Different influences of moral violation with and without physical impurity on face processing: An event-related potentials study

Siyu Jiang; Ming Peng; Xiaohui Wang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243929

Abstract

It has been widely accepted that moral violations that involve impurity (such as spitting in public) induce the emotion of disgust, but there has been a debate about whether moral violations that do not involve impurity (such as swearing in public) also induce the same emotion. The answer to this question may have implication for understanding where morality comes from and how people make moral judgments. This study aimed to compared the neural mechanisms underlying two kinds of moral violation by using an affective priming task to test the effect of sentences depicting moral violation behaviors with and without physical impurity on subsequent detection of disgusted faces in a visual search task. After reading each sentence, participants completed the face search task. Behavioral and electrophysiological (event-related potential, or ERP) indices of affective priming (P2, N400, LPP) and attention allocation (N2pc) were analyzed. Results of behavioral data and ERP data showed that moral violations both with and without impurity promoted the detection of disgusted faces (RT, N2pc); moral violations without impurity impeded the detection of neutral faces (N400). No priming effect was found on P2 and LPP. The results suggest both types of moral violation influenced the processing of disgusted faces and neutral faces, but the neural activity with temporal characteristics was different.

Citation: Jiang S, Peng M, Wang X (2020) Different influences of moral violation with and without physical impurity on face processing: An event-related potentials study. PLoS ONE 15(12): e0243929. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243929

Editor: Natalie J. Shook, University of Connecticut, UNITED STATES

Received: June 12, 2020; Accepted: November 30, 2020; Published: December 16, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Jiang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding: This research was supported by the MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences (No.18YJC90018), self-determined research funds of CCNU from the colleges’ basic research and operation of MOE (CCNU19TD018), and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (CCNU20QN024). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Moral judgment and disgust emotion

Moral violation behavior is one example of a behavior against social norms [1]. How do people judge whether a behavior is a moral violation in daily life? Psychologists have been paying attention to this problem for a long time [2,3]. The study of people’s moral judgment can help us understand how social norms are formulated and how social order is maintained [4–7]. Several theories have tried to explain moral judgment using the concepts of moral reasoning (e.g., Piaget’s moral cognitive development model) [2,3], moral emotion (e.g., the social intuitionist model) [8,9], or both (e.g., dual-processing theory) [10]. Both the social intuitionist model and dual-processing theory emphasize that moral emotions, such as disgust, anger and empathy, play an important role in moral judgment. Specifically, people make more extreme judgments about others’ moral behavior when they feel strong emotion. However, there has been controversy about judgments of moral behavior and the specific emotion of disgust.

The primary function of disgust is to prevent contact with pathogens and encourage avoidance of things that may carry pathogens [11–14]. Disgust are often induced by excrement, rotten food, blood, certain sexual behaviors, bodily wounds, illness, an unhealthy body [11,15]. Disgust also makes people pay selective attention to stimuli that heuristically connote the presence of diseases, such as anomalous face, the obese [16], and the elderly [17–19]. Moreover, people may also respond with disgust when others violate moral standards. Moral violations involving impurities can cause the spread of pathogens; this belief induces the emotion of disgust [9,20–22]. However, not all moral violations involve impurities. There is still controversy over whether moral violations without impurities also induce the emotion of disgust. The answer to this question may have implication for understanding where morality comes from and how people make moral judgments [23–25].

The emotion of disgust and moral violations with and without impurity

Some researchers have considered disgust to be a specific reaction to violations of purity or sanctity [20,21]. They proposed the CAD triad hypothesis, which links anger to autonomy (individual rights violations), contempt to community (violation of communal codes, including hierarchy), and disgust to divinity (violations of purity-sanctity) [21]. They asserted that people say they are “disgusted” at harm (e.g. demeaning offences) or unfairness only because of semantic confusion with other emotions, such as anger [26]. Rozin et al. [21] asked participants to read sentences depicting different kinds of moral violations, and to describe each sentence with an emotional word or an emotional face. Participants used the word “disgust” or a disgusted face more often when describing moral violations with physical impurity (such as "a person is watching someone as he/she bites into an apple with a worm in it") than moral violations without physical impurity (such as “a person is seeing someone steal a purse from a blind person.”). Horberg, et al. [20] found similar results by using vignettes rather than sentences as stimuli.

However, other researchers have speculated that disgust may arise when a person is seen as having a fundamentally bad character, regardless of what type of moral norm they have violated [15,27–30]. They found that disgust can also be triggered by behaviors that violate human dignity [31], and in some cases justice [32]—can help prevent further victimization [23]. For example, participants used “disgust” and “anger” to express their feelings in response to various social moral violations [33–35]. When the participants accepted an unfair distribution, a moral violation without physical impurity, they showed a disgusted facial expression, i.e., obvious facial levator activity [33,34]. In another study, interpersonally unfair treatment at work, defined as treatment that violated an individual’s sense of dignity and respect, triggered the emotion of disgust [35]. The results of these studies suggest that disgust can be induced not only by moral violations with physical impurity, but also those without physical impurity.

Neural mechanisms underlying moral violations with and without impurity.

It’s rather difficult to make it clear that whether disgusted emotion induced by moral violations with impurity was the same as moral violations without impurity by using verbal report [33]. However, it could be better to combine neuropsychological techniques, e.g. fMRI or ERPs, to reveal their neural mechanisms to get what happened underlying different kinds of moral violation. Several studies have been conducted using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine the biological mechanisms of two kinds of moral violations. Sanfey et al. [32] showed that when the participants encountered unfair distribution in an ultimatum game, the anterior insula, dorsolateral prefrontal lobe and anterior cingulate gyrus were significantly activated. The recruitment of similar neural structures, namely the anterior insula, in both purity and moral violation. Moll et al. [36] compared brain regions that were activated when participants were processing pure disgust (physical violation without moral violation) and moral disgust (moral violation without physical impurity). They found that two kinds of violation recruited overlapping neural substrates, such as medial orbitofrontal; and distinct brain regions, mainly in the frontal and temporal lobes.

Studies using ERP data have also been helpful in identifying the time course of two kinds of moral violation. Yang and colleagues [23,24,37] conducted a series of ERP studies to examine this issue. In one study [37], they used a Go/No-Go paradigm to evoke lateralized readiness potentials (LRPs) and found that moral information was processed prior to physical disgust. In another study [23], participants were asked to judge the acceptability of different types of behaviors that varied in their level of moral wrongness (moral vs. immoral) and physical disgust (with or without physical disgust). They found that immoral behaviors with or without physical disgust elicited greater amplitudes of 300–400 ms and 500–600 ms at frontal sites than morally neutral yet physically disgusting behaviors. These researchers also used the recognition potential (RP) of 200-300ms to investigate how individual differences in moral preferences regulate moral or disgust words processing in the pre-semantic stage [24]. The results showed that participants who had lower scores in the harm and care related moral violations showed significantly larger RP amplitudes for disgust words than for neutral words. These studies demonstrated moral violation behavior and physically disgusting behavior were differed in the time course of neural activity. However, there was no consistent conclusion on whether there is a difference between moral violation behavior with and without physically disgusting characteristics. In this study, we explored the neural mechanism underlying these two kinds of moral violation by compared their different influences on subsequent social information processing.

Emotion induced by moral violations influence subsequent processing

According to social intuitionist model [8], moral violations can trigger moral emotions, which can directly influence people’s behavior and judgment [38–40]. There is some evidence to support this model with regard to the moral emotion of disgust. For example, in one study participants who read about a moral violation found a drink to be more disgusting than other participants who were given the same drink; participants in the moral violation condition were also less likely to drink the disgusting beverage [41]. However, no studies to date have examined whether different kinds of moral violations have the similar effect on subsequent emotion processing. This research gap provides an opportunity to further explore the different neural mechanisms underlying moral violations. The current experiment was an affective priming study in which emotion, especially disgust, was assessed in terms of its influence on the processing of social information.

In affective priming studies [42–45], participants are presented with background information (pictures, words, sentences), and then presented with faces showing different affective expressions. Facilitated processing (reaction times) is showed in affectively congruent targets and impaired processing is showed in incongruent ones, a phenomenon known as the affective priming effect. The presentation of priming stimuli can automatically activate the related emotional representations of the brain and carry out implicit emotional processing [46,47]. Multiple studies have shown the priming effect, and this effect can be also detected using ERP data [45,48,49].

Three ERP components, P2, N400, and LPP are of interest in affective priming tasks [48–51]. P2, which usually peaks around 200–250 ms, is located over the centro-frontal and the parieto-occipital region. It represents some aspects of higher-order perceptual processing, modulated by attention to visual stimuli [52]. N400 is a negative deflection observed around 400 ms after target presentation at centro-parietal scalp electrodes. It is sensitive to semantic relatedness and congruency [48]. LPP is a central-parietal, midline component that becomes evident after 300 ms following the presentation of emotional stimuli onset and can be increased for several seconds [53]. It has been associated with emotional processing of faces and appraisal of affective meaning [54,55]. These components have shown sensitivity to the effects of affective priming on the visual processing of emotional faces [49–51,56,57]. Compared with the target faces with inconsistent background information emotion, the target faces with consistent background information emotion elicited larger P2 amplitude in frontal lobe [49,50]. On the contrary, when compared with emotionally consistent priming background-target pairs, inconsistent priming background-target pairs elicited larger N400 and LPP amplitudes [51,56,57].

Overview of this study

In this study, we employed a priming paradigm in which we presented sentences about moral violations and sentences about neutral behaviors as the priming materials before participants were asked to detect faces that expressed disgust. Participants’ reaction times and ERP data were collected to test whether moral violation behaviors with and without physical impurity had the same influence on subsequent face processing.

Compared with a recognition task that presents a single face [48,56], the face search task is more sensitive in detecting early perceptual processing [51,52]. For example, two studies revealed that when a negative face was the target and a neutral face served as the distractor, an N2pc wave was elicited in the early stage of information processing [58,59]. N2pc was also observed over occipital scalp electrodes in the time range of 180–300 ms after stimulus onset contralateral to the side of an attended visual event [60]. It is generally believed that N2pc is closely related to spatial selective attention [61], and N2pc is often used as an indicator of attention allocation to target stimuli [62]. Therefore, this study used the face search task to investigate the P2, N400, LPP and N2pc amplitudes elicited by faces after participants were primed with sentences about moral violations with impurity, moral violations without impurity, and neutral behaviors.

Based on previous behavioral [33–35] and ERP studies [23], we hypothesized that moral violations both with and without physical impurity will influence the processing of disgusted faces; however, the two types of moral violation will elicit neural activity with different temporal characteristics. First, sentences depicting moral violations with impurity include words that can elicit immediate disgust, and this effect should be registered in the early stage of face processing. This can be indicated by larger P2 and smaller N2pc amplitudes induced by a disgusted face after sentences depicting moral violations with impurity compared to sentences depicting neutral behaviors. Second, moral violations without impurity involve greater semantic complexity and require greater resources for semantic integration [63,64], and these violations should influence face processing in the late stage, indicated by N400 and LPP amplitudes. Larger N400 and LPP induced by neutral faces, or smaller N400 and LPP induced by disgusted faces, will be observed after sentences depicting moral violations without impurity compared to sentences depicting neutral behaviors.

Method

Participants

We recruited thirty right-handed participants from a university in central China in the study. Data from two participants were excluded from all data analyses because the accuracy of the behavioral data was less than 80%. Data from three participants were excluded from the ERP data analyzes due to intensive head movements during EEG recording (N = 2) or excessive artifacts (N = 1). The EEG data from 25 participants were analyzed (12 males; mean age = 21.16 ± 0.33 years). Using this sample size (N = 25) and a pre-defined effect size (η_p²) of 0.25, a power analysis in G*Power [65] showed that this sample size would give over 90% power to detect an effect.

All participants were native Chinese speakers and had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. None of the participants had a history of neurological or psychiatric disorders. All participants signed an informed consent form for the experiment and were paid 40 RMB for their participation. The informed consent form and the study were reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Psychology, Central China Normal University, China.

Materials

Sentence materials: The sentence materials were developed in prior research [23,24,66]. Because the word order in some sentences was slightly different from expressions in daily life, we modified the wording of some sentences before the ERP experiment (e.g., “At a public swimming pool, a person is shitting” was revised into “A person is shitting at a public swimming pool”). Thereafter, 42 neutral sentences (NN) (e.g., “A person is buying some daily necessities in the market”), 42 moral violation sentences (WN) that have nothing to do with physical impurity (e.g., “A person is swearing loudly in public”), and 42 moral violation sentences (WD) that are related to physical impurity (e.g., “A person is spitting in public”) were used in the ERP experiment. The key words in the sentences depicting moral violations with impurity were related to physical impurity were related to excrement, blood, wounds and sickness. Because sexual stimulation could activate additional brain areas [67], the sentences depicting moral violations with impurity did not include sexual behaviors.

The 42 sentences of each type (NN, WN, WD) were repeated five times, and addition 14 randomly selected sentences of each type were repeated one more time. In all, 672 sentences were presented to each participant (42*5*3 + 14*3).

A separate set of participants who did not take part in the ERP experiment were asked to rate the degree to which each sentence was morally wrong or disgusting. The 64 participants were randomly assigned to two groups (moral group, disgust group); each group had 32 subjects. Ratings were made on a 9-point scale, either (1 = very immoral, 9 = very moral) or (1 = not disgusting at all, 9 = very disgusting). The results showed that the main effect of sentence types was significant at moral score (F (2,62) = 677.986, p < 0.001, n_p² = 0.956, NN = 337.00 ± 9.12, WN = 72.094 ± 4.47, WD = 64.41 ± 3.44). Post hoc multiple comparisons revealed that WN < NN, p < 0.001; WD < NN, p < 0.001; there was no significant difference between WD and WN, p = 0.113. The main effect of sentence types was significant at disgust score (F (2,62) = 839.187, p < 0.001, n_p² = 0.964, NN = 47.13 ± 1.93, WN = 308.50 ± 7.99, WD = 331.72 ± 8.63). Post hoc multiple comparisons revealed that WN > NN, p < 0.001; WD > NN, p < 0.001; WD > WN, p < 0.001.

Face materials: Images of faces expressing neutral emotion and disgust were selected from the Chinese Affective Facial Picture System (CAFPS) [68]. All pictures were black and white images, with a resolution of 260 × 300. There were 30 faces expressing neutral emotion and 30 faces expressing disgust. Half the faces were male, and half female. The 9-point score of emotional intensity of images provided by the CAFPS showed that the emotional intensity of disgust faces (6.42 ± 0.65) was significantly higher than that of neutral faces (5.78 ± 0.17), F (1, 58) = 27.54, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.322.

Procedure

The participants sat in a quiet room and adjusted their body posture appropriately. They were told to control head movement as much as possible after the start of the experiment, and not to blink frequently. During the experiment, the participants were asked to complete the reaction time task. The stimulus display and behavioral data acquisition were programmed using E-Prime software.

Participants were first presented with a practice block of 6 trials to familiarize them with the task, and then the formal experiment and EEG recording began. Every trial started with a central fixation for 500 ms, followed by a blank screen with a random duration between 400 ms and 600 ms. Then the sentence stimulus was presented at the center of the screen for 2000 ms (the participants were asked to read the sentence silently), followed by a blank screen with a random duration between 500 ms and 800 ms. The two facial expression stimuli were then presented at the center of the screen. On half of the trials, one face described disgust, the other was neutral, and on the other half, both faces were neutral. The participants’ task was to judge whether one of the two faces in the picture expressed disgust. The trial ended with a blank screen with duration of 500 ms (Fig 1). The F and J buttons as indicators of “yes” and “no” were counterbalanced across participants. The presentation of the sentence ended when the participant pressed one of these keys. The experiment was divided into six blocks and 112 trials for each block. After each block, a rest screen appeared that allowed subjects to have a short break.

Download:

Fig 1. The schematic illustration of the experimental procedure.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243929.g001

ERP recording and data analysis

EEG was recorded from 64 scalp positions using tin electrodes mounted in an elastic cap. All inter-electrode impedance was maintained below 5 kΩ. The reference electrode set at ref in the positive center. The ground point set at the midpoint of Fpz and Fz (GND). The vertical electrooculograms (VEOG) were recorded using one electrode placed below the right eye. All signals were sampled at 500 Hz and band-pass filtered within a 0.05~100 Hz frequency range. The behavioral data were recorded synchronously when EEG signals were collected.

EEG data were analyzed using the Matlab R2013b. Averaging of ERPs for the six conditions was computed off-line. All EEG signals were re-referenced to the average of the left and right mastoids (Tp9 and Tp10). The data were filtered offline using a 0.01~35 Hz band-pass infinite impulse response (IIR) filter. The independent component analysis was used to reject the eye movement artifacts (blinks and eye movements). Trials contaminated by artifacts exceeding a threshold of±100 μV were eliminated. ERP waveforms were time-locked to the onset of the facial expressions.

The averaged epoch for ERPs was 1200 ms, including a 200 ms pre-stimulus baseline. According to the observation and analysis of the previous study and the general average map [23,25,40,63], P2 (170–220 ms), N400 (360–460 ms), LPP (700–100 ms) and N2pc (160–300 ms) were selected as time-window of analysis. C1, CZ, C2, CP1, CPZ and CP2 electrodes were selected to analyze the average amplitude of P2, N400 and LPP. Analyses on N2pc average amplitude focused on lateral posterior electrodes PO7 and PO8, where the N2pc component is maximal.

The waveforms of disgust faces at the contralateral and ipsilateral electrodes were averaged. The ipsilateral waveform (average of voltage at the left-sided electrode for the left visual field target and voltage at the right-sided electrode for the right visual field target) and contralateral waveform (average of voltage at the left-sided electrode for the right visual field target and voltage at the right-sided electrode for the left visual field target) time-locked to the visual display for three sentence conditions at PO7/PO8 electrode sites were computed separately.

The degrees of freedom for the F-ratio were corrected according to the Greenhouse-Geisser method. For post hoc analysis, the Bonferroni correction was used.

Results

Behavioral results

We conducted 3 (sentence types: NN, WN, WD) by 2 (facial types: disgust face, neutral face) Repeated-measures ANOVAs on reaction times (RTs). The main effect of sentence types was not significant (p = 0.710). The main effect of facial expression types was significant (F (1,27) = 13.176, p = 0.001, η_p² = 0.328). RT for disgust facial expressions (798.465 ± 30.198 ms) was faster than for neutral facial expressions (861.982 ± 36.004 ms), p = 0.001. The interaction between sentence types and facial expression types was significant (F (2,54) = 24.004, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.471). A significant sentence type effect was observed in the disgust facial expression conditions (F (2,54) = 18.65, p < 0.001; NN: 818.134 ± 30.922 ms, WN: 799.431 ± 30.659 ms, WD: 777.829 ± 29.720 ms; WD < NN, p < 0.001; WD < WN, p = 0.001; WN < NN, p = 0.039). A significant sentence type effect was observed in the neutral facial expression conditions (F (2,54) = 10.28, p < 0.001; NN: 857.469 ± 34.953 ms, WN: 868.957 ± 35.306ms, WD: 890.434 ± 37.915ms; NN < WD, p < 0.001; WN < WD, p = 0.029; NN = WN, p = 0.32) (Fig 2).

Download:

Fig 2. The reaction time of face search task across the NN, WN, and WD priming conditions.

NN: neutral sentences. WN: moral violation sentences that have nothing to do with physical impurity. WD: moral violation sentences that are related to physical impurity. “*” means p < 0.05, “**” means p < 0.01, “***” means p < 0.001, “ns” means p > 0.05. Error bars: +/− 1 SE.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243929.g002

ERP results

P2 (170~220ms).

We conducted 3 (sentence types: NN, WN, WD) by 2 (facial types: disgust face, neutral face) repeated measures ANOVA for the P2. The ANOVA results showed that the main effect of sentence types was not significant (F (2,48) = 1.388, p = 0.259, η_p² = 0.055), the main effect of facial types was not significant (F (1,24) = 1.035, p = 0.319, η_p² = 0.041), the interaction between sentence types and facial types was not significant (F (2,48) = 0.662, p = 0.520, η_p² = 0.027).

N2pc (160~300ms).

We conducted repeated measures ANOVAs on N2pc different waves (the contralateral waveform minus the ipsilateral waveform) with sentence types as a within-subject factor. The ANOVA results showed that the main effect of sentence types was significant (F (2,48) = 7.032, p = 0.002, η_p² = 0.227), under the NN priming condition, disgust face elicited larger amplitudes, compared with the WD priming condition (-1.114 vs. -0.708, p = 0.005) and the WN priming condition (-1.064 vs. -0.806, p = 0.072). No significant difference was observed between the WN priming condition and the WD priming condition (-0.806 vs. -0.708, p = 0.904) (Figs 3 and 4).

Download:

Fig 3. Bar graphs of the N2pc difference amplitudes in response to disgust face across the NN, WN, and WD priming conditions.

“*” means p < 0.05, “**” means p < 0.01, “***” means p < 0.001, “ns” means p > 0.05. Error bars: +/− 1 SE.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243929.g003

Download:

Fig 4. Grand average ERP waveforms of target disgust face on contralateral and ipsilateral sides of PO7/PO8 across the NN, WN, and WD priming conditions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243929.g004

N400(360~460ms).

We conducted 3 (sentence types: NN, WN, WD) by 2 (facial types: disgust face, neutral face) repeated measures ANOVA for the N400. The ANOVA results showed that the main effect of sentence types was not significant (p = 0.228). The ANOVA results showed that the main effect of facial types was significant (F (1,24) = 6.460, p = 0.018, η_p² = 0.212), the neutral faces (4.121 ± 0.948μV) elicited larger amplitudes than the disgust faces (4.908 ± 0.989μV). The interaction between sentence types and facial types was significant (F (2,48) = 3.042, p = 0.012, η_p² = 0.167). Additional simple effects analyses revealed that sentence type effect was significant in the neutral facial conditions (F (2,48) = 6.55, p = 0.003). Neutral faces elicited larger amplitudes under the WN priming condition (3.686 ± 0.979μV), compared with the NN priming condition (4.520 ± 0.927μV), p = 0.009. There was no significant difference between the WN priming condition (3.686 ± 0.979μV) and the WD priming condition (4.156 ± 0.963μV) (p = 0.18). There was no significant difference between the WN priming condition and the NN priming condition (p = 0.24). There was no sentence type effect in the disgust faces conditions (p = 1.00) (Figs 5–7).

Download:

Fig 5. Bar graphs of the N400 amplitudes in response to disgust face and neutral face across the NN, WN, and WD priming conditions.

“*” means p < 0.05, “**” means p < 0.01, “***” means p < 0.001, “ns” means p > 0.05. Error bars: +/− 1 SE.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243929.g005

Download:

Fig 6. Grand average ERP waveforms recorded from C1, Cz, C2, CP1, CPz and CP2 in response to disgust face and neutral face across the NN, WN, and WD priming conditions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243929.g006

Download:

Fig 7. Topographical maps of voltage amplitudes of N400 in response to disgust face and neutral face across the NN, WN, and WD priming conditions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243929.g007

LPP (700~1000ms).

We conducted 3 (sentence types: NN, WN, WD) by 2 (facial types: disgust face, neutral face) repeated measures ANOVA for the LPP. The ANOVA results showed that the main effect of sentence types was not significant (F (2,48) = 0.404, p = 0.670, η_p² = 0.017), the main effect of facial types was not significant (F (1,24) = 0.048, p = 0.828, η_p² = 0.002), the interaction between sentence types and facial types was significant (F (2,48) = 3.736, p = 0.031, η_p² = 0.135). Additional simple effects analyses revealed that sentence type effect was significant in the neutral face condition (F (2,48) = 3.80, p = 0.029). Post event multiple comparative analysis found that there was no significant difference between the sentence types under the disgust face condition (NN = WN, p = 0.089; NN = WD, p = 1.000; WN = WD, p = 0.158). There was no sentence type effect in the disgust face condition (p = 0.469).

Discussion

Although moral violations with impurity have been shown to elicit disgust, it has been unclear whether moral violations without impurity elicit the same emotion. This is the first study that employed an affective priming paradigm to investigate how moral violation behaviors with and without physical impurity influence subsequent processing of faces expressing disgust or neutral emotion. This study would help us to reveal the neural mechanisms underlying both kinds of moral violation. Results of behavioral data and EEG data showed that moral violations both with and without impurity promoted the detection of disgusted faces (RT, N2pc); moral violations without impurity impeded the detection of neutral faces in the late stage (N400). The results suggest that both types of moral violation could be elicited similar emotion, but the emotion was stronger in the case of moral violations with impurity, and more complex emotions were induced in moral violations without impurity.

In the affective priming task [42,45,69,70], facilitated processing was shown when the prime and target were affectively congruent, and impaired processing was shown when the prime and target were emotionally incongruent, that is the affective priming effect. Such an effect shows that the emotional information provided by a stimulus can be implicitly and automatically evaluated. In this study, on the one hand, participants’ reaction time in detecting the disgusted faces under the priming condition of WD sentences was faster than under the priming condition of NN sentences; participants’ reaction time in detecting neutral faces under the priming condition of WD sentences was slower than under the priming condition of NN sentences. These results suggest that WD, which elicited disgust, facilitated the recognition of the disgusted face and hindered the recognition of the neutral face.

On the other hand, participants’ reaction time in recognizing disgusted faces under the priming condition of WN sentences was faster than under the priming condition of NN sentences; however, reaction time in recognizing neutral faces under the condition of WN sentences did not differ significantly from reaction time under the condition of NN sentences. The result showed WN sentences facilitated disgusted face processing, but not impeded neutral face processing, which suggests that WN could elicit similar emotion as WD, but the intensity was weaker than WD.

As to ERP results, consistent with the hypothesis, the N2pc results showed that both types of moral violations promote the processing of disgusted faces, but the influence was weaker for the moral violations without physical impurity. As an ERP component closely related to spatial selective attention, N2pc could be used as an indicator of attention allocation to the target stimulus [62]. Compared with WD sentences and WN sentences, NN sentences induced larger amplitudes of N2pc, suggesting that participants paid more attention to disgusted faces after reading neutral sentences. By contrast, after reading WN and WD sentences, people did not pay more attention to disgusting faces. Thus, the detection of target faces was affected by the priming [42]. When emotion induced by the priming sentence was inconsistent with the facial emotion, more attentional resources were needed to orientate to the disgusted face, inducing larger N2pc amplitude [71]. When they were consistent, the disgusted face easily captured attention, inducing lower N2pc.

Both of moral violation with and without impurity promote the orientation to disgusting face, we inferred that disgust could be elicited both by moral violations with impurity and those without impurity. It is consistent with the results of previous studies which suggests disgust could be induced by violation of moral norm no matter whether they are related to impurity or not [33,41]. Moral violations without physical impurity may play an important role in interpersonal communication. People’s disgust for this kind of behavior may be protective because they may reduce contact with individuals who could bring harm to themselves or their groups in social intercourse [31]. However, considering that this is the first study to test the influence of different moral violation behaviors on subsequent face processing, more evidence is needed to draw conclusions about this possibility.

The N400 results partly supported the hypothesis that larger N400 induced by disgusted face in WD than in NN primes. N400 amplitudes elicited by emotional incongruence were larger than those elicited by emotional congruence [63]. In the time-window of 360~460 ms, there was no significant difference in N400 amplitudes between WD and WN primes, or between WD and NN primes, which suggests the strength of emotion by WD was decrease at this stage. This result may be due to the emotional significance and complexity of sentences. Compared to the sentences describing neutral behaviors, sentences describing moral violations with impurity had more obvious information that would induce disgust. Because WD induced higher emotional arousal and could be noticed faster in the early processing stage [63], WD sentences and faces were integrated earlier. In the late stage, the emotion induced by WD sentences gradually subsided, with less impact on N400 amplitudes.

In contrast, consistent with the hypothesis, we found that neutral faces induced larger N400 amplitudes under the priming condition of WN sentences, compared with the priming condition of NN sentences. Compared to WD sentences, WN sentences have been found to be more strongly related to the retrieval of social moral information and complex social evaluations (e.g., relationship to target, benefits and costs of condemnation) [14,72]. People need to deeply analyze the nature of stimuli (causal reasoning, counterfactual thinking) [14], so the semantic processing of moral violations without physical impurity may take more time. One study found that compared with scenes that did not violate social norms, scenes that violated social norms induced larger slow waves at parieto-occipital sites in late stage processing [64]. It suggested that moral violations without impurity require greater resources for semantic integration [63,64]. Therefore, based on the results of the current study we speculate that because of the complexity of processing WN sentences, there was an emotional inconsistency effect on N400.

Moral violations without impurity did not influence the processing of the emotion of disgust but did influence the processing of neutral faces in the late stage, suggesting other complex emotions might be induced by WD. Future studies can explore this issue by examining whether moral violations with and without impurity also elicit other moral emotions, such as anger.

However, P2 and LPP results were inconsistent with our hypothesis. We found no significant difference in P2 and LPP amplitudes induced by neutral faces and disgusted faces under different types of moral violation priming conditions. These results suggest that face processing was not modulated by different types of moral violation. This finding is inconsistent with what would be expected based on some affective priming studies that found that priming effect would be observed on P2 and LPP amplitudes [49,50,56].

One of the reasons for the difference we inferred is different target task used in this study. When the priming task was used in previous studies, the target task was judgment of a single face or a single word—that is, a recognition task—instead of the search task used in our study [48,56]. Whereas face searching tasks emphasize the attentional orientation or how attention was captured by emotion [73], recognition tasks focus on the identification of emotion [74]. Therefore, the priming effects of two components would be affected by character of target task.

For another reason, it is worth mentioning that both the situational stimulus and target stimulus used in some earlier studies were pictures [42,43,50], whereas the situational stimulus in the current study was presented in the form of sentences. Research has indicated that people can extract emotional information from pictures quickly and effectively even if the picture is presented very briefly [67,75,76], which may reflect attentional capture driven by basic emotional stimulation. In some studies, when the situational stimulus is complex, such as abstract speech information, the priming effect often occurs in the later stage [56,70]. Therefore, the null results with respect to P2 may have occurred probably because the primes were in the form of sentences rather than pictures or words.

Limitations

Several limitations should be noted. First, in the pretest we evaluated the sentence materials with the method used in Yang’s studies [26,32]. That is, participants rated how morally wrong and how disgusting each sentence was. However, in some studies, participants reported that they stated they felt disgust because that was the only response option available, when they may actually have experienced a different emotion [70,71]. Thus, we cannot be sure that the level of disgust induced by the sentences was assessed objectively. Second, in the face searching task, the only negative face was disgust, and other negative emotions such as anger were not examined. Therefore, it is unknown whether participants’ responses were specific to disgust or simply responses to negative stimuli. Future studies could use different negative emotions to compare the influence of moral violations with and without impurity on the processing of other types of emotional faces. Third, this is the first study to use a face searching task to study the effects of emotional primes. Therefore, P2, N400, and LPP could be impacted by the nature of the task and more research is needed to verify the priming effect in this study.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243929.s001

(DOCX)

S1 File.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243929.s002

(ZIP)

References

1. Kaptein M. Developing a measure of unethical behavior in the workplace: a stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management. 2008; 34(5): 978–1008.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
2. Kohlberg L. Stage and sequence: the cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research (Goslin D.A., ed.). Rand McNally; 1969. pp. 347–480.
3. Piaget J. The Moral Judgement of the Child. New York: Free Press; 1965.
4. Tian XH, Yang Q, Zhang DX, Zhang Y. A Theory on the Mechanism Underlying Moral Intuitions. Advances in Psychological Science. 2011; 19(10): 1426–1433.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Gong H, Medin D. Construal levels and moral judgment: Some complications. Judgment and Decision Making. 2012; 7(5): 628–638.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Tracy JL, Steckler CM, Heltzel G. The physiological basis of psychological disgust and moral judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2019; 116(1):15–32. pmid:30596444
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Kallioinen N, Pershina M, Zeiser J, Nosrat NF, Pipa G, Stephan A., et al. Moral Judgements on the Actions of Self-Driving Cars and Human Drivers in Dilemma Situations From Different Perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019; 10. pmid:31749736
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Haidt J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108(4): 814–834. pmid:11699120
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Haidt J, Graham J. When morality opposes justice: conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research. 2007; 20(1): 98–116.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Greene JD, Sommerville RB, Nystrom LE, Darley JM, Cohen JD. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science. 2001; 293(5537): 2105–2108. pmid:11557895
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Curtis V, Biran A. Dirt, disgust, and disease: Is hygiene in our genes? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. (2001); 44: 7–31.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Curtis V, Aunger R, Rabie T. Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk of disease. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 2004; 271: S131–S133. pmid:15252963
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Oaten M, Stevenson RJ, Case TI. Disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism. Psychological Bulletin. 2009; 135(2): 303–321. pmid:19254082
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Tybur JM, Lieberman D, Kurzban R, DeScioli P. Disgust: Evolved function and structure. Psychological Review. 2013; 120(1): 65–84. pmid:23205888
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Rozin P, Haidt J, McCauley CR. Disgust. 3rd ed. In: Lewis M, Haviland-Jones JM, Barrett LF, editors. Handbook of Emotions. New York: Guilford; 2008. pp. 757–776.
16. Park JH, Schaller M, Crandall CS. Pathogen-avoidance mechanisms and the stigmatization of obese people. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2007; 28: 410–414.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Duncan LA, Schaller M. Prejudicial attitudes toward older adults may be exaggerated when people feel vulnerable to infectious disease: Evidence and implications. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 2009; 9: 97–115.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Peng M, Chang L, Zhou R. Physiological and behavioral responses to strangers compared to friends as a source of disgust. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2013; 34(2): 94–98.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Daniel K. Moral Disgust and The Tribal Instincts Hypothesis. In: Kim S, Richard J, Brett C, Ben F, editors. Cooperation and its Evolution. MIT Press:2013. pp. 503–524.
20. Horberg EJ, Oveis C, Keltner D, Cohen AB. Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009; 97(6): 963–976. pmid:19968413
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Rozin P, Lowery L, Imada S, Haidt J. The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999; 76(4): 574–586. pmid:10234846
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Russell PS, Giner-Sorolla R. Bodily moral disgust: What it is, how it is different from anger, and why it is an unreasoned emotion. Psychological Bulletin. 2013; 139(2): 328–351. pmid:23458436
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Yang Q, Li A, Xiao X, Zhang Y, Tian X. Dissociation between morality and disgust: an event-related potential study. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2014; 94(1): 84–91. pmid:25084130
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Yang Q, Luo C, Zhang Y. Individual differences in the early recognition of moral information in lexical processing: an event-related potential study. Scientific Reports. 2017; 7(1).
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Zhang XY, Guo Q, Zhang YX, Lou LD, Ding DQ. Different Timing Features in Brain Processing of Core and Moral Disgust Pictures: An Event-Related Potentials Study. PLoS One. 2015; 10(5): e0128531. pmid:26011635
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Nabi R. Anger, fear, uncertainty, and attitudes: a test of the cognitive-functional model. Communication Monographs. 2002; 69(3): 204–216.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. Haidt J. The moral emotions. Handbook of affective sciences. 2003; 11:852–870.
28. Hutcherson CA, Gross JJ. The moral emotions: A social-functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2011; 100(4): 719–737. pmid:21280963
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Giner-Sorolla R, Chapman HA. Beyond Purity: Moral Disgust Toward Bad Character. Psychological Science. 2016; 28(1): 80–91. pmid:28078976
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Karinen AK, Chapman HA. Cognitive and personality correlates of trait disgust and their relationship to condemnation of non-purity moral transgressions. Emotion. 2019; 19(5): 889–902. pmid:30080073
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Tybur JM, Lieberman D, Griskevicius V. Microbes, mating, and morality: individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009; 97(1): 103–122. pmid:19586243
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Sanfey AG, Rilling JK, Aronson JA, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD. The neural basis of economic decision-making in the Ultimatum Game. Science. 2003; 300(5626): 1755–1758. pmid:12805551
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Chapman HA, Kim DA, Susskind JM, Anderson AK. In bad taste: Evidence for the oral origins of moral disgust. Science. 2009; 323(5918): 1222–1226. pmid:19251631
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Cannon PR, Schnall S, White M. Transgressions and expressions: Affective facial muscle activity predicts moral judgments. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2011; 2(3): 325–331.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Skarlicki DP, Hoegg JA, Aquino K, Nadisic T. Does injustice affect your sense of taste and smell? the mediating role of moral disgust. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2013; 49 (5): 852–859.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Moll J, de Oliveira-Souza R, Moll FT, Ignácio FA, Bramati IE, Caparelli-Dáquer EM, Eslinger PJ. The Moral Affiliations of Disgust: A functional MRI study. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology. 2005; 18(1): 68–78. pmid:15761278
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Yang Q, Yan L, Luo J, Li A, Zhang Y, Tian X, Zhang D. Temporal dynamics of disgust and morality: an event-related potential study. PLoS One. 2013; 8: e65094. pmid:23724123
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Greene JD, Morelli SA, Lowenberg K, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD. Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition. 2008; 107(3): 1144–1154. pmid:18158145
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Leffel GM. Who cares? Generativity and the moral emotions, part 2: A "social intuitionist model" of moral motivation. Journal of Psychology & Theology. 2008; 36(3): 182–201.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Paxton JM, Greene JD. Moral reasoning: Hints and allegations. Topics in Cognitive Science. 2010; 2(3): 511–527. pmid:25163874
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Eskine KJ, Kacinik NA, Webster GD. The Bitter Truth about Morality: Virtue, Not Vice, Makes a Bland Beverage Taste Nice. PLoS ONE. 2012; 7(7): e41159. pmid:22815953
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Righart R, Gelder BD. Rapid influence of emotional scenes on encoding of facial expressions: an ERP study. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience. 2008; 3(3): 270. pmid:19015119
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Lu Y, Zhang WN, Hu W, Luo YJ. Understanding the subliminal affective priming effect of facial stimuli: an ERP study. Neurosci Lett. 2011; 502(3): 182–185. pmid:21827830
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Li S, Li P, Wang W, Zhu X, Luo W. The effect of emotionally valenced eye region images on visuocortical processing of surprised faces. Psychophysiology. 2017; 55(1): 12. pmid:29239478
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Fazio RH. On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview. Cognition and Emotion. 2001; 15(2): 115–141.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Kobylinska D, Karwowska D. Assimilation and contrast effects in suboptimal affective priming paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014; 5. pmid:24904507
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Gibbons H, Seib-Pfeifer L, Koppehele-Gossel J, Schnuerch R. Affective priming and cognitive load: Event-related potentials suggest an interplay of implicit affect misattribution and strategic inhibition. Psychophysiology. 2017; 55(4): e13009. pmid:28940207
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Aguado L, Dieguez-Risco T, Méndez-Bértolo C, Pozo MA, Hinojosa JA. Priming effects on the N400 in the affective priming paradigm with facial expressions of emotion. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2013; 13(2): 284–296. pmid:23263839
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Werheid K, Alpay G, Jentzsch I, Sommer W. Priming emotional facial expressions as evidenced by event-related brain potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2005; 55(2): 209–219. pmid:15649552
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Hirai M, Watanabe S, Honda Y, Miki K, Kakigi R. Emotional object and scene stimuli modulate subsequent face processing: an event-related potential study. Brain Research Bulletin. 2008; 77(5): 264–273. pmid:18793705
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Krombholz A, Schaefer F, Boucsein W. Modification of N170 by different emotional expression of schematic faces. Biological Psychology. 2007; 76(3): 156–162. pmid:17764809
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Meaux E, Hernandez N, Carteau-Martin I, Martineau J, Barthélémy C, Bonnet-Brilhault F, Batty M. Event-related potential and eye tracking evidence of the developmental dynamics of face processing. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2014; 39(8): 1349–1362. pmid:24517386
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Hajcak G, Dunning JP, Foti D. Motivated and controlled attention to emotion: Time-course of the late positive potential. Clinical Neurophysiology: Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. 2009; 120(3): 505–510. pmid:19157974
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Wessing I, Rehbein MA, Postert C, Fürniss T, Junghöfer M. The neural basis of cognitive change: Reappraisal of emotional faces modulates neural source activity in a frontoparietal attention network. NeuroImage. 2013; 81: 15–25. pmid:23664945
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
55. Frenkel TI, Bar-Haim Y. Neural activation during the processing of ambiguous fearful facial expressions: An ERP study in anxious and nonanxious individuals. Biological Psychology. 2011; 88(2–3): 188–195. pmid:21846487
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
56. Klein F, Iffland B, Schindler S, Wabnitz P, Neuner F. This person is saying bad things about you: The influence of physically and socially threatening context information on the processing of inherently neutral faces. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2015; 15(4): 736–748. pmid:25967930
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. Paulmann S, Pell MD. Contextual influences of emotional speech prosody on face processing: how much is enough? Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2010; 10(2): 230–242.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
58. Eimer M, Kiss M. Involuntary attentional capture is determined by task set: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2008; 20(8): 1423–1433. pmid:18303979
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
59. Weymar M, Löw A, Öhman A, Hamm AO. The face is more than its parts-brain dynamics of enhanced spatial attention to schematic threat. Neuroimage. 2011; 58(3): 946–954. pmid:21742041
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
60. Eimer M, Kiss M. Attentional capture by task-irrelevant fearful faces is revealed by the N2pc component. Biological Psychology. 2007; 74(1): 108–112. pmid:16899334
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
61. Yao SX, Yang D, Qi SQ, Lei Y, Ding C. Studies on the N2pc component in visual spatial attention. Advances in Psychological Science. 2012; 20(3): 365–375.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
62. Luck SJ. An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005.
63. Luo Y, Shen WL, Zhang Y, Feng TY, Huang H, Li H. Core disgust and m oral disgust are related to distinct spatiotem poral patterns of neural processing: An event-related potential study. Biological Psychology. 2013; 94: 242–248. pmid:23816951
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
64. Gui DY, Gan T, Liu C. Neural evidence for moral intuition and the temporal dynamics of interactions between emotional processes and moral cognition. Social neuroscience. 2015; 11(4):380–394. pmid:26286634
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
65. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007; 39(2): 175–191. pmid:17695343
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
66. Peng XZ, Jiao C, Cui F, Chen QF, Li P, Li H. The time course of indirect moral judgment in gossip processing modulated by different agents. Psychophysiology. 2017; 54: 1459–1471. pmid:28543218
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
67. Borg JS, Lieberman D, Kiehl KA. Infection, incest, and iniquity: Investigating the neural correlates of disgust and morality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2008; 20(9): 1529–1546. pmid:18345982
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
68. Wang Y, Luo YJ. Standardization and assessment of college students’ facial expression of emotion. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2005; 13: 396–398.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
69. Klauer KC, Musch J. Affective priming: Findings and theories. In: Musch J, Klauer KC, editors. The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion. Lawrence Erlbaum: 2003. pp. 7–49.
70. Diéguez-Risco T, Aguado L, Albert J, Hinojosa JA. Faces in context: Modulation of expression processing by situational information. Social Neuroscience. 2013; 8(6): 601–620. pmid:24053118
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
71. Galfano G, Sarlo M, Sassi F, Munafò M, Fuentes LJ, Umiltà C. Reorienting of spatial attention in gaze cuing is reflected in N2pc. Social Neuroscience. 2011; 6(3): 257–269. pmid:20924978
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
72. Clark JA. Relations of homology between higher cognitive emotions and basic emotions. Biology & Philosophy. 2010; 25(1): 75–94.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
73. Ottmar VL, Belinda MC, Mareka JF, Deborah JT, Joanne RS. Searching for emotion or race: Task-irrelevant facial cues have asymmetrical effects. Cognition and Emotion. 2014; 28(6): 1100–1109. pmid:24350636
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
74. Smith FW, Rossit S. Identifying and detecting facial expressions of emotion in peripheral vision. PLoS ONE. 2018; 13(5): e0197160. pmid:29847562
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
75. Gutierrez A, Nummenmaa L, Calvo MG. Enhanced processing of emotional gist in peripheral vision. Spanish Journal of Psychology. 2009; 12:414–423. pmid:19899644
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
76. Hietanen JK, Astikainen P. N170 response to facial expressions is modulated by the affective congruency between the emotional expression and preceding affective picture. Biological Psychology. 2013; 92(2):114–124. pmid:23131616
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Kaptein M. Developing a measure of unethical behavior in the workplace: a stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management. 2008; 34(5): 978–1008.
View Article
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Kohlberg L. Stage and sequence: the cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research (Goslin D.A., ed.). Rand McNally; 1969. pp. 347–480.

[ref3] 3. Piaget J. The Moral Judgement of the Child. New York: Free Press; 1965.

[ref4] 4. Tian XH, Yang Q, Zhang DX, Zhang Y. A Theory on the Mechanism Underlying Moral Intuitions. Advances in Psychological Science. 2011; 19(10): 1426–1433.
View Article
Google Scholar

[7] View Article

[8] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Gong H, Medin D. Construal levels and moral judgment: Some complications. Judgment and Decision Making. 2012; 7(5): 628–638.
View Article
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Tracy JL, Steckler CM, Heltzel G. The physiological basis of psychological disgust and moral judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2019; 116(1):15–32. pmid:30596444
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[13] View Article

[14] PubMed/NCBI

[15] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Kallioinen N, Pershina M, Zeiser J, Nosrat NF, Pipa G, Stephan A., et al. Moral Judgements on the Actions of Self-Driving Cars and Human Drivers in Dilemma Situations From Different Perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019; 10. pmid:31749736
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] PubMed/NCBI

[19] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Haidt J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108(4): 814–834. pmid:11699120
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] PubMed/NCBI

[23] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Haidt J, Graham J. When morality opposes justice: conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research. 2007; 20(1): 98–116.
View Article
Google Scholar

[25] View Article

[26] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Greene JD, Sommerville RB, Nystrom LE, Darley JM, Cohen JD. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science. 2001; 293(5537): 2105–2108. pmid:11557895
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] PubMed/NCBI

[30] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Curtis V, Biran A. Dirt, disgust, and disease: Is hygiene in our genes? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. (2001); 44: 7–31.
View Article
Google Scholar

[32] View Article

[33] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Curtis V, Aunger R, Rabie T. Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk of disease. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 2004; 271: S131–S133. pmid:15252963
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] PubMed/NCBI

[37] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Oaten M, Stevenson RJ, Case TI. Disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism. Psychological Bulletin. 2009; 135(2): 303–321. pmid:19254082
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[39] View Article

[40] PubMed/NCBI

[41] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Tybur JM, Lieberman D, Kurzban R, DeScioli P. Disgust: Evolved function and structure. Psychological Review. 2013; 120(1): 65–84. pmid:23205888
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[43] View Article

[44] PubMed/NCBI

[45] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Rozin P, Haidt J, McCauley CR. Disgust. 3rd ed. In: Lewis M, Haviland-Jones JM, Barrett LF, editors. Handbook of Emotions. New York: Guilford; 2008. pp. 757–776.

[ref16] 16. Park JH, Schaller M, Crandall CS. Pathogen-avoidance mechanisms and the stigmatization of obese people. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2007; 28: 410–414.
View Article
Google Scholar

[48] View Article

[49] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Duncan LA, Schaller M. Prejudicial attitudes toward older adults may be exaggerated when people feel vulnerable to infectious disease: Evidence and implications. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 2009; 9: 97–115.
View Article
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Peng M, Chang L, Zhou R. Physiological and behavioral responses to strangers compared to friends as a source of disgust. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2013; 34(2): 94–98.
View Article
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Daniel K. Moral Disgust and The Tribal Instincts Hypothesis. In: Kim S, Richard J, Brett C, Ben F, editors. Cooperation and its Evolution. MIT Press:2013. pp. 503–524.

[ref20] 20. Horberg EJ, Oveis C, Keltner D, Cohen AB. Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009; 97(6): 963–976. pmid:19968413
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] PubMed/NCBI

[60] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Rozin P, Lowery L, Imada S, Haidt J. The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999; 76(4): 574–586. pmid:10234846
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Russell PS, Giner-Sorolla R. Bodily moral disgust: What it is, how it is different from anger, and why it is an unreasoned emotion. Psychological Bulletin. 2013; 139(2): 328–351. pmid:23458436
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Yang Q, Li A, Xiao X, Zhang Y, Tian X. Dissociation between morality and disgust: an event-related potential study. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2014; 94(1): 84–91. pmid:25084130
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Yang Q, Luo C, Zhang Y. Individual differences in the early recognition of moral information in lexical processing: an event-related potential study. Scientific Reports. 2017; 7(1).
View Article
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Zhang XY, Guo Q, Zhang YX, Lou LD, Ding DQ. Different Timing Features in Brain Processing of Core and Moral Disgust Pictures: An Event-Related Potentials Study. PLoS One. 2015; 10(5): e0128531. pmid:26011635
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Nabi R. Anger, fear, uncertainty, and attitudes: a test of the cognitive-functional model. Communication Monographs. 2002; 69(3): 204–216.
View Article
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Haidt J. The moral emotions. Handbook of affective sciences. 2003; 11:852–870.

[ref28] 28. Hutcherson CA, Gross JJ. The moral emotions: A social-functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2011; 100(4): 719–737. pmid:21280963
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Giner-Sorolla R, Chapman HA. Beyond Purity: Moral Disgust Toward Bad Character. Psychological Science. 2016; 28(1): 80–91. pmid:28078976
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] PubMed/NCBI

[91] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Karinen AK, Chapman HA. Cognitive and personality correlates of trait disgust and their relationship to condemnation of non-purity moral transgressions. Emotion. 2019; 19(5): 889–902. pmid:30080073
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Tybur JM, Lieberman D, Griskevicius V. Microbes, mating, and morality: individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009; 97(1): 103–122. pmid:19586243
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] PubMed/NCBI

[99] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Sanfey AG, Rilling JK, Aronson JA, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD. The neural basis of economic decision-making in the Ultimatum Game. Science. 2003; 300(5626): 1755–1758. pmid:12805551
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] PubMed/NCBI

[103] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Chapman HA, Kim DA, Susskind JM, Anderson AK. In bad taste: Evidence for the oral origins of moral disgust. Science. 2009; 323(5918): 1222–1226. pmid:19251631
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[105] View Article

[106] PubMed/NCBI

[107] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Cannon PR, Schnall S, White M. Transgressions and expressions: Affective facial muscle activity predicts moral judgments. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2011; 2(3): 325–331.
View Article
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Skarlicki DP, Hoegg JA, Aquino K, Nadisic T. Does injustice affect your sense of taste and smell? the mediating role of moral disgust. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2013; 49 (5): 852–859.
View Article
Google Scholar

[112] View Article

[113] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Moll J, de Oliveira-Souza R, Moll FT, Ignácio FA, Bramati IE, Caparelli-Dáquer EM, Eslinger PJ. The Moral Affiliations of Disgust: A functional MRI study. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology. 2005; 18(1): 68–78. pmid:15761278
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[115] View Article

[116] PubMed/NCBI

[117] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Yang Q, Yan L, Luo J, Li A, Zhang Y, Tian X, Zhang D. Temporal dynamics of disgust and morality: an event-related potential study. PLoS One. 2013; 8: e65094. pmid:23724123
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[119] View Article

[120] PubMed/NCBI

[121] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Greene JD, Morelli SA, Lowenberg K, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD. Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition. 2008; 107(3): 1144–1154. pmid:18158145
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[123] View Article

[124] PubMed/NCBI

[125] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Leffel GM. Who cares? Generativity and the moral emotions, part 2: A "social intuitionist model" of moral motivation. Journal of Psychology & Theology. 2008; 36(3): 182–201.
View Article
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Paxton JM, Greene JD. Moral reasoning: Hints and allegations. Topics in Cognitive Science. 2010; 2(3): 511–527. pmid:25163874
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] PubMed/NCBI

[132] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Eskine KJ, Kacinik NA, Webster GD. The Bitter Truth about Morality: Virtue, Not Vice, Makes a Bland Beverage Taste Nice. PLoS ONE. 2012; 7(7): e41159. pmid:22815953
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[134] View Article

[135] PubMed/NCBI

[136] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Righart R, Gelder BD. Rapid influence of emotional scenes on encoding of facial expressions: an ERP study. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience. 2008; 3(3): 270. pmid:19015119
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[138] View Article

[139] PubMed/NCBI

[140] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Lu Y, Zhang WN, Hu W, Luo YJ. Understanding the subliminal affective priming effect of facial stimuli: an ERP study. Neurosci Lett. 2011; 502(3): 182–185. pmid:21827830
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[142] View Article

[143] PubMed/NCBI

[144] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Li S, Li P, Wang W, Zhu X, Luo W. The effect of emotionally valenced eye region images on visuocortical processing of surprised faces. Psychophysiology. 2017; 55(1): 12. pmid:29239478
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[146] View Article

[147] PubMed/NCBI

[148] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Fazio RH. On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview. Cognition and Emotion. 2001; 15(2): 115–141.
View Article
Google Scholar

[150] View Article

[151] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Kobylinska D, Karwowska D. Assimilation and contrast effects in suboptimal affective priming paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014; 5. pmid:24904507
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] PubMed/NCBI

[155] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Gibbons H, Seib-Pfeifer L, Koppehele-Gossel J, Schnuerch R. Affective priming and cognitive load: Event-related potentials suggest an interplay of implicit affect misattribution and strategic inhibition. Psychophysiology. 2017; 55(4): e13009. pmid:28940207
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] PubMed/NCBI

[159] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Aguado L, Dieguez-Risco T, Méndez-Bértolo C, Pozo MA, Hinojosa JA. Priming effects on the N400 in the affective priming paradigm with facial expressions of emotion. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2013; 13(2): 284–296. pmid:23263839
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] PubMed/NCBI

[163] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Werheid K, Alpay G, Jentzsch I, Sommer W. Priming emotional facial expressions as evidenced by event-related brain potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2005; 55(2): 209–219. pmid:15649552
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[165] View Article

[166] PubMed/NCBI

[167] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Hirai M, Watanabe S, Honda Y, Miki K, Kakigi R. Emotional object and scene stimuli modulate subsequent face processing: an event-related potential study. Brain Research Bulletin. 2008; 77(5): 264–273. pmid:18793705
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[169] View Article

[170] PubMed/NCBI

[171] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Krombholz A, Schaefer F, Boucsein W. Modification of N170 by different emotional expression of schematic faces. Biological Psychology. 2007; 76(3): 156–162. pmid:17764809
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[173] View Article

[174] PubMed/NCBI

[175] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Meaux E, Hernandez N, Carteau-Martin I, Martineau J, Barthélémy C, Bonnet-Brilhault F, Batty M. Event-related potential and eye tracking evidence of the developmental dynamics of face processing. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2014; 39(8): 1349–1362. pmid:24517386
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[177] View Article

[178] PubMed/NCBI

[179] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Hajcak G, Dunning JP, Foti D. Motivated and controlled attention to emotion: Time-course of the late positive potential. Clinical Neurophysiology: Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. 2009; 120(3): 505–510. pmid:19157974
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[181] View Article

[182] PubMed/NCBI

[183] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Wessing I, Rehbein MA, Postert C, Fürniss T, Junghöfer M. The neural basis of cognitive change: Reappraisal of emotional faces modulates neural source activity in a frontoparietal attention network. NeuroImage. 2013; 81: 15–25. pmid:23664945
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[185] View Article

[186] PubMed/NCBI

[187] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Frenkel TI, Bar-Haim Y. Neural activation during the processing of ambiguous fearful facial expressions: An ERP study in anxious and nonanxious individuals. Biological Psychology. 2011; 88(2–3): 188–195. pmid:21846487
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[189] View Article

[190] PubMed/NCBI

[191] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Klein F, Iffland B, Schindler S, Wabnitz P, Neuner F. This person is saying bad things about you: The influence of physically and socially threatening context information on the processing of inherently neutral faces. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2015; 15(4): 736–748. pmid:25967930
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[193] View Article

[194] PubMed/NCBI

[195] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Paulmann S, Pell MD. Contextual influences of emotional speech prosody on face processing: how much is enough? Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2010; 10(2): 230–242.
View Article
Google Scholar

[197] View Article

[198] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Eimer M, Kiss M. Involuntary attentional capture is determined by task set: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2008; 20(8): 1423–1433. pmid:18303979
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[200] View Article

[201] PubMed/NCBI

[202] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Weymar M, Löw A, Öhman A, Hamm AO. The face is more than its parts-brain dynamics of enhanced spatial attention to schematic threat. Neuroimage. 2011; 58(3): 946–954. pmid:21742041
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[204] View Article

[205] PubMed/NCBI

[206] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Eimer M, Kiss M. Attentional capture by task-irrelevant fearful faces is revealed by the N2pc component. Biological Psychology. 2007; 74(1): 108–112. pmid:16899334
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[208] View Article

[209] PubMed/NCBI

[210] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Yao SX, Yang D, Qi SQ, Lei Y, Ding C. Studies on the N2pc component in visual spatial attention. Advances in Psychological Science. 2012; 20(3): 365–375.
View Article
Google Scholar

[212] View Article

[213] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Luck SJ. An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005.

[ref63] 63. Luo Y, Shen WL, Zhang Y, Feng TY, Huang H, Li H. Core disgust and m oral disgust are related to distinct spatiotem poral patterns of neural processing: An event-related potential study. Biological Psychology. 2013; 94: 242–248. pmid:23816951
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[216] View Article

[217] PubMed/NCBI

[218] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Gui DY, Gan T, Liu C. Neural evidence for moral intuition and the temporal dynamics of interactions between emotional processes and moral cognition. Social neuroscience. 2015; 11(4):380–394. pmid:26286634
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[220] View Article

[221] PubMed/NCBI

[222] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007; 39(2): 175–191. pmid:17695343
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[224] View Article

[225] PubMed/NCBI

[226] Google Scholar

[ref66] 66. Peng XZ, Jiao C, Cui F, Chen QF, Li P, Li H. The time course of indirect moral judgment in gossip processing modulated by different agents. Psychophysiology. 2017; 54: 1459–1471. pmid:28543218
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[228] View Article

[229] PubMed/NCBI

[230] Google Scholar

[ref67] 67. Borg JS, Lieberman D, Kiehl KA. Infection, incest, and iniquity: Investigating the neural correlates of disgust and morality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2008; 20(9): 1529–1546. pmid:18345982
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[232] View Article

[233] PubMed/NCBI

[234] Google Scholar

[ref68] 68. Wang Y, Luo YJ. Standardization and assessment of college students’ facial expression of emotion. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2005; 13: 396–398.
View Article
Google Scholar

[236] View Article

[237] Google Scholar

[ref69] 69. Klauer KC, Musch J. Affective priming: Findings and theories. In: Musch J, Klauer KC, editors. The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion. Lawrence Erlbaum: 2003. pp. 7–49.

[ref70] 70. Diéguez-Risco T, Aguado L, Albert J, Hinojosa JA. Faces in context: Modulation of expression processing by situational information. Social Neuroscience. 2013; 8(6): 601–620. pmid:24053118
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[240] View Article

[241] PubMed/NCBI

[242] Google Scholar

[ref71] 71. Galfano G, Sarlo M, Sassi F, Munafò M, Fuentes LJ, Umiltà C. Reorienting of spatial attention in gaze cuing is reflected in N2pc. Social Neuroscience. 2011; 6(3): 257–269. pmid:20924978
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[244] View Article

[245] PubMed/NCBI

[246] Google Scholar

[ref72] 72. Clark JA. Relations of homology between higher cognitive emotions and basic emotions. Biology & Philosophy. 2010; 25(1): 75–94.
View Article
Google Scholar

[248] View Article

[249] Google Scholar

[ref73] 73. Ottmar VL, Belinda MC, Mareka JF, Deborah JT, Joanne RS. Searching for emotion or race: Task-irrelevant facial cues have asymmetrical effects. Cognition and Emotion. 2014; 28(6): 1100–1109. pmid:24350636
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[251] View Article

[252] PubMed/NCBI

[253] Google Scholar

[ref74] 74. Smith FW, Rossit S. Identifying and detecting facial expressions of emotion in peripheral vision. PLoS ONE. 2018; 13(5): e0197160. pmid:29847562
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[255] View Article

[256] PubMed/NCBI

[257] Google Scholar

[ref75] 75. Gutierrez A, Nummenmaa L, Calvo MG. Enhanced processing of emotional gist in peripheral vision. Spanish Journal of Psychology. 2009; 12:414–423. pmid:19899644
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[259] View Article

[260] PubMed/NCBI

[261] Google Scholar

[ref76] 76. Hietanen JK, Astikainen P. N170 response to facial expressions is modulated by the affective congruency between the emotional expression and preceding affective picture. Biological Psychology. 2013; 92(2):114–124. pmid:23131616
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[263] View Article

[264] PubMed/NCBI

[265] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Moral judgment and disgust emotion

The emotion of disgust and moral violations with and without impurity

Neural mechanisms underlying moral violations with and without impurity.

Emotion induced by moral violations influence subsequent processing

Overview of this study

Method

Participants

Materials

Procedure

ERP recording and data analysis

Results

Behavioral results

ERP results

P2 (170~220ms).

N2pc (160~300ms).

N400(360~460ms).

LPP (700~1000ms).

Discussion

Limitations

Supporting information

S1 Appendix.

S1 File.

References