How Pain-Related Facial Expressions Are Evaluated in Relation to Gender, Race, and Emotion

IF 2.1 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY Affective science Pub Date : 2023-03-03 DOI:10.1007/s42761-023-00181-6
Troy C. Dildine, Carolyn M. Amir, Julie Parsons, Lauren Y. Atlas
{"title":"How Pain-Related Facial Expressions Are Evaluated in Relation to Gender, Race, and Emotion","authors":"Troy C. Dildine,&nbsp;Carolyn M. Amir,&nbsp;Julie Parsons,&nbsp;Lauren Y. Atlas","doi":"10.1007/s42761-023-00181-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Inequities in pain assessment are well-documented; however, the psychological mechanisms underlying such biases are poorly understood. We investigated potential perceptual biases in the judgments of faces displaying pain-related movements. Across five online studies, 956 adult participants viewed images of computer-generated faces (“targets”) that varied in features related to race (Black and White) and gender (women and men). Target identity was manipulated across participants, and each target had equivalent facial movements that displayed varying intensities of movement in facial action-units related to pain (Studies 1–4) or pain and emotion (Study 5). On each trial, participants provided categorical judgments as to whether a target was in pain (Studies 1–4) or which expression the target displayed (Study 5) and then rated the perceived intensity of the expression. Meta-analyses of Studies 1–4 revealed that movement intensity was positively associated with both categorizing a trial as painful and perceived pain intensity. Target race and gender did not consistently affect pain-related judgments, contrary to well-documented clinical inequities. In Study 5, in which pain was equally likely relative to other emotions, pain was the least frequently selected emotion (5%). Our results suggest that perceivers can utilize facial movements to evaluate pain in other individuals, but perceiving pain may depend on contextual factors. Furthermore, assessments of computer-generated, pain-related facial movements online do not replicate sociocultural biases observed in the clinic. These findings provide a foundation for future studies comparing CGI and real images of pain and emphasize the need for further work on the relationship between pain and emotion.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72119,"journal":{"name":"Affective science","volume":"4 2","pages":"350 - 369"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s42761-023-00181-6.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Affective science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42761-023-00181-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Inequities in pain assessment are well-documented; however, the psychological mechanisms underlying such biases are poorly understood. We investigated potential perceptual biases in the judgments of faces displaying pain-related movements. Across five online studies, 956 adult participants viewed images of computer-generated faces (“targets”) that varied in features related to race (Black and White) and gender (women and men). Target identity was manipulated across participants, and each target had equivalent facial movements that displayed varying intensities of movement in facial action-units related to pain (Studies 1–4) or pain and emotion (Study 5). On each trial, participants provided categorical judgments as to whether a target was in pain (Studies 1–4) or which expression the target displayed (Study 5) and then rated the perceived intensity of the expression. Meta-analyses of Studies 1–4 revealed that movement intensity was positively associated with both categorizing a trial as painful and perceived pain intensity. Target race and gender did not consistently affect pain-related judgments, contrary to well-documented clinical inequities. In Study 5, in which pain was equally likely relative to other emotions, pain was the least frequently selected emotion (5%). Our results suggest that perceivers can utilize facial movements to evaluate pain in other individuals, but perceiving pain may depend on contextual factors. Furthermore, assessments of computer-generated, pain-related facial movements online do not replicate sociocultural biases observed in the clinic. These findings provide a foundation for future studies comparing CGI and real images of pain and emphasize the need for further work on the relationship between pain and emotion.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如何根据性别、种族和情绪评估疼痛相关的面部表情
疼痛评估中的不公平现象有据可查;然而,人们对这种偏见背后的心理机制知之甚少。我们调查了在判断面部表现出疼痛相关动作时可能存在的感知偏差。在五项在线研究中,956名成年参与者观看了计算机生成的人脸图像(“目标”),这些人脸的特征与种族(黑人和白人)和性别(女性和男性)有关。在参与者中操纵目标身份,每个目标都有相同的面部动作,这些动作在与疼痛(研究1-4)或疼痛和情绪(研究5)相关的面部动作单元中显示出不同强度的运动。在每项试验中,参与者对目标是否疼痛(研究1-4)或目标表现出的表情(研究5)进行分类判断,然后对表情的感知强度进行评分。研究1-4的荟萃分析显示,运动强度与将试验归类为疼痛和感知疼痛强度呈正相关。目标种族和性别并没有持续影响疼痛相关的判断,这与充分记录的临床不公平相反。在研究5中,疼痛与其他情绪的可能性相同,疼痛是选择频率最低的情绪(5%)。我们的研究结果表明,感知者可以利用面部运动来评估其他人的疼痛,但感知疼痛可能取决于上下文因素。此外,对计算机生成的、与疼痛相关的在线面部动作的评估并不能复制临床上观察到的社会文化偏见。这些发现为未来比较CGI和真实疼痛图像的研究奠定了基础,并强调需要进一步研究疼痛和情绪之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Introduction to the Special Section Commentaries Affectivism and the Emotional Elephant: How a Componential Approach Can Reconcile Opposing Theories to Serve the Future of Affective Sciences A Developmental Psychobiologist’s Commentary on the Future of Affective Science Emotional Overshadowing: Pleasant and Unpleasant Cues Overshadow Neutral Cues in Human Associative Learning Emphasizing the Social in Social Emotion Regulation: A Call for Integration and Expansion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1