An Examination of the Westermarck Hypothesis and the Role of Disgust in Incest Avoidance Among Fathers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From an evolutionary perspective, incestuous behavior is puzzling. The goal of this study was to assess the tenability of the Westermarck hypothesis (1891, 1921)-that people who live in close physical proximity with one another during childhood will develop a sexual indifference or aversion toward one another-and the mediating role of disgust as an incest avoidance mechanism in father-daughter relationships. A sample of fathers with daughters ( N = 632) from Canada and the United States were recruited by Qualtrics-a survey platform and project management company-to complete an online survey. The results from this study did not support the viability of the Westermarck hypothesis as a mechanism that facilitates incest avoidance for fathers. Physical proximity was not associated with incest propensity or disgust toward incest. Less disgust toward incest, however, was found to be associated with more incest propensity. These results indicate that physical proximity may not be a reliable kinship cue used by fathers to inform incest avoidance, but that disgust toward incest may still be a proximate mechanism that facilitates incest avoidance among fathers using kinship cues other than physical proximity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".