Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 101–113 | Cite as

The disgust-promotes-disposal effect

  • Seunghee Han
  • Jennifer S. Lerner
  • Richard Zeckhauser
Article

Abstract

Individuals tend toward status quo bias: preferring existing options over new ones. There is a countervailing phenomenon: Humans naturally dispose of objects that disgust them, such as foul-smelling food. But what if the source of disgust is independent of the object? We induced disgust via a film clip to see if participants would trade away an item (a box of unidentified office supplies) for a new item (alternative unidentified box). Such “incidental disgust” strongly countered status quo bias. Disgusted people exchanged their present possession 51% of the time compared to 32% for people in a neutral state. Thus, disgust promotes disposal. A second experiment tested whether a warning about this tendency would diminish it. It did not. These results indicate a robust disgust-promotes-disposal effect. Because these studies presented real choices with tangible rewards, their findings have implications for everyday choices and raise caution about the effectiveness of warnings about biases.

Keywords

Disgust Status quo bias Decision making Disposal Emotion 

JEL Classifications

D03 C93 D81 

References

  1. Cryder, C. E., Lerner, J. S., Gross, J. J., & Dhal, R. E. (2008). Misery is not miserly. Psychological Science, 19, 525–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Curtis, V. (2011). Why disgust matters. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366, 3478–3490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 169–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Forgas, J. P. (2003). Affective influences on attitudes and judgments. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective science (pp. 596–618). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Foster, C. A., Witcher, B. S., Campbell, W. K., & Green, J. D. (1998). Arousal and attraction: Evidence for automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 86–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional suppression: Physiology, self-report, and expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 970–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haidt, J., McCauley, C. R., & Rozin, P. (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 701–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hammond, D., Fong, G. T., McDonald, P. W., Brown, S., & Cameron, R. (2004). Graphic Canadian cigarette warning labels and adverse outcomes: Evidence from Canadian smokers. American Journal of Public Health, 94(8), 1442–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Knetsch, J. L. (1989). The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. American Economic Review, 79(5), 1277–1284.Google Scholar
  11. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 146–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lerner, J. S., Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. F. (2004). Heart strings and purse strings: Carryover effects of emotions on economic decisions. Psychological Science, 15(5), 337–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nussbaum, M. (2006). Hiding from humanity: Disgust, shame, and the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Raiffa, H. (1997). Decision analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. McGraw-Hill College Custom Series.Google Scholar
  17. Ritov, I., & Baron, J. (1992). Status-quo and omission biases. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 49–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94, 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rozin, P., Markwith, M., & Stoess, C. (1997). Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: The transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychological Science, 8, 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rozin, P., Haidt, J., & McCauley, C. (2000). Disgust. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 637–653). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status-quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schweitzer, M. (1994). Disentangling status quo and omission effects: An experimental analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 457–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2009). Mindful judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 53–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seunghee Han
    • 1
  • Jennifer S. Lerner
    • 2
  • Richard Zeckhauser
    • 3
  1. 1.Chung-Ang UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.John F. Kennedy School of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations