Disgust and Syrian Refugees FINAL

1
Danny Athenour
POSC 39003
11 December 2016
The Emotion of Disgust: Implications for the Syrian Refugee Crisis
Introduction
Beginning with the protests and uprisings in March of 2011, Syria has descended into a
state of anarchy amidst a brutal civil war between supporters of the current regime under
President Bashar al-Assad, rebel groups who demand his removal and the establishment of a
democracy, and jihadist militants of the Islamic State whose self-proclaimed goal is the
establishment of a caliphate (Rogers, Offer, and Asare 2016). Caught in the middle of the
contentious fighting and atrocious violence are civilians who have been displaced from their
homes and forced to seek refuge in other areas. The United Nations estimates that there are at
least 4.8 million Syrian refugees who have fled the country thus far, with a large portion of them
being women and children (Rogers, Offer, and Asare 2016; Toosi 2016). While many countries
have opened their doors to help absorb the influx of displaced persons, a hotly contested debate
has arisen in the United States surrounding the acceptance of Syrian refugees. Advocates
emphasize primarily humanitarian responsibilities, while opponents cite national security
concerns and the possible admittance of terrorists alongside refugees – a fear that was intensified
following terrorist attacks in both Europe and the United States at the hands of foreigners (Toosi
2016). Despite the settlement of some 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States under
President Barack Obama in the last year, the debate still occupies the forefront of political
controversies accompanying the new administration under Donald Trump (Toosi 2016).
In light of the political debate surrounding the Syrian refugee dilemma, I set out to
explore the underlying causes of political opinions. Specifically, I hope to identify the impact the

2
emotion of disgust plays on peoples’ viewpoints of refugee crises and their willingness to accept
refugees into the United States. In doing so, I hope to illuminate the innate biological tendencies
under which humans operate, and by which many seemingly complex political situations can be
simplified. I predict that among those who are primed to feel disgusted, willingness measures to
accept Syrian refugees into the United States will be lower than those who do not feel disgusted.
Furthermore, I expect to see the effects of disgust in causing negative viewpoints towards
refugees to be amplified among conservative respondents, as well as among men.
The following analysis draws from various sources of extant literature to explore what is
already known about the emotion of disgust as it pertains to political viewpoints, political
ideologies, and gender. It also builds upon various other sources to gain support for additional
factors that I believe may affect respondents’ opinions on refugees, but that diverge from the
conclusions drawn in other studies. I then explain the research design, where I develop a single
factor survey experiment in which subjects are randomly assigned to either be primed for disgust
or not primed to feel disgust, prior to reading an article about the Syrian refugee crisis. I find that
despite previous findings, disgust does not affect subjects’ viewpoints in regards to Syrian
refugees. Finally, I conclude by discussing the implications of this study, which indicate disgust
as a political influencer may take a backseat to foundations such as political ideology or gender,
although potential methodological and theoretical design flaws are explored as well.
Hypothesis 1: Disgustand Ethnocentrism
Prior research indicates the emotion of disgust to be part of a “behavioral immune
system” that finds its roots in humanity’s evolutionary tendencies to avoid exposure to situations
and objects that may be perceived as contaminated or harmful (Inbar, Pizarro, Iyer, and Haidt

3
2012, 542). Physiologically speaking, the provocation of disgust occurs when the body perceives
a foreign threat and thereby works to expunge or avoid it. This evolutionary adaptation can have
a wide variety of applications, but recent studies have found that the emotion of disgust can be
dissected into three separate domains: pathogen disgust, sexual disgust, and moral disgust, which
all function in distinct yet fundamentally similar ways (Tybur, Lieberman, and Griskevicius,
2009, 117). For the purposes of my study, pathogen disgust offers the most applicable and
widespread understanding of the evolutionary forces that contribute to my hypotheses.
Specifically, pathogen disgust is seen as a mechanism developed to identify heuristic cues of
potential sources of disease and subsequently work to avoid their contact or expunge their
presence (Navarrete and Fessler 2006, 271).
Historically speaking, disease has often originated from the presence of foreign or
unknown groups, where the affected population lacks the proper antibodies to provide immunity.
As a result, these age-old pathogen avoidance mechanisms associate outsiders with the potential
for contagion and disease, and thereby encourage avoidance of the foreign group as an adaptive
survival strategy (Navarrete and Fessler 2006, 271; Inbar, Piazarro, Iyer, and Haidt 2012, 538).
Despite advances in medical technologies and widespread population interaction, recent studies
have found these deep-rooted tendencies to still play a role in human behavior. Specifically,
experiments that implemented various disgust primes or a higher perceived vulnerability to
disease saw increased feelings of stigmatization, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia towards foreign
groups among respondents (Navarrete and Fessler 2006, 279; Kurzban and Leary 2001, 192;
Faulkner, Schaller, Park and Duncan 2004, 349).
The evolutionary mechanisms of disgust and disease avoidance are not only attributed to
a raised level of out-group negativity, but also a higher sense of in-group attractiveness

4
(Navarrete and Fessler 2006, 279). In a study of pregnant women during their first trimester—the
period that poses the greatest pathological threat to both the fetus and the mother—respondents
indicated a marginally higher level of out-group negativity, but a significantly higher level of in-
group attraction (Navarrete, Fessler, and Eng 2007, 62). The study on pregnant women offers
two significant results. First, though hard to empirically ascertain, it can be presumed a higher
sense of in-group attractiveness also means greater disdain towards a disruption of this inner
circle, leading to the trends of increased ethnocentrism. In other words, whether it is a higher
sense of in-group attractiveness or out-group negativity, the end result is still an “othering” effect
that draws distinct lines between two social groups. Second, because the study on pregnant
women did not prime for the emotion of disgust or disease threat, it points to the subconscious
and biological nature in which these mechanisms often operate, sometimes beyond the domain of
past experiences or intergroup socialization.
In sum, the emotion of disgust is a physiological response of the human body that aims to
expunge foreign threats and avoid potentially contaminating situations. Over time, because of the
learned associations of foreign groups to an increased vulnerability to disease, evolutionary
mechanisms developed a behavioral immune system that promoted both higher levels of in-
group attractiveness, as well as out-group negativity, during instances of perceived pathological
threats. Despite the medical advances and global population interaction of present times, these
tendencies still play a large role in human behavior, often at a subconscious and biological level.
I therefore arrive at my first hypothesis:
Disgust Hypothesis: Among those who are primed to feel disgusted, willingness measures to
accept Syrian refugees into the United States will be lower than those who do not feel disgusted.

5
Hypothesis 2: Disgustand PoliticalIdeology
The emotion of disgust has sparked particular interest in studies regarding political
ideology and political attitudes. If disgust can be such a powerful biological motivator,
researchers have wondered what the implications of the emotion might be when applied to
political opinions. In various replicated studies, disgust sensitivity was found to be a powerful
predictor of political conservatism, where individuals who were more easily disgusted reported
higher levels of politically conservative orientations (Inbar, Pizarro, and Bloom 2009, 718;
Brenner and Inbar 2015, 31; Inbar, Pizarro, Iyer, and Haidt 2012: 541). In a subsequent study,
researchers surveyed 506 Dutch participants to go beyond political conservatism as a whole, and
look more closely at specific policy preferences. The results were consistent with previous
findings regarding disgust sensitivity and conservatism, but also found that disgust sensitivity—
particularly contamination disgust—was a significant predictor of “attitudes about
homosexuality, immigration and identifiable immigrant groups, and sexual behaviors” in
particular (Brenner and Inbar 2015, 33-35). These correlations reflect the heightened importance
of purity as a morally relevant and important virtue among conservatives, with disgust acting as a
perceived threat (Inbar, Pizarro, and Bloom 2009, 715).
Correlational studies have identified a positive relationship between disgust sensitivity
and political conservatism; however, it has also been found that there is a causal relationship
between disgust and conservatism. Studies have found that temporal priming of disgust causes
people to make more politically conservative judgments, regardless of their ideology (Inbar,
Pizarro, Iyer, and Haidt 2012, 537). In a study conducted on undergraduate students, participants
who were exposed to a disgusting odor had more negative views towards gay men than the
control group, regardless of their gender or political orientation (Inbar, Pizarro, Bloom 2009, 24-

6
25). These findings go beyond the correlational studies linking conservatism and higher disgust
sensitivity to suggest that making people feel disgusted results in more conservative viewpoints
overall. Furthermore, despite liberals having a lower sensitivity to disgust in general, certain
disgust primes have similar effects across the ideological spectrum.
However, with respect to the viewpoints of foreign groups, the effects of disgust and the
subsequent conservative lean are likely to be tempered by the makeup and values of those who
identify as liberal, as exemplified by the growing number of minorities within the Democratic
Party of the United States. Recent trends indicate that the Democratic Party is becoming more
ethnically and racially diverse, where already four in ten Democrats identify as something other
than non-Hispanic white (Newport 2013). Similarly, the Democratic Party platform stresses the
importance of racial tolerance and promotes immigration. In this respect, liberals are more likely
to be accepting of foreign groups due to their minority and immigrant makeup, as well as the
importance placed on social inclusion. There is likely to be less of an in-group versus out-group
dichotomy if respondents identify as culturally or geographically diverse themselves.
To summarize, the provocation of disgust causes all people, regardless of gender or
political ideology, to make more conservative judgments in general. However, the effects of
disgust primes are likely to be greater among conservative identifying individuals, who have
been found to have higher disgust sensitivities than liberals. Furthermore, because of the higher
percentage of minority and immigrant populations who identify as liberal, as well as the
emphasis on racial equality and social inclusion within the Democratic Party, the effects of
disgust as they pertain to in-group versus out-group perceptions among liberals are likely to be
tempered or outweighed.
Subsequently, I arrive at my second hypothesis:

7
Ideological Hypothesis: The impact of disgust on attitudes towards refugees will be stronger for
conservatives than for liberals.
Hypothesis 3: Disgustand Gender
There are many components within an individuals’ personality that determine their level
of disgust sensitivity. When it comes to gender, numerous studies have found that, generally
speaking, women are more disgust sensitive than men (Druschel and Sherman 1999, 745; Inbar,
Pizarro and Bloom 2009, 718). In large part, these findings have been attributed to evolutionary
mechanisms of disgust that developed among women as means of protecting reproductive fitness
and offspring from disease, where the costs of picking a diseased or unfit partner are far greater
for women (Balzer and Jacobs 2011, 1300; Tybur, Lieberman, and Grisketvicius 2009, 117).
However, because of the sexual foundation on which these mechanisms developed, these
findings have been somewhat limited in their application to the realms of pathogen and moral
disgust. In a study testing various individual and psychological differences across the three
domains of disgust, women showed significantly higher disgust sensitivity in comparison to men
in the sexual disgust category, but gender differences between men and women in the pathogen
and moral disgust domains were far less pronounced (Tybur, Lieberman, and Griskevicius 2009,
117).
Furthermore, more recent studies have raised questions about whether gender plays a role
in disgust sensitivity at all. Specifically, scholars have argued that higher levels of self-reported
disgust sensitivity among women reflect societal gender expectation roles, where women are
supposed to be more emotional, and men are expected to be impassive as a sign of dominance
(Balzer and Jacobs 2011, 1300). In support of this theory, a study conducted on 200 randomly
selected individuals found that men scored significantly higher on disgust sensitivity measures

8
that relied on subconscious, physiological reactions of the body than on self-reports, and that
these disgust sensitivity ratings were similar to those of women (Balzer and Jacobs 2011, 1307-
1308). The study found the opposite trend to be true for women, who showed higher self-
reported levels of disgust sensitivity than physiological, though the results did not reach
statistical significance (Balzer and Jacobs 2011, 1307-1308). These findings suggest that the
correlation between gender and disgust sensitivity may not be as strong as once believed. At the
very least, they point to a more complicated relationship between disgust and gender, where
disgust sensitivity may be subject to influences from societal gender roles and expectations, as
well as the tendency of individuals to conform to these roles by responding in what they believe
to be a socially desirable manner (Rohrmann, Hopp, and Quirin 2008, 72).
Moreover, political preferences and beliefs are the product of various influences, where
disgust is only one of many confounding factors. Specifically, given the humanitarian nature of
the refugee crisis in question, empathy levels are likely to be a significant determinant of
respondents’ viewpoints towards helping refugees in peril. Various studies have found that
women tend to display higher levels of empathy than men (Rueckert and Naybar 2008, 165).
These patterns seem to persist beyond the possible influences of societal expectations or social
desirability factors, as exemplified by higher levels of empathy among girls in a neurological
study performed on four-year-olds (Knickmeyer et al. 2006, 288.) More importantly, these
gender patterns in empathy differences have been found to hold true in relation to the perceptions
of foreign groups. In a study measuring gender differences in regards to ethnocultural empathy,
which measures empathy levels towards individuals of different ethnic or cultural backgrounds,
females scored significantly higher than males (Cundiff and Komarraju 2008, 5, 10). Outside of
the obvious implications, these results also yield significance in the fact that other studies found

9
high ethnocultrual empathy to be “predictive of positive attitudes towards disadvantaged groups”
(Cundiff and Komarraju 2008, 6).
Therefore, while certain studies indicate that women, in general, are more disgust
sensitive than their male counterparts, these results have been challenged in light of the
differences between self-reported and physiological disgust-rating measurements among male
and female respondents. Various scholars predict that certain societal pressures and preconceived
gender roles could have skewed the data to reflect what respondents’ may have presumed to be a
more socially desirable answer. Even in the instance that women truly are more disgust sensitive
than men, the vast majority of this disparity is found to reside only in the realm of sexual disgust,
and likely would not reach any notable significance when applied to pathogen or moral disgust
measurements. Finally, because of the probable role that empathy plays in acceptance attitudes
towards refugees, any differences in disgust sensitivity in women are likely to be muted by
higher levels of empathy overall, and specifically towards foreign or disadvantaged groups.
Thus, I arrive at my final hypothesis:
Gender hypothesis: The impact of disgust on attitudes towards refugees will be stronger for
males than for females.
Data and Methodology
To test the hypotheses surrounding the effects of disgust on viewpoints towards refugee
acceptance, I conducted a survey experiment that featured a randomized disgust prime.
Following the randomization for disgust elicitation, the survey featured an article consistent
across all conditions, which highlighted the important developments and viewpoints with respect
to the Syrian refugee crisis. The survey then asked respondents a series of questions to gauge

10
their opinions on Syrian refugees, as well as gathered their demographic information. A survey
experiment format was chosen, in particular, because it presented the most viable option for
reaching large quantities of people in a limited amount of time. While a lab experiment format
would have been helpful in minimizing non-compliance, a survey experiment fit better within the
logistical confines of my capabilities. A lab experiment would have presented substantial
difficulties in recruiting an appropriate amount of subjects and may have required incentives to
be offered to combat the time and energy required to complete the experiment. It also would
have been duly time intensive for myself in manning the lab and ensuring internally valid results.
Moreover, a survey experiment allowed for a subtle disgust prime to be an easy component to
manipulate, randomize, and administer. In particular, the Qualtrics survey software was chosen
for fielding the experiment due to convenient, low-cost administration and advanced random
assignment capabilities and data tracking. Below is a description of my study.
The experiment was conducted over a 10-day period and gathered responses from 410
individuals, recruited primarily through email chains and postings on social media outlets.1 Of
those that took the survey, 45.2% received the prime for disgust. A disproportionately large
number of respondents—roughly 79% of all responses received—represented the 18-24 year old
demographic, as many of the email blasts promoting the survey were targeted at fraternity and
sorority groups, on-campus clubs, and other TCU students. However, it is highly unlikely that
the large number of 18-24 year old respondents pose any sort of problem for external validity.
Studies have found differences between undergraduate students and the general population to be
indistinguishable when it comes to issues like partisanship, ideology, political involvement,
importance of religion, and, most pertinently, views on the contributions of immigrants to society
1 Although 410 individuals clicked on the survey experiment to take it, only 259 completed it. I will discuss the
implications of this attrition later in the paper.

11
(Druckman and Kam 2009, 21). In terms of ideology, the sample was disproportionately skewed
in favor of conservatives, where 42.4% identified as either “conservative” or “very
conservative.” This is in comparison to 37.6% of respondents who identified as moderate, and a
mere 20% who identified as liberal or very liberal (See Appendix E).2 The gender breakdown of
the sample inched closer to the desired normal distribution, though 55.7% of respondents
identified as male (See Appendix E). When analyzing these figures, it becomes increasingly
evident that while, holistically speaking, undergraduate studies may provide viable and
externally valid results, individual institutions each contain a unique makeup and culture that
may make generalizations of the overall population more difficult.
The survey experiment featured a between-subjects design with one factor and two
levels, for a total of two possible conditions. Upon clicking the link directing them to the
experiment, respondents were immediately assigned a randomized condition, in which one
constituted the experimental manipulation and the other was the control. In the first condition,
which primed for disgust, respondents were shown a fictitious advertisement that appears to have
originated from the Center for Disease Control (CDC). The advertisement features a picture of a
man mid-sneeze, and outlines statistics regarding both the quantity and velocity of the spread of
germs when sneezing, as well as an advisory from the CDC recommending a flu shot (See
Appendix A). The goal in crafting this falsified advertisement was to prime respondents for
disgust in a subtle yet meaningful way. Grounded in previous research regarding the three
domains of disgust, the advertisement purposely implemented a fairly grotesque picture of
sneezing to prime for pathogen disgust in particular, which was determined to be the most
relevant and applicable domain of disgust in light of my focus on foreign groups. Moreover, by
priming for disgust in the form of an advertisement, the overall intent of the experimental
2 I will discuss what these figures mean for my results later in the paper.

12
manipulation was not immediately apparent; respondents may have believed it to be part of the
Qualtrics software and not the experiment itself. Similarly, priming for pathogen disgust using an
ad from the CDC offered valuable experimental realism for subjects, which is seen as one of the
most important factors in achieving internal validity (McDermott 2011, 34). The advertisement
also contained a hidden timer system, which required at least four seconds to be spent on the
page before respondents were able to click through. The purpose of the timer was to mitigate a
passive form of noncompliance that would diminish the effects of the disgust prime and,
subsequently, threaten the internal validity of the experiment (McDermott 2009, 31). Meanwhile,
the Qualtrics survey software registered whether subjects were shown the advertisement, and
how many seconds transpired before they clicked through it.
In the other condition, which represented the control group, subjects did not receive the
disgust prime of the CDC advertisement, but instead were directed straight to an article that
discussed the Syrian refugee crisis. Aside from the CDC ad, the experiment remained the same
for all respondents across all conditions. In other words, the only experimental manipulation that
existed between the two conditions was the presence of the disgust prime. All subjects were
directed to a news article that provided background information on the Syrian refugee crisis, both
in the context of the country of Syria as well as the U.S. political dilemma that accompanies the
dispersal of refugees (See Appendix B). Holistically speaking, the article provided information to
respondents who otherwise might be unaware or uninformed as to the details of the Syrian
refugee crisis. Increasing respondents’ knowledge of the Syrian refugee crisis prior to
questioning helped to minimize the amount of ungrounded and errant responses that may have
been driven by the social desirability of being informed. More specifically, this falsified article
drew on language from a variety of outside sources to create a compilation report on the Syrian

13
refugee crisis. The purpose in selecting phraseology from various news outlets was to minimize
the amount of political bias within the article that could potentially influence respondents’
viewpoints on the issue. The brevity helped provide a succinct summary of the Syrian refugee
crisis in an attempt to mitigate attrition rates of respondents’ with limited time to complete the
survey.
Upon reading the article, subjects were presented with a series of six statements in which
they were asked to rate their overall level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from
“Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree” (See Appendix C). The questions hit on issues
pertaining to national security, the economy, humanitarian responsibility, and the subsequent role
of the U.S. across these topics, as it pertains to Syrian refugees. The questions were formulated
to gather data on a wide range of driving factors for viewpoints on refugees, as well as isolate
concerns over various topics, where respondents may prioritize national security threats but not
economic burdens, for example. Additionally, the questions were phrased in both the positive
and negative directions to minimize the potential for acquiescence bias among subjects who were
unsure about their responses. It also forced subjects to take ample time reading the various
statements by implementing a certain level of unpredictability across the questions. To
operationalize responses to these questions, the levels of agreement were assigned a number,
ranging from 1 to 5, as part of an overarching index measuring the respondents’ willingness to
accept Syrian refugees into the United States (See Appendix C). The numbers correlate to
respondents’ perceptions of Syrian refugees, where lower numbers indicate a more positive and
accepting viewpoint, and higher numbers reflect a more negative and isolationist viewpoint.
Questions phrased in the positive were reverse coded in their number assignments in order to
arrive at an accurate summation of the dependent variable. Next, a dimension reduction factor

14
analysis was conducted to ensure that all component questions making up the dependent variable
measured the same underlying concept, and only one measured component was extracted (See
Table 1). Thus, the numbers corresponding to responses from all six of the questions regarding
refugees were combined and averaged to create a single dependent variable, thereby offering a
straightforward and quantitative way to measure respondents’ opinions on Syrian refugees across
both conditions.
Table 1: Component Matrixa
Component
1
The United States should acceptas many Syrian refugees as possible. .870
The United States should notadmitany more refugees from Syria. .849
Muslim refugees pose a national securitythreat to the United States. .854
The U.S. has a humanitarian obligation to help refugees. .781
Refugees pose an economic burden to the U.S. .697
Refugees contribute importantdiversityto the United States. .812
Extraction Method: Principal ComponentAnalysis.
a. 1 components extracted.
The final part of the survey related to demographic questions about the subjects.
Questions gathered information regarding age, gender, race, party identification, and political
ideology of respondents (See Appendix D). These demographic questions provided the
information needed to measure the average conditional treatment effect of disgust across both
ideology and gender, as well as a host of other factors. Furthermore, the questions offered
important figures that assist in gauging whether the sample is likely to be an externally valid
representation of the population.

15
Results
Hypothesis 1: Disgust
Experimental data gathered in regards to subjects’ attitudes towards refugees and refugee
crises finds the disgust prime within the survey experiment to have no effect (See Figure 1).
Across 259 responses gathered from the survey, the mean for the dependent variable summation
of refugee attitudes was a 2.89 on a 5-point scale, with a standard deviation of .95 (See Appendix
E). In other words, responses followed a relatively normal distribution, only slightly skewed in a
more favorable direction for refugees (a perfect distribution would have had a mean of 3 on the
5-point scale). Despite this normal distribution, the presence of a disgust prime had no effect on
attitudinal preferences, with a statistical significance finding of 1.000 when comparing mean
values of responses across both conditions (See Table 2).
Table 2: Refugee Attitudes and Disgust Prime
Refugee Attitude Average: dv_sum
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 5.810E-8a
1 5.810E-8 .000 1.000
Intercept 2147.754 1 2147.754 2341.181 .000
DisgustPrime 5.810E-8 1 5.810E-8 .000 1.000
Error 235.767 257 .917
Total 2403.722 259
Corrected Total 235.767 258
a. R Squared = .000 (Adjusted R Squared = -.004)

16
Note: Refugee attitude scale is based on mean values of the averages taken across all statements as part of the dependent
variable index. Lower values indicate more positive, accepting attitudes towards refugees, while higher numbers indicate
more negative, isolationist views.
Hypothesis 2: Disgust and Ideology
The effect of the disgust prime when controlling for ideology was not statistically
significant, though the significance finding increased from 1.000 to .148 (See Table 3).
Similarly, the disgust prime and ideology interaction present more statistically significant results
than disgust as a single variable, though still only reaching a significance level of .585 (See
Table 3). However, these figure are likely false positives, deriving their increase in significance
from the small amount of respondents that answered on either end of the ideological extremes; of
the 255 respondents who gave their political ideology, only 29 individuals identified as “very
conservative,” and a mere 12 individuals identified as “very liberal” (See Appendix E).
Figure 1:

17
Figure 2:
Therefore, based on the data seen in the larger liberal, moderate, and conservative sample
groups, it is unlikely the trend of significance would continue with a larger sample. Political
ideology alone is found to be highly significant, with a full 1.814 average point difference in
attitudes towards refugees among subjects’ identifying as either “very conservative” or
“conservative” and “very liberal” or “liberal,” and a statistical significance finding of .000 (See
Figure 2).
Note: Refugee attitude scale is based on mean values of the averages taken across all statements as part of the
dependent variable index. Lower values indicate more positive, accepting attitudes towards refugees, while
higher numbers indicate morenegative, isolationist views.

18
Hypothesis 3: Disgust and Gender
When the conditional treatment effect of gender is applied to the experimental analysis,
again I find that the disgust prime has no statistically significant effect, with a significance value
of .700. Much like ideology, the interaction of disgust and gender increases the significance
value of the disgust prime from 1.000 to .447, though this is still largely out of the range of
statistical significance (See Table 4). However, gender in itself is found to be highly significant,
with men rating their opinions towards refugees more negatively than women by an average of
0.53 points higher on the 5-point attitudinal scale, with a significance value of .000 (See Figure
3; Table 4).
Table 3: Refugee Attitudes and Disgust Prime Controlling for Ideology
Source
Type III Sum of
Corrected Model 100.371a
9 11.152 21.081 .000
Intercept 1031.772 1 1031.772 1950.377 .000
DisgustPrime 1.114 1 1.114 2.107 .148
Ideology 95.345 4 23.836 45.058 .000
DisgustPrime * Ideology
Interaction
1.506 4 .376 .712 .585
Error 129.608 245 .529
Total 2344.667 255
a. R Squared = .436 (Adjusted R Squared = .416)

19
Figure 3:
Note: Refugee attitude scale is based on mean values of the averages taken across all statements as part of the dependent
variable index. Lower values indicate more positive, accepting attitudes towards refugees, while higher numbers indicate
more negative, isolationist views.
Table 4: Refugee Attitudes and Disgust Prime Controlling for Gender
Source
Type III Sum of
Corrected Model 18.036a
3 6.012 7.210 .000
Intercept 2025.820 1 2025.820 2429.587 .000
DisgustPrime .124 1 .124 .149 .700
Gender 17.967 1 17.967 21.548 .000
DisgustPrime * Gender
Interaction
.483 1 .483 .580 .447
Error 209.287 251 .834
Total 2358.361 255
a. R Squared = .079 (Adjusted R Squared = .068)

20
Conclusion
Based on all the findings in my experiment, I fail to reject the null hypotheses, thereby
calling into question the true effects of disgust both generally, as well as in relation to political
ideology and gender. Admittedly, the lack of substantial and statistically significant results came
with a great deal of surprise, especially in light of the rich foundation of findings and research
that preceded and grounded my study. In this regard, it appears that perhaps a number of
methodological oversights lie culprit to such a profound lack of findings, though I explore
possible theoretical explanations as well.
Though hindsight always provides clarity, I now firmly believe that a laboratory
experiment would have offered a far more effective and accurate way to ensure the disgust prime
was properly administered to subjects. While I have previously discussed my reasoning behind
electing a survey experiment due to its relative ease, low cost, and wide scope, a lab experiment
would have drastically mitigated the presumably high level of non-compliance associated with
taking an online survey. Furthermore, by deciding to implement a subtle disgust prime in the
form of an advertisement, I likely inadvertently increased the level of disengagement among
subjects, who are continually pestered and overstimulated with advertisements on a daily basis.
In fact, in a marketing study done by Adobe, it was found that only 8% of consumers even paid
attention to an online advertisement in the first place, a number well below traditional forms of
advertising like TV or radio (Wenlei 2013). Furthermore, 68% of consumers said that they found
online advertisements to be “annoying” and “distracting” (Adobe 2012). These findings suggest
that incorporating the disgust prime into the survey in the form of an advertisement might have
had subconscious effects on subjects—but not the intended effects of disgust. Rather, it is

21
possible that simply the act of viewing an advertisement caused subjects to disregard the
information entirely, thus eliminating any possibility of an effective disgust prime.
On a similar note, the number of registered responses compared to the number of fully
completed responses points to an egregiously high attrition rate. Of a total of 410 registered
responses, only 259 provided complete and viable data that could be used for the experiment. I
cannot say for certain, however, that a software error did not cause these numbers, as a large
portion of responses were empty in sometimes 30 consecutive subject inputs. Regardless, the
63% return on data indicates a problem existed, albeit unclear what percentage can be attributed
to an attrition rate within the experiment, and what percentage came as a result of a technological
glitch within the Qualtrics software itself.
Despite the attrition rate, however, I do not believe the demographics of the surveyed
population are reason for the lack of findings. The most notable demographic skews, as
aforementioned, were age and political ideology, where 79% of respondents were between 18
and 24 years old, and more than two times the amount of respondents identified themselves as
conservative as opposed to liberal. Nonetheless, if anything, these demographic skews would be
far more likely to create a Type I error due to the higher disgust sensitivities of these groups. As
previously discussed, conservatives have a higher disgust sensitivity than liberals, and therefore
would have been more likely to be affected by the CDC advertisement disgust prime. Similarly,
research has found that younger people tend report higher disgust sensitivities than older
individuals (Quigley, M. Sherman and N. Sherman 1997: 665). Based on these findings, it is safe
to assume the demographic makeup of my sample did not contribute to the lack of results.
Another potential methodological problem that could be leading to Type II error is the
order in which the disgust prime and survey were given. Subjects were primed for disgust first,

22
then presented an article about Syrian refugees and directed to respond to a series of statements.
It is possible that had the disgust prime been administered after the article but prior to
questioning, the effect of disgust would have been more memorable and fresh and, thus, had
more of an effect on political attitudes. However, previous research indicates that disgust tends to
have a lasting role in cognitive memory (Chapman, Johannes, Poppenk, Moscovitch, and
Anderson 2013, 1103). Again, these cognitive tendencies are rooted in evolutionary biology,
where animals with better associative memories of disgust elicitors were less likely to ingest
foods that were potentially harmful (Brewer 2010). Therefore, it is unlikely that the time lapse
between the disgust prime and the series of questions had any substantial effect. The caveat must
be added, however, that most studies on disgust and memory focus on correlative associations to
certain disgust-producing stimuli. Further research is required to understand the lasting emotion
of disgust overall.
Alternatively, perhaps the lack of findings has nothing to do with methodological errors
within the experiment, but rather with theoretical errors instead. For example, it is possible that
previous research that finds people to become more conservative following a disgust elicitation
presents more of a “snowball-effect” type finding, where miniscule changes in political attitudes
following a disgust prime manifest themselves over a broad series of detailed political-attitude
measures. In this sense, perhaps the lack of findings is rooted in both a methodological and
theoretical error within the experiment. It is possible that the effects of disgust are quite minute,
and generally take a backseat to predetermined judgments and ideas in regards to individual
policies. If this is the case, the statistically significant results previously found in respect to
disgust and conservatism could be a result of the compounding differences in small attitudinal
changes over a series of many measures. Thus, it is possible that the effects of disgust were not

23
picked up in my experiment because of the limitations of measuring a single policy, using only
six questions to do so, whilst being bound within the confines of a 5-point Likert scale. Put
another way, perhaps the effects of disgust only become evident over a prolonged number of
questions addressing a variety of policies with a measurement scale more fit to identify miniscule
changes in political attitudes.
Undoubtedly, there are a number of possible explanations as to why the experiment did
not produce any significant results, both methodological and theological in nature. The emotion
of disgust as it pertains to political science is a relatively juvenile, budding field with vast
quantities of questions yet to be answered. However, despite the lack of findings, not all is lost.
If anything, my results underscore the growing body of research that finds party identification
and social identity to be two veritably impenetrable complexes that govern the vast majority of
individuals’ political attitudes and preferences. As my results indicate, factors like political
ideology and gender are incredibly strong predictors of individuals’ attitudes towards refugees.
With a trend of increasing polarization between the two major parties in the United States, it is
possible that these complexes are becoming more powerful, fueled by growing animosity
towards the other party and the subsequent tendency to adhere more strongly to group-think
principles (Haidt and Iyer 2016). Regardless of the factors at play, ideology, party identification,
and social identities seem to be at the heart of most political decisions. Further research is
required to explore the limits of these political determinants, and to what extent certain emotions
(e.g. disgust) play a role in influencing these constructs.

24
References
Adobe Report. 2012. “The State of Online Advertising.” (October) http://www.adobe.com/abouta
dobe/pressroom/pdfs/Adobe_State_of_Online_Advertising_Study.pdf
Balzer, Amanda, and Carly M. Jacobs. 2011. "Gender and Physiological Effects in Connecting
Disgust to Political Preferences." Social Science Quarterly 92 (5): 1297-1313.
Brenner, Corinne J., and Yoel Inbar. 2015. "Disgust Sensitivity Predicts Political Ideology and
Policy Attitudes in the Netherlands." European Journal of Social Psychology 45 (1): 27-
38.
Brewer, Joe. 2010. “Why You Should Care About the Psychology of Disgust.” Truthout News,
http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/89868:joe-brewer--why-you-should-care-
about-the-psychology-of-disgust
Chapman, Hanah A., Kristen Johannes, Jordan L. Poppenk, Morris Moscovitch, and Adam K.
Anderson. 2013. “Evidence for the Differential Salience of Disgust and Fear in Episodic
Memory.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142 (4): 1100-1112.
Cundiff, Nicole L., and Meera Komarraju. 2008. "Gender Differences in Ethnocultural Empathy
and Attitudes Toward Men and Women in Authority." Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies 15 (1) (August 01): 5-15.
Druckman, James N. and Cindy D. Kam. 2009. “Students as Experimental Participants: A
Defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base.’” Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern
University.
Druschel, B. a., and M. F. Sherman. 1999. "Disgust Sensitivity as a Function of the Big Five and
Gender." Personality and Individual Differences 26 (4): 739-748.
Faulkner, Jason, Mark Schaller, Justin H. Park, and Lesley A. Duncan. 2004. "Evolved Disease-
Avoidance Mechanisms and Contemporary Xenophobic Attitudes." Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations 7 (4) (October 01): 333-353.
Haidt, Jonathan and Ravi Iyer. 2016. “How to Get Beyond Our Tribal Politics.” The Wall Street
Journal, 04 November 2016. http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-get-beyond-our-tribal-poli
tics-1478271810
Hermans, Erno J., Peter Putman, and Jack van Honk. 2006. "Testosterone Administration
Reduces Empathetic Behavior: A Facial Mimicry Study." Psychoneuroendocrinology 31
(7): 859-866.
Inbar, Yoel, David A. Pizarro, and Paul Bloom. 2009. "Conservatives are More Easily Disgusted
than Liberals." Cognition & Emotion 23 (4): 714-725.

25
Inbar, Yoel, David Pizarro, Ravi Iyer, and Jonathan Haidt. 2012. "Disgust Sensitivity, Political
Conservatism, and Voting." Social Psychological and Personality Science 3 (5)
(September 01): 537-544.
Knickmeyer, Rebecca, Simon Baron-Cohen, Peter Raggatt, Kevin Taylor, and Gerald Hackett.
2006. "Fetal Testosterone and Empathy." Hormones and Behavior 49 (3): 282-292.
Kurzban, Robert, and Mark R. Leary. 2001. "Evolutionary Origins of Stigmatization: The
Functions of Social Exclusion." Psychological Bulletin 127 (2): 187-208.
McDermott Rose. 2011. “Internal and External Validity.” In Cambridge Handbook of
Experimental Political Science. GB: Cambridge University Press – M.U.A.
Navarrete, Carlos D., and Daniel M. T. Fessler. 2006. "Disease Avoidance and Ethnocentrism:
The Effects of Disease Vulnerability and Disgust Sensitivity on Intergroup Attitudes."
Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (4): 270-282.
Navarrete, Carlos D., Daniel M. T. Fessler, and Serena J. Eng. 2007. "Elevated Ethnocentrism in
the First Trimester of Pregnancy." Evolution and Human Behavior 28 (1): 60-65.
Newport, Frank. 2013. “Democrats Racially Diverse; Republicans Mostly White.” Gallup, 8
February 2013. http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-
republicans-mostly-white.aspx
Quigley, John F., Martin F. Sherman, and Nancy C. Sherman. 1997. "Personality Disorder
Symptoms, Gender, and Age as Predictors of Adolescent Disgust Sensitivity."
Personality and Individual Differences 22 (5): 661-667.
Rogers, Lucy, James Offer, and Patrick Asare. 2016. "Syria: The Story of the Conflict." BBC
News, 11 March 2016. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868
Rohrmann, Sonja, Henrik Hopp, and Markus Quirin. 2008. "Gender Differences in
Psychophysiological Responses to Disgust." Journal of Psychophysiology 22 (2): 65-75.
Rueckert, Linda, and Nicolette Naybar. 2008. "Gender Differences in Empathy: The Role of the
Right Hemisphere." Brain and Cognition 67 (2): 162-167.
Toosi, Nahal. 2016. "10,000th Syrian Refugee Arrives in U.S.” Politico, 29 August 2016.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/how-many-syrian-refugees-are-in-america-
227505
Tybur, Joshua M., Debra Lieberman, and Vladas Griskevicius. 2009. "Microbes, Mating, and
Morality: Individual Differences in Three Functional Domains of Disgust." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 97 (1): 103-122.

26
Wenlei, Ma. 2013 "No One's Paying Attention to Digital Ads...Well, 8% Are " AdNews, Jun 13,
2013. http://www.adnews.com.au/adnews/no-one-s-paying-attention-to-digital-ads-well-
8-are

27
Appendix A
“Sneezes can travel up to
30 miles an hour, and can
spread thousands of germs
up to
17 feet away.”
For the 2016-2017 season, CDC recommends use of the
flushot (inact iv ated influe nza v accine or IIV) and the
recombinant influ
e
nza v accine (RIV).
Spread the word, not the flu
.

28
Appendix B
More than 250,000 Syrians have lost their lives in four-
and-a-half years of armed conflict, which began with anti-
government protests before escalating into a full-scale
civil war. More than 11 million others have been forced
from their homes as forces loyal to President Bashar al-
Assad and those opposed to his rule battle each other -
as well as jihadist militants from so-called Islamic State.
The Syrian refugee crisis has called into question how
nations should address the millions of embattled people
fleeing dangerous conditions in their home countries.
In the United States, Democrats and Republicans have
gone head to head on how to approach the situation.
President Barack Obama on Monday reached his goal
of ushering into the United States the 10,000th Syrian
refugee this fiscal year — a development that comes one
month ahead of schedule and just as immigration has again
become a hot topic on the presidential campaign trail.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has said the
United States should welcome refugees, while Bernie
Sanders has called on the international community to
respond, along with the U.S. On the Republican front,
Donald Trump has made it clear that Syrian refugees are
not America’s problem, and he and other Republicans are
against them being admitted to the country altogether.

29
Appendix C
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. The U.S. should accept as many
refugees as possible
5 4 3 2 1
2. The United States should not
admit any more Syrian refugees
1 2 3 4 5
3. Syrian refugees pose a national
security threat to the United
States
1 2 3 4 5
4. The U.S. has a humanitarian
obligation to help refugees
5 4 3 2 1
5. Refugees pose an economic
burden on the U.S.
1 2 3 4 5
6. Refugees contribute important
diversity to the United States
5 4 3 2 1

31
Appendix E
Hypothesis 1: Disgust
Descriptive Statistics
Presence of
DisgustPrime Mean Std. Deviation N
No 2.8932 .95079 142
Yes 2.8932 .96626 117
Total 2.8932 .95594 259
Hypothesis 2: Disgust and Ideology
Presence of
DisgustPrime
How would you classifyyour political
ideology? Mean Std. Deviation N
No Very Liberal 1.2333 .14907 5
Liberal 1.9833 .45209 20
Moderate 2.6633 .74344 50
Conservative 3.4216 .61766 51
Very Conservative 3.5256 1.27629 13
Total 2.8729 .94037 139
Yes Very Liberal 1.7143 .53328 7
Liberal 1.9386 .56713 19
Moderate 2.8333 .88819 46
Very Conservative 3.8438 .60390 16
Total 2.8879 .96878 116
Total Very Liberal 1.5139 .47385 12
Liberal 1.9615 .50504 39
Moderate 2.7448 .81612 96
Very Conservative 3.7011 .95886 29
Total 2.8797 .95154 255

32
Appendix E (cont.)
How would you classify your political ideology?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very Liberal 12 4.6 4.7 4.7
Liberal 39 15.1 15.3 20.0
Moderate 96 37.1 37.6 57.6
Conservative 79 30.5 31.0 88.6
Very Conservative 29 11.2 11.4 100.0
Total 255 98.5 100.0
Missing System 4 1.5
Total 259 100.0
Hypothesis 3: Disgust and Gender
Presence of
DisgustPrime
With what gender do you most
identify? Mean Std. Deviation N
No Male 3.1036 .85239 74
Female 2.6538 .96299 65
Total 2.8933 .93013 139
Yes Male 3.1471 .89893 68
Female 2.5208 .95379 48
Total 2.8879 .96878 116
Total Male 3.1244 .87213 142
Female 2.5973 .95710 113
Total 2.8908 .94603 255

33
Appendix E (cont.)
With what gender do you most identify?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 142 54.8 55.7 55.7
Female 113 43.6 44.3 100.0
Total 255 98.5 100.0
Missing System 4 1.5
Total 259 100.0

Disgust and Syrian Refugees FINAL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Disgust and Syrian Refugees FINAL

Similar to Disgust and Syrian Refugees FINAL (20)

Disgust and Syrian Refugees FINAL