↓ Skip to main content

Hand Washing Induces a Clean Slate Effect in Moral Judgments: A Pupillometry and Eye-Tracking Study

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Hand Washing Induces a Clean Slate Effect in Moral Judgments: A Pupillometry and Eye-Tracking Study
Published in
Scientific Reports, May 2015
DOI 10.1038/srep10471
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kai Kaspar, Vanessa Krapp, Peter König

Abstract

Physical cleansing is commonly understood to protect us against physical contamination. However, recent studies showed additional effects on moral judgments. Under the heading of the "Macbeth effect" direct links between bodily cleansing and one's own moral purity have been demonstrated. Here we investigate (1) how moral judgments develop over time and how they are altered by hand washing, (2) whether changes in moral judgments can be explained by altered information sampling from the environment, and (3) whether hand washing affects emotional arousal. Using a pre-post control group design, we found that morality ratings of morally good and bad scenes acquired more extreme values in the control group over time, an effect that was fully counteracted by intermediate hand washing. This result supports the notion of a clean slate effect by hand washing. Thereby, eye-tracking data did not uncover differences in eye movement behavior that may explain differences in moral judgments. Thus, the clean slate effect is not due to altered information sampling from the environment. Finally, compared to the control group, pupil diameter decreased after hand washing, thus demonstrating a direct physiological effect. The results shed light on the physiological mechanisms behind this type of embodiment phenomenon.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Turkey 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 38 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 21%
Student > Master 7 17%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 50%
Neuroscience 5 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Engineering 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 1 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,619,094
of 14,179,012 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#13,874
of 72,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,271
of 234,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#622
of 3,835 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,179,012 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 72,667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 234,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,835 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.