No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Considerations of the proximate mechanisms and ultimate functions of disgust will improve our understanding of cleansing effects
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 February 2021
Abstract
To understand the consequences of cleansing, Lee and Schwarz favor a grounded procedures perspective over recently developed disgust theory. We believe that this position stems from three errors: (1) interpreting cleansing effects as broader than they are; (2) not detailing the proximate mechanisms underlying disgust; and (3) not detailing adaptive function versus system byproducts when developing the grounded procedures perspective.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Ackerman, J. M., Tybur, J. M., & Mortensen, C. R. (2018). Infectious disease and imperfections of self-image. Psychological Science, 29, 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617733829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, B. J. (2005a). Failsafe n or file-drawer number. In Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J. & Borenstein, M. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 111–125). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Billingsley, J., Lieberman, D., & Tybur, J. M. (2018). Sexual disgust trumps pathogen disgust in predicting voter behavior during the 2016 US Presidential Election. Evolutionary Psychology, 16, 1474704918764170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704918764170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, E. C., Schönbrodt, F. D., Gervais, W. M., & Hilgard, J. (2019). Correcting for bias in psychology: A comparison of meta-analytic methods. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1994). Beyond intuition and instinct blindness: The case for an evolutionarily rigorous cognitive science. Cognition, 50, 41–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90020-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, V., De Barra, M., & Aunger, R. (2011). Disgust as an adaptive system for disease avoidance behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1563), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, B. L. (1990). Behavioral adaptations to pathogens and parasites: Five strategies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 14, 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(05)80038-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kupfer, T. R., & Fessler, D. M. (2018). Ectoparasite defense in humans: Relationships to pathogen avoidance and clinical implications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1751), 20170207. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupfer, T. R., & Le, A. T. (2018). Disgusting clusters: Trypophobia as an overgeneralised disease avoidance response. Cognition and Emotion, 32, 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2017.1345721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurzban, R., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001). Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(26), 15387–15392. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.251541498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieberman, D., & Patrick, C. (2018). Objection: Disgust, morality, and the law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, D. R., & Schaller, M. (2016). The behavioral immune system: Implications for social cognition, social interaction, and social influence. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 53, pp. 75–129). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Oaten, M., Stevenson, R. J., & Case, T. I. (2009). Disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oaten, M., Stevenson, R. J., & Case, T. I. (2011). Disease avoidance as a functional basis for stigmatization. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B: Biological Sciences, 366, 3433–3452. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0095.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S. (2008). With a clean conscience cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1219–1222. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tybur, J. M., & Lieberman, D. (2016). Human pathogen avoidance adaptations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.06.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., Kurzban, R., & DeScioli, P. (2013). Disgust: Evolved function and structure. Psychological Review, 120(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tybur, J. M., Wesseldijk, L. W., & Jern, P. (2020). Genetic and environmental influences on disgust proneness, contamination sensitivity, and their covariance. Clinical Psychological Science, 2167702620951510. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702620951510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, A. J., Zwick, R., & Schwarz, N. (2012). Washing away your (good or bad) luck: Physical cleansing affects risk-taking behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023997.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