Induced disgust increases negative implicit attitudes towards blood donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and objectives The blood donation environment includes a variety of disgust‐related stimuli that may influence attitudes among new and prospective donors. To explore the causal role of disgust in the context of attitudes towards blood donation, we experimentally induced feelings of disgust (vs. fear, moral elevation or control). We hypothesized that for people who are generally sensitive to their bodily sensations, disgust would lead to more negative implicit attitudes towards blood donation than other emotions. Materials and methods A total of 123 participants completed a questionnaire package including private body consciousness, disgust, altruism and social desirability. Next, participants watched one of four videos with emotional content: a video segment depicting a filthy toilet (disgust), a man chasing a woman and child wielding an axe (fear), a man whose life was positively changed by a mentor (moral elevation) or a nature documentary (control). After the video, participants completed a Single‐Target Implicit Association Test (ST‐IAT) and questions regarding explicit attitudes towards blood donation. Results As predicted, the disgust video resulted in lower implicit attitudes towards blood donation for participants high in private body consciousness. Disgust sensitivity predicted lower donation interest, but not implicit attitudes or explicit intention. There was no effect of emotion on explicit attitudes. Conclusion Automatic processes should be considered in the development of interventions aimed at promoting prosocial and health behaviours. Management of disgust‐related stimuli in donation centres and recruitment campaigns might improve attitudes towards blood donation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".