Grounded procedures: A proximate mechanism for the psychology of cleansing and other physical actions

Abstract

Experimental work has revealed causal links between physical cleansing and various psychological variables. Empirically, how robust are they? Theoretically, how do they operate? Major prevailing accounts focus on morality or disgust, capturing a subset of cleansing effects, but cannot easily handle cleansing effects in non-moral, non-disgusting contexts. Building on grounded views on cognitive processes and known properties of mental procedures, we propose grounded procedures of separation as a proximate mechanism underlying cleansing effects. This account differs from prevailing accounts in terms of explanatory kind, interpretive parsimony, and predictive scope. Its unique and falsifiable predictions have received empirical support: Cleansing attenuates or eliminates otherwise observed influences of prior events (1) across domains and (2) across valences. (3) Cleansing manipulations produce stronger effects the more strongly they engage sensorimotor capacities. (4) Reversing the causal arrow, motivation for cleansing is triggered more readily by negative than positive entities. (5) Conceptually similar effects extend to other physical actions of separation. On the flipside, grounded procedures of connection are also observed. Together, separation and connection organize prior findings relevant to multiple perspectives (e.g., conceptual metaphor, sympathetic magic) and open up new questions. Their predictions are more generalizable than the specific mappings in conceptual metaphors, but more fine-grained than the broad assumptions of grounded cognition. This intermediate level of analysis sheds light on the interplay between mental and physical processes.

Metacognitive Confidence Can Increase but Also Decrease Performance in Academic Settings

“…This invalidation condition was designed to reduce the perceived validity of thoughts and subsequent thought usage. Although this induction was also rather subtle, it was designed in accord with previous research revealing that creating distance from thoughts (either through mindfulness, cleansing, or other means) decreases the use of thoughts (Bernstein et al, 2015;Lee & Schwarz, 2021). Also, research on self-persuasion has demonstrated that physical distance (Briñol et al, 2013), and other forms of separation from one's thoughts, can decrease the use of both positive and negative thoughts affecting self-evaluation (Gascó et al, 2018;Paredes et al, 2019;Santos et al, 2019).…”

A Final Word on Train Wrecks

“…This standard has not always been met in replication attempts (Ramscar, 2016;Ramscar, Shaoul, & Baayen, 2015). As well, claims of non-replicability have sometimes been based on statistical practices that deviate from best practices (Lee & Schwarz, 2020). Moreover, as noted by Lee, motivated reasoning about research outcomes is not restricted to authors of new research results (Wagenmakers), and is readily found among claims of non-replication.…”

Reply to Ropovik and IJzerman's blog post (March 17, 2021)

“…• Our target article (Lee & Schwarz, 2021a) • Ropovik, Sparacio, and IJzerman's commentary (Ropovik et al, 2021) • Our "authors' response" to all 27 commentaries (Lee & Schwarz, 2021b) and our response appendix that presents technical details regarding Ropovik et al • Ropovik and IJzerman's blog post • Our present reply to Ropovik and IJzerman's blog post…”