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, Carolyn M. Amir, Julie Parsons, 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.