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.
Statements
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
1
CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (1994). Origins of domain specificity: the evolution of functional organization, in Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, eds HirschfeldL.GermanS. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 85–116. 10.1017/CBO9780511752902.005
2
DuchaineB.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (2001). Evolutionary psychology and the brain. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.11, 225–230. 10.1016/S0959-4388(00)00201-4
3
KanazawaS. (2004). General intelligence as a domain-specific adaptation. Psychol. Rev.111, 512–523. 10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.512
4
KirkpatrickL. A.WaughC. E.ValenciaA.WebsterG. D. (2002). The functional domain specificity of self-esteem and the differential prediction of aggression. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.82, 756–767. 10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.756
5
LeeS.SchwarzN. (2020). Grounded procedures: a proximate mechanism for the psychology of cleansing and other physical actions. Behav. Brain Sci.1–78. 10.1017/S0140525X20000308
6
MitkidisP.AyalS.ShalviS.HeimannK.LevyG.KyseloM.et al. (2017). The effects of extreme rituals on moral behavior: the performers-observers gap hypothesis. J. Econ. Psychol.59, 1–7. 10.1016/j.joep.2016.12.007
7
OrquinJ. L.KurzbanR. (2016). A meta-analysis of blood glucose effects on human decision making. Psychol. Bull.142, 546–567. 10.1037/bul0000035
8
OtterbringT. (2019). Time orientation mediates the link between hunger and hedonic choices across domains. Food Res. Int.120, 124–129. 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.02.032
9
XygalatasD.MitkidisP.FischerR.ReddishP.SkewesJ.GeertzA. W.et al. (2013). Extreme rituals promote prosociality. Psychol. Sci.24, 1602–1605. 10.1177/0956797612472910
Summary
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
Volume
11 - 2020
Edited by
Árpád Csathó, University of Pécs, Hungary
Reviewed by
Matt Joseph Rossano, Southeastern Louisiana University, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 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 toot@mgmt.au.dk
This article was submitted to Evolutionary Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.