Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the hypothesis that experimental threats to social belongingness, interacting with individual differences in attachment security, cause modification of pain threshold reports by individuals who report high pain thresholds at baseline. METHODS: In each of three studies, baseline pain threshold and tolerance were assessed in response to a pain task (cold pressor pain in Studies 1 and 2, finger pressure pain in Study 3). Participants then completed a measure of attachment security and were randomly assigned to a social exclusion or control condition (exclusion from a computer game in Study 1, recalling past rejection experiences in Studies 2 and 3). The pain task was administered again to examine the effects on pain threshold and tolerance. RESULTS: Those with high anxious attachment and high baseline pain thresholds reported higher postmanipulation pain thresholds in the exclusion conditions than in the control conditions. Those with low anxious attachment and high baseline pain thresholds reported lower postmanipulation pain thresholds in the exclusion conditions than in the control conditions. No differences were found for pain tolerance. CONCLUSIONS: Across studies, results suggested that postmanipulation pain threshold reports of individuals with high baseline pain thresholds were particularly responsive to social exclusion. The form of the response was dependent on the level of anxious attachment. The present studies provide evidence that variance in pain threshold reports not accounted for by pain intensity may reflect the use of pain reports to satisfy social needs. This work also suggests that baseline measures of pain thresholds may, in interaction with psychological variables, have predictive power beyond serving as a control variable.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".