Cited by 96Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPediatric Pain Management TechniquesPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

Pain Catastrophizing and interpersonal problems: a circumplex analysis of the communal coping model

Lackner, Jeffrey M, Gurtman, Michael B·2004·Pain

Abstract

Using the circumplex model of interpersonal behavior [Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology, 1982], this study tested the communal coping model of catastrophizing (CCM) in a large (N = 179) sample of patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a common, benign chronic pain disorder associated with significant painful extraintestinal comorbidity (e.g. headache, low back pain). Patients completed the Coping Strategies Questionnaire, the Brief Symptom Inventory, and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. The main findings were: (1) individuals who reported higher levels of catastrophizing described greater interpersonal problems; (2) the interpersonal problems described by catastrophizers fell within the friendly and friendly submissive quadrants of the circumplex supporting the notion that they have an interpersonal style demanding support and care-taking [Pain 103 (2003) 151]; (3) the pain coping behavior most strongly associated with interpersonal problems was catastrophizing; and (4) the relationship between interpersonal problems and catastrophizing remained after removing the influence of general symptomatic distress (i.e. an overall tendency to complain of psychological problems in general). In general, data provide evidence supporting the interpersonal distinctiveness of pain catastrophizing as postulated by the CCM. Advantages of a circumplex model and of interpersonal theory for understanding and testing the CCM are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2004.04.011

Cites

45 of 45 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Drossman, 2000, Effects of coping on health outcome among female patients with gastrointestinal disorders., Psychosom Med, 62, 309, 10.1097/00006842-200005000-00004 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lackner, J. M., & Gurtman, M. B.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Parkside (US)
Corresponding author
Lackner, Jeffrey M
Venue
Pain
Published
2004-08
Volume
110
Issue
3
Pages
597-604
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2047322107
Cited by
96
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK054211, R01-DK54211)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
pain catastrophizing, interpersonal problems, irritable bowel syndrome, interpersonal style, chronic pain
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Models, Psychological, Pain, Psychological Tests, Regression Analysis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome

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