Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Subjective Sexual Arousal on Sexual, Pathogen, and Moral Disgust Sensitivity in Women and Men

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present experiment tested a novel method of manipulating subjective sexual arousal to examine the effects of sexual arousal on disgust sensitivity. Participants were instructed to employ their own preferred methods of achieving sexual or physiological arousal in the privacy of their own home to reach a target state of arousal. Participants then completed the Three-Domain Disgust Scale (Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009), which measures sensitivity to sexual, pathogen, and moral disgust. The sexual arousal manipulation caused large, homogenous increases in sexual arousal in women and men. In women, sexual arousal (but not physiological arousal) significantly reduced sensitivity to sexual disgust and marginally increased sensitivity to pathogen disgust. In men, sexual arousal did not decrease disgust sensitivity in any domain. Findings support the evolutionary hypothesis that sexual arousal inhibits sexual disgust, which facilitates an organism’s willingness to engage in high-risk, but evolutionarily necessary, reproductive behaviors, an effect that could be particularly important for women.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Due to an error in formatting the response options, the first 36 participants responded to a 6-point version of the scale. Data for these participants were adjusted to a 7-point scale prior to analysis.

  2. The results of our factor analysis are available upon request.

References

  • Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2006). The heat of the moment: The effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 87–89. doi:10.1002/bdm.501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P. C., Carlsmith, J. M., & Gonzales, M. H. (1990). Methods of research in social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, C., & de Jong, P. J. (2012). Feelings of disgust and disgust-induced avoidance weaken following induced sexual arousal in women. PLoS ONE, 7, e44111. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044111.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, P. J., & Peters, M. L. (2009). Sex and the sexual dysfunctions: The role of disgust contamination sensitivity. In B. Olatunji & D. McKay (Eds.), Disgust and its disorders: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 253–270). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, P. J., van Lankveld, J., Elgersma, H. J., & Borg, C. (2010). Disgust and sexual problems: Theoretical conceptualization and case illustrations. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 3, 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, P. J., van Overveld, M., Weijmar-Schultz, W., Peters, M. L., & Buwalda, F. M. (2009). Disgust and contamination sensitivity in vaginismus and dyspareunia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 244–252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., McCauley, C., & Rozin, P. (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 701–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoefling, A., Likowski, K. U., Deutsch, R., Hafner, M., Seibt, B., Muhlberger, A., … Strack, F. (2009). When hunger finds no fault with moldy corn: Food deprivation reduces food-related disgust. Emotion, 9, 50–58. doi:10.1037/a0014449.

  • Koukounas, E., & McCabe, M. (1997). Sexual and emotional variables influencing sexual response to erotica. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 221–231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oaten, M., Stevenson, R. J., & Case, T. I. (2009). Disgust as a disease avoidance mechanism. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 303–321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olatunji, B. O., Haidt, J., McKay, D., & David, B. (2008). Core, animal reminder, and contamination disgust: Three kinds of disgust with distinct personality, behavioral, physiological, and clinical correlates. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1234–1259. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.03.009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Z. D., & Janssen, E. (2007). Ambivalent affect and sexual response: The impact of co-occurring positive and negative emotions on subjective and physiological sexual responses to erotic stimuli. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 793–807. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9145-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., Nemeroff, C., Horowitz, M., Gordon, B., & Voet, W. (1995). The borders of the self: Contamination sensitivity and potency of the body apertures and other body parts. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 318–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, R. J., Case, T. I., & Oaten, M. J. (2011). Effect of self-reported sexual arousal on responses to sex-related and non-sex-related disgust cues. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 79–85. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9529-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoology, 14, 249–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tybur, J. M., Bryan, A. D., Lieberman, D., Caldwell Hooper, A. E., & Merriman, L. A. (2011). Sex differences and sex similarities in disgust sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 343–348. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tybur, 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. doi:10.1037/a0015474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA

    Ellen M. Lee, James K. Ambler & Brad J. Sagarin

Authors
  1. Ellen M. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James K. Ambler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brad J. Sagarin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ellen M. Lee.

Appendix

Appendix

Three Domain Disgust Scale (Tybur et al., 2009).

  1. 1.

    Shoplifting a candy bar from a convenience store (moral).

  2. 2.

    Hearing two strangers having sex (sexual).

  3. 3.

    Stepping on dog poop (pathogen).

  4. 4.

    Stealing from a neighbor (moral).

  5. 5.

    Performing oral sex (sexual).

  6. 6.

    Sitting next to someone who has red sores on their arm (pathogen).

  7. 7.

    A student cheating to get good grades (moral).

  8. 8.

    Watching a pornographic video (sexual).

  9. 9.

    Shaking hands with a stranger who has sweaty palms (pathogen).

  10. 10.

    Deceiving a friend (moral).

  11. 11.

    Finding out that someone you don’t like has sexual fantasies about you (sexual).

  12. 12.

    Seeing some mold on old leftovers in your refrigerator (pathogen).

  13. 13.

    Forging someone’s signature on a legal document (moral).

  14. 14.

    Bringing someone you just met back to your room to have sex (sexual).

  15. 15.

    Standing close to a person who has body odor (pathogen).

  16. 16.

    Cutting to the front of a line to purchase the last few tickets to a show (moral).

  17. 17.

    A stranger of the opposite sex intentionally rubbing your thigh in an elevator (sexual).

  18. 18.

    Seeing a cockroach run across the floor (pathogen).

  19. 19.

    Intentionally lying during a business transaction (moral).

  20. 20.

    Having anal sex with someone of the opposite sex (sexual).

  21. 21.

    Accidentally touching a person’s bloody cut (pathogen).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, E.M., Ambler, J.K. & Sagarin, B.J. Effects of Subjective Sexual Arousal on Sexual, Pathogen, and Moral Disgust Sensitivity in Women and Men. Arch Sex Behav 43, 1115–1121 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0271-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0271-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation