Cited by 567Optimism, Hope, and Well-beingMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

Positive Affect as a Source of Resilience for Women in Chronic Pain.

Open access
Zautra, Alex J., Johnson, Lisa M., Davis, Mary C.·2005·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

A sample of 124 women with osteoarthritis or fibromyalgia, or both, completed initial assessments for demographic data, health status, and personality traits and 10-12 weekly interviews regarding pain, stress, negative affect, and positive affect. Multilevel modeling analyses indicated that weekly elevations of pain and stress predicted increases in negative affect. Both higher weekly positive affect as well as greater positive affect on average resulted in lower negative affect both directly and in interaction with pain and stress. Finally, increases in weekly negative affect and higher average negative affect related to greater levels of pain in subsequent weeks. In contrast, higher levels of overall positive affect predicted lower levels of pain in subsequent weeks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-006x.73.2.212

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL. The “Big Five” Inventory - Versions 4a and 54. University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research; Berkeley: 1991. [Google Scholar]
  2. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD. SAS system for linear mixed models. SAS Institute; Cary, NC: 1996. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zautra, A. J., Johnson, L. M., & Davis, M. C.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2005
Volume
73
Issue
2
Pages
212-220
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2109459176
Cited by
567
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 23
FWCI
26.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R01AR046034)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
positive affect, resilience, chronic pain, women, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, negative affect, stress, pain, personality traits
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Aged, Chronic Disease, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Pain, Pain Measurement, Surveys and Questionnaires

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