Social comfort and attractiveness perception: impact of prosthetics, physical disability and comfort distance on interpersonal interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Derived from the disease-avoidance model is the hypothesis that people may direct negative cognitive and behavioural responses towards individuals with physical disfiguring conditions, including physical disabilities. According to the behavioral immune system, physical disability-a non-contagious physical disfigurement-may falsely activate cognitive disease-avoidance processes, resulting in prejudicial or negative responses toward individuals with physical disabilities. For the first time this hypothesis is put to the test by investigating whether ratings of attractiveness and comfort for a social interaction vary systematically with physical disability (Studies 1 and 2). In addition, we tested whether these ratings were associated with individual differences in pathogen disgust and perceived vulnerability to disease. In Study 3 we overcame possible methodological limitations by employing a virtual reality (VR) environment. A fourth study was conducted to extend the first two studies by using a more diverse set of avatars. Results from Studies 1 and 2 indicated that disability did not significantly impact comfort ratings for social interactions, although non-disabled stimuli were rated as more attractive. However, Study 3 showed that in a VR environment, participants preferred closer proximity to non-disabled avatars over disabled ones, a preference not mitigated by the presence of prosthetics. Study 4 replicated these findings with varied 2D avatars, showing that disability significantly affected both comfort and attractiveness ratings, with non-disabled avatars rated highest, followed by those with prosthetics, and finally disabled avatars. Despite these findings, the expected relationship between comfort ratings and individual differences in pathogen disgust or perceived infectability did not emerge, challenging the behavioural immune system proposal. The discomfort associated with physical disability may be more related to social stigma or preconceived notions than to an innate disease-avoidance response.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".