Cited by 202Optimism, Hope, and Well-beingPain Management and Placebo EffectPediatric Pain Management Techniques

Optimism lowers pain: Evidence of the causal status and underlying mechanisms

Open access
Hanssen, Marjolein M., Peters, Madelon L., Vlaeyen, Johan W.S., Meevissen, Yvo M.C., Vancleef, Linda M.G.·2013·Pain

Abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated a relation between dispositional optimism and lower pain sensitivity, but the causal status of this link remains unclear. This study sought to test the causal status by experimentally inducing a temporary optimistic state by means of writing about and visualizing a future best possible self. In addition, we explored pain expectations and (situational) pain catastrophizing as possible underlying mechanisms of the link between optimism and pain. Seventy-nine university students participated in a cold pressor task (CPT). Before the CPT, half of them received the optimism manipulation and the other half a control manipulation. Induced optimism was related to lower pain intensity ratings during the CPT compared to the control group, thereby experimentally confirming causality. This effect was not explained by pain-related expectations about the task. Situational pain catastrophizing, however, did seem to mediate the relation between optimism and pain. This study is novel in that it confirms the causal status of optimism towards pain. Additionally, the results reveal that positive interventions might provide a useful alternative in reducing pain catastrophizing as an extremely relevant target in pain treatment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2012.08.006

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hanssen, M. M., Peters, M. L., Vlaeyen, J. W. S., Meevissen, Y. M. C., & Vancleef, L. M. G.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Hanssen, Marjolein M.
Venue
Pain
Published
2013-01
Volume
154
Issue
1
Pages
53-58
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2101216163
Cited by
202
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 2
FWCI
21.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
dispositional optimism, pain sensitivity, pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, pain anticipation, best possible self, cold pressor task, mediation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Blood Pressure, Cold Temperature, Female, Humans, Male, Pain Measurement, Personality, Pain Threshold, Imagery, Psychotherapy, Young Adult, Catastrophization

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