Open AccessIndividual differences in avoiding feelings of disgust: Development and construct validity of the disgust avoidance questionnaire
Author(s) -
Paula von Spreckelsen,
Nienke C. Jonker,
Jorien Vugteveen,
Ineke Wessel,
Klaske A. Glashouwer,
Peter J. de Jong
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0248219
Subject(s) - disgust , psychology , construct validity , confirmatory factor analysis , exploratory factor analysis , cognition , safety behaviors , incremental validity , developmental psychology , convergent validity , cognitive psychology , structural equation modeling , clinical psychology , psychometrics , poison control , human factors and ergonomics , medicine , anger , computer science , psychiatry , machine learning , environmental health , internal consistency
We developed and examined the construct validity of the Disgust Avoidance Questionnaire (DAQ) as a measure of people’s inclination to prevent experiencing disgust (disgust prevention) and to escape from the experience of disgust (disgust escape). In a stepwise item-reduction (Study 1; N = 417) using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) based on a 4-subscale distinction (behavioral prevention, cognitive prevention, behavioral escape, cognitive escape), we selected 17 items from a pool of potential items. In order to incorporate the conceptual overlap between dimensions of disgust avoidance, focus (prevention vs. escape), and strategy (behavioral avoidance vs. cognitive avoidance), we specified an adapted model. In this model, we allowed each item to load on one type of dimension and one type of strategy, resulting in four overlapping factors (prevention, escape, behavioral avoidance, cognitive avoidance). Evaluation of this overlapping 4-factor model (Study 2; N = 513) using Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) showed promising model fit indices, factor loadings, factor correlations, and reliability estimates for three of the four factors (prevention, behavioral avoidance, cognitive avoidance). Those three subscales also showed good convergent validity. In contrast, the results related to the escape factor may call the suitability of self-report to assess disgust escape into question. In light of the exploratory nature of the project, future examinations of the DAQ’s validity and applicability to more diverse samples are essential. A critical next step for future research would be to examine the DAQ’s criterion validity and the distinctive roles of the DAQ subscales in (clinical) psychological constructs and processes.