No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Developmental antecedents of cleansing effects: Evidence against domain-generality
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 February 2021
Abstract
Lee and Schwarz propose grounded procedures of separation as a domain-general mechanism underlying cleansing effects. One strong test of domain generality is to investigate the ontogenetic origins of a process. Here, we argue that the developmental evidence provides weak support for a domain-general grounded procedures account. Instead, it is likely that distinct separation procedures develop uniquely for different content domains.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Blacker, K. A., & LoBue, V. (2016). Behavioral avoidance of contagion in childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 143, 162–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, S. D., & Harris, G. (2012). Disliked food acting as a contaminant during infancy. A disgust based motivation for rejection. Appetite, 58(2), 535–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeJesus, J. M., Shutts, K., & Kinzler, K. D. (2015). Eww she sneezed! Contamination context affects children's food preferences and consumption. Appetite, 87, 303–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, B. N., & Gelman, S. A. (2009). Developmental changes in judgments of authentic objects. Cognitive Development, 24(3), 284–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., Frazier, B. N., Noles, N. S., Manczak, E. M., & Stilwell, S. M. (2015). How much are Harry Potter's glasses worth? Children's monetary evaluation of authentic objects. Journal of Cognition and Development, 16(1), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., Manczak, E. M., Was, A. M., & Noles, N. S. (2016). Children seek historical traces of owned objects. Child Development, 87(1), 239–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hood, B. M., & Bloom, P. (2008). Children prefer certain individuals over perfect duplicates. Cognition, 106(1), 455–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legare, C. H., Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (2009). Evidence for an explanation advantage in naïve biological reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 177–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oaten, M., Stevenson, R. J., Wagland, P., Case, T. I., & Repacholi, B. M. (2014). Parent–child transmission of disgust and hand hygiene: The role of vocalizations, gestures and other parental responses. The Psychological Record, 64(4), 803–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raman, L., & Gelman, S. A. (2008). Do children endorse psychosocial factors in the transmission of illness and disgust? Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 801–813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rottman, J., DeJesus, J. M., & Greenebaum, H. (2019). Developing disgust: Theory, measurement, and application. In LoBue, V., Pérez-Edgar, K. & Buss, K. (Eds.), Handbook of emotional development (pp. 283–309). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, R. J., Oaten, M. J., Case, T. I., Repacholi, B. M., & Wagland, P. (2010). Children's response to adult disgust elicitors: Development and acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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