Expanding the social communication model of pain: Are adult attachment characteristics associated with observers' pain-related evaluations?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluations of another's pain can have important implications in medical, employment, and social settings. Influenced by the Social Communication Model of Pain, this vignette-based study investigated the potential influence of characteristics of the person being evaluated (viz., the coping strategy used by an individual with chronic pain depicted in a vignette) and characteristics of those making evaluations (viz., self-reported attachment anxiety and avoidance of the study participants). The main hypothesis was that participants higher in attachment avoidance would be more critical in their evaluations than those lower in attachment avoidance. METHOD: Undergraduate students (N = 267) read 1 of 2 vignettes about an individual experiencing chronic pain, provided ratings of this individual, and completed a measure of adult attachment. The vignettes varied in terms of the pain-related coping strategy (catastrophizing vs. distraction) described. RESULTS: Similar to past research, the catastrophizing vignette received more negative ratings than the distraction vignette (e.g., greater disability level), and female participants provided more positive ratings than male participants (e.g., greater deservingness of support). While the attachment variables were unrelated to some dependent variables, consistent with the main hypothesis, attachment avoidance was associated with lower ratings of perceived deservingness of support and desirability as a friend. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings suggest that chronic pain patients' coping styles influence evaluations made about them, and that evaluators' gender and attachment characteristics also have important effects on such evaluations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".