Tackling the underlying mechanisms of embodiment, we (Körner & Strack, Reference Körner, Strack, Hauke and Kritikos2018; Körner, Topolinski, & Strack, Reference Körner, Topolinski and Strack2015) suggested four distinct mechanisms through which grounded experiences may influence psychological processes: modal priming (spreading of semantic activation), sensorimotor simulation (automatic simulation of sensations, actions, or emotions when perceiving or thinking about related stimuli), direct state induction (altered motivational-affective state or mindset from grounding, unmediated by further cognitive processes), and conscious inferences (usage of sensorimotor states to infer psychological states). Unfortunately, grounded procedures of separation do not seem to fit neatly into one of these process-pure categories. Instead, features of both direct state induction and conscious inferences seem to co-operate.

The first two mechanisms, modal priming and sensorimotor simulations cannot explain the entire range of phenomena that are reviewed in the target article and therefore fail to provide parsimonious explanations for grounded procedures of separation. Although early research showed that physical cleaning influences psychological processes in metaphorically associated domains, multiple later studies (reviewed in the target article) found physical cleaning to yield separation effects even in unrelated content domains, such as purchasing decisions or task performance. The lack of semantic associations between these domains and metaphors of cleansing or (moral) disgust excludes spreading of semantic associations as a mechanism. Similarly, even though cleaning imagery has been observed to result in cleansing (see Zhong, Strejcek, & Sivanathan, Reference Zhong, Strejcek and Sivanathan2010), the finding that cleaning oneself has different consequences than cleaning an object (Körner & Strack, Reference Körner and Strack2019) speaks against the automatic sensorimotor simulations as a mechanism.

Conscious inferences, on the contrary, seem to be necessary for grounded procedures of separation. As reviewed in the target article, the mere motor action involved in cleaning is not sufficient to trigger separation. Instead, the action must be understood as cleaning (Körner & Strack, Reference Körner and Strack2019). Although the meaning of the bodily action must be cognitively represented, this is not required for the outcome of the action. In other words, although participants need to be aware that they are cleaning themselves, the idea of separation as a generalized concept does not need to be activated.

The last process, direct state induction, was originally supposed to be unmediated by inferences or other cognitive processes (see Körner et al., Reference Körner, Topolinski and Strack2015). Although cognitive processes do play a role in grounded procedures of separation (see above), separation nevertheless shares features with direct state induction in that the consequences are domain-general. In fact, separation effects have been shown to be so general as to indicate an altered motivational/affective state or mindset, altering information processing. In sum, the mechanism driving grounded procedures of separation seems to be a state induction requiring inferential processes.

We suggest, and this is our second point, that separation is the functional end state of a behavioral activity that belongs to the approach/avoidance dichotomy and directly induces a psychological condition (see Körner et al., Reference Körner, Topolinski and Strack2015). As a consequence, separation is predicted to reduce the feelings that were previously elicited and to neutralize the evaluation of previously encountered stimuli. Approach/avoidance behavior acts as a basic tie between behavior and evaluation. Specifically, it has been shown that approach versus avoidance tendencies stand in a bidirectional relation with positive versus negative evaluations; that is, avoidance behavior may be facilitated by negative affect and elicit negative evaluations during its execution (Cacioppo, Priester, & Berntson, Reference Cacioppo, Priester and Berntson1993; Krieglmeyer, Deutsch, De Houwer, & De Raedt, Reference Krieglmeyer, Deutsch, De Houwer and De Raedt2010; cf. Krishna & Eder, Reference Krishna and Eder2018; Strack & Deutsch, Reference Strack and Deutsch2004). The current analysis suggests that (a) negative feelings trigger a motivation to engage in cleansing, that (b) the negative affect will be maintained or even increase during the procedure, and that (c) its completion (separation) will neutralize or eliminate these feelings and trigger a new mindset that differs from the grounded procedures that result in separation.

This new mindset may be further facilitated by separation's leading to an increased psychological distance between the self and the target, which, in turn, leads to more abstract information processing (Trope & Liberman, Reference Trope and Liberman2010). This mechanism, separation leading to more abstract construal, could also explain the emotion-neutralizing effect of separation actions. Several studies on cleansing observed that previous affect-altering experiences (e.g., feeling guilty because of a moral transgression or confident because of a successful performance) were neutralized by separation procedures. This accords with the reduced affective quality of abstract compared to concrete construal, as it has been demonstrated (Strack, Schwarz, & Gschneidinger, Reference Strack, Schwarz and Gschneidinger1985) that affect is less likely to be intensified by abstract than by concrete representations. Moreover, conceptualizing separation as increasing psychological distance allows for additional predictions. Compared to neutral actions, separation should lead to a more abstract representation of stimuli or events encountered before this action. As characteristics of abstract representations, central and enduring (compared to peripheral and transient) features of events and objects are postulated to be more likely to determine judgments after separation procedures.

Finally, we argue that separation will lead to a reset of previous mental operations, causing old ties to be severed and new experiences to be facilitated. Thus, we suggest that the reset aspect of separation should have the additional effect of increasing openness to new experiences. Although openness to experience has been frequently characterized as a disposition, it also has motivational aspects that may vary depending on situational characteristics (Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, Reference Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne and Ilardi1997) and can alter with training (Jackson, Hill, Payne, Roberts, & Stine-Morrow, Reference Jackson, Hill, Payne, Roberts and Stine-Morrow2012). When seen as a psychological reset, grounded procedures of separation should lead to greater readiness to accept unusual (as opposed to conventional) ideas, and to enlarging experiences, a greater breadth in outlook, more divergent thinking, tolerance for ambiguity and inconsistencies, reduced appeal for routine, and increased flexibility in general (McCrae & Costa, Reference McCrae, Costa, Hogan, Johnson and Briggs1997). In sum, taking the idea of grounded procedures of separation further enables new predictions about the psychological consequences of cleaning and other grounded procedures of separation.