Communicative dimensions of pain catastrophizing: social cueing effects on pain behaviour and coping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study was designed to assess whether the social context of a pain experience impacted on the relation between catastrophizing and duration of pain behaviour. Based on a communal coping model, the prediction was that the presence of an observer during a pain procedure would differentially influence the display of pain behaviour in high and low catastrophizers. University undergraduates taking part in a cold pressor procedure were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (1) participant alone (n=30), or (2) observer present (n=34). Analysis of video records revealed that high pain catastrophizers displayed communicative pain behaviours (e.g. facial displays, vocalizations) for a longer duration when an observer was present compared to high pain catastrophizers who were alone during the pain procedure. The duration of pain management behaviours (e.g. holding, rubbing) did not vary significantly as a function of catastrophizing. When the observer was present, high catastrophizers also reported using fewer cognitive coping strategies than low catastrophizers. The pattern of findings suggests that in the presence of an observer, high pain catastrophizers show a propensity to engage in strategies that more effectively communicate their pain, and are less likely to engage in strategies that might minimize pain. Theoretical implications of the findings are 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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| 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".