Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35098184›Full record

ArticleCurrent research in ecological and social psychology2020

What people believe about detecting infectious disease using the senses.

Joshua M Ackerman, Wilson N Merrell, Soyeon Choi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current research in ecological and social psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Joshua M AckermanUniversity of Michigan, United States.
Wilson N MerrellUniversity of Michigan, United States.
Soyeon ChoiUniversity of Michigan, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Do you believe you can tell if people are sick with infectious diseases by looking at, listening to, or smelling them? Research on pathogen detection and avoidance suggests that perceivers respond with caution both to true signs of infection and to cues only heuristically associated with infection threat. But what do perceivers actually believe about the effectiveness and use of specific sensory modalities for infection detection? In several studies, U.S. participants reported perceptions of effectiveness and likelihood of using each of the major senses to identify infection threat in two types of targets: people and food. Results revealed prioritization of sight and sound with person targets and prioritization of sight and smell with food targets. These patterns appear consistent with the use of "safe senses" (avoidance of cues involving high perceived transmission risk). Beliefs about sensory use also varied depending on the specific feature being examined, with different patterns of sensory beliefs associated with evaluation of pathogenic danger than with evaluation of desirability and fit with normative standards. We discuss these lay beliefs in the context of recent calls for descriptive research in psychology as well as their implications for current and future work on the behavioral immune system.

Indexed as

Behavioral immune systemLay beliefsPathogen threatSensationThreat detection

Identifiers

PMID35098184
PMCPMC7569475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.