Tobias Otterbring
Panagiotis Mitkidis
Lene Aarøe
Christian T. Elbæk- 1Department of Management/MAPP, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
- 2Department of Management, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
- 3Center for Advanced Hindsight, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States
- 4Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
A Commentary on
Grounded procedures: A proximate mechanism for the psychology of cleansing and other physical actions
by Lee, S., and Schwarz, N. (2020). Behav. Brain Sci. 1–78. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X20000308
Lee and Schwarz (2020) present five falsifiable predictions derived from their grounded procedures account and state that if grounded procedures serve as a proximate mechanism for cleansing effects, then cleansing should decrease or erase the otherwise observed impact of a prior event (1) across domains and (2) across valences. Furthermore, they postulate that (3) cleansing manipulations that more strongly engage sensorimotor capacities should have a particularly powerful influence, that (4) psychological antecedents of cleansing should be valence-asymmetric, such that motivation for cleansing as a procedure for separation should be triggered more easily by negative (vs. positive) valence, and, finally, that (5) conceptually similar effects should extend from cleansing to other forms of separation and connection. While we perceive each of these premises as plausible, we wanted to focus our commentary not so much on what the authors do state, but rather on one aspect that they do not specify, whose elaboration would further facilitate falsifiability.
Specifically, we would have liked the authors to clearly communicate whether they assume domain-specific cleansing effects to be stronger than effects in unrelated or only symbolically similar domains. For instance, some but admittedly not all acts of separation are likely induced through an aversive state (e.g., immoral behaviors being erased through cleansing in order to “wash away the sins” and reduce the saliency of an aversive state of arousal). Other aversive states, such as acute hunger, have shown to exert stronger effects on domain-specific responses, while still having some, albeit weaker effects in other domains (for a meta-analysis, see Orquin and Kurzban, 2016). For example, hungry (vs. satiated) individuals are particularly prone to favor hedonic (vs. utilitarian) food options, but also exhibit a similar, but weaker tendency to prefer other hedonic options that have nothing to do with food (Otterbring, 2019). Based on such findings, we suspect that cleansing effects will (1) have the strongest impact in domain-specific situations, while the strength of these effects should (2) attenuate in domains that are only symbolically similar (i.e., conceptually related but not domain specific, such as certain religious rituals meant to create a pure conscience; Xygalatas et al., 2013; Mitkidis et al., 2017), and (3) further decrease in domains that are entirely unrelated to disgust, morality, purity, divinity, virginity, and other conceptually connected phenomena. In our view, these assumptions would align with a deep-rooted, ultimate (as opposed to proximate) account, as such a strength ranking of responses, ranging from strongest in domain-specific situations, through weaker in symbolically (and conceptually) similar domains, to weakest in unrelated domains appears adaptive and, consequently, something that may have evolved throughout human history (Cosmides and Tooby, 1994; Duchaine et al., 2001; Kirkpatrick et al., 2002; Kanazawa, 2004). Thus, while the authors delineate their expected strengths of cleansing effects as a function of whether they relate to the self (vs. other) as the agent and whether the self (vs. other) is the patient, we wonder if and why they do or do not predict differentially strong cleansing effects as a function of domain specificity.
Author Contributions
TO lead-authored the article, with input from PM, LA, and CE. All authors approved the final version of the article prior to submission.
Funding
This article was supported by a grant awarded to the TO by the Aarhus University Research Foundation (Aarhus Universitets Forskningsfond; AUFF).
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J. (1994). “Origins of domain specificity: the evolution of functional organization,” in Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, eds L. Hirschfeld and S. German (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 85–116. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511752902.005
Duchaine, B., Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J. (2001). Evolutionary psychology and the brain. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 11, 225–230. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4388(00)00201-4
Kanazawa, S. (2004). General intelligence as a domain-specific adaptation. Psychol. Rev. 111, 512–523. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.512
Kirkpatrick, L. A., Waugh, C. E., Valencia, A., and Webster, G. D. (2002). The functional domain specificity of self-esteem and the differential prediction of aggression. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 756–767. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.756
Lee, S., and Schwarz, N. (2020). Grounded procedures: a proximate mechanism for the psychology of cleansing and other physical actions. Behav. Brain Sci. 1–78. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X20000308
Mitkidis, P., Ayal, S., Shalvi, S., Heimann, K., Levy, G., Kyselo, M., et al. (2017). The effects of extreme rituals on moral behavior: the performers-observers gap hypothesis. J. Econ. Psychol. 59, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2016.12.007
Orquin, J. L., and Kurzban, R. (2016). A meta-analysis of blood glucose effects on human decision making. Psychol. Bull. 142, 546–567. doi: 10.1037/bul0000035
Otterbring, T. (2019). Time orientation mediates the link between hunger and hedonic choices across domains. Food Res. Int. 120, 124–129. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.02.032
Keywords: domain specificity, morality, evolutionary psychology, cleansing effects, disgust
Citation: Otterbring T, Mitkidis P, Aarøe L and Elbæk CT (2020) Commentary: Grounded procedures: A proximate mechanism for the psychology of cleansing and other physical actions. Front. Psychol. 11:2137. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02137
Received: 29 June 2020; Accepted: 30 July 2020;
Published: 02 September 2020.
Edited by:
Árpád Csathó, University of Pécs, HungaryReviewed by:
Matt Joseph Rossano, Southeastern Louisiana University, United StatesCopyright © 2020 Otterbring, Mitkidis, Aarøe and Elbæk. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Tobias Otterbring, dG9vdCYjeDAwMDQwO21nbXQuYXUuZGs=