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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions
Stroop, J. R. (1935) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0054651 · Cited by 18,622
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.127 · Cited by 7,335
Egeth, H., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1421603 · Cited by 6,972
Conflict, arousal, and curiosity.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960) · McGraw-Hill Book Company · doi:10.1037/11164-000 · Cited by 5,995
Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.1.1 · Cited by 5,902
Stress-Related Transactions between Person and Environment
Lazarus, R. S., & Launier, R. (1978) · Perspectives in Interactional Psychology · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-3997-7_12 · Cited by 1,835
The Psychology of Physical Symptoms
Pennebaker, J. W. (1982) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-8196-9 · Cited by 1,758
Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress.
Averill, J. R. (1973) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0034845 · Cited by 1,566
Attention in Dichotic Listening: Affective Cues and the Influence of Instructions
Moray, N. (1959) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470215908416289 · Cited by 1,392
In defense of external invalidity.
Mook, D. G. (1983) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.38.4.379 · Cited by 1,212
Cited by
Mindfulness: Theoretical Foundations and Evidence for its Salutary Effects
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/10478400701598298 · Cited by 3,654
Does positive affect influence health?
Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.925 · Cited by 2,087
Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report.
Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.934 · Cited by 1,806
Pain demands attention: A cognitive–affective model of the interruptive function of pain.
Eccleston, C., & Crombez, G. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.356 · Cited by 1,718
Fear and anxiety: divergent effects on human pain thresholds
Rhudy, J. L., & Meagher, M. W. (2000) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00183-9 · Cited by 913
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.