MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742544176 · doi:10.1177/1948550617720270

Presence of an Attachment Figure Is Associated With Greater Sensitivity to Physical Pain Following Mild Social Exclusion

2017· article· en· W2742544176 on OpenAlexafffund
Miranda G. DiLorenzo, Giorgina T. Chum, Lauren V. Weidmark, Geoff MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Psychological and Personality Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPsychologyPain toleranceAcknowledgementDistressThreshold of painSocial exclusionPain catastrophizingSocial rejectionAttachment theoryClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyChronic painSocial relationSocial psychologyPsychiatryMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social exclusion has been shown to influence sensitivity to physical pain. Attachment theory suggests a primary response to rejection should be seeking out the company of a close other. Based on this prediction, we hypothesized that the presence of an attachment figure versus a stranger following rejection would permit acknowledgement of distress and thus stronger reports of physical pain. Healthy participants reported their pain sensitivity before receiving exclusion or inclusion feedback in an online chat. Participants were then randomly assigned to have access to their attachment figure or a stranger and had pain sensitivity measured again. As predicted, excluded participants who had access to their attachment figure evidenced heightened pain sensitivity (lower pain threshold and tolerance), whereas those who sat with a stranger evidenced some degree of a decrease in pain sensitivity (higher pain tolerance). These data may shed light on the impact social ties can have during painful situations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Psychological and Personality ScienceSame topicDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionFrench-language works237,207