Korean Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine (정신신체의학)

Korean Psychosomatic Society (한국정신신체의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Behavioral Ecology of COVID-19: Complex Interactions Between Facial Attractiveness Perception and Disgust Reactions

코로나19의 행동생태학: 안면 매력 인식과 혐오 반응의 복합적 상호작용

  • GyeongBae Son (Department of Psychology, Seoul National University College of Social Science) ;
  • Hanson Park (Department of Anthropology, Seoul National University College of Social Science)
  • 손경배 (서울대학교 사회과학대학 심리학과) ;
  • 박한선 (서울대학교 사회과학대학 인류학과)
  • Received : 2024.06.04
  • Accepted : 2024.06.07
  • Published : 2024.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examines the changes in attractiveness and social perception of mask wearers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Before COVID-19, masks were seen as a sign of infection, decreasing the wearer's attractiveness. However, with the widespread normalization of mask-wearing during the pandemic, the perception mechanisms have become more complex. The attractiveness and social perception of mask wearers now vary based on factors such as the wearer's baseline attractiveness, race, and attitudes toward masks. Consequently, research findings on perception changes due to mask-wearing have been inconsistent. This inconsistency is due to the lack of standardized experimental methods and the failure to account for individual differences among participants, as well as insufficient theoretical background in the studies. From a psychiatric perspective, it is essential to formulate and test new hypotheses centered around the psychological mechanisms related to the human behavioral immune system when studying attractiveness perception during a pandemic. Notably, attention should be given to how differences in the activation of individuals' behavioral immune systems influence perceptions of mask wearers. Understanding these dynamics can provide crucial insights into how social perceptions and aversions impact mental health, thereby shedding light on various psychiatric issues that arise during infectious disease outbreaks.

본 연구는 코로나19 팬데믹 동안 마스크 착용자에 대한 매력도와 사회적 인식 변화를 고찰한다. 코로나19 이전에는 마스크가 감염 신호로 여겨져 매력도를 감소시켰으나, 팬데믹 이후 마스크 착용이 일상화되면서 인식 메커니즘이 복잡해졌다. 마스크 착용자에 대한 매력도와 사회적 인식은 착용자의 기본 매력도, 인종, 마스크에 대한 인식 등에 따라 달라진다. 이로 인해 연구 결과가 일관되지 않다. 이는 실험 방법의 불일치와 피험자 개인차를 고려하지 못한 결과다. 정신의학적 관점에서 팬데믹 상황에서의 매력 인식을 연구하기 위해서는 행동면역계와 관련된 심리적 메커니즘을 중심으로 새로운 가설을 수립하고 검증해야 한다. 이는 대인 지각과 혐오가 정신건강에 미치는 영향을 이해하는 데 중요한 단서를 제공할 수 있다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문 또는 저서는 2021년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-과제번호) (NRF-2021S1A-5B5A17052109).

References

  1. Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2011;366:1638-1659.
  2. Schmidt KL, Cohn JF. Human facial expressions as adaptations: evolutionary questions in facial expression research. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: The Official Publication of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists 2001;116(S33):3-24.
  3. Kanwisher N, Yovel G. The fusiform face area: a cortical region specialized for the perception of faces. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2006;361:2109-2128.
  4. Olson IR, Marshuetz C. Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion 2005;5:498-502.
  5. Dion K, Berscheid E, Walster E. What is beautiful is good. J Pers Soc Psychol 1972;24:285-290.
  6. Moller AP. Developmental stability and fitness: a review. Am Nat 1997;149:916-932.
  7. Moller AP, Swaddle JP. Asymmetry, developmental stability and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press;1997.
  8. Shackelford TK, Larsen RJ. Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and physiological distress. J Pers Soc Psychol 1997;72:456-466.
  9. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Human facial beauty: averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Human Nature 1993;4:237-269.
  10. Rhodes G, Zebrowitz LA, Clark A, Kalick SM, Hightower A, McKay R. Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evolution and Human Behavior 2001;22:31-46.
  11. Mitton JB, Grant MC. Associations among protein heterozygosity, growth rate, and developmental homeostasis. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1984;15:479-499.
  12. Lie HC, Rhodes G, Simmons LW. Genetic diversity revealed in human faces. Evolution 2008;62:2473-2486.
  13. Roberts SC, Little AC, Gosling LM, Perrett DI, Carter V, Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Petrie M. MHC-heterozygosity and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior 2005;26:213-226.
  14. Ford CS, Beach FA. Patterns of sexual behavior. New York: Harper & Brothers;1951.
  15. Singh D, Bronstad PM. Sex differences in the anatomical locations of human body scarification and tattooing as a function of pathogen prevalence. Evolution and Human Behavior 1997;18:403-416.
  16. Fink B, Grammer K, Matts PJ. Visible skin color distribution plays a role in the perception of age, attractiveness, and health in female faces. Evolution and Human Behavior 2006;27:433-442.
  17. Jones BC, Little AC, Burt DM, Perrett DI. When facial attractiveness is only skin deep. Perception 2004;33:569-576.
  18. Bereczkei T, Mesko N. Hair length, facial attractiveness, personality attribution: a multiple fitness model of hairdressing. Review of Psychology 2006;13:35-42.
  19. Muscarella F, Cunningham MR. The evolutionary significance and social perception of male pattern baldness and facial hair. Ethol Sociobiol 1996;17:99-117.
  20. Hinsz VB, Matz DC, Patience RA. Does women's hair signal reproductive potential? J Exp Soc Psychol 2001;37:166-172.
  21. Gangestad SW, Scheyd GJ. The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Annu Rev Anthropol 2005;34:523-548.
  22. Perrett DI, Lee KJ, Penton-Voak I, Rowland D, Yoshikawa S, Burt DM, Henzi SP, Castles DL, Akamatsu S. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 1998;394:884-887.
  23. Schaefer K, Fink B, Grammer K, Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Bookstein FL. Female appearance: facial and bodily attractiveness as shape. Psychology Science 2006;48:187-204.
  24. Cunningham MR, Barbee AP, Pike CL. What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990;59:61-72.
  25. Kanda N, Tsuchida T, Tamaki K. Testosterone inhibits immunoglobulin production by human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Clin Exp Immunol 1996;106:410-415.
  26. Folstad I, Karter AJ. Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. Am Nat 1992;139:603-622.
  27. Boothroyd LG, Jones BC, Burt DM, Perrett DI. Partner characteristics associated with masculinity, health and maturity in male faces. Pers Individ Dif 2007;43:1161-1173.
  28. Haxby J V, Hoffman EA, Gobbini MI. The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends Cogn Sci 2000;4:223-233.
  29. Vellante M, Baron-Cohen S, Melis M, Marrone M, Petretto DR, Masala C, Preti A. The "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test: Systematic review of psychometric properties and a validation study in Italy. Cogn Neuropsychiatry 2013;18:326-354.
  30. Bruce V, Young A. Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology 1986;77:305-327.
  31. WHO [homepage on the Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; c2023 [updated 2023 Jun 3; cited 2023 Jun 3]. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Available from: https://covid19.who.int/.
  32. Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency [homepage on the Internet]. Korea: Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency; c2023 [updated 2023 Jun 3; cited 2023 Jun 3]. Lifting of the Obligation to Wear Masks Outdoors and Recommendation for Voluntary Wearing. Available from: https://www.kdca.go.kr/gallery.es?mid=a20503010000&bid=0002&list_no=145857&act=view.
  33. Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency [homepage on the Internet]. Korea: Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency; c2023 [updated 2023 Jun 3; cited 2023 Jun 3]. Guidelines on the Five Key Personal Quarantine Rules. Available from: https://www.korea.kr/news/visualNewsView.do?newsId=148911707.
  34. Kamatani M, Ito M, Miyazaki Y, Kawahara JI. Effects of masks worn to protect against COVID-19 on the perception of facial attractiveness. Iperception. 2021;12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695211027920.
  35. Castelli L, Tumino M, Carraro L. Face mask use as a categorical dimension in social perception. Sci Rep 2022;12:17860.
  36. Miyazaki Y, Kawahara J. The sanitary-mask effect on perceived facial attractiveness. Japanese Psychological Research 2016;58:261-272.
  37. Sadr J, Krowicki L. Face perception loves a challenge: less information sparks more attraction. Vision Res 2019;157:61-83.
  38. Takehara T, Kaigawa M, Kobayashi A, Yamaguchi Y. Impact of face masks and sunglasses on attractiveness, trustworthiness, and familiarity, and limited time effect: a Japanese sample. Discover Psychology 2023;3:5.
  39. Bennetts RJ, Johnson Humphrey P, Zielinska P, Bate S. Face masks versus sunglasses: limited effects of time and individual differences in the ability to judge facial identity and social traits. Cogn Res Princ Implic 2022;7:1-24.
  40. Kim G, Seong SH, Hong SS, Choi E. Impact of face masks and sunglasses on emotion recognition in South Koreans. PLoS One 2022;17: e0263466.
  41. Noyes E, Davis JP, Petrov N, Gray KLH, Ritchie KL. The effect of face masks and sunglasses on identity and expression recognition with super-recognizers and typical observers. R Soc Open Sci 2021;8:201169.
  42. Freud E, Stajduhar A, Rosenbaum RS, Avidan G, Ganel T. The COVID-19 pandemic masks the way people perceive faces. Sci Rep 2020;10:22344.
  43. Freud E, Di Giammarino D, Stajduhar A, Rosenbaum RS, Avidan G, Ganel T. Recognition of masked faces in the era of the pandemic: no improvement despite extensive natural exposure. Psychol Sci 2022;33:1635-1650.
  44. Eisenbarth H, Alpers GW. Happy mouth and sad eyes: scanning emotional facial expressions. Emotion 2011;11:860-865.
  45. Jeong NH, Lee J, Yun JC, Park DH, Park SB. Does wearing facial masks increase perceived facial attractiveness? An eye-tracking experiment. Front Psychol 2023;14:1141319.
  46. Park SH, Minezaki T. Comparative study on mask culture: Focusing on Japan and America. Japanse Culture Study 2020;76:107-126.
  47. Kamatani M, Miyazaki Y, Kawahara JI. Occlusion of faces by sanitary masks improves facial attractiveness of other races. Front Psychol 2023;13:953389.
  48. Dudarev V, Kamatani M, Miyazaki Y, Enns JT, Kawahara JI. The attractiveness of masked faces is influenced by race and mask attitudes. Front Psychol 2022;13:864936.
  49. Bassiri-Tehrani B, Nguyen A, Choudhary A, Guart J, Di Chiaro B, Purnell CA. The effect of wearing a mask on facial attractiveness. In: Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum. Oxford University Press US;2022;Sep2:ojac070.
  50. Pazhoohi F, Kingstone A. Unattractive faces are more attractive when the bottom-half is masked, an effect that reverses when the top-half is concealed. Cogn Res Princ Implic 2022;7:6.
  51. Patel V, Mazzaferro DM, Sarwer DB, Bartlett SP. Beauty and the mask. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020;8:e3048.
  52. Hies O, Lewis MB. Beyond the beauty of occlusion: medical masks increase facial attractiveness more than other face coverings. Cogn Res Princ Implic 2022;7:1-6.
  53. Lee Y, Jeong SK. When less is not more: the effect of transparent masks on facial attractiveness judgment. Cogn Res Princ Implic 2023;8:1-9.
  54. Twele AC, Thierry SM, Mondloch CJ. Face masks have a limited influence on first impressions: evidence from three experiments. Perception 2022;51:417-434.
  55. Malik S, Mihm B, Reichelt M. The impact of face masks on interpersonal trust in times of COVID-19. Sci Rep 2021;11:17369.
  56. Kawakami K, Manokara K, Fang X. Impact of face masks on perceptions of black and white targets during the COVID-19 pandemic. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 2023;e12810.
  57. Guo K, Hare A, Liu CH. Impact of face masks and viewers' anxiety on ratings of first impressions from faces. Perception 2022;51:37-50.
  58. Olivera-La Rosa A, Chuquichambi EG, Ingram GPD. Keep your (social) distance: Pathogen concerns and social perception in the time of COVID-19. Pers Individ Dif 2020;166:110200.
  59. Oldmeadow JA, Koch C. Effects of face masks on person perception. Perception 2021;50:876-889.
  60. Faulkner J, Schaller M, Park JH, Duncan LA. Evolved disease-avoidance mechanisms and contemporary xenophobic attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2004;7:333-353.
  61. Navarrete CD, Fessler DMT. Disease avoidance and ethnocentrism: the effects of disease vulnerability and disgust sensitivity on intergroup attitudes. Evolution and Human Behavior 2006;27:270-282.
  62. Brase GL, Richmond J. The white-coat effect: physician attire and perceived authority, friendliness, and attractiveness. J Appl Soc Psychol 2004;34:2469-2481.
  63. Atcherson SR, Mendel LL, Baltimore WJ, Patro C, Lee S, Pousson M, Spann MJ. The effect of conventional and transparent surgical masks on speech understanding in individuals with and without hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2017;28:58-67.
  64. Singh L, Tan A, Quinn PC. Infants recognize words spoken through opaque masks but not through clear masks. Dev Sci 2021;24:e13117.
  65. Little AC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI. Evolution and individual differences in the perception of attractiveness: How cyclic hormonal changes and self-perceived attractiveness influence female preferences for male faces. In Rhodes G, Zebrowitz LA, editors. Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing;2002. p.59-90.
  66. Penton-Voak I, Perrett DI. Consistency and individual differences in facial attractiveness judgements: an evolutionary perspective. Soc Res (New York) 2000;219-244.
  67. White D, Burton AM. Individual differences and the multidimensional nature of face perception. Nature Reviews Psychology 2022;1:287-300.
  68. Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. Preferences for variation in masculinity in real male faces change across the menstrual cycle: women prefer more masculine faces when they are more fertile. Pers Individ Dif 2008;45:478-482.
  69. Penton-Voak IS, Little AC, Jones BC, Burt DM, Tiddeman BP, Perrett DI. Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 2003;117:264-271.
  70. DeBruine LM. Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: context-specific effects of facial resemblance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2005;272:919-922.
  71. Peters M, Simmons LW, Rhodes G. Preferences across the menstrual cycle for masculinity and symmetry in photographs of male faces and bodies. PLoS One 2009;4:e4138.
  72. Little AC, Jones BC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI. Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2002;269:1095-1100.
  73. Smith FG, Jones BC, Welling LLW, Little AC, Vukovic J, Main JC, DeBruine LM, Al-Dujaili EAS. Waist-hip ratio predicts women's preferences for masculine male faces, but not perceptions of men's trustworthiness. Pers Individ Dif 2009;47:476-480.
  74. Cha SE, Ku X, Choi I. Post COVID-19, still wear a face mask? Self-perceived facial attractiveness reduces mask-wearing intention. Front Psychol 2023;14:1084941.
  75. Dudarev V, Manaligod MGM, Enns JT, Todd RM. In the hands of the beholder: wearing a COVID-19 mask is associated with its attractiveness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2022;75:598-615.
  76. Leder J, Kossmann L, Carbon CC. Perceptions of persons who wear face coverings are modulated by the perceivers' attitude. Front Neurosci 2022;16:988546.
  77. Gangestad SW, Buss DM. Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethol Sociobiol 1993;14:89-96.
  78. Gangestad SW, Haselton MG, Buss DM. Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychol Inq 2006;17:75-95.
  79. Andrew EH. Configurations of The African Mask: forms, functions and the transcendental. Cross-Cultural Communication 2014;10:211-216.
  80. Poulos M. El mundo es un panuelo: the bandana as a global symbol of resistance. Eleven The Undergraduate Journal of Sociology 2018;8:2-23.
  81. Kulenovic T. A veil (hijab) as a public symbol of a Muslim woman modern identity. Coll Antropol 2006;30:713-718.
  82. Chatty D. The burqa face cover: an aspect of dress in Southeastern Arabia. In: Languages of dress in the Middle East. New York: Routledge;2014. p.127-148.