The relation between catastrophizing and the communication of pain experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Communal Coping Model of pain catastrophizing proposes that pain catastrophizers enact pain behaviors in order to solicit support or empathy from their social environment. By this account, pain catastrophizers might be expected to engage in behavior aimed at maximizing the probability that their pain will be perceived by others in their social environment. To test this prediction, 40 undergraduates were videotaped during a cold pressor procedure. A separate sample of 20 (10 men, 10 women) undergraduates were asked to view the video sequences and infer the pain ratings of the cold pressor participants. Correlational analyses revealed that higher levels of pain catastrophizing of the cold pressor participants were associated with observer inferences of more intense pain, r=.39, p<.01. The relation between cold pressor participants' level of pain catastrophizing and observer inferences of pain intensity was mediated by the cold pressor participants' pain behavior. Although pain catastrophizing was associated with observers' inferences of more intense pain, cold pressor participants' level of pain catastrophizing was not associated with observers' accuracy in inferring self-reported pain. Implications of the findings for theory and clinical practice are addressed.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".