Psychological research suggests that people who report higher sensitivity to disgust are more likely to hold socially conservative views — a finding that has renewed scrutiny of how emotion, rhetoric and public policy intersect in American politics.
What the studies show
A review of 24 studies found a consistent association between self-reported disgust sensitivity and socially conservative attitudes. Researchers point to a theory rooted in evolutionary psychology: disgust originally evolved as a mechanism to limit exposure to disease, and that wariness may translate into preference for traditional social rules and caution toward unfamiliar social change.
"We think that it evolved in part to reduce exposure to things that could make you sick," psychologist Yoel Inbar of the University of British Columbia told DW.
That link is not limited to laboratory measures. The language of contamination frequently appears in political rhetoric. During his 2024 presidential campaign, former President Donald Trump used metaphors evoking contagion when discussing immigration, language that psychologists say taps into the same emotional register as pathogen-related disgust.
Not all disgust is the same
Researchers emphasize that disgust is a multi-faceted emotion. The Three-Domain Disgust Scale, developed in 2009, separates disgust into three distinct domains:
- Pathogen disgust — reactions to potential sources of infection, such as rotten food or bodily waste.
- Sexual disgust — reactions to particular sexual practices or situations.
- Moral disgust — reactions to perceived wrongdoing, like betrayal or cruelty.
| Disgust Domain | Typical Triggers |
|---|---|
| Pathogen | Rotten food, vomit, bodily waste |
| Sexual | Certain sexual behaviors or situations |
| Moral | Betrayal, cruelty, perceived wrongdoing |
Debate over cause and effect
Scholars remain divided on whether heightened disgust sensitivity helps create conservative attitudes or whether political beliefs shape what people find disgusting. Some contend that an innate or early-developing sensitivity to contamination and risk-avoidance inclines individuals toward social conservatism. Others argue that political environments, socialization and rhetoric can alter emotional responses, effectively changing what constituents label as disgusting or dangerous.
Yoel Inbar cautions against oversimplifying the relationship. He notes that pathogen avoidance can trade off with openness to new experiences: those who prioritize avoiding contamination may also resist novelty and social change, a pattern that aligns with conservative preferences on social issues.
Implications for politics and public discourse
If disgust sensitivity correlates with ideological preferences, political actors may deliberately — or inadvertently — activate these emotions through messaging. Terms and metaphors that conjure contamination, moral impurity or decay can reinforce existing attitudes and heighten polarization. That dynamic poses questions for campaigns, media and civic life about whether emotional appeals deepen divides or simply reflect preexisting differences.
Psychologists warn that the research does not reduce complex political views to a single emotion. Instead, it offers one lens for understanding why some messages resonate more strongly with certain audiences and how language that frames political opponents as contaminated or morally impure can influence public sentiment.
As elections approach, the interplay between emotion, rhetoric and policy preference remains an active area of study. Observers of American politics say the findings underscore the potency of symbolic language and the need for scrutiny of how appeals to fear, purity or contamination are used in political contests.
