Reducing racial disparities in pain treatment: The role of empathy and perspective-taking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiological evidence indicates that African Americans receive lower quality pain treatment than European Americans. However, the factors causing these disparities remain unidentified, and solutions to this problem remain elusive. Across three laboratory experiments, we examined the hypotheses that empathy is not only causing pain treatment disparities but that empathy-inducing interventions can reduce these disparities. Undergraduates (Experiments 1 and 2) and nursing professionals (Experiment 3) watched videos of real Black and White patients' genuine facial expressions of pain, provided pain treatment decisions, and reported their feelings of empathy for each patient. The efficacy of an empathy-inducing, perspective-taking intervention at reducing pain treatment disparities was also examined (Experiments 2 and 3). When instructed to attempt to provide patients with the best care, participants exhibited significant pro-White pain treatment biases. However, participants engaged in an empathy-inducing, perspective-taking intervention that instructed them to imagine how patients' pain affected patients' lives exhibited upwards of a 55% reduction in pain treatment bias in comparison to controls. Furthermore, Pro-White empathy biases were highly predictive of pro-White pain treatment biases. The magnitude of the empathy bias experienced predicted the magnitude of the treatment bias exhibited. These findings suggest that empathy plays a crucial role in racial pain treatment disparities in that it appears not only to be one likely cause of pain treatment disparities but also is an important means for reducing racial disparities in pain treatment.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 it