RESUMO
One prediction derived from the disease avoidance account of disgust is that proximal disgust cues (smells, tastes and touches) should elicit this emotion more intensely than distal disgust cues (sights and sounds). If correct, then memories of disgusting experiences should involve smelling, tasting or touching to a greater degree than seeing or hearing. Two surveys were conducted on university students to test this idea, drawing upon their naturalistic experiences. Survey 1 (N = 127) asked participants to detail their most memorable disgusting, fear-provoking, morally repulsive and yucky/gross experience, with each recollection self-rated for sensory involvement. Survey 2 (N = 89) employed the same task, but this time, participants recollected their most common disgusting, fear-provoking, morally repulsive and yucky/gross experience in the preceding week. The majority of disgusting experiences were core disgusts-i.e. related to disease/pathogen presence or stimuli. The proximal and distal sensory cues contributed equally to individuals' most memorable core disgust experiences, but the proximal senses were more involved than the distal senses in individuals' most common core disgust experiences. Further, the proximal sensory cues, as compared with the distal sensory cues, were signficantly more involved in core disgust experiences than in morally repulsive and fear-provoking experiences. The implications of these findings for a disease avoidance account of disgust, for multi-sensory disgust research, and core disgust's classification as an emotion or a drive, are discussed.