Emotion induction moderates effects of anger management style on acute pain sensitivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anger management style (AMS) is related to both acute and chronic pain intensity. Recent work suggests that an anger expressive AMS in particular may influence acute pain, and that this effect may be most pronounced during anger provocation. The present study examined whether AMS was related to subsequent pain sensitivity without regard to prior emotion induction, only when a strong negative emotion was evoked, or only when anger was provoked. Sixty-four healthy normals partook in semi-structured interviews in which they recalled and verbally described an event in which either anger, sadness, or joy was elicited. They then underwent a cold pressor pain task. Results of hierarchical multiple regressions showed that an anger expressive AMS was related positively to pain threshold only for participants in the anger-recall condition, and that this effect was largely accounted for by their low SBP reactivity during emotion induction. An anger suppressive AMS was related positively to increases in self-reported pain severity, irrespective of emotion-induction condition, and this effect was not accounted for by reactivity in any cardiovascular index. Results extend those of previous studies by illuminating the potential importance of behavioral anger expression for individuals prone to express anger in modulating their reactivity and pain sensitivity. Findings suggest that the detrimental effects of an anger expressive style on pain sensitivity may be ameliorated under conditions in which behavioral anger expression occurs. Results are discussed in terms of recent work suggesting that an expressive AMS is associated with endogenous opioid dysfunction in the absence of behavioral anger expression.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".