Discriminating between sick and healthy faces based on early sickness cues: an exploratory analysis of sex differences.
behavioral immune system
disease-related personality traits
facial cues of sickness
sex differences
sickness detection
Journal
Evolution, medicine, and public health
ISSN: 2050-6201
Titre abrégé: Evol Med Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101616698
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
21
12
2022
revised:
12
08
2023
medline:
9
11
2023
pubmed:
9
11
2023
entrez:
9
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
It has been argued that sex and disease-related traits should influence how observers respond to sensory sickness cues. In fact, there is evidence that humans can detect sensory cues related to infection in others, but lack of power from earlier studies prevents any firm conclusion regarding whether perception of sickness cues is associated with sex and disease-related personality traits. Here, we tested whether women (relative to men), individuals with poorer self-reported health, and who are more sensitive to disgust, vulnerable to disease, and concerned about their health, overestimate the presence of, and/or are better at detecting sickness cues. In a large online study, 343 women and 340 men were instructed to identify the sick faces from a series of sick and healthy photographs of volunteers with an induced acute experimental inflammation. Participants also completed several disease-related questionnaires. While both men and women could discriminate between sick and healthy individuals above chance level, exploratory analyses revealed that women outperformed men in accuracy and speed of discrimination. Furthermore, we demonstrated that higher disgust sensitivity to body odors is associated with a more liberal decision criterion for categorizing faces as sick. Our findings give strong support for the human ability to discriminate between sick and healthy individuals based on early facial cues of sickness and suggest that women are significantly, although only slightly, better at this task. If this finding is replicated, future studies should determine whether women's better performance is related to increased avoidance of sick individuals.
Sections du résumé
Background and objectives
UNASSIGNED
It has been argued that sex and disease-related traits should influence how observers respond to sensory sickness cues. In fact, there is evidence that humans can detect sensory cues related to infection in others, but lack of power from earlier studies prevents any firm conclusion regarding whether perception of sickness cues is associated with sex and disease-related personality traits. Here, we tested whether women (relative to men), individuals with poorer self-reported health, and who are more sensitive to disgust, vulnerable to disease, and concerned about their health, overestimate the presence of, and/or are better at detecting sickness cues.
Methodology
UNASSIGNED
In a large online study, 343 women and 340 men were instructed to identify the sick faces from a series of sick and healthy photographs of volunteers with an induced acute experimental inflammation. Participants also completed several disease-related questionnaires.
Results
UNASSIGNED
While both men and women could discriminate between sick and healthy individuals above chance level, exploratory analyses revealed that women outperformed men in accuracy and speed of discrimination. Furthermore, we demonstrated that higher disgust sensitivity to body odors is associated with a more liberal decision criterion for categorizing faces as sick.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Our findings give strong support for the human ability to discriminate between sick and healthy individuals based on early facial cues of sickness and suggest that women are significantly, although only slightly, better at this task. If this finding is replicated, future studies should determine whether women's better performance is related to increased avoidance of sick individuals.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37941735
doi: 10.1093/emph/eoad032
pii: eoad032
pmc: PMC10629974
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
386-396Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Foundation for Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Behav Res Methods. 2022 Aug;54(4):1643-1662
pubmed: 34590289
J Exp Soc Psychol. 2009 May;45(3):478-485
pubmed: 19578547
J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2012 Mar 1;29(3):313-20
pubmed: 22472762
Psychol Bull. 2009 Mar;135(2):303-21
pubmed: 19254082
Brain Behav Immun. 2017 Feb;60:312-318
pubmed: 27847284
Front Psychol. 2020 Jun 09;11:1004
pubmed: 32581919
PLoS Biol. 2015 Oct 16;13(10):e1002276
pubmed: 26474156
Psychol Bull. 2000 Jan;126(1):55-77
pubmed: 10668350
Chem Senses. 2017 Jul 1;42(6):499-508
pubmed: 28633463
J Biochem. 2011 Sep;150(3):257-66
pubmed: 21771869
R Soc Open Sci. 2018 Feb 28;5(2):171091
pubmed: 29515834
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jun 13;114(24):6400-6405
pubmed: 28533402
Behav Res Methods. 2019 Feb;51(1):195-203
pubmed: 30734206
Cogn Emot. 2019 May;33(3):579-588
pubmed: 29564958
Psychol Assess. 2007 Sep;19(3):281-97
pubmed: 17845120
Sci Adv. 2017 Apr 07;3(4):e1601721
pubmed: 28435875
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 Jul;97(1):103-22
pubmed: 19586243
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2020 Jun 8;375(1800):20190272
pubmed: 32306878
Front Neuroinform. 2013 Aug 02;7:14
pubmed: 23935581
Front Digit Health. 2022 May 16;4:886615
pubmed: 35651538
Trends Immunol. 2014 Oct;35(10):457-64
pubmed: 25256957
Proc Biol Sci. 2004 May 7;271 Suppl 4:S131-3
pubmed: 15252963
Evol Hum Sci. 2022 Oct 28;4:e48
pubmed: 37588902
Proc Biol Sci. 2018 Jan 10;285(1870):
pubmed: 29298938
Psychol Bull. 2000 May;126(3):424-53
pubmed: 10825784
Brain Behav Immun. 2015 Aug;48:53-6
pubmed: 25801061
Environ Int. 2016 Jan;86:14-23
pubmed: 26479830
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Dec 12;366(1583):3406-17
pubmed: 22042917
Psychol Sci. 2014 Mar;25(3):817-23
pubmed: 24452606
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2017 Mar;42(4):801-810
pubmed: 27620550
J Abnorm Psychol. 2016 Oct;125(7):868-878
pubmed: 27732023
Psychol Med. 2002 Jul;32(5):843-53
pubmed: 12171378
Brain Behav Immun. 2019 Aug;80:286-291
pubmed: 30953768
Chem Senses. 2017 Jul 1;42(6):479-485
pubmed: 28486665
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011 Oct;35(9):1916-28
pubmed: 21414355
R Soc Open Sci. 2023 Apr 12;10(4):221407
pubmed: 37063982
Physiol Behav. 2019 Mar 15;201:221-227
pubmed: 30639587