Last week, the Economist reported on two contradictory stories: the first reaffirmed the decades old “broken windows” theory which suggests that neighborhoods with broken windows or graffiti in this case results in more crime, unrest, and general bad behavior than neighborhoods that are well-kept, while the second article reports on research from the University of Plymouth that suggests that hand washers are less likely to see unethical behavior as such.
So what does this study out of the University of Plymouth really suggest? That clean hands can mask a dirty soul? That cleanliness bears no relationship to morality? Perhaps really, understanding of morality is really all just in the mind–as this research suggests. Study subjects asked to unscramble words such as “clean” and “pure” as opposed to those with random words were statistically significantly more likely to find it morally acceptable to eat the family dog!
It is interesting that moral suggestion would also appear to be at work for the “broken windows” theory. Living in a world of graffiti and broken windows gives one the suggestion that engaging in such behavior or being satisfied with such conditions is okay.
Further research must be done to understand the ways in which our minds work and to understand exactly why one’s environment or other exposures can persuade oneself to accept graffiti and violence, washing one’s hands, and finding it acceptable to eat the family’s pet. Thankfully, only one of those three is something that is morally acceptable in our society.
Summer Johnson, PhD
(Thanks to Art Caplan for the tip on this story.)