Immoral, infectious, or both? How disgust sensitivity predicts judgments of violations against COVID‐19 mitigation actions

Abstract

AbstractViolations against mitigation actions to prevent the spreading of the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus causing COVID‐19, such as not wearing a mask or not practicing social distancing, were seen as immoral and could also increase the likelihood of spreading the virus. In two studies (N1 = 318, N2 = 293), we found that moral and pathogen disgust sensitivity differentially predicted perceptions of such COVID‐19 violations against mitigation actions, framed as a moral, pathogen, or on a good‐bad dimension, albeit in a less specific way than initially hypothesized (e.g., regarding the pathogenic framed violations, not only pathogen but also moral disgust was associated with higher perceptions of infectiousness). These results suggest that individual differences, especially in pathogen disgust (and, more inconsistently, moral disgust), are important when evaluating violations against mitigation actions. Further research on the role of moral disgust is needed.