Cited by 293Resilience and Mental HealthMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationOptimism, Hope, and Well-being

Psychological resilience predicts decreases in pain catastrophizing through positive emotions.

Open access
Ong, Anthony D., Zautra, Alex J., Reid, M. Carrington·2010·Psychology and Aging

Abstract

The study used a daily process design to examine the role of psychological resilience and positive emotions in the day-to-day experience of pain catastrophizing. A sample of 95 men and women with chronic pain completed initial assessments of neuroticism, psychological resilience, and demographic data, and then completed short diaries regarding pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, and positive and negative emotions every day for 14 consecutive days. Multilevel modeling analyses indicated that independent of level of neuroticism, negative emotions, pain intensity, income, and age, high-resilient individuals reported greater positive emotions and exhibited lower day-to-day pain catastrophizing compared with low-resilient individuals. Mediation analyses revealed that psychologically resilient individuals rebound from daily pain catastrophizing through experiences of positive emotion. Implications for research on psychological resilience, pain catastrophizing, and positive emotions are discussed.

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/a0019384

Cites

59 of 60 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ong, A. D., Zautra, A. J., & Reid, M. C.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
Venue
Psychology and Aging
Published
2010-09
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
516-523
ISSN
  • 0882-7974 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1498
OpenAlex
W2005557882
Cited by
293
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 11
FWCI
9.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology and Aging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • John A. Hartford Foundation
  • National Institute on Aging (1 P30 AG022845)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
Keywords
psychological resilience, pain catastrophizing, positive emotions, chronic pain, neuroticism, pain intensity, mediation
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adaptation, Psychological, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Chronic Disease, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, New York City, Pain, Pain Measurement, Predictive Value of Tests, Severity of Illness Index, Sex Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Stress, Psychological, Resilience, Psychological, 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