Cited by 20Behavioral and Psychological StudiesMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Placebo Effect

The influence on patients pain intensity ratings of antecedent reinforcement of pain talk or well talk.

White, Barbara, Sanders, Steve H.·1986·Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

Abstract

This study sought to determine whether positive verbal reinforcement for pain talk or well talk could effectively influence chronic pain patients' subsequent ratings of pain intensity. Four female chronic pain inpatients were each exposed over seven consecutive days to two conditions within an alternating treatments design. Inter-rater reliability analysis from the audiotapes on occurrences of pain and well talk, verbal reinforcement and appropriate reinforcement of verbal behavior across conditions resulted in agreement values from 91 to 100%. Findings revealed that subjects' pain intensity ratings were consistently and significantly lower after verbally reinforcing well talk compared with verbally reinforcing pain talk.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0005-7916(86)90019-4

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The interpersonal process model of intimacy treats intimacy as resulting from a transactional process.

    “The interpersonal process model of intimacy[16; 17] views intimacy as the product of a transactional process.”

    From Validating pain communication: current state of the science (2015) · cites this paper as [16]

  • The interpersonal process model predicts that when partners validate patients after they disclose pain-related thoughts and feelings, patients will report greater intimacy, positive affect, and relationship satisfaction, which in turn may reduce reported pain.

    “The model (see Figure 1, Panel C) hypothesizes that when partners engage in validating behaviors after patients disclose pain-related thoughts and feelings, patients will report increased intimacy, positive affect, and relationship satisfaction; positive affective responses that in turn can lead to lower levels of reported pain.”

    From Validating pain communication: current state of the science (2015) · cites this paper as [16]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
White, B., & Sanders, S. H.
Affiliations
University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Sanders, Steve H.
Venue
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1986-09
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
155-159
ISSN
0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2167735008
Cited by
20
References
14
Citations by year
2015: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
Keywords
chronic pain, pain intensity ratings, verbal reinforcement, positive reinforcement, verbal behavior, pain coping
MeSH terms
Adult, Behavior Therapy, Chronic Disease, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Pain, Reinforcement, Psychology, Sick Role, Pain Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review