Clean Smells Promote Ethical Behavior

A recent study is suggesting that moral behavior may be encouraged with nothing more than clean smells. The Brigham Young University professor found a "dramatic improvement in ethical behavior with just a few spritzes of citrus-scented Windex." "The researchers see implications for workplaces, retail stores and other organizations that have relied on traditional surveillance and security measures to enforce rules. Perhaps the findings could be applied at home, too, Liljenquist said with a smile. 'Could be that getting our kids to clean up their rooms might help them clean up their acts, too.' The study titled "The Smell of Virtue" was unusually simple and conclusive. Participants engaged in several tasks, the only difference being that some worked in unscented rooms, while others worked in rooms freshly spritzed with Windex."

Comments

Happiness

[Akido37]

I don't know about any of you, but being in a smelly, disgusting store makes me unhappy.

Re:Happiness

[TheRaven64]

Well, it depends on the store. In a book store, for example, I'd much rather smell old books than cleaning fluid.

Crappy experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

It's crappy experiments like this that give pseudo-science a bad name.

There are so many confounding and uncontrolled variables that the results are meaningless.

Did they repeat the experiment with the clean and dirty rooms swapped?

Were the subjects and experiment runners randomized? How many subjects?

Were the subjects sequestered or could they have smelled the Windex while waiting to participate?

Were there any other differences between the test rooms?

It's crappy experiments like this that give pseudo-science a bad name.

Makes sense

[bsDaemon]

If a place smells like a moose just died in it, especially if its also visibly dirty, then I just sort of get the impression that it doesn't actually matter what I do in there. On the other hand, when a place is spotless, smells lemony fresh and everything appears in order then I'm not going to be the one to put my feet on the coffee table, no matter how tempting it might be. Smell ties into taste and is one of the more powerful senses we have, so it makes sense that it would play a large part in determining our impression of what is or isn't acceptable in a given location, every bit as much as it tells us what foods seem OK to eat.

Re:Makes sense

[Rary]

If a place smells like a moose just died in it, especially if its also visibly dirty, then I just sort of get the impression that it doesn't actually matter what I do in there. On the other hand, when a place is spotless, smells lemony fresh and everything appears in order then I'm not going to be the one to put my feet on the coffee table, no matter how tempting it might be. Smell ties into taste and is one of the more powerful senses we have, so it makes sense that it would play a large part in determining our impression of what is or isn't acceptable in a given location, every bit as much as it tells us what foods seem OK to eat.

But the interesting part about this study is that it wasn't measuring behaviour that would typically be linked to cleanliness (ie. putting your feet on the coffee table). It was looking into behaviour that should be consistent regardless what room you're in.

For example, people sitting in the "clean" room were more willing to volunteer for Habitat for Humanity. They were also more willing to donate money to the cause.

Also interesting is that participants didn't actually consciously notice the sent in the room.

Re:Makes sense

[causality]

Unfortunately the actual effect this is going to have is that every store that can get away with it will now treat air fresheners like fratboys treat axe.

Which will probably end up having an opposite effect. I know that whenever I smell highly excessive air freshener, or a highly excessive amount of perfume/cologne/etc on a person, I sometimes wonder what it is that they're trying so hard to cover up. Particularly that extremely potent lotion or perfume that some of the women at the office would use; seems like a few drops of that stuff will cover a square mile.

A small, tasteful amount is a different story, of course.

Re:Makes sense

[Abcd1234]

You certainly do have a point, though I question the merits of a study like this one. If scent made such a noticable difference, then you can safely say that these folks were not terribly committed to doing the Right Thing. They needed an external motivation. That's hardly as good as doing the best you can, all the time, because you seriously believe in and want to adhere to sound, timeless principles that have a solid ethical or moral foundation.

So, what, you're going to assume the study is invalid and/or useless because it doesn't fit with your naively rosy view of human behaviour? Well, no offense, but tough shit.

For that reason, I take this to be further evidence that most people operate on a sort of auto-pilot.

And I take it as further evidence that humans are, despite our fancy intellect, often little more than opportunistic animals. And personally, I'd rather we just admit that fact and use it as the starting point for improving ourselves, rather than living with the delusion that we're somehow inherently noble creatures. 'course, we should already realize this... if the Milgram experiment taught us anything, it's that human morals are things easily set aside given the right circumstances.

Re:Makes sense

[TorKlingberg]

For that reason, I take this to be further evidence that most people operate on a sort of auto-pilot.

It is well-known that people aren't particularly rational and most things we do are not really conscious decisions.

Re:Makes sense

[ignavus]

If a place smells like a moose just died in it, ...

Canadians feel at home?

Re:Makes sense

[electrons_are_brave]

I am a psycholgist who works in occupational health and safety, and I have a problem with the release of the results of an unpublished study, which has yet to be read, judged and verified but which draws a conclusion that could lead to more chemicals being introduced into workplaces. They clearly have never looked at the rates of occupational asthma or considered how little information we have about the synergistic effects of the multitude of low hazard chemicals which already exist.

I have no problem with the study (in so far as it can be judged from the press release). Obviously, since they only measured smell vrs no smell they can only conclude that the smell was the cause of the difference in behaviour. But studies are always constrained by money/time/space constraints. But they haven't waited for the studies which look at "hamburger" smells or cultural differences or been cautious in their reporting.

They think thay windex is a "clean" smell rather that a "chemical smell" and "pleasing" rather than "annoying". If the article had been published I would have looked at how they accounted for the possibility that they been seduced by the obvious liguistic association between "clean" and "ethical" which may well be an artifact of (the english) language. There could have been other reasons, such as it gave the impression that the room was better tended or less neglected. This matters because this impression could then be created in ways that do not involve spraying more chemicals into workplace air.

Of course, all this is speculation, because we can't read the bloody study.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I've met the odd aftershave that ought to be banned under the Geneva Protocol, too.

I somehow doubt that a sinus headache - my usual reaction to synthetic 'clean fresh scent' - would much incline me towards virtue.

Re:Makes sense

[causality]

"If scent made such a noticable difference, then you can safely say that these folks were not terribly committed to doing the Right Thing. They needed an external motivation. That's hardly as good as doing the best you can, all the time, because you seriously believe in and want to adhere to sound, timeless principles that have a solid ethical or moral foundation. "

That sounds like the distinction between Perfect and Imperfect Contrition in the Catholic Catechism. Perfect Contrition is when you are repentant of your sins because you love God and are sorry you have broken His agreement with you. Imperfect Contrition is when you are repentant because you don't want to go to Hell.

Guess what - either gets you into Heaven. Likewise, I'm not sure anyone should care WHY someone does the right thing, as long as they do it.

Let's say I am a general, in command of an army that is about to go to war. All other things being completely equal between the opposing armies, let's say that my army is entirely composed of volunteer, professional soldiers who truly believe in what we're fighting for. They believe in it so much that they are willing to lay down their lives and die for this cause with no coercion of any kind. The opposing army is composed entirely of conscripts who had to be threatened with imprisonment to get them to join the armed forces. They are otherwise equal in every way; equal amount of training, equal supplies, and equally good strategy is used by both sides.

If I were to place bets, I know which army I would bet for. There is a strength that comes from right motive that is unobtainable otherwise. While things are going well and everything is peachy, people who don't have much insight won't notice much difference between the person who fears Hell and the person who loves God. When the shit hits the fan, however, one of those is going to crumble first. One of those will panic and lose their heads first. It won't be the person with love, not if their love is real.

A lot of the good things that people try to do don't have the full effectiveness that they could have had. They don't really reach the recipients, don't really get them to look at their lives and their values differently the way they could have done. That's because many people who do good deeds do them for less-than-pure reasons. They want to be thought of as good by others, they want to impress others, or they want some kind of recognition or favor in return. They give in order to get. This deprives them of the chance to do something truly self-less, which is its own reward, and it deprives the recipients of seeing what it looks like when such a self-less act takes place. It's business as usual, just a bit more favorable.

The whole problem I have with most organized religions and most of the people in them is that they do things because they think they're supposed to. They fear hell or they fear the condemnation of others. They operate out of that fear and it is the energy which fuels their actions. So you can go to most churches and you find people who judge you by how you dress, whether you're "clean-cut", and other superficial meaningless things, but you don't see very much that really resembles unconditional love. There is a universe of difference between acting out of a fear of negative consequences and acting out of a real delight of having done the right thing, for both the giver and the receiver. I mourn the fact that we live in a society that is so blind and superficial that every last person doesn't consider this to be obvious.

Ammonia, Detergents or Scents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is it that did it? This appears to measure the effect of Windex, not scents. Great publicity for Windex though. I'm appalled at what passes for science these days. The public knows no better.

Re:Ammonia, Detergents or Scents?

[SomeJoel]

The public knows no better.

Actually, they really don't. But at least they don't care, either.

junk science

[prgrmr]

There's no link to the original study, but it was clear from the article that there was no control group. They had a scented room vs. an unscented room, when what they should have had was a "pleasantly" scented room vs. an "unpleasantly" scented room with a third, unscented room as the control. Then they should have done some feedback questionnaires at the conclusion, in which they could have buried a question or two regarding the participant's scent preferences to see how well the participants' evaluation of the smell of the rooms lined-up with the premise of the study.

This study was actually just a subset of the premise that happy people are more likely to be grateful and donate their time and/or money than unhappy people, and that environmental factors can influence a person's relative happiness. And a demonstration that an attractive woman can get money and resources from a major university to run a useless study.

Is this a joke?

[swanzilla]

Morality...Product placement...

The study titled "The Smell of Virtue" was unusually simple and conclusive. Participants engaged in several tasks, the only difference being that some worked in unscented rooms, while others worked in rooms freshly spritzed with Windex

...top-notch scientists...

Katie Liljenquist, assistant professor of organizational leadership at BYU's Marriott School of Management, is the lead author on the piece in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science.

...looks to a win/win situation for both SC Johnson and the LDS.

RTFA!

[spun]

You just need to spritz her with some Windex and all immoral thoughts will disappear.

Re:RTFA!

[R2.0]

It doesn't sound funny at all. These are the same folks who establish illegal settlements on land that isn't theirs, demand that the military defend them bodily from the results of those actions, but utterly refuse to participate in that defense. I would believe them capable of anything, and the true tragedy is that they occupy the position of kingmaker in the political system, and so have had the power to end a conflict that has killed so many of their own faith.

Re:Totally BS

[Verdatum]

Ah, you've never been to a hospital, have you? That or you enjoy the combined odors of generic lysol, old people, and death.

MOD THIS POST INFORMATIVE

[Anonymous Coward]

So is this post!

Re:Clean smells? Windex?

[Valdrax]

Let's get this straight. Windex typically reeks of ammonia. And so do public elevators where winos have urinated.

A coincidence? A paradox? Or, are the guys at Brigham Young sniffing gold spraypaint trying to come up with new ideas? Hmmmmm...?

As bad as the rigor of this study seems to be, your counter-point doesn't actually defeat what it says. Windex, urine, and urine covered up by Windex don't all smell the same, and elevators that are likely to be soiled are very different social settings from rooms at a graduate research center. The social triggers differ with all of these things.

The results of the study don't particularly surprise me. Think of how people act in clean v. dirty bathrooms or how vandalism that isn't cleaned up invites further vandalism. I'm just worried that idiots will think that ALL you need is the *smell* of Windex and not *actual* efforts at cleaning up a cesspit. Or that we'll be assaulted with overbearing smells of cleaning products at banks and stores (which would eventually wear away the mental association and make it *doubly* futile).

Re:But...

[Beardo the Bearded]

It depends on which of the ethical schools you're subscribing to.

Mill's utilitarianism model states that the best choice is the one that provides the most benefit for the most people. In terms of bank robbery, robbing a bank is highly ethical. The robber gets some money, that money gets spent, and a large trickle-down impacts the local economy. The bank is insured so they don't lose any money. The customers and tellers get some excitement and a story to tell for years. "Hey, did I ever tell you about the time I was in a bank robbery?"

Kant's formal duty-based ethics means that you have to follow courses of action that are acceptable as universal principles for everyone to follow. Further, it is your INTENTION to follow the mores rather than your actions. Good will is the desire and intention to do one's duty. If your duty is to rob a bank, then robbing a bank is highly ethical. If they didn't expect you to rob it, they wouldn't spend all that time and money on robbery countermeasures.

Locke's rights-based ethics gives you rights based solely by your existence. The maximum possible liberty and happiness are fundamental; all other rights flow out of these basic ones. You are restricting the rights of the robbed in the bank, but as long as you are not taking their personal possessions (with the temporary exception of cell phones) you aren't treading on their rights significantly.

Finally, Aristotle's virtue ethics states that the goodness of an act or object depends on its function. A "good" knife cuts well; a "good" chair is comfy. So, a "good" bank robber is one that robs banks.

Reference:
Andrews, Gordon. Canadian Professional Engineering and Geoscience: Practice and Ethics. Thomson Nelson, 2005. (pp. 126 - 130)

(It didn't seem right to not specify a source on this one.)

Capitol Hill

[db32]

I wonder how much Windex would be required to encourage ethical behavior on Capitol Hill...

I wonder if that much Windex is hazardous to be around...

I wonder how many people care if it is dangerous to the congress critters...

Re:But...

[syousef]

In terms of bank robbery, robbing a bank is highly ethical. The robber gets some money, that money gets spent, and a large trickle-down impacts the local economy. The bank is insured so they don't lose any money. The customers and tellers get some excitement and a story to tell for years. "Hey, did I ever tell you about the time I was in a bank robbery?

I guess you've never heard of post traumatic stress? Or people getting killed in botched bank robberies? Or the fact that the money does come from somewhere. Bank insurance premiums go up, security is tightened, and they pass on the costs to customers.

Anything can be argued, but this argument doesn't stand up to any kind of rational scrutiny.

Re:This is BS

[PachmanP]

"I call bs...whenever an attractive woman walks by smelling like she just stepped out of the shower I have only immoral thoughts."

Funny - when an attractive woman walks by who smells like she just came from getting laid, my thoughts are...more immoral.

Let's be honest, when an attractive woman walks by smelling like anything I have immoral thoughts, and I doubt I'm the only one...

Re:This is BS

[radtea]

I call bs...whenever an attractive woman walks by smelling like she just stepped out of the shower I have only immoral thoughts.

Really? That's extremely weird. When that happens to me I think about how much fun it would be to chat her up, get her naked and have wildly good sex with her.

What kind of immoral thoughts do you have? Do you feel sudden urges to restrict people's freedom of expression? Do you want to ban abortion? Or deprive people of life, liberty or property without due process of law?

And how on earth does an attractive women stimulate these thoughts? Or are they of the all-too-common immoral variety that she should be stoned to death for being more autonomous than you are comfortable with?

It is deeply sad that an attractive woman should stimulate immoral thoughts, rather than healthy and moral sexual desire.

Re:This is BS

[that IT girl]

"Do you want to ban abortion? Or deprive people of life, liberty or property without due process of law?"

Not to go off-topic, but these things are mutually exclusive...