Grounding cleansing behavior in the sensorimotor processes of separation and connection provides a parsimonious explanation for a wide array of psychological phenomena. Lee and Schwarz (L&S) display in the target article that the experimental modeling of cleansing behavior typically means either creating an incidental aversive stimulus (e.g., moral and emotional) with an opportunity of subsequent cleansing or prompting a cleansing activity and measuring the consequences. Additionally, L&S show how, on the flipside, sensorimotor connection can ground mental connection. With laying important groundwork, L&S stick to a rather fragmented perspective of isolated mechanisms. Real-life situations and the psychological phenomena that the model aims to explain aren't necessarily characterized by a clean division of motivations and effects. The model presented by L&S fails to account for situations where the grounded procedures are not isolated and the opposing motives of separation and connection are entangled. Two types of these situations are of greater theoretical relevance and practical consequence. First, people desire things that are not “clean.” Second, when cleansing is felt necessary, it often requires connecting with the contaminating property – you have to get dirty to clean up the mess.
The dilemma of dirty money is an example for desiring things that are not clean. Psychological research found that money isn't only appraised based on its material value, its origin matters too (Bloom, Reference Bloom2010; Tasimi & Gelman, Reference Tasimi and Gelman2017). People devalue money with immoral origin (Stellar & Willer, Reference Stellar and Willer2014) and spend it reluctantly (Kardos & Castano, Reference Kardos and Castano2012) – grounded separation can explain both outcomes. A self-control-based approach has recently been offered to understand the dirty money dilemma (Tasimi & Gross, Reference Tasimi and Gross2020). In this approach, the valuation conflict is presented as competing processes, where shifting attention (between material and moral) and the ensuing differences in the appraisal of the dirty money (material: good; moral: bad) would determine the valuations and the subsequent behavior. This view of competing processes is compatible with L&S's view. The separation and connection motives would emerge from the different appraisals and then manifest in responses appropriate to the grounded procedures of separation (get away from it) and connection (get it).
People's naïve understanding of magical contagion (Nemeroff & Rozin, Reference Nemeroff and Rozin1994) and the fact that they actively adapt to disgust eliciting situations (Rozin, Reference Rozin2008) suggests a more dynamic process and alternative outcomes with no necessary winner between the competing motivations but with a combined, strategic interplay between them. Money laundering is practiced to remove negative traces of the past, and not only to escape legal consequences, as money's immoral origin influences people even when no one else is involved (Tasimi & Gelman, Reference Tasimi and Gelman2017). After receiving money under negative circumstances, people tend to use the available laundering opportunity, which, in turn, alleviates the negative emotions felt over the money's origin (Levav & McGraw, Reference Levav and McGraw2009). The relevant question is whether people are more likely to accept tainted money when they believe that they can launder it later – parallel to the finding that preventing money laundering decreases the incentives of crime (Levi, Reference Levi2002). Knowing, for example, that acts of separation are available, people should be less reluctant to connect with tainted money. Instead of a one-dimensional separation versus connection choice, the process likely involves the strategic execution of a sequence of separation(s) and connection(s).
In a more benign example and moving from moral to literal dirt, picking up loose change poses a similar dilemma between connection and separation. Here too, a combination of the two should be the answer. In itself, a free quarter is desirable. When it lays on the subway platform, it will be perceived to be associated with an undesirable property. Carrying a hand sanitizer, that is, knowing and planning that subsequent separation can follow, the connection motive to pick it up should more likely manifest. Exploring how these elementary grounded procedures link sequentially in a process would shed light not only on the mechanism and function, but also on the lay knowledge that people have about the psychology of cleansing.
As for the second type of situations, in the practices that the authors highlight to show how cleansing behavior permeates everyday life, the separation often requires an initial connection. Again, the question is not merely the extent of separation or separation versus connection, but their combined use in a logical arrangement. Think about the banal case of noticing an icky think on your shoes. The separation motive exists, but separation requires connection. A tissue is a material solution designed to satisfy the separation motive, while also minimizing connection. Civilization has invested excessive creative efforts to solve such problems. Babies have to be kept clean and modern diapers offer an ever-cleaner experience of disposing waste. Automated no-touch soap dispensers and faucets ensure separation without connection.
Similar processes can play out in moral issues. Unlike in experimental settings where the cleansing behavior is typically unrelated to the property being cleansed away (e.g., using hand sanitizer to activate separation in the domain of luck), real life separation induced actions are often related to the (moral) property that they are supposed to impact. In religious practices, for instance, getting rid of a sin often requires recounting it first, that is, facing it, connecting with it, and only then can one wash it away in a ritual bath or send it away in the desert symbolically tied to a scapegoat. The prearranged separation makes it easier to reconnect with the undesired property. The interplay between the different grounded procedures reveals the tension that the more one cares about cleansing something away, the more aversion one might experience for having to do the cleansing.
The proposed model of cleansing offers explanation for a wider array of phenomena than previous accounts. The model could capitalize on the new understanding of the separate mechanisms and capture the complexity of cleansing-related psychological processes. It is understandable that when introducing a new model, the elementary mechanisms receive the most attention. Extending this attention to the combination as well as the strategic, sequential application of the elementary mechanisms should advance the model.
You have
Access
Grounding cleansing behavior in the sensorimotor processes of separation and connection provides a parsimonious explanation for a wide array of psychological phenomena. Lee and Schwarz (L&S) display in the target article that the experimental modeling of cleansing behavior typically means either creating an incidental aversive stimulus (e.g., moral and emotional) with an opportunity of subsequent cleansing or prompting a cleansing activity and measuring the consequences. Additionally, L&S show how, on the flipside, sensorimotor connection can ground mental connection. With laying important groundwork, L&S stick to a rather fragmented perspective of isolated mechanisms. Real-life situations and the psychological phenomena that the model aims to explain aren't necessarily characterized by a clean division of motivations and effects. The model presented by L&S fails to account for situations where the grounded procedures are not isolated and the opposing motives of separation and connection are entangled. Two types of these situations are of greater theoretical relevance and practical consequence. First, people desire things that are not “clean.” Second, when cleansing is felt necessary, it often requires connecting with the contaminating property – you have to get dirty to clean up the mess.
The dilemma of dirty money is an example for desiring things that are not clean. Psychological research found that money isn't only appraised based on its material value, its origin matters too (Bloom, Reference Bloom2010; Tasimi & Gelman, Reference Tasimi and Gelman2017). People devalue money with immoral origin (Stellar & Willer, Reference Stellar and Willer2014) and spend it reluctantly (Kardos & Castano, Reference Kardos and Castano2012) – grounded separation can explain both outcomes. A self-control-based approach has recently been offered to understand the dirty money dilemma (Tasimi & Gross, Reference Tasimi and Gross2020). In this approach, the valuation conflict is presented as competing processes, where shifting attention (between material and moral) and the ensuing differences in the appraisal of the dirty money (material: good; moral: bad) would determine the valuations and the subsequent behavior. This view of competing processes is compatible with L&S's view. The separation and connection motives would emerge from the different appraisals and then manifest in responses appropriate to the grounded procedures of separation (get away from it) and connection (get it).
People's naïve understanding of magical contagion (Nemeroff & Rozin, Reference Nemeroff and Rozin1994) and the fact that they actively adapt to disgust eliciting situations (Rozin, Reference Rozin2008) suggests a more dynamic process and alternative outcomes with no necessary winner between the competing motivations but with a combined, strategic interplay between them. Money laundering is practiced to remove negative traces of the past, and not only to escape legal consequences, as money's immoral origin influences people even when no one else is involved (Tasimi & Gelman, Reference Tasimi and Gelman2017). After receiving money under negative circumstances, people tend to use the available laundering opportunity, which, in turn, alleviates the negative emotions felt over the money's origin (Levav & McGraw, Reference Levav and McGraw2009). The relevant question is whether people are more likely to accept tainted money when they believe that they can launder it later – parallel to the finding that preventing money laundering decreases the incentives of crime (Levi, Reference Levi2002). Knowing, for example, that acts of separation are available, people should be less reluctant to connect with tainted money. Instead of a one-dimensional separation versus connection choice, the process likely involves the strategic execution of a sequence of separation(s) and connection(s).
In a more benign example and moving from moral to literal dirt, picking up loose change poses a similar dilemma between connection and separation. Here too, a combination of the two should be the answer. In itself, a free quarter is desirable. When it lays on the subway platform, it will be perceived to be associated with an undesirable property. Carrying a hand sanitizer, that is, knowing and planning that subsequent separation can follow, the connection motive to pick it up should more likely manifest. Exploring how these elementary grounded procedures link sequentially in a process would shed light not only on the mechanism and function, but also on the lay knowledge that people have about the psychology of cleansing.
As for the second type of situations, in the practices that the authors highlight to show how cleansing behavior permeates everyday life, the separation often requires an initial connection. Again, the question is not merely the extent of separation or separation versus connection, but their combined use in a logical arrangement. Think about the banal case of noticing an icky think on your shoes. The separation motive exists, but separation requires connection. A tissue is a material solution designed to satisfy the separation motive, while also minimizing connection. Civilization has invested excessive creative efforts to solve such problems. Babies have to be kept clean and modern diapers offer an ever-cleaner experience of disposing waste. Automated no-touch soap dispensers and faucets ensure separation without connection.
Similar processes can play out in moral issues. Unlike in experimental settings where the cleansing behavior is typically unrelated to the property being cleansed away (e.g., using hand sanitizer to activate separation in the domain of luck), real life separation induced actions are often related to the (moral) property that they are supposed to impact. In religious practices, for instance, getting rid of a sin often requires recounting it first, that is, facing it, connecting with it, and only then can one wash it away in a ritual bath or send it away in the desert symbolically tied to a scapegoat. The prearranged separation makes it easier to reconnect with the undesired property. The interplay between the different grounded procedures reveals the tension that the more one cares about cleansing something away, the more aversion one might experience for having to do the cleansing.
The proposed model of cleansing offers explanation for a wider array of phenomena than previous accounts. The model could capitalize on the new understanding of the separate mechanisms and capture the complexity of cleansing-related psychological processes. It is understandable that when introducing a new model, the elementary mechanisms receive the most attention. Extending this attention to the combination as well as the strategic, sequential application of the elementary mechanisms should advance the model.
Financial support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interest
None.