Environment and Social Psychology

Moral regulating role of environmental cleanliness: Evidences from both practices and field experiments

Lu Li

School of Government, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, 102488, China

Gang Huangfu

School of Economics and Management, Communication University of China, Beijing, 100024, China

Ran Ma

School of Economics and Management, Lanzhou University of Arts and Science, Lanzhou, 730000, China

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i9.4045

Keywords: Environmental cleanliness; metaphorical link; moral judgment; immoral workplace behavior; public moral norm

---

Abstract

Moral judgment and behavior have long been considered as the result of reasoning and conscious thought while contextual influence being downplayed. Cleanliness is a fundamental feature of the environment. Previous research relevant to cleanliness focused on body cleansing behavior’s effect on one’s moral consciousness. According to a view of anthropology, cleanliness, as a key environment feature, symbolizes social order. Thus, we contend that the state of environmental cleanliness may metaphorically link to the concept of public moral norm. Three studies were conducted in a manufacturing group company. Study 1, using ten-year monthly records of disciplinary violation rates during the implementation of 5S practices from four different companies of the same manufacturing group, showed that improving workplace cleaning, neatness, and cleanliness could reduce employees’ disciplinary violations. Study 2, by an experiment conducted at a real workplace, found that employees judged immoral workplace behaviors more morally wrong in the clean environment than in the dirty one; Meanwhile, conscientiousness trait weakens the effect of environmental cleanliness, whereas neuroticism trait strengthens this influence. Study 3, through an experiment priming awareness of workplace environmental cleanliness state, showed that employees showed harsher moral judgment on immoral workplace behaviors even when primed with the concept of clean environment than both the primed with the concept of dirty environment group and the control group. The results revealed the metaphorical association between the physical state of environmental cleanliness and the concept of abstract public moral norm, and provided a unique insight to the social significance of environmental cleanliness.

---

References

[1]. 1.Clark A. Where brain, body, and world collide. Cognitive Systems Research 1999; 1(1): 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-0417(99)00002-9

[2]. 2.Niedenthal PM, Barsalou LW, Winkielman P, et al. Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2005; 9(3): 184-211. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_1

[3]. 3.Wilson M. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2002; 9: 625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322

[4]. 4.Williams LE, Huang JY, Bargh JA. The Scaffolded Mind: Higher mental processes are grounded in early experience of the physical world. European Journal of Social Psychology 2009; 39(7): 1257-1267. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.665

[5]. 5.Lakoff G, Johnson M. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York City, NK: Basic Books; 1999.

[6]. 6.Lakoff G, Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1980.

[7]. 7.Landau MJ, Meier BP, Keefer LA. A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin 2010; 136(6): 1045-1067. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020970

[8]. 8.Fauconnier G. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1997.

[9]. 9.IJzerman H, Semin GR. The thermometer of social relations: Mapping social proximity on temperature. Psychological science 2009; 20(10): 1214–1220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02434.x

[10]. 10.Kang Y, Williams LE, Clark MS, et al. Physical temperature effects on trust behavior: the role of insula. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience 2011; 6(4): 507-515. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq077

[11]. 11.Liljenquist KA, Zhong CB, Galinsky AD. The smell of virtue: Clean scents promote reciprocity and charity. Psychological Science 2010; 21(3): 381-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610361426

[12]. 12.Meier BP, Robinson MD, Crawford LE, et al. When “light” and “dark” thoughts become light and dark responses: Affect biases brightness judgments. Emotion 2007; 7(2): 366-376. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528- 3542.7.2.366

[13]. 13.Williams LE, Bargh JA. Experiencing Physical Warmth Promotes Interpersonal Warmth. Science 2008; 322: 606-607. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1162548

[14]. 14.Zhong CB, Leonardelli GJ. Cold and lonely: Does social exclusion literally feel cold?

[15]. 15.Psychological Science 2008; 19(9): 838–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02165.x

[16]. 16.Zhong CB, Bohns VK, Gino F. Good lamps are the best police: Darkness increases dishonesty and self-interested behavior. Psychological Science 2010; 21(3): 311-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609360754

[17]. 17.Douglas M. Purity and danger: An analysis of concept of pollution and taboo. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1966.

[18]. 18.Lagerspetz O. A Philosophy of Dirt. London, UK: Reaktion; 2018.

[19]. 19.Zhong CB, Liljenquist KA. Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science 2006; 313: 1451-1452. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1130726

[20]. 20.Lee SWS, Schwarz N. Grounded procedures: A proximate mechanism for the psychology of cleansing and other physical actions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2021; 44: e1. doi:10.1017/ S0140525X20000308

[21]. 21.Zhong CB, Strejcek B, Sivanathan N. A clean self can render harsh moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2010; 46(5): 859-862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.04.003

[22]. 22.Huangfu G, Li L, Zhang Z, et al. Moral metaphorical effect of cleanliness on immoral workplace behaviors: Environmental cleanliness or self-cleanliness? Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology 2021; 15(4): 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/18344909211034257

[23]. 23.Lu J G, Lee JJ, Gino F, et al. Polluted Morality: Air Pollution Predicts Criminal Activity and Unethical behavior. Psychological Science 2018; 29(3): 340-355. https://doi.org/10.1177/095679761773580

[24]. 24.Herrnstadt E, Heyes A, Muehlegger E, et al. Air Pollution and Criminal Activity: Microgeographic Evidence from Chicago. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2021; 13(4): 70-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w21787

[25]. 25.Osada T. The 5S’s: Five keys to a total quality environment. Asian Productivity Organization; 1991.

[26]. 26.Gapp R, Fisher R, Kobayashi K. Implementing 5S within a Japanese Context: an integrated management system. Management Decision 2008; 46(4): 565-579. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740810865067

[27]. 27.Randhawa JS, Ahuja IS. Examining the role of 5S practices as a facilitator of business excellence in manufacturing organizations. Measuring Business Excellence 2017; 21(2): 191-206. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-09-2016-0047

[28]. 28.Kanamori S, Castro MC, Sow S, et al. Impact of the Japanese 5S management method on patients’ and caretakers’ satisfaction: A quasi-experimental study in Senegal. Global Health Action 2016; 9: 32852. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v9.32852

[29]. 29.Ohno T. in Dillon, A.P. (Ed.), Workplace Management. New York City, NY: Productivity Press; 1988.

[30]. 30.Ansari A, Modarres B. World-class strategies for safety: a Boaing approach. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 1997; 17(4): 389-398. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579710159978

[31]. 31.Spector PE, Fox S, Penney LM, et al. The dimensionality of counter-productivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational behavior 2006; 68(3): 446-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005

[32]. 32.Yang J, Diefendorff JM. The Relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology 2009; 62(2): 259-295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009. 01138.x

[33]. 33.John OP, Naumann LP, Soto CJ. Paradigm Shift to the integrative Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Conceptual Issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins. & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality Theory and research. New York City, NY: Guilford press; 2008. pp. 114-158.

[34]. 34.Tooby J, Cosmides L. The psychological foundations of culture. In: Barkow, J.; Cosmides, L.; Tooby, J., editors. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1992. pp. 19-136

[35]. 35.Bargh JA. What have we been priming all these years? On the development, mechanisms, and ecology of nonconscious social behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology 2006; 36(2): 147-168. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.336

[36]. 36.Jostmann NB, Lakens D, Schubert TW. Weight as an embodiment of importance. Psychological Science 2009; 20(9): 1169-1174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x

[37]. 37.Schubert TW. Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2005; 89(1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.1.1

[38]. 38.Schnall S, Benton J, Harvey H. With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychological Science 2008; 19(12): 1219–1222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x

[39]. 39.Schnall S, Haidt J, Clore GL, et al. Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2008; 34(8): 1096-1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208317771

[40]. 40.Marcus B, Schuler H. Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 2004; 89(4): 647-660. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.89.4.647

[41]. 41.Schwarz N, Bless H. Constructing reality and its alternatives: An inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments. Erlbaum; 1992. pp. 217-245.