Understanding Repugnance: Agency, Consequences, and the Role of Evaluators

Feelings of repugnance constrain market design since certain transactions are considered unacceptable, e.g., selling a kidney or surrogacy. Understanding the causes of repugnance is therefore essential. In two experimental studies, we investigate how agency, the severity of consequences, and the evaluator's role shape repugnance judgments. We find that all actors—spectators and stakeholders —are more likely to prohibit transactions when one party lacks agency. Spectators and those stakeholders who are more vulnerable are more sensitive to the severity of consequences, being more likely to prohibit transactions when consequences are severe rather than mild. In contrast, advantaged stakeholders do not differentiate between mild and severe consequences and are overall more accepting. These findings highlight how repugnance is shaped by both the features of the transaction and the evaluator’s role. Enhancing agency—particularly for vulnerable parties—may reduce repugnance and align attitudes across groups.