The Disgust Scale: item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions for refinement.

By B. Olatunji, Nathan L. Williams, David F. Tolin, J. Abramowitz, C. Sawchuk, J. Lohr, Lisa S. Elwood. Psychological Assessment, 2007

814 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6a1b9afbfd2d92b6e11abf42138c6cbca4294b69

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings (2018, methodology): “To measure disgust sensitivity, we used the Contamination Disgust subscale of the Disgust Scale–Revised (DS-R; Olatunji et al., 2007), a 25-item revision of the original Disgust Sensitivity Scale (Haidt, McCauley, & Rozin, 1994).”
Individual differences predict sensitivity to the uncanny valley (2015, methodology): “Women rated significantly higher on Animal Reminder Sensitivity (t[563]  =  –3.14, p  =  .002) and all other trait indices except Android–Robot Uniqueness.”
Sex Differences in Disgust: Why Are Women More Easily Disgusted Than Men? (2018, background): “Different researchers have proposed different taxonomies of disgust (e.g., Haidt et al., 1994; Olatunji et al., 2007; Tybur et al., 2009), but in this article we will focus on a current classification scheme proposed by Tybur and colleagues.”
Causal Analysis (2018, background): “…can be causally interpreted (Hu & Bentler, 1999) Factor loadings should be at least .30 for interpretable results (many references for this, but see Olatunji et al., 2007 as an example) Independent variables should not correlate more than .70 or .80 with each other to avoid issues related to…”
Confirming the Three-Factor Structure of the Disgust Scale—Revised in Eight Countries (2009, methodology): “Drawing on recent work (Olatunji et al., 2007), we examine the fit of a three-factor model of the DS-R consisting of core, animal-reminder, and contamination disgust.”
The behavioral immune system and social conservatism: a meta-analysis (2013, methodology): “If the PVD was not available, measures of general disgust sensitivity (i.e., Disgust Scale-Revised; Olatunji et al., 2007) where used to indicate BIS strength.”
Psychological Predictors of Anxiety in Response to the H1N1 (Swine Flu) Pandemic (2012, background): “The BVS has demonstrated good internal consistency and adequate test–retest reliability (Olatunji et al. 2007a; Schmidt et al. 1997).”
The Disgust Propensity and Sensitivity Scale - Revised: Its predictive value for avoidance behavior (2010, methodology): “Although the 32-item version was administered, in accordance with recent suggestions (Olatunji et al., 2007b), only 25 items were used to calculate a total score and subscales: Core disgust, Animal-Reminder disgust (AR), and Contamination.”
Human pathogen avoidance adaptations (2016, background): “Variation in pathogen avoidance Individuals vary in the degree to which they are generally disgusted by cues to pathogens (disgust sensitivity; [39,40]) and avoidant of situations in which pathogens can be transmitted (germ aversion, or contamination sensitivity; [41]).”