Psychology
The Manipulative Psychology of Face Washes
Our favorite face cleansers have a dirty past.
Posted June 16, 2020 Reviewed by Devon Frye
You’ve probably heard how important it is to wash your face. Chances are, you have even been recommended a specific cleanser to help your skin. This advice may have come from a friend, family member, a blog, or even your dermatologist. It seems reasonable. Unfortunately, this guidance may be more a product of outdated psychology and marketing influences than a reflection of any actual benefit to you.
Globally, face washes are a $22 billion global industry. The market is expected to increase dramatically over the next several years due an increasing concern for skin health. Skin problems are thought to have a “profound psychological impact," so of course we're willing to spend a lot on solutions.
Yet in considering these facts, important questions arise. Do the products actually work? Could part of the damaging link between mental health and poor quality skin have been intentionally programmed into our collective psyche?
To answer these questions, we need to understand the current face wash market and its origins. In this, it’s helpful to narrow in on one of the most common skin conditions and one of the top reasons we buy these washes.
Most of us will suffer from acne at some point in our lives. These negative effects are far more than skin deep, encompassing a wide range of mental health issues. This skin condition is linked to psychological outcomes like anxiety, depression, body dissatisfaction, as well as trouble socializing. To add insult to injury, the bulk of acne occurs during the tumultuous years of adolescence, making the mental impact all the more worrisome. So it’s no surprise that people spend billions of dollars on over-the-counter drugs for this condition each year, including a wide range of highly promoted face cleaners.
As much as the commercials would have us believe otherwise, these products just don’t seem to work too well. In fact, a 2005 systematic review questioned the utility of the recommendation for face washing in acne, concluding: “the evidence base for current recommendations…is incomplete at best.” This was echoed in another review from 2018 that found “…a great need for more evidence supporting the use of washing and cleansers in [acne] treatment.”
In this example, we’re spending a ton of money, but it isn't clear we're getting much in return. So where did we go wrong? Let's take a look back into history.
In the modern day, we’re quite preoccupied with cleanliness and purity. Yet this is nothing new. Sumerian clay tablets from the 3rd millennium BCE described washing the body with soap. Ancient Romans made daily baths a priority and built massive complexes to ensure easy access. Over the centuries, hygienic practices changed with availably of clean water and shifting social norms. Then, rather recently, the narrative took a new turn. This shift appears to start with an Anglican cleric named John Wesley.
During a sermon in 1778, Wesley is said to have uttered the now-famous line, “cleanliness is next to godliness.” By connecting spiritual, moral, and physical purity, the need for washing oneself took on significance beyond basic hygiene. In the next several decades, this religious connotation became part of a larger moral sentiment around being clean.
A review of this subject states that in the 1900s, “cleanliness indicated control, spiritual refinement, breeding; the unclean were vulgar, coarse, animalistic.” Implications of this transition were significant. Soon, “personal cleanliness was an absolutely essential requirement for acceptance to the middle and upper classes.”
As the value of cleanliness spread across the country, the soap industry took note. They started churning out large quantities of body and face cleaners, “…promoting personal cleanliness as a value for everyone.” Soap manufacturers exploited the preexisting connection between God and cleanliness, using religious language to sell their products.
Without much evidence, they also began to explain how washing your face was absolutely essential for good skin. An ad from the 1920s for Palmolive soap explains, “when you fail to cleanse your face thoroughly once a day this is what happens…you have blackheads and ugly blotches. Your complexion is dull and sallow.” And of course, the purity theme remained a big selling point, as stated in a 1920’s Ivory ad, “…only the purest soap” is capable of healing the skin.
If washing the face was pure, good and the antidote to skin issues, it’s no surprise that skin problems were blamed on moral and psychological failures. As published in the British Journal of Dermatology in 1951, persistent acne is related to “a retardation of emotional and psychosexual development.” The journal followed up with a paper in 1966 reviewing potential causes of acne including “…masturbation, sexual irregularities, or unspecified 'disturbances.'”
More recently, companies have pivoted to emphasize the “scientific” and “natural” aspects of their products. And yet, you can still see historical psychological ploys at work. “Purity” and “pure” remain popular as marketing terms for skin cleansers. “Bad” skin is a common synonym for acne. Even if all the older psychological themes had been abandoned, the damage remains. People are convinced of a strong need for face cleaners despite the paucity of evidence that they actually work.
The thing is, there are better solutions that don't require pharmaceuticals. Despite lacking expensive acne products, people in less developed populations across the world have a much lower prevalence of acne. Understandably, researchers wondered what people in the industrialized world were doing wrong. They’ve started to find some solid answers.
Hundreds of years ago, the Austrian physician Joseph Jakob Plenck related a "rich" diet to acne. Research now shows that, despite popular myths, what we eat does affect our skin. A diet lower in refined carbohydrates and sugars is linked to less acne. On the other hand, the consumption of dairy products appears to increase symptoms of the skin condition. A diet restricting added sugar, simple carbohydrates, and dairy products may not work for everyone, but it's a practical place to start.
In the case of common skin conditions like acne, we're still learning about causes and optimal treatments. Yet it’s also apparent that much of the current dogma, especially around face cleaning, is based more on outdated and inaccurate concepts than useful information. Marketing efforts will continue to promote these products as far more effective than the science supports. Marketers will continue to use psychological ploys that play to our fears and insecurities.
At the very least, we can choose to be aware of these distortions and manipulations. In the process, we can begin to heal some of the stigma associated with skin issues. And, as we better understand the existing science, we can decrease our commitment to expensive "essential" skincare and consider the merits of lifestyle interventions like dietary change.
