry, T.P., & Krohn, M.D. (2011). The self-report method and the development of criminological theory. In J. MacDonald (Ed.), Measuring crime and delinquency. Advances in criminological theory (Vol.17, pp. 1-19). Transaction Publishers.

Thornhill, R., & Fincher, C. L. (2014). The parasite-stress theory of sociality, the behavioral immune system, and human social and cognitive uniqueness. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8(4), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000020

Tooby, J. (1982). Pathogens, polymorphism, and the evolution of sex. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 97, 557-576.

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). " Putting the Self Into Self-Conscious Emotions: A Theoretical Model". Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 103-125. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1502_01

Turner, J.H. (2021). On human nature. The biology and sociology of what made us human. Routledge.

Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., Kurzban, R., & DeScioli, P. (2013). Disgust: evolved function and structure. Psychological Review, 120(1), 65-84. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0030778

Tyber, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: Individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 103–122.

Wikström, P.-O.H. Oberwittler, D., Treiber, K., & Hardie, B. (2012). Breaking rules: The social and situational dynamics of young people’s urban crime. Oxford University Press.

Wolf, A.P. (2014). Incest avoidance and the incest taboos. Two aspects of human nature. Stanford University Press.

Wolf, A. P., & Durham, W. H. (Eds.) (2005). Inbreeding, incest, and the incest taboo: The state of knowledge at the turn of the century. Stanford University Press.

Comments
1
Timothy Hogan:

I’ve always been cautious with my finances, but the promise of high returns in the crypto world drew me in. I invested $390,000 into what I believed was a legitimate Bitcoin investment platform. Initially, everything seemed promising—the returns looked incredible, and the dashboard showed my portfolio growing daily. However, when I attempted to withdraw my earnings, the site became unresponsive. Emails went unanswered, and my funds appeared to vanish without a trace. I was devastated. My trust in digital finance was shattered, and countless sleepless nights followed as I researched recovery options. That’s when I discovered SANTOSHI HACKERS INTELLIGENCE (SHI) through an online forum. Many others shared similar stories of loss but spoke highly of SHI’s ability to recover their stolen assets. Though skeptical, I reached out to them, clinging to hope. From my very first interaction with the SHI team, I was struck by their professionalism and genuine empathy. They took the time to understand my situation, asking detailed questions about my transactions and communications with the scam site. Their approach was meticulous and transparent, explaining step-by-step how they would trace blockchain transactions to uncover the trail left by the scammers. The process wasn’t instantaneous, but SHI regular updates and clear communication gave me confidence. Using advanced blockchain analytics, they traced my $390,000 through multiple disguised addresses used by the scammers. Weeks of effort culminated in incredible news: SHI had located a significant portion of my funds. Through their expertise and collaboration with legal teams and cryptocurrency exchanges, SHI recovered 75% of my initial investment. This outcome was beyond what I had dared to hope for. More importantly, SHI didn’t just recover my funds—they provided invaluable education on securing digital assets. They taught me about wallet security, the importance of due diligence in investments, and recognizing red flags in too-good-to-be-true platforms. What could have been a devastating financial loss became a powerful lesson in resilience and cybersecurity, thanks to the exceptional team at SANTOSHI HACKERS INTELLIGENCE. I am immensely grateful for their support and expertise. For anyone seeking trusted cryptocurrency recovery services, I wholeheartedly recommend SHI.

Contact Information