IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v31y1990i1p69-72.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are physicians' ratings of pain affected by patients' physical attractiveness?

Author

Listed:
  • Hadjistavropoulos, Heather D.
  • Ross, Michael A.
  • Von Baeyer, Carl L.

Abstract

The degree to which physical attractiveness and nonverbal expressions of pain influence physicians' perceptions of pain was investigated. Photographs of eight female university students were represented in four experimental conditions created by the manipulation of cosmetics, hairstyles, and facial expressions: (a) attractive-no pain, (b) attractive-pain, (c) unattractive-no pain, and (d) unattractive-pain. Each photograph was accompanied by a brief description of the patient's pain problem that was standard across conditions. Medical residents (N = 60) viewed the photographs and rated each patient's pain, distress, negative affective experience, health, personality, blame for the situation, and the physician's own solicitude for the patient. The results showed that physician's ratings of pain were influenced both by attractiveness of patients and by nonverbal expressions of pain. Unattractive patients, and patients who were expressing pain, were perceived as experiencing more pain, distress, and negative affective experiences than attractive patients and patients who were not expressing pain. Unattractive patients also received higher ratings of solicitude on the doctor's part and lower ratings of health than attractive patients. Physician's assessments of pain appear to be influenced by the physical attractiveness of the patient.

Suggested Citation

  • Hadjistavropoulos, Heather D. & Ross, Michael A. & Von Baeyer, Carl L., 1990. "Are physicians' ratings of pain affected by patients' physical attractiveness?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 69-72, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:31:y:1990:i:1:p:69-72
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(90)90011-G
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:31:y:1990:i:1:p:69-72. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.