↓ Skip to main content

Disgust, Sadness, and Appraisal: Disgusted Consumers Dislike Food More Than Sad Ones

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Disgust, Sadness, and Appraisal: Disgusted Consumers Dislike Food More Than Sad Ones
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00076
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kosuke Motoki, Motoaki Sugiura

Abstract

According to the affect-as-information framework, consumers base judgments on their feelings. Disgust is associated with two kinds of appraisal: one in which the consumer avoids and distances him/herself immediately from the object concerned, and another in which the consumer is disgusted due to contamination and impurities within the environment. The first instance indicates that disgust can decrease a consumer's preference for a product, regardless of its category. In contrast, the second case suggests that a product's degree of depreciation is greater in products vulnerable to contamination, such as foods. However, it remains largely unknown how incidental disgust affects product preferences in accordance with the two appraisal-related goals. The present research investigates how incidental disgust (as opposed to sadness, an equally valenced but distinct emotion of appraisal) influences consumer preferences for products with or without a risk of contamination. Twenty-four participants repeatedly judged foods or household products after seeing an emotional image (conveying disgust, sadness, or neutrality). Foods and household products are the two representative product categories in grocery stores, but only foods are associated with a risk of contamination. The results showed that incidental disgust led to negative evaluations of both types of products; however, compared to sadness, incidental disgust demonstrated a stronger negative effect on preference for foods than household products. These findings elucidate that disgust and the appraisal of contamination specifically devalue foods, and broaden the application of the appraisal-information framework in consumer settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Other 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 17 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 23%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 18%
Computer Science 3 8%
Engineering 2 5%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 18 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 February 2018.
All research outputs
#18,583,054
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,489
of 30,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,785
of 437,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#454
of 503 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,271 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 503 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.