Patients who display protective pain behaviors are viewed as less likable, less dependable, and less likely to return to work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, participants (ie, observers) watched video sequences of patients with chronic back pain performing a physically demanding lifting task. Participants were asked to make judgments about patients' levels of pain and readiness to work. For each patient, observers were also asked to make judgments about personality traits relevant to work performance and employment. The primary objective of this study was to examine the differential influence of communicative and protective pain behaviors on observers' judgments about patients' pain intensity and readiness to work. Consistent with previous research, analyses indicated that patients displaying either communicative (eg, facial expressions) or protective (eg, guarding) pain behaviors were perceived as having significantly more pain than patients displaying no pain behavior. Analyses also revealed that patients displaying protective pain behaviors were perceived as being significantly less likable, less dependable, and less ready to work than patients displaying other forms of pain behavior. Discussion addresses the processes by which pain behaviors might influence observers' judgments about patients' personality traits and readiness to work. Implications of the present findings for clinical practice and the management of patients presenting with pain conditions are also discussed.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".