CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 689Death Anxiety and Social ExclusionPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsPain Mechanisms and Treatments

Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain

Open access
Kross, Ethan, Berman, Marc G., Mischel, Walter, Smith, Edward E., Wager, Tor D.·2011·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1102693108PMC PMC3076808
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

How similar are the experiences of social rejection and physical pain? Extant research suggests that a network of brain regions that support the affective but not the sensory components of physical pain underlie both experiences. Here we demonstrate that when rejection is powerfully elicited—by having people who recently experienced an unwanted break-up view a photograph of their ex-partner as they think about being rejected—areas that support the sensory components of physical pain (secondary somatosensory cortex; dorsal posterior insula) become active. We demonstrate the overlap between social rejection and physical pain in these areas by comparing both conditions in the same individuals using functional MRI. We further demonstrate the specificity of the secondary somatosensory cortex and dorsal posterior insula activity to physical pain by comparing activated locations in our study with a database of over 500 published studies. Activation in these regions was highly diagnostic of physical pain, with positive predictive values up to 88%. These results give new meaning to the idea that rejection “hurts.” They demonstrate that rejection and physical pain are similar not only in that they are both distressing—they share a common somatosensory representation as well.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In 40 people who had recently experienced an unwanted romantic breakup, viewing an ex-partner’s photograph while thinking about rejection activated somatosensory pain regions (S2/OP1, dpINS) as well as affective pain regions, overlapping with physical heat pain in the same individuals. A meta-analysis of 524 studies indicated these somatosensory activations were highly diagnostic of physical pain, with positive predictive values up to 88%.

Key findings

  • Self-reported distress was greater for Ex-partner than Friend trials (M = 1.72, SD = 0.36 vs. M = 4.23, SD = 0.41; t(39) = −26.05, P < 0.001) and for Hot than Warm trials (M = 1.88, SD = 0.57 vs. M = 4.46, SD = 0.52; t(39) = −19.45, P < 0.001); the increases were equivalent (t(39) = −0.56, ns).
  • Whole-brain conjunction of social rejection (Ex-partner > Friend) and physical pain (Hot > Warm) showed overlapping activity in affective pain regions including dACC and AI, and also in thalamus and right parietal opercular/insular cortex (S2), contralateral to thermal stimulation.
  • A priori OP1 and dpINS ROI analyses showed bilateral overlap between social rejection and physical pain (P < 0.05 FWER-corrected); in the subset who did Social Rejection before Physical Pain (n = 19), right OP1 showed 88 voxels and right dpINS 54 voxels.
  • In a meta-analytic database of 524 studies, activations within 10 mm of OP1/dpINS peaks were selective for physical pain, with positive predictive values of 0.88 for right OP1, 0.74 for left OP1, 0.87 for right dpINS, and 0.75 for left dpINS.

Methods

  • Forty participants (21 females; mean age 20.78, SD = 2.59) who had experienced an unwanted romantic breakup within the past 6 months (M = 2.74 months, SD = 1.70) and felt rejected when thinking about it (M = 5.60, SD = 1.06 on a 1–7 scale) completed counterbalanced fMRI tasks: Social Rejection (Ex-partner vs. Friend photographs with cue phrases) and Physical Pain (Hot vs. Warm thermal stimulation on the left forearm).
  • Analyses used random-effects general linear models with whole-brain conjunction, thresholded at P < 0.05 FWER-corrected (primary P < 0.001, 11-voxel extent), plus a priori ROI analyses using an independent physical pain localizer (n = 75 from three thermal pain studies) and OP1/dpINS ROIs.
  • Specificity was tested by comparing activated locations with a meta-analytic database of 524 published studies across physical pain and non-pain task categories.

Limitations

  • The authors state that all participants were trained on both tasks before scanning and knew they would perform both, so participants may have been primed to think about physical pain on Social Rejection trials; they argue against this because tasks were administered separately, the thermode was not placed on the forearm during Social Rejection, and participants were trained to relive rejection. They also state future research is needed to test powerful social rejection without any physical pain manipulation and whether expectation of rejection activates sensory pain regions.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was small (n = 40), young (mean age 20.78), restricted to right-handed native English speakers who had recently experienced an unwanted breakup and were screened for neurological/psychiatric illness and chronic pain, limiting generalizability.
  • Evident from the text: the design is correlational fMRI and cannot establish that social rejection causes somatosensory activation; scanning used a 1.5 T scanner and cluster-threshold methods, and a later placebo manipulation in half the participants is noted but not reported in this article.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1102693108

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 35 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Whole-brain conjunction analysis indicated that both social rejection and physical pain led to overlapping increases in activity in affective pain regions found in previous studies, including the dACC and AI.

    “This whole-brain analysis indicated that both types of experiences led to overlapping increases in activity in affective pain regions found in previous studies, including the dACC and AI.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    There was no evidence of lateralization when comparing β-values extracted from right and left OP1 and right and left dpINS in the subset of participants.

    “we found no evidence of lateralization when we compared the β -values extracted from right and left OP1, and right and left dpINS (all, F s &lt; 0.318, ns).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Activations in OP1 and dpINS were selective for physical pain.

    “activations in OP1 [right hemisphere: χ 2 (5) = 92.32, P &lt; 0.001; left hemisphere: χ 2 (5) = 37.21, P &lt; 0.005] and dpINS [right hemisphere: χ 2 (5) = 91.83, P &lt; 0.001; left hemisphere: χ 2 (5) = 32.19, P &lt; 0.01] were selective for physical pain.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Each pain intensity-encoding region identified by the independent localizer was activated in response to social rejection (P < 0.05 FWER-corrected).

    “The results again show that each of the pain intensity-encoding regions was activated in response to social rejection ( P &lt; 0.05 FWER-corrected) (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Participants reported greater distress on Ex-partner trials (M = 1.72, SD = 0.36) than Friend trials (M = 4.23, SD = 0.41).

    “As expected, participants reported experiencing greater distress on Ex-partner trials (M = 1.72, SD = 0.36) than Friend trials [M = 4.23, SD = 0.41; t (39) = -26.05, P &lt; 0.001]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 15
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    The positive predictive value for physical pain was 0.88 in the right OP1, 0.74 in the left OP1, 0.87 in the right dpINS, and 0.75 in the left dpINS.

    “the positive predictive value for physical pain (i.e., the probability that a study involved physical pain given activation) was 0.88 in the right OP1, 0.74 in the left OP1, 0.87 in the right dpINS, and 0.75 in the left dpINS.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    In the subset of participants who engaged in the Social Rejection task before the Physical Pain task (n = 19), activity was revealed in both sensory pain ROIs (right OP1: 88 voxels; right dpINS: 54 voxels).

    “these analyses revealed activity in both sensory pain ROIs (right OP1: 88 voxels; right dpINS: 54 voxels).*”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    In the dpINS ROI, repeated-measures ANOVA found no significant main effects of pain type or hemisphere and no interaction.

    “These analyses revealed no signi fi cant main effects (OP1: all F &lt; 0.84, all P &gt; 0.36: dpINS: all F &lt; 2.64, P &gt; 0.11) or interactions (OP1: F = 0.31, P = 0.58: dpINS: F = 2.25, all P &gt; 0.14).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § Discussion

    In the meta-analysis, only 3 of 164 studies activated left OP1, 1 of 164 activated right OP1, and 3 of 164 activated each left and right dpINS; none of these proportions were significantly higher than expected by chance.

    “Only 3 of 164 studies and 1 of 164 studies activated the left OP1 and right OP1, respectively, and only 3 of 164 studies activated each of the left and right dpINS; none of which are proportions signi fi cantly higher than expected by chance (cf, 25).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [25] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    In the OP1 ROI, repeated-measures ANOVA found no significant main effects of pain type or hemisphere and no interaction.

    “These analyses revealed no signi fi cant main effects (OP1: all F &lt; 0.84, all P &gt; 0.36: dpINS: all F &lt; 2.64, P &gt; 0.11) or interactions (OP1: F = 0.31, P = 0.58: dpINS: F = 2.25, all P &gt; 0.14).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain

    Brain regions that support the sensory components of physical pain are more likely to become active in response to intensely painful stimuli.

    “This prediction is motivated by research indicating that the brain regions that support the sensory components of physical pain are more likely to become active in response to intensely painful stimuli (4 -6, cf 7).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites 4 -6, cf 7

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    The whole-brain analysis used a statistical threshold that controls the family-wise error rate based on a cluster extent at P < 0.05 corrected across the whole brain (P < 0.001; 11 voxel extent threshold).

    “we set a statistical threshold that controls for the family-wise error rate (FWER) based on a cluster extent at P &lt; 0.05 corrected across the whole brain ( P &lt; 0.001; 11 voxel extent threshold).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    Follow-up regression analyses controlled for task order and several theoretically relevant variables (sex, rejection sensitivity, self-esteem, and relationship lengths) and did not substantively alter the whole-brain findings.

    “A series of follow-up regression analyses that controlled for task order and several theoretically relevant variables [e.g., sex, rejection sensitivity (17), self-esteem (18), and the length of participants relationships with their former romantic partner and friend] did not substantively alter these fi ndings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    A priori ROI analyses were performed in pain-processing network regions defined by an independent localizer for physical pain.

    “we ran a priori region of interest (ROI) analyses in pain-processing network regions de fi ned by an independent localizer for physical pain.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    To rule out the possibility that activations in sensory pain ROIs resulted from testing participants on both tasks in a within-subjects design, ROI analyses were rerun on the subset of participants who engaged in the Social Rejection task before the Physical Pain task (n = 19).

    “To rule out the possibility that the activations observed in these sensory pain ROIs were a result of testing participants on both the Physical Pain and Social Rejection tasks in a withinsubjects design, we reran these ROI analyses on the subset of participants who engaged in the Social Rejection task before the Physical Pain task ( n = 19).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results

    Intense social rejection activated somatosensory regions that are strongly associated with physical pain, which are virtually never associated with emotion as typically studied.

    “In short, intense social rejection activated somatosensory regions that are strongly associated with physical pain, which are virtually never associated with emotion as typically studied.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Current theorizing suggests that the brain systems underlying social rejection developed by coopting brain circuits that support the affective component of physical pain.

    “Current theorizing suggests that the brain systems that underlie social rejection developed by coopting brain circuits that support the affective component of physical pain (1, 2, 9).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [1] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [2] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results

    The ANOVA findings indicate that neither type of pain led to significantly greater activation than the other, and activations were not lateralized to one side of the brain in these ROIs.

    “These fi ndings indicate that it was not the case that one type of pain led to signi fi cantly greater activation compared with the other, or that the activations were lateralized to one side of the brain in these ROIs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Discussion

    Participants were explicitly told that the Social Rejection and Physical Pain tasks would be administered separately and were informed during the scan when each task began and ended.

    “First, participants were explicitly told that the Social Rejection and Physical Pain tasks would be administered separately, and they were informed during the scan when each task was about to begin and when each task was over.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Discussion

    All participants were trained on the Social Rejection and Physical Pain task before scanning and knew they would engage in both tasks during the fMRI scan.

    “Before concluding, it is important to acknowledge that all of the participants in this study were trained on the Social Rejection and Physical Pain task before scanning and knew that they would be engaging in both tasks during the fMRI scan.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Discussion

    The thermode was not placed on participants' forearms during the Social Rejection task, so they knew it was impossible to receive thermal stimulation on Social Rejection trials.

    “Second, the thermode was not placed on participants ' forearms during the Social Rejection task, so they knew it was impossible for them to receive thermal stimulation on Social Rejection trials.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    The findings offer new insight into how rejection experiences may lead to various physical pain disorders, highlighting the role that somatosensory processing may play in this process.

    “These fi ndings offer new insight into how rejection experiences may lead to various physical pain disorders (e.g., somatoform disorders; fi bromyalgia), highlighting the role that somatosensory processing may play in this process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Romantic relationship break-up rejection is a valid model of social rejection more generally.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Research on empathy for pain indicates that under some circumstances the S2 becomes activated when individuals observe other people in physical pain.

    “Research on empathy for pain indicates, for example, that under some circumstances the S2 becomes activated when individuals observe other people in physical pain (see refs. 40 and 41 for reviews).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [40] Keysers C, Kaas JH, Gazzola V (2010) Somatosensation in social perception. Nat Rev Neurosci 11:417 -428. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [41] Hein G, Singer T (2008) I feel how you feel but not always: The empathic brain and its modulation. Curr Opin Neurobiol 18(2):153 -158. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Methods

    Voxelwise statistical parametric maps were thresholded at P < 0.05 FWER-corrected for multiple comparisons across gray and white matter.

    “Voxelwise statistical parametric maps summarizing differences between trial types were calculated for each participant and then entered into random-effects group analyses, with statistical maps thresholded at P &lt; 0.05 FWER-corrected for multiple comparisons across gray and white matter.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods

    Participants were screened to ensure that they did not suffer from any neurological or psychiatric illness, experience chronic pain, take psychoactive medications, antihistamine or steroids, have metal in their bodies, or have a history of substance use or abuse.

    “Participants were screened to ensure that they did not suffer from any neurological or psychiatric illness, experience chronic pain, take psychoactive medications, antihistamine or steroids, have metal in their bodies, or have a history of substance use or abuse.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Methods

    Painful and nonpainful temperatures were calibrated on a participant-by-participant basis to ensure that the subjective intensity of the stimuli was constant across participants.

    “Following prior research (49 -51), we used calibrated painful and nonpainful temperatures on a participant-by-participant basis to ensure that the subjective intensity of the stimuli was constant across participants.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [49] Buhle J, Wager TD (2010) Performance-dependent inhibition of pain by an executive working memory task. Pain 149(1):19 -26. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [50] Wager TD, et al. (2004) Placebo-induced changes in FMRI in the anticipation and experience of pain. Science 303:1162 -1167. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [51] Wager TD, Scott DJ, Zubieta JK (2007) Placebo effects on human mu-opioid activity during pain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:11056 -11061. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Methods

    The between-subjects placebo vs. control manipulation was independent of all within-subjects effects that are the focus of the present article, and controlling for placebo vs. control manipulation at the group level did not qualitatively alter any of the results.

    “The between-subjects placebo vs. control manipulation was independent of all of the within-subjects effects that are the focus of the present article, and controlling for placebo vs. control manipulation at the group level did not qualitatively alter any of the results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods

    Columbia University's Institutional Review Board approved the study.

    “Columbia University ' s Institutional Review Board approved the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Discussion

    Participants were trained to relive their rejection experience on Social Rejection trials to powerfully manipulate social rejection and minimize the influence of task-irrelevant thoughts.

    “Finally, participants were trained to relive their rejection experience on Social Rejection trials to powerfully manipulate social rejection and minimize the infl uence of task-irrelevant thoughts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    It is generally assumed that the various emotions commonly accompanying social rejection cumulatively give rise to a unique experience of 'social pain'.

    “Although the experience of social rejection is commonly accompanied by reports of various emotions (e.g., fear, sadness, anger, anxiety, and shame), it is generally assumed that these feelings cumulatively give rise to a unique experience of ' social pain ' (35 -37).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [35] Leary M, Springer C (2001) Hurt feelings: The neglected emotion. Behaving Badly: Aversive Behaviors in Interpersonal Relationships , ed Kowalski RM (American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.), pp 151 -175. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [36] Leary M, Springer C, Negel L, Ansell E, Evans K (1998) The causes, phenomenology, an consequences of hurt feelings. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:1225 -1237. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [37] Macdonald G (2007) Social pain and hurt feelings. Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology , eds Corr PJ, Matthews G (Cambridge University Press, New York), Vol 541 -555.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Discussion

    Participants' ratings and postscan interviews suggested that they complied with the instructions to relive their rejection experience.

    “Participants ' ratings and postscan interviews suggested that they complied with these instructions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Methods

    The cluster-based method of thresholding is often more sensitive to activation when multiple contiguous activated voxels are expected and is widely used in fMRI research.

    “This cluster-based method of thresholding is often more sensitive to activation when one can reasonably expect multiple contiguous activated voxels (52, 53), and is widely used in fMRI research.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [52] Forman SD, et al. (1995) Improved assessment of signi fi cant activation in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI): Use of a cluster-size threshold. Magn Reson Med 33:636 -647. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [53] Petersson KM, Nichols TE, Poline JB, Holmes AP (1999) Statistical limitations in functional neuroimaging. II. Signal detection and statistical inference. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 354:1261 -1281. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Methods

    The Social Rejection task was modeled after prior fMRI research using photographs to elicit powerful emotions and behavioral research indicating that cueing recall of autobiographical rejection experiences effectively reactivates social rejection-related distress.

    “The Social Rejection task was modeled after ( i ) fMRI research that used photographs provided by participants to elicit powerful emotions, including maternal love, romantic love, and rejection (8, 44 -46), and ( ii ) behavioral research indicating that cueing people to recall autobiographical rejection experiences is an effective way of reactivating social rejection-related distress (e.g., refs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [8] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [44] Aron A, et al. (2005) Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with earlystage intense romantic love. J Neurophysiol 94:327 -337. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [45] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Methods

    One-tailed tests were used for these analyses because there were a priori hypotheses about activity increases with physical pain and social rejection.

    “One-tailed tests were used for these analyses because we had a priori hypotheses about activity increases with physical pain and social rejection.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
29 of 29

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The five-point scales used for the Social Rejection and Physical Pain tasks measure distress on a common metric, so equivalent increases in distress indicate that the two tasks were matched in subjective intensity.

    “Participants rated how they felt after each task trial using a fi ve-point scale, with lower numbers re fl ecting more distress.”
    “see Fig. 1 for a description of scale anchors”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Ex-partner > Friend contrast isolates social rejection rather than other cognitive or affective processes.

    “the Social Rejection task compared Ex-partner trials, in which participants viewed a headshot of their former partner and thought about their speci fi c rejection experience, and Friend trials, in which participants viewed a headshot of a friend who was the same sex as their ex-partner and thought about a recent positive experience they shared with that person.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Romantic relationship break-up rejection is a valid model of social rejection more generally.

    “All participants experienced an unwanted romantic relationship break-up within the past 6 months (M = 2.74 mo; SD = 1.70 mo), and indicated that thinking about their break-up experience led them to feel rejected”
    “The Social Rejection task was modeled after ( i ) fMRI research that used photographs provided by participants to elicit powerful emotions, including maternal love, romantic love, and rejection (8, 44 -46), and ( ii ) behavioral research indicating that cueing people to recall autobiographical rejection experiences is an effective way of reactivating social rejection-related distress (e.g., refs.”
3 of 3

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?

  • Upon learning of one's own desirability, the posterior temporal sulcus, medial prefrontal cortex, anterior insular cortex, and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex are activated; following rejection from a potential romantic interest, the anterior insular cortex and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex are also recruited.

    “Upon learning of one’s own desirability, the posterior temporal sulcus, mPFC, aIC, and the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) are activated; however, following rejection from a potential romantic interest, the aIC and dACC are also recruited [106,107,108].”

    From The Neurobiology of Love and Pair Bonding from Human and Animal Perspectives (2023) · cites this paper as [108]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Overlapping univariate fMRI activity between pain and rejection is not anatomically specific enough to bear on whether the underlying neural representations are similar.

    “claims about shared representation in the previous studies have been based on findings of overlapping univariate fMRI activity between pain and rejection2,4,5, which is not anatomically specific enough to bear on the question of whether the underlying neural representations are similar.”

    From Separate neural representations for physical pain and social rejection (2014) · cites this paper as [4]

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(39) = -0.56reported n.s. · recomputed p = .579

    “t (39) = -0.56, ns”

1 of 1

Self-check

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

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kross, E., Berman, M. G., Mischel, W., Smith, E. E., & Wager, T. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2011-03-28
Volume
108
Issue
15
Pages
6270-6275
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1102693108
PMC
PMC3076808
OpenAlex
W2096802921
Semantic Scholar
ebf57cf417df0462af4a0a15f90f0d584aebacc3
Cited by
689
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 33
FWCI
63.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (RR009784)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH076136)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (RC1DA028608)
  • National Center for Research Resources (P41RR009784)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
social rejection, bodily pain, somatosensory representation, secondary somatosensory cortex, breakup, emotional pain
MeSH terms
Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Pain, Rejection, Psychology, Social Desirability, Somatosensory Cortex, Self Report

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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