No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Incomplete grounding: the theory of symbolic separation is contradicted by pervasive stability in attitudes and behavior
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 February 2021
Abstract
The proposed theory is broad enough to accommodate the reduction or elimination of prior influences by a variety of acts symbolizing separation (including cleansing). However, it does not account for stability in psychological variables, and is contradicted by widely documented stability in people's actual attitudes and behavior over time, in multiple domains, despite people's pervasive everyday acts of symbolic separation.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Billingsley, K. D., Waehler, C. A., & Hardin, S. I. (1993). Stability of optimism and choice of coping strategy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76(1), 91–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blokland, A. A., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2010). Considering criminal continuity: Testing for heterogeneity and state dependence in the association of past to future offending. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(3), 526–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, N. G., & Chou, R. J. (2010). Time and money volunteering among older adults: The relationship between past and current volunteering and correlates of change and stability. Ageing and Society, 30(4), 559–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denny, K., & Doyle, O. (2009). Does voting history matter? Analysing persistence in turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubé, J. P., Hitsch, G. J., & Rossi, P. E. (2010). State dependence and alternative explanations for consumer inertia. The RAND Journal of Economics, 41(3), 417–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeze, M., & Montgomery, J. M. (2016). Static stability and evolving constraint: Preference stability and ideological structure in the mass public. American Politics Research, 44(3), 415–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. P., & Palmquist, B. (1994). How stable is party identification?. Political Behavior, 16(4), 437–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamberg, E. M. (1991). Stability and change in religious beliefs, practice, and attitudes: A Swedish panel study. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(1), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Körner, A., & Strack, F. (2019). Conditions for the clean slate effect after success or failure. The Journal of Social Psychology, 159(1), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1454881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krosnick, J. A. (1991). The stability of political preferences: Comparisons of symbolic and nonsymbolic attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 35(3), 547–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagin, D., & Paternoster, R. (2000). Population heterogeneity and state dependence: State of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16(2), 117–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, S., & Pashler, H. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, 107(2), 358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schou, I., Ekeberg, O., Sandvik, L., & Ruland, C. M. (2005). Stability in optimism-pessimism in relation to bad news: A study of women with breast cancer. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(2), 148–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Target article
Grounded procedures: A proximate mechanism for the psychology of cleansing and other physical actions
Related commentaries (27)
A not-so proximate account of cleansing behavior
Bio-culturally grounded: why separation and connection may not be the same around the world
Body ownership as a proxy for individual and social separation and connection
Cleansing and separating: From modern agriculture and genocide to post-separation era
Cleansing and separation procedures reflect resource concerns
Considerations of the proximate mechanisms and ultimate functions of disgust will improve our understanding of cleansing effects
Cultural mindsets shape what grounded procedures mean: Cleansing can separate or connect and separating can feel good or not so good
Culture, ecology, and grounded procedures
Developmental antecedents of cleansing effects: Evidence against domain-generality
From washing hands to washing consciences and polishing reputations
Going beyond elementary mechanisms: the strategic interplay between grounded procedures
Grounded procedures of connection are not created equal
Grounded procedures of separation in clinical psychology: what's to be expected?
Grounded separation: can the sensorimotor be grounded in the symbolic?
Grounding together: Shared reality and cleansing practices
Incomplete grounding: the theory of symbolic separation is contradicted by pervasive stability in attitudes and behavior
It's a matter of (executive) load: Separation as a load-dependent resetting procedure
Leveraging individual differences to understand grounded procedures
Proper understanding of grounded procedures of separation needs a dual inheritance approach
Psychology of cleansing through the prism of intersecting object histories
Separation/connection procedures: From cleansing behavior to numerical cognition
Specifying separation: avoidance, abstraction, openness to new experiences
The impact of grounded procedures can vary as a function of perceived thought validity, meaning, and timing
The lack of robust evidence for cleansing effects
The role of goal-generalization processes in the effects of grounded procedures
The role of meta-analysis and preregistration in assessing the evidence for cleansing effects
The role of mortality concerns in separation and connection effects: comment on Lee and Schwarz
Author response
Grounded procedures in mind and society