↓ Skip to main content

Does cleanliness influence moral judgments? Response effort moderates the effect of cleanliness priming on moral judgments

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
39 X users
weibo
22 weibo users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Does cleanliness influence moral judgments? Response effort moderates the effect of cleanliness priming on moral judgments
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01276
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason L. Huang

Abstract

Whether cleanliness influences moral judgments has recently become a topic of debate in the psychological literature. After the initial report that activating the notion of physical purity can result in less severe moral judgments (Schnall et al., 2008a), a direct replication (Johnson et al., 2014a) with much larger sample sizes failed to yield similar findings. The current paper examines the possibility that only non-conscious activation of the cleanliness concept, as achieved in participants with low response effort on priming materials, can produce the expected effect. An online replication (Study 1, N = 214) provided evidence that, when participants exerted low (yet still acceptable) levels of response effort to the experimental material, cleanliness priming led to more lenient moral judgments than neutral priming. An online experiment (Study 2, N = 440; replicated in Study 2a, N = 436) manipulating participants' effort on the priming task (low vs. high) supported the hypothesized mechanism. Specifically, respondents in the low response effort group were instructed to complete the priming task as quickly as possible without too much attention, and the cleanliness priming resulted in less extreme moral judgments than the neutral condition as expected. In contrast, respondents in the high response effort group were instructed to perform to the best of their ability on the priming task, with a non-significant difference on moral ratings between cleanliness and neutral conditions. In addition to helping resolve the controversy regarding the cleanliness hypothesis, the current paper calls into attention the role of response effort in the execution and replication of priming studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
United States 1 3%
China 1 3%
Unknown 37 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 30%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 53%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Linguistics 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 4 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 22 November 2020.
All research outputs
#782,506
of 25,071,270 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,610
of 33,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,607
of 269,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#31
of 378 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,071,270 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 269,274 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 378 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.