When assessing weather someone is ill, people across the globe prioritize sight and hearing over touch, smell, and taste, according to a recent study. The analysis,which included over 19,000 participants from 58 countries,indicated that while some variations exist based on a country’s economic growth and population density,the consensus is remarkably consistent.

According to lead author Josh Ackerman,a University of Michigan professor of psychology,people generally favor senses that minimize their own risk of infection. Ackerman’s expertise lies in the psychology of germs, providing valuable insights into how individuals perceive and respond to pathogen threats.

“Its significant to understand lay beliefs about how illnesses present because they can shape people’s actions and behaviors in contexts where disease transmission is possible,” says Ackerman.

He also notes that these beliefs can influence judgments about individuals, groups, and places, potentially leading to avoidance, prejudice, and support for restrictive policies. His previous research indicated that most Americans consistently rely on sight and hearing as their primary senses for detecting illness.

This preference aligns with Ackerman’s “safe senses hypothesis,” which suggests that people tend to favor senses that operate at a distance when evaluating someone’s health, even if closer senses like touch, taste, or smell might offer more detailed information.

“Where we might lean in to smell a carton of milk to detect danger, we’re motivated to avoid proximity with other people when it comes to infectious disease,” says Ackerman.

the latest study, published in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, explores whether these patterns hold true worldwide. While cultural differences could influence sensory preferences, the findings reveal a striking consistency across cultures in how people perceive and detect infectious diseases.

Variations were minimal, mainly involving the ranking of hearing and touch. Respondents in countries with lower latitudes, less wealth, and higher disease burdens showed less distinction between these two senses. Despite these slight differences, the overall uniformity in beliefs about sensory detection of illness was significant.

Ackerman suggests that the consistency in sensing disease might stem from the similar ways hazards present themselves across human groups and the effectiveness of these beliefs in ensuring survival over time. however,he cautions that relying solely on our senses may not always be accurate.

Ackerman’s previous research indicated that people struggle to accurately detect illness based on coughs and sneezes.The tendency to perceive all “disgusting” sounds as perilous could be an adaptive bias, as the cost of overlooking infection threats may outweigh the cost of false alarms. Similarly, relying on “safe senses” might be a shared bias that helps prevent the spread of infection.

“It’s important to understand lay beliefs about how illnesses present because they can shape people’s actions and behaviors…”