Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 698

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Distraction and coping with pain.

McCaul, Kevin D., Malott, James M.·1984·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

Distraction is thought to be an effective strategy for coping with pain-produced distress. The purpose of this article is to offer explicit conceptual explanations of why and when distraction will be effective and to review research related to this conceptual scheme. A theoretical case for the effectiveness of distraction is drawn from assumptions about (a) the importance of cognition in mediating the pain experience, and (b) the limited capacity available for focusing attention on different stimulus events. Combining these assumptions led to four principles that were examined with available data. Principle 1: Distraction will reduce distress as compared with uninstructed and placebo control conditions. Principle 2: Distraction techniques that require more attentional capacity will be more effective. Principle 3: Distraction will have stronger effects on pain stimuli of low intensity. Principle 4: Distraction will be more effective than sensation redefinition for mild pain stimuli, but the reverse will be true for intense pain stimuli. The data supported these principles, and this review discusses implications and research necessary for helping persons to cope with pain. Common sense suggests that an effective way to cope with pain is to distract oneself from the sensations or emotional responses resulting from the painful stimulus. When persons are asked to evaluate coping strategies, for example, distraction is rated as highly effective and is strongly preferred over alternative techniques (Ahles, Blanchard, & Leventhal, 1983; Corah, Gale, & Illig, 1979a, 1979b; Hackett & Horan, 1980; McCaul & Haugvedt, 1982). Kant (cited in Turk, 1978) illustrated the common sense use of distraction as follows:

Overview

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 · 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.516

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 75 references

Cited by

See all 698

Metadata

Authors
McCaul, K. D., & Malott, J. M.
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
1984
Volume
95
Issue
3
Pages
516-533
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2102407537
Cited by
698
References
75
FWCI
26.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Distraction and coping with pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.516
The paper
McCaul, K. D., & Malott, J. M. (1984). Distraction and coping with pain. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.516

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.