Bugs are blech, butterflies are beautiful, but both are bad to bite: Admired animals are disgusting to eat but are themselves neither disgusting nor contaminating.

It is often assumed that things that are disgusting to eat are, themselves, disgusting, and that things that are disgusting to eat are also contaminating. We present data that counters both of these assumptions. In adult American and Indian samples, Study 1 provides evidence that, in contrast to many other insects, participants have positive attitudes toward butterflies. Participants are relatively unbothered by touching them or eating food that they have contacted but are very disgusted by the thought of eating them. Study 2 extends these findings with an adult American sample, comparing four pairs of animals, one admired and one disgusting: butterflies and cockroaches, canaries and vultures, koalas and rats, and dogs and hyenas. In all 4 cases, the positive animals themselves are rated as very low in disgustingness but rated as very disgusting to consume-almost as disgusting as the negative animals. However, although contact between the negative animals and a favorite food produces a strong disgust response to the favorite food, this contamination effect is much smaller, and sometimes absent, with the positive animals. We present evidence that the perceived immorality of killing admired animals is related to the disgust at consuming them. Disgust at eating an admired animal may have a moral component because it involves, at least indirectly, killing the animal. An admired animal that has contacted a favored food does not reliably make that food disgusting. In this scenario, as opposed to eating, there is no harm to the animal. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

What Constitutes Traditional and Modern Eating? The Case of Japan.

Traditional Japanese dietary culture might be a factor contributing to the high life expectancy in Japan. As little is known about what constitutes traditional and modern eating in Japan, the aims of the current study were to (1) comprehensively compile and systematize the various facets of traditional and modern eating; and (2) investigate whether these facets also apply to traditional and modern eating in Japan. In Study 1, an extensive international literature review was performed. Forty-five facets of traditional and modern eating were compiled and systematized into the dimensions of what and how people eat, and into eleven separate subdimensions. In Study 2, 340 adults from Japan answered a questionnaire. Results showed that traditional and modern eating in Japan is reflected in both what and how people eat. Within these two dimensions, ten subdimensions were found: the ingredients, processing, temporal origin, spatial origin, and variety of consumed foods, as well as temporal, spatial, and social aspects, appreciation, and concerns when eating. This study provides a broad compilation of facets of traditional and modern eating in Japan. Future research should investigate how these facets are related to life expectancy and health.

Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines.

Preference for natural refers to the fact that in a number of domains, especially food, people prefer natural entities to those which have been produced with human intervention. Two studies with undergraduate students and representative American adults indicate that the preference for natural is substantial, and stronger for foods than for medicines. Although healthfulness is often given as a reason for preferring natural foods, even when healthfulness or effectiveness (for medicines) of the natural and artificial exemplars is specified as equivalent, the great majority of people who demonstrate a preference for natural continue to prefer natural. In addition, when the natural and artificial exemplars are specified to be chemically identical, a majority of people who prefer natural continue to prefer it. This suggests that a substantial part of the motivation for preferring natural is ideational (moral or aesthetic), as opposed to instrumental (healthiness/effectiveness or superior sensory properties).