CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 87Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

Painfully reassuring The effects of validation on emotions and adherence in a pain test.

Linton, S.J., Boersma, K., Vangronsveld, K., Fruzzetti, A.·2012·European Journal of Pain
DOI 10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.07.011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Communicating reassurance to patients with musculoskeletal pain complaints, but no red flags, presents a dilemma of dampening worry while refraining from reinforcing undue pain behaviors. Previous research shows that reassurance does not decrease negative affect and may be perceived as not taking the symptoms seriously. Validation offers an alternative where the patient's experiences and feelings are acknowledged and has demonstrated, for other problems, a decrease in arousal which may set the stage for behavioral change. The purpose of this study was to investigate experimentally whether validation, as compared to invalidation, impacts on emotions and adherence during repeated pain tests. To this end, 50 participants were randomized to either a validation or invalidation condition. Each participant was told they would undergo four pain trials involving holding a bucket at arm's length to tolerance. During the inter‐trial interval, the experimenter provided validating or invalidating responses according to the randomization. As a proxy measure of adherence subjects were asked to engage in an additional pain test. Results indicated that validation relative to invalidation resulted in significantly more positive affect and significantly less worry. Both groups had reductions in negative affect over the trials, but there were no difference between the groups on negative affect or pain. However, adherence was more than twice as high in the validation group as compared to invalidation. These results show that a relatively simple validation procedure had significant and positive effects on emotion and increased adherence. Further research should extend these findings and explore their clinical application.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.07.011

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • A romantic partner's validation may strengthen intimacy, which is associated with benefits like greater positive affect and better psychological well-being.

    “Furthermore, validation from a romantic partner may enhance relationship intimacy, which is related to several positive benefits (e.g. increased positive affect, improved psychological well-being) [10; 11].”

    From Validating pain communication: current state of the science (2015) · cites this paper as [10]

  • Researchers increasingly consider whether a person feels validated by how a listener responds.

    “A valuable addition to the conceptualization of validation has been the growing emphasis placed on considering whether or not a person feels validated by a listener’s response.[10; 15]”

    From Validating pain communication: current state of the science (2015) · cites this paper as [10]

  • In the interpersonal process model of intimacy, self-reported feelings of validation are a central construct.

    “Self-reported feelings of validation are a key construct in the interpersonal process model of intimacy”

    From Validating pain communication: current state of the science (2015) · cites this paper as [10]

  • 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 [10]

  • The interpersonal process model proposes that intimacy arises when a speaker discloses personal information and a listener responds so that the speaker feels validated, understood, and cared for, which is called perceived partner responsiveness.

    “This model hypothesizes that intimacy is a result of interactions where one person (the speaker) shares personally relevant information and another person (the listener) responds in a way that causes the speaker to feel validated, understood and cared for, which is referred to as “perceived partner responsiveness.”[10]”

    From Validating pain communication: current state of the science (2015) · cites this paper as [10]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Linton, S. J., Boersma, K., Vangronsveld, K., & Fruzzetti, A.
Affiliations
  • Örebro University (SE)
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • University of Nevada, Reno (US)
Corresponding author
Linton, S.J.
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-03-06
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
592-599
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
DOI
10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.07.011
OpenAlex
W1508801287
Cited by
87
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • European Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
validation, invalidation, reassurance, musculoskeletal pain, pain tolerance, adherence, worry, negative affect, positive affect, patient-provider communication, pain behavior
MeSH terms
Adult, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Emotions, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Pain, Pain Measurement, Patient Compliance, Reproducibility of Results, Lifting, Young Adult

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