The influence of cognitive bias on the perceived odor, irritation and health symptoms from chemical exposure
The influence of cognitive bias on the perceived odor, irritation and health symptoms from chemical exposure
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s004200050168
复制
发表时间：
1997-06-01
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Lawley, HJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dalton, P;Wysocki, CJ;Lawley, HJ
目的：对挥发性化学品的反应往往是主观的和可变的，无论是随着时间的推移和个人。虽然变异性可能来自个体嗅觉敏感度的差异，但对化学刺激的反应也受到暴露周围复杂环境的影响，其中可能包括感知者的认知状态。为了探索认知偏差在化学品暴露中的作用，我们评估了有关暴露于丙酮的后果的信息是否会影响暴露期间的气味和刺激的评级和/或暴露后报告的健康症状的频率或强度。研究方法：90名成人（平均年龄33.7，范围25-64），无职业暴露于溶剂的历史，暴露于800 ppm的丙酮在一个室20分钟。为了控制非特异性反应的丙酮气味，受试者也暴露于200 ppm的苯乙醇（PEA）20分钟，一种无刺激性的挥发性化学物质，产生独特的气味，但在气相中不会引起刺激。受试者被分配到三个组中的一个（n = 30/组）;每组对暴露于研究中的化学品的后果给予积极、消极或中性的偏见。暴露期间：受试者对气味和刺激的强度进行评级;暴露后，他们完成了症状问卷。结果：在20分钟的接触丙酮？正偏置组表现出对气味的最大适应性和最低的刺激感;暴露后，他们报告的健康症状最少。相比之下，负偏差组对气味强度的评价更高，平均而言，报告的总体刺激性最大;暴露后，他们报告的健康症状明显多于其他组。研究的人口统计学变量（例如，年龄、性别、种族、吸烟状况）是对气味或刺激的反应的预测。丙酮的刺激性感知可以通过丙酮气味感知和PEA（无刺激性）感知的刺激性的线性组合来很好地预测，r（2）= 0.73。结论：结果提供了强有力的证据表明，感知气味和认知预期的化学品可以显着影响个人如何回应it. Further，因为天真的控制科目似乎表现出极端的变化，在他们的认知评价化学品的影响，可能是有限的价值，使用非暴露的控制，以评估工人群体的化学品的刺激性。
Objective: Responses to volatile chemicals are often subjective and variable, both over time and across individuals. Although variability can derive from differences in individual olfactory sensitivity, the response to a chemical stimulus is also influenced by the complex environment surrounding the exposure, which can include the perceiver's cognitive state. To explore the role of cognitive bias in chemical exposures, we evaluated whether information about the consequences of exposure to acetone could influence ratings of odor and irritation during exposure and/or the frequency or intensity of reported health symptoms following exposure. Methods: Ninety adults (mean age 33.7, range 25-64) with no history of occupational exposure to solvents, were exposed to 800 ppm acetone in a cham ber for 20 min. To control for non-specific responses to the odor of acetone, the subjects were also exposed for 20 min to 200 ppm phenylethyl alcohol (PEA), a nonirritant volatile chemical that produces a distinct odor but does not elicit irritation in the vapor phase. Subjects were assigned to one of three groups (n = 30/group); each group was given either a positive, negative or neutral bias towards the consequences of exposure to the chemicals in the study. During exposure: subjects rated the intensity of odor and irritation; following exposure, they completed symptom questionnaires. Results: During the 20-min exposure to acetone? the positive bias group exhibited the most adaptation to its odor and the lowest perceived irritation; following exposure they reported the fewest health symptoms. In contrast, the negative bias group rated higher levels of odor intensity and, on average, reported the most overall irritation; following exposure they reported significantly more health symptoms than the other groups. None of the demographic variables studied (e.g., age gender, race, smoking status) were predictive of the response to odor or irritation. The perceived irritancy of acetone was well predicted by a linear combination of the perceived odor of acetone and the perceived irritation from PEA (the nonirritant), r(2) = 0.73. Conclusions: The results provide strong evidence that both the perceived odor and cognitive expectations about a chemical can significantly affect how individuals respond to it. Moreover, because naive control subjects appear to exhibit extreme variation in their cognitive evaluations of chemical effects, there may be limited value in using non-exposed controls to assess the irritancy of chemicals for worker populations.