Slashdot Mirror
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."
You know she only cleans this thoroughly when she's angry, so we'd damn well better behave until this blows over.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
I call bs...whenever an attractive woman walks by smelling like she just stepped out of the shower I have only immoral thoughts.
I never trusted the poop smith.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I don't know about any of you, but being in a smelly, disgusting store makes me unhappy.
I love the smell of Windex in the morning... The smell, you know that fresh smell... Smells like, virtue.
One convenient locations...in Africa.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
This explains why the average Slashdotter has such disregard for copyright!
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
I was going to ask what Washington must smell like. Perhaps we should send the lawmakers each an air freshener.
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...?
Ah, you've never been to a hospital, have you? That or you enjoy the combined odors of generic lysol, old people, and death.
So is this post!
If your job is a bank robber, sure.
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
A Brigham Young University professor suggesting a possible biochemical link to ethical behavior. Sounds like a letter of resignation to me.
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.)
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
There is a famous study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect) in which they were looking at the effect of lighting levels on productivity in a manufacturing environment. If they turned up the light productivity improved, if they lowered lighting level productivity improved, if they returned lighting to the original level productivity improved. The reason was that changing light levels signaled to the workers that something was up and that they were likely being watched. Walk into a room dripping with cleaner and your knows will tell you that something is up and you better watch out.
It's hard to think naughty thoughts when your eyes are melting out of your skull from pepper spray.
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?"
If you quantify the cost to society of the insurance settlement and the economic rent burden of the diminished faith in the security of the bank, you'll find that it greatly outweighs the benefits to the robber.
A much better example would be stealing a piece of art from a museum. Assuming the piece is not destroyed and remains in circulation, eventually finding it's way back to the museum circuit, the robber may have actually added value. With some objects, like famous jewels, almost all of their value is in their history. The Hope Diamond is one-tenth the size of the current largest diamond in the world (found in 1985), but it is a much greater tourist attraction because of it's "cursed" history.
Windex comes in citrus?
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
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...
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
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.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
This might sound funny but that's very close to what some ultra-Orthodox Jews have been using in areas of Israel where they think that women aren't dressed modestly enough, or are too loud, or have perfume, or are walking down the wrong side of the street. Most common substances is pepper spray which doesn't smell so bad if you aren't on the receiving end. Boiling water and rocks have also been used. This is especially common in Meah Shearim, an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem. See for example http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3795237,00.html one of the very few cases where the police have actually tried to arrest the religious fanatics in question.
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.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Don't get confused between groups. The settlers are generally dati le'umi (literally "religious nationalist"), they aren't charedi (ultra-orthodox). While some of the settlers are charedi that's not most of them. The settlers are people who would be by and large appalled by this behavior as everyone else. The ultra-orthodox aren't in favor generally of settling in that way; most of them don't even recognize the state of Israel.
Essentially, the settlers are a subfraction of what would be considered moderate or modern Orthodox except for the whole theological nationalism thing going on. The situation is complicated. It really isn't helped by conflating all the different groups together. It may be fun to get angry at the religious extremists but it is helpful to keep track of which extremists are which.
I'd *just* read some Stainless Steel Rat stories, so give me a break.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.