↓ Skip to main content

A cultural look at moral purity: wiping the face clean

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, 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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
A cultural look at moral purity: wiping the face clean
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00577
Pubmed ID
Authors

Spike W. S. Lee, Honghong Tang, Jing Wan, Xiaoqin Mai, Chao Liu

Abstract

Morality is associated with bodily purity in the custom of many societies. Does that imply moral purity is a universal psychological phenomenon? Empirically, it has never been examined, as all prior experimental data came from Western samples. Theoretically, we suggest the answer is not so straightforward-it depends on the kind of universality under consideration. Combining perspectives from cultural psychology and embodiment, we predict a culture-specific form of moral purification. Specifically, given East Asians' emphasis on the face as a representation of public self-image, we hypothesize that facial purification should have particularly potent moral effects in a face culture. Data show that face-cleaning (but not hands-cleaning) reduces guilt and regret most effectively against a salient East Asian cultural background. It frees East Asians from guilt-driven prosocial behavior. In the wake of their immorality, they find a face-cleaning product especially appealing and spontaneously choose to wipe their face clean. These patterns highlight both culturally variable and universal aspects of moral purification. They further suggest an organizing principle that informs the vigorous debate between embodied and amodal perspectives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 54 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%
Unknown 52 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 13 24%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 54%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 7 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 13 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,602,528
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,961
of 29,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,006
of 264,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#108
of 496 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 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 29,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 264,486 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 496 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.