An experimental investigation of the effect of a justice violation on pain experience and expression among individuals with high and low just world beliefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perceptions of injustice are linked with poorer physical and psychological outcomes in the context of pain and injury. Violations of injustice can arise out of violations of just world belief (JWB). However, no study has yet examined whether JWB moderates the effect of justice violation on pain experience. METHODS: The current study examined the effect of an experimental justice violation on acute pain outcomes and whether JWB moderated this effect. Participants completed the JWB scale and then engaged in two cold pressor tasks (CPT). Half the participants were told that the second CPT immersion was part of standard protocol; the other half were told that the painful procedure had to be repeated due to experimenter negligence. Participants provided report of pain intensity following each CPT immersion. Video records of participants undergoing the CPT were coded for presence and duration of pain behaviour. RESULTS: Exposure to the justice violation resulted in elevated pain intensity from the first to the second immersion only among participants with high JWB. For participants with low JWB and participants in the control condition, there was no significant difference in pain intensity across immersions. Control participants showed a decrease in pain behaviour from the first to the second immersion. In the negligence/ justice violation condition, reductions in pain behaviour were observed only among participants with low JWB. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that individuals with high JWB may show particularly adverse reactions in response to justice violations in the context of acute pain experience.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".