The Macbeth Effect: Wipe that Conscience Squeaky Clean

In the 8 September Science, Chen-Bo Zhong and Katie Liljenquist studied what they call the Macbeth Effect:

that is, a threat to one's moral purity induces the need to cleanse oneself. This effect revealed itself through an increased mental accessibility of cleansing-related concepts, a greater desire for cleansing products, and a greater likelihood of taking antiseptic wipes.

After a quick history of religiously-motivated cleansing rituals, the pair turn their attention to The Bard:

Thus, Lady Macbeth's hope that a little bit of water would clear her of the treacherous murder of King Duncan might not have been a product of literary creativity, but of Shakespeare's acute understanding of the human psyche. If physical and moral purity are so psychologically intertwined, Lady Macbeth's desperate obsession with trying to wash away her bloodied conscience while crying, "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!" may not have been entirely in vain.

Contemporary psychology may have disowned Freud, but it shares his penchant for literary appropriation.  Like Freud, who found in the works of Sophocles and Shakespeare a complex examination of the entry of Man into Civilization, Zhong and Liljenquist saw a student production of Macbeth and discovered bathing:

"Look at her!  What is she doing with her hands?"

A round of vigorous shushings later, the pair exit the theater and park themselves in front of their favorite frozen yogurt stand. 

"Do you think that Shakespeare fellow was onto something?"

"Could be.  Should we do a study?"

"Sounds great!  But how would we study that?"

"First, we'll determine whether a threat to moral purity increases the mental accessibility of cleansing-related words."

"Yeah!  We'll ask participants to recall in detail either an ethical or unethical deed from their past and describe any feelings or emotions they experienced!"

"Then we'll have them engage in a word completion task in which they convert word fragments into meaningful words!"

"And of the six word fragments, three could be completed as cleansing-related words or as unrelated words!"

"Like W_ _ H, SH_ _ ER, and S_ _P!"

"Then we'll see whether those who recalled an unethical deed generated more cleansing-related words than those who recalled an ethical deed, suggesting that unethical behavior enhances the accessbility of cleasning-related concepts!"

Or maybe they thought the Shakespeare brand would help them find an audience. 

Seriously though, I have more of a problem with the unexamined theory of the symbolic favored by contemporary psychology than its psychoanalytic equivalent.  Not that depth or complexity necessarily mean anything, but the ease with which Zhong and Liljenquist place cleanliness next to turpitude disturbs me:

Physical cleansing may wash away moral sins through symbolic self-completion; that is, people are motivated to complete their self-definitions (e.g., musicians) when indicators or symbols of this definition are lacking (e.g., skills) by engaging in activities that complete the symbols (e.g., training). Thus, when moral self-definition is at stake, such as when one has indulged in morally questionable activities, one should naturally be motivated to engage in activities that will restore moral integrity.

It must be more complex than that.  Why seek symbolic self-completion for an actual offense?  But why address those assumptions when you can prescribe a possible remedy for all human ills:

Future studies that specifically address the psychological and behavioral consequences of physical cleanliness will provide valuable insight into regulatory mechanisms that drive ethical decisions. Given the boost to one's moral self afforded by physical cleansing, how might it influence subsequent behavior? Would adherence to a rigorous hygiene regimen facilitate ethical behavior? Or, would cleansing ironically license unethical behavior? It remains to be seen whether clean hands really do make a pure heart, but our studies indicate that they at least provide a clean conscience after moral trespasses.

Comments

[Adam Roberts]

"And of the six word fragments, three could be completed as cleansing-related words or as unrelated words!"

"Like W_ _ H, SH_ _ ER, and S_ _P!"

I wonder what it says about me that my first thought was 'Wankah! Shagger! Slurp!' Of course, I wasn't counting the precise number of spaces between the letters.

Must go and have a shower now.

[The neurophilosopher]

Science is a weekly journal, not a monthly one. That makes you a liar, Mr. Kaufman.

Go and wash your hands!

[Luther Blissett]

Good to see that psychologists are busy proving what anthropologists have established for decades. Symbolic actions stand in for related "real" actions.

Doesn't this begin to suggest that the mind works very similarly to the way Freud (and, dammit, Lacan) stated? Verbal puns, symbolic substitutions.

Rene Girard would also be pleased by this study. I think we all need to return to myth/ritual studies but minus the Jung.

[Scott Eric Kaufmann]

Science is a weekly journal, not a monthly one.

You know, a rational person would've seen the "8 September 2006" and figured that out. Lucky for us, I'm not a rational person.

Doesn't this begin to suggest that the mind works very similarly to the way Freud (and, dammit, Lacan) stated? Verbal puns, symbolic substitutions.

It's one thing to describe what the mind does, another to describe why it does it. I don't find the psychoanalytic explanation for why people employ symbolic substitution any more convincing than the bold declarations in the article.

[Scott Eric Kaufmann]

Corrected the Science info from "September" to "8 September." My earlier comment was not, in fact, a mean-spirited swipe at the Neurophilosopher...whose site you should visit, if only so you can say "I read him before he became a Scienceblogger."

[Adam Kotsko]

The early Christians basically only let you wash once -- if you sinned after baptism, you were out. This tended to motivate people to wait until their deathbed to be baptised, but it's not clear that they were any more prone to sin because they knew they had a "get out of hell free" card waiting for them around the corner.

On a completely unrelated note, I wonder why the two choices often seem to be "theory" or "unreconstructed scientism."

[Tim]

I always find it interesting when little nuggets of folk psychology are confirmed.

[Scott Eric Kaufmann]

On a completely unrelated note, I wonder why the two choices often seem to be "theory" or "unreconstructed scientism."

I don't know. They both seem so terrible to me.

[Joseph Kugelmass]

There's an interesting division, in these comments, between people who appreciate the confirmation of folk psychology, like Tim, and people who appreciate your (Scott's) implied critique.

As far as "getting clean" goes, I think both parties could be easily satisfied. Available evidence confirms Shakespeare and folk wisdom because our culture has made a resonant, but nonetheless arbitrary, symbolism that most people accept. The symbol itself is culture, not just the recognition of it. It reminds me of Scott's comment in some earlier post on psychoanalysis, that one could give oneself a Freudian unconscious with enough time and effort. The structures of thought are that plastic.

I would love to hear alternatives to the psychoanalytic explanation of symbolism (basically, that symbolism is a symptom of repression). One reason why rituals (of any sort, not just baptisms / cleansings) are appealing has, in my view, to do with our experience of time. Time is undifferentiated, a fact that makes it difficult for us to recognize the moment when our misdeed ceases to apply. The ritual creates a break, one which is entirely justified as a mirror help up to one's freedom: this is the voluntary alienation of consciousness into the material as described in Hegel, as well as the continual estrangement from "self" in Sartre and even Beckett.

In historical terms, however, this break is absurd, no matter how much of a role it might play in Christian mythology. Hence Nietzsche's theory of totality and eternal recurrence, and the revenant-like afterlife of the deed in Macbeth.

[Brian]

It should perhaps be noted that much of what you’re complaining about can be easily dismissed as a peculiarity of a particular academic subculture. If you read the passages (as well as the rest of the article, I would guess) carefully, you’ll notice that few, if any, actual assertions are made. Every sentence contains a “may” or a “should” or a “remains to be seen”. This is a convention of scientific writing in which we make all kinds of over-the-top predictions and speculations while making it perfectly clear that we are not indulging in any kind of over-the-top predictions or speculations. Most journals have this stuff under the subheading “Discussion”, which basically just means “here comes the rampant speculation and self-promotions!”. The Science/Nature publishing format has done away with the usual introduction/methods/results/discussion subheadings, which means you have to pick it apart yourself.

I always find it interesting when little nuggets of folk psychology are confirmed.

Thus, confirmed is a very strong word...

[Lynn]

I am often amused by the reactions of some when a piece of brain science research makes the news, especially if the authors of the article make guarded claims about what the research might say about human behavior. Some folks accuse the authors of brain research of being most unholy: thou shall not link brain research to how people behave in the ordinary humdrum world.

Let us back up for a moment. The major impetus for conducting brain research is medicine. When people suffer disease or trauma to the brain it is useful to have physicians who actually know as much as possible about how the brain works.

Those suffering from brain maladies do not rush off to visit an epistemologist or a literary critic expert in the psychology contained in the Eighteenth Century novel. This seems to be an obvious example of people voting with their feet rather than their pens or mouths.

Besides being amused, I am also mystified as to the sacred ox gored by brain research. You might think the notion that we can consciously introspect on the mind and arrive at scientific results had died a natural death. Could its demise be premature because of the large industry the notion supports?

I would coin a name for the effect and phenomenon, but I do not want to step onto dangerous ground.

[The neurophilosopher]

Some miscellaneous comments on others' comments:

The only absolute fact is that there is no such thing as absolute fact, and, in the case of scientific research, this is absolutely true!

Every sentence contains a "may" or a "should"

The "may" is always refracted to become "does" as it passes through the lens of the media.

Brain imaging studies are very trendy at the moment, and are usually reported in the mass media as showing that this occurs here or that occurs there. This will eventually lead us back to a new phrenology. Brain function is far more complex than that; all behaviours involve parallel processing by multiple modules.

You might think the notion that we can consciously introspect on the mind and arrive at scientific results had died a natural death.

The elucidation of the biological basis of mind and behaviour will be the goal of neuroscience in this century, and beyond.

you should visit [the neurophilosopher's blog] if only so you can say "I read him before he became a Scienceblogger

Me? On ScienceBlogs? Never! Well, actually, I've considered it, but have decided to remain independent.

Finally, and most importantly, have you (Scott) noticed that the layout of our blogs is identical? I think you should click back and forth to obtain some empirical evidence of this fact, and encourage all your readers to do the same!

[Brian]

The "may" is always refracted to become "does" as it passes through the lens of the media.

No doubt - in fact we're lucky if it doesn't become an "absolutely does" in the media. That said, I actually think it becomes "does" in our own minds all too often. I hate writing like that.