Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Science

Clean Smells Promote Ethical Behavior 250

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the criminals-just-need-a-bath dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Clean Smells Promote Ethical Behavior

Comments Filter:
  • by Mononoke (88668) on Monday October 26, 2009 @04:28PM (#29876807) Homepage Journal
    You know she only cleans this thoroughly when she's angry, so we'd damn well better behave until this blows over.
  • This is BS (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26, 2009 @04:29PM (#29876837)

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

    • RTFA! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by spun (1352)

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

      • Re:RTFA! (Score:4, Funny)

        by tmosley (996283) on Monday October 26, 2009 @06:02PM (#29878201)
        It's hard to think naughty thoughts when your eyes are melting out of your skull from pepper spray.
      • Re:RTFA! (Score:4, Informative)

        by JoshuaZ (1134087) on Monday October 26, 2009 @09:28PM (#29879907) Homepage
        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 [ynetnews.com] one of the very few cases where the police have actually tried to arrest the religious fanatics in question.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by jollyreaper (513215)

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

      The summary is talking about ethics. They said nothing about moral relativity. :)

    • Re:This is BS (Score:4, Insightful)

      by radtea (464814) on Tuesday October 27, 2009 @09:36AM (#29883007)

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by that IT girl (864406)
        "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...
  • But... (Score:2, Funny)

    by brian0918 (638904)
    But what if the task I'm assigned to do is to rob a bank? Does the spritz of Windex make my action ethical?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by roguetrick (1147853)

      If your job is a bank robber, sure.

    • Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Monday October 26, 2009 @05:47PM (#29878015)

      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.)

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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 o

      • You have thought about robbing a bank more than once, have you? ^^

        Locke's rights-based ethics [...]

        You don't mean that Locke [encycloped...matica.com], do you?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by syousef (465911)

        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.

    • In that case a nice mix of pulverized fresh dollar bills, gun polish, a hint of luxurious shoe or marble polish, in a base of your favorite alcoholic drink, should help. :)

      If you like to go for more action, one can add a bit of blood, sweat, tears and gunpowder.

  • this is why (Score:4, Funny)

    by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Monday October 26, 2009 @04:32PM (#29876863) Homepage Journal

    I never trusted the poop smith.

  • Happiness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Akido37 (1473009) on Monday October 26, 2009 @04:32PM (#29876865)
    I don't know about any of you, but being in a smelly, disgusting store makes me unhappy.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's a stupid study, this is something that humans have associated, best example is the hospital smell, whenever you feel that smell, you think about the hospital and everything that it meant for you, a loved one that died there, an operation a long time ago, etc. Some will associate that "clean smell" with an oppressive home, that will most likely make them hate the place, some people are natural slobs, even though their families are not, ever wonder why? it's a stupid study made for marketing purposes. S

      • it's a stupid study made for marketing purposes. Should I understand that Slashdot is now in the "scyence of marketing"? wtf?

        Well, marketing is basically applied behavioural psychology combined with math and $technology, so it's not totally off-topic.

        The association of smell with memory is a well known mechanism, though. Evoke certain memories via particular smells? Certainly, you have a valid point there. I do wonder if the study took smell's use as a memory trigger into account. I suppose I could RTFA but that would be cheating...

        • by Whiteox (919863)

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

          It's a good point.
          Now I'm wondering what Slashdot smells like.
          I reckon it's a cross between old pizza, coke, beer, cigarette ash, spilt bong water and vegan farts based on most of the users here....

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheRaven64 (641858)
      Well, it depends on the store. In a book store, for example, I'd much rather smell old books than cleaning fluid.
    • Does everything have to be frickin scented? Crap, it seems like every frickin product around has got to have a scent. And there are waaayyyyyy too many people who have no familiarity with the idea of "less is more"... now we have to have scents to promote ethical behavior? Just get people to take showers and lay off all the perfumed crap. Sheeeesh.
  • "I'm Dirty D, damnit! I just need to be diiiirty!"
  • by chickenarise (1597941) on Monday October 26, 2009 @04:32PM (#29876881)
    I love the smell of Windex in the morning... The smell, you know that fresh smell... Smells like, virtue.
  • Crappy experiment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26, 2009 @04:33PM (#29876893)

    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.

    • by Z00L00K (682162)

      I suspect that the reason is rather that unclean smells triggers the more competitive behavior of humans because it can be an indication of lack of food or other resources, which in turn means that the strongest and most resourceful can be the one that is gaining the most.

      A clean smell can instead tell the subconscious mind that there is sufficient resources available.

      So this may be a good reason to actually make sure that public areas are clean.

      • That conclusion isn't supported by the data. It is however interesting to note their earlier study about cleanliness, specifically that people who commit what the person considers a moral transgression they seek to cleanse their physical body. Something being clean seems to certainly have some sort of unconscious link if you take both of those studies into account. Interesting stuff.

        • That link has been known for several hundred years - it was a key plot element in Macbeth - and probably has a lot to do with the Christian tradition of baptism. I would be interested in any studies conducted in nations where there is no such tradition, to see which way around the causal relationship is (does baptism exist because people want to be physically as well as morally clean, or do people develop this association because of baptism?)
      • by Whiteox (919863)

        It has more to do with marking territory than resources.

  • Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bsDaemon (87307) on Monday October 26, 2009 @04:34PM (#29876901)
    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      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.

      • Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)

        by causality (777677) on Monday October 26, 2009 @04:50PM (#29877175)

        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.

        • Actually this possibly explains a phenomenon thats puzzled me for a while.

          Why is it that old ladies favor perfume that makes them smell like a freshly cleaned kitchen?

          Honestly, where I live, the older women really do smell of cleaning products.

      • Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

        by electrons_are_brave (1344423) on Monday October 26, 2009 @10:29PM (#29880221)
        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rary (566291)

      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 roo

      • The assumption is that the subjects are drawing an unconscious assocation between Windex = Cleanliness = Spotless conscience = Honest behaviour. But why not Windex = Someone's cleaning the freakin' windows = I can be seen = honest behaviour.
    • Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)

      by causality (777677) on Monday October 26, 2009 @04:47PM (#29877129)

      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.

      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.

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

      • Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Abcd1234 (188840) on Monday October 26, 2009 @05:00PM (#29877329) Homepage

        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.

        • by causality (777677)
          Isn't it amazing the venom that comes out of people when you make the simplest of observations? Yours is milder than most.

          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.

          I said that most people aren't terribly committed to doing good and that they operate on a sort of auto-pilot, meaning they are not thinking beings who perform deliberate action, though potentially they could be. T

          • by Abcd1234 (188840)

            Is that what bothers you so?

            No. What bothers me is this exact phrase:

            You certainly do have a point, though I question the merits of a study like this one.

            You don't question it based on the fact that it might have been set up wrong. Or that they interpreted the results correctly. You don't attack the science based on facts and reason. No. You decide the study is without merit because, apparently, it doesn't fit with your worldview. That's irrational. It's also an excellent example of one of the true

            • by causality (777677)

              Is that what bothers you so?

              No. What bothers me is this exact phrase:

              You certainly do have a point, though I question the merits of a study like this one.

              You don't question it based on the fact that it might have been set up wrong. Or that they interpreted the results correctly. You don't attack the science based on facts and reason. No. You decide the study is without merit because, apparently, it doesn't fit with your worldview. That's irrational. It's also an excellent example of one of the true ills of society today: The unwillingness of people to see the world for what it is, instead preferring to filter and bend fact to fit their own ideas of how the world actually works.

              Actually the meaning of the results is precisely where I differ with this study. To me, they mean that most people are operating on a sort of auto-pilot and I have already explained why I believe so. Also, not once did I say it was without merit. Re-read my posts; you will not find me saying that anywhere. I said I question the merits. "Questioning" denotes uncertainty; it does not constitute a claim of either merit or lack thereof. This means you were dead wrong about what I said, and it also means t

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by TorKlingberg (599697)

        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.

      • Hawthorne Effect (Score:3, Informative)

        by MountainLogic (92466)
        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 drippin
    • I've spent a little time around a moose that had just died. It didn't smell bad at all. In fact, once a tenderloin was sizzling up with some mushrooms and onions, garlic and seasoning, it smelled pretty damn good.
       
      Now, if you are talking about a place that smelled like a moose died in it last month, then I'm with you.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ignavus (213578)

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

      Canadians feel at home?

    • by ShakaUVM (157947)

      >>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.

      Personally, I just want to kick the shit out of anyone who sits next to me with a horrible case of BO.

      It's true - bad smells do cause bad thoughts.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26, 2009 @04:37PM (#29876961)

    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SomeJoel (1061138)

      The public knows no better.

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

      • No kidding, if you are testing the theory of "good smelling" one needed use Windex for every test group.

        You could have nothing, nothing, nothing, windex, rose water, fresh baked cookie smell, etc. Also, you could do some foul smell runs to see if they are even worse than nothing...
    • Makes you wonder who sponsored the experiment, eh?

      This moment in science sponsored by the good folks at Windex.
  • ...I wonder what the Capitol Building must smell like?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mhajicek (1582795)
      I was going to ask what Washington must smell like. Perhaps we should send the lawmakers each an air freshener.
  • junk science (Score:5, Insightful)

    by prgrmr (568806) on Monday October 26, 2009 @04:42PM (#29877037) Journal
    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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Imrik (148191)

      So in order to have a control group you have to have two non-control groups? You didn't add a control group to their study, you added a non-control group.

      • by prgrmr (568806)
        No, their premise was "scent vs. nothing", with the presumption that the orange scent was something that everyone would find pleasant. The actual statefulness of smell for people is pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral (or nothing); and that's what the study should have covered in order to make any meaningful conclusion on smell vs. happiness driven ethics. There's no way to derive from their study results what effect an unpleasant smell would have on behavior. It may well be that it's the perception of smell
        • by sorak (246725)

          Not worthless.

          Null hypothesis: smell makes no difference.
          Hypothesis: smell makes a difference.

          There is also no way to derive whether the smell of grilled hamburgers would have made more difference than the orange scent. That doesn't make the results worthless. It just means that the study doesn't answer every question, everyone could possibly ask.

          • by prgrmr (568806)
            Hypothesis: smell makes a difference.

            The article specifically states "clean smell", and does so in a way that implies the study does too. Hence the bias.
    • Re:junk science (Score:5, Informative)

      by pz (113803) on Monday October 26, 2009 @05:13PM (#29877513) Journal

      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.

      So you're supposing that the mere scenting of a room, with any scent whatsoever, will increase the chance of ethical behavior? Interesting. Sounds like you need to do a follow-on study, rather than bash the first one without having read the original manuscript. According to the article, they *did* have a feedback questionnaire, and the participants did not notice the scent. More importantly, however, we do not know from the article whether this was a double blind study. The devil is in the details for behavioral studies like this, and an easy way to eliminate many uncontrolled variables is to make it double blind.

      Finally, it is rather presumptuous to state that BYU funded the research, especially given the list of three total collaborators come from three different universities. Also, I've personally filled out scores of grant applications from my local institution, private foundations, and national agencies. None of them required or even requested a photograph. I'm therefore highly dubious about your last conclusion.

      • by prgrmr (568806)
        I'm therefore highly dubious about your last conclusion.

        Does it help to point out that your sarcasm detector may be broken?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by amplt1337 (707922)

      Not to mention that, this being BYU, they probably have some serious selection bias going on in terms of study participants.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      And a demonstration that an attractive woman can get money and resources from a major university to run a useless study.

      How would you describe the scent of the room you're in right now? My guess: bitter.

  • Is this a joke? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swanzilla (1458281) on Monday October 26, 2009 @04:43PM (#29877051) Homepage
    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.

  • Cleanliness really IS next to godliness.

  • Hey (Score:5, Funny)

    by jim_v2000 (818799) on Monday October 26, 2009 @04:51PM (#29877187)
    This explains why the average Slashdotter has such disregard for copyright!
  • ... that makes the auto salesmen pull all kinds of dirty tricks.
  • Who funded this study again?

  • Not sure how it could encourage good behavior.

    Blah.

  • From BYU? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jonnat (1168035) on Monday October 26, 2009 @05:37PM (#29877883)
    A Brigham Young University professor suggesting a possible biochemical link to ethical behavior. Sounds like a letter of resignation to me.
  • Wait till they try out Linex. Trounces Windex hands down it will!

  • People do. Smells aren't the ones that do that, but associations of it in people's mind. What seem to work in some regions or cultures could have different effects in others. If associations are the ones that do the job, then trends of decoration (not just smell, but visual, lights, architecture, etc) for public places should follow that ideas. Of course, i don't think that the only alternative that will be good for banks is to look and smell like torture chambers, but probably most elements that promote s
  • I propose a grant for a study to determine what scents make Professor Liljenquist more likely to put out...
  • *Frrppbptbtbptbpt!*

    Flame on!

  • by Whiteox (919863) <htcstechNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday October 26, 2009 @08:02PM (#29879283) Journal

    Windex comes in citrus?

  • More proof we need to clean up how our corporate masters live.

    Surround yourself with expensive, old alcohol, expensive stinky cigars, old dead animal furniture... and the smell of used hookers... that's the IDEAL of "good" business men? No wonder we're so fucked up.

  • Capitol Hill (Score:4, Insightful)

    by db32 (862117) on Monday October 26, 2009 @08:16PM (#29879405) Journal

    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...

Forty two.

Working...