I got a dose of morality for you right here, jerk. ((c)iStockphoto/drduey)

Science doesn’t really have a good grasp on how a lot of things work. Like antidepressants. Neurologists can’t rightly say how they work, but psychiatrists know they do, so antidepressants get prescribed. I would imagine that if you’re suffering from crippling depression, you don’t really care how a pill can make everything seem sunnier, just as long as it does.

Much the same goes for our sense of smell. There are a number of competing theories out there on how we perceive the world through that sense, including one that covers quantum physics. Under this hypothesis, odorants unlock their designated receptors through the superposition of the quantum material that comprises them. So if you have a smell receptor that responds to an up-down spinning quark, a scent molecule that includes an up-down spinning quark will unlock it while others will not. Sounds kooky, sure, but it offers more of an explanation than the key box hypothesis that says molecules are shaped a certain way that correspond with our scent receptors. So an odorant shaped like a squirrel riding Pennsylvania like a bull will fit into the proper receptor site while one that’s shaped like the Virgin Mary won’t. Problem is, the Virgin Mary and the squirrel riding Pennsylvania like a bull sometimes do fit into one another’s receptor sites. Which explains how someone had the idea quantum mechanics was afoot.

But I digress. What I mean to say is that while we don’t know how our sense of smell works, we know it can be manipulated. Case in point, two recent studies that show both good and bad smells can lead to differing opinions on morality. Tis true. First up, a BYU study released last week (thanks to Xeno for posting it) that showed a nice, fresh citrus scent improved moral behavior in a business setting [insert your own Goldman Sachs/AIG/Bank of America joke here]. The researchers tested two groups using a variation of the Ultimatum Game, where participants received $12 and had to decide how much, if any to give back. Those who played in a room that had recently been sprayed with citrus-scented Windex gave far more money back ($5.33) than those who played in a room without the clean smell ($2.81).

On the other end of the moral and scent spectrum, a study out of the University of Plymouth in the UK (thanks for the link, LOML), found that people exposed to an unpleasant scent found moral judgment calls more reprehensible than those who read passages on questions of morality in a stink-free environment. The scent in question was synthetic flatus (look it up), emitted from a spray can secretly attached to a nearby wastebasket. The participants in the study read passages about things like taking money from a found wallet before returning it, marrying a cousin and drumming up a fake resume. The researchers found that people exposed to the stink while reading the passages found them significantly more morally disgusting than people who read them without being exposed to the stink.

All of this makes me wonder if Mr. Benny Mardones would have recorded this song, had the studio been recently cleaned with citrus-scented Windex:

More on HowStuffWorks.com:
What’s the Ultimatum Game?
How Smell Works
Is morality located in the brain?