The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 34 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Empathic and nonempathic interaction in chronic pain couples.
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: Empathy and empathic response are receiving greater attention in pain research as investigators acknowledge that other forms of interaction may impact the pain process. The purpose of this study was to examine validation and invalidation as forms of empathic and nonempathic responses in chronic pain couples. METHODS: Participants were 92 couples in which at least one spouse reported chronic musculoskeletal pain. Each couple participated in 2 videotaped interactions about the ways in which the pain has impacted their lives together. Trained raters then coded interactions for each partner's use of validation and invalidation. Couples also completed surveys on spouse responses to pain, marital satisfaction, and perceived spousal support. RESULTS: Correlations demonstrated validation by spouses of persons with pain was associated with punishing, solicitous, and distracting spouse responses to pain, marital satisfaction, and perceived spousal support. In contrast, spouses' invalidation scores were correlated with punishing spouse responses. Exploratory factor analyses were then conducted to determine the extent to which spouses' responses to pain and spouse validation and invalidation loaded on similar factors. Validation and invalidation are more closely related to punishing spouse responses than to solicitous or distracting spouse responses. DISCUSSION: This work suggests that empathic and nonempathic communication are distinct from solicitous spouse responses. The findings have implications for theoretical and clinical work on social factors in pain.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
32 Own result · 24 Not checked yet · 10 Own method · 7 Own interpretation · 1 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analysis was re-run with principal components extraction; however, the 3-factor solution resulted in two of the three factors with only 2 variables each.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Exploratory Factor Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, self-report variables assessing the same target’s behaviors were significantly correlated (reports of punishing spouse responses r = .47, p < .001; reports of spouse solicitousness r = .50, p < .001; reports of distracting spouse responses r = .46, p < .001).”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Correlations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Validation and invalidation by spouses were significantly negatively correlated (r = -.38, p < .001) whereas validation and invalidation by persons with pain were not significantly related.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Correlations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that validation expressed by the spouse was consistently related to spouse responses to pain by both partners’ reports.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, we present the principal factors solution with two factors, which was stable across extraction methods.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Exploratory Factor Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Invalidation by both partners was also negatively correlated with both partners’ marital quality, perhaps because such expressions convey disrespect and a lack of empathy for the partner 13, 14, 16.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, Fisher’s r to z transformations demonstrated that the Nonempathic Responding factor was significantly more strongly correlated than the Solicitous Responding factor with perceived spousal support (z = 2.59, p < .01) and marital satisfaction (z = 2.58, p < .01) in persons with pain.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Exploratory Factor Analysis
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the correlations between spouses’ self-reports of negative responses with solicitous and distracting responses were not significant.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Correlations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Spouses were significantly more validating and invalidating than persons with pain (validation t (88) = 8.96, p < .0001; invalidation t (87) = 2.18, p < .05).”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mean scores were relatively low in Persons with pain (validation M = 1.82, SD = .53; invalidation M = 1.70, SD = .83) and spouses (validation M = 2.44, SD = .71; invalidation M = 1.89, SD = .85).”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Spouses’ validation was also related to solicitous and distracting spouse responses.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Correlations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Validation in the person with pain was not significantly associated with any of the spouse response variables, perhaps because of restricted range in that validation score.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Correlations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The third factor in this solution had an eigenvalue approaching 1 (.96).”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Exploratory Factor Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, an attempt to extract 3 factors failed because the communality of one of the variables exceeded 1.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Exploratory Factor Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, one partner’s validation was not associated with the other person’s invalidation.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Correlations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, significant correlations between invalidation expressed by spouses and spouse responses to pain were limited to both partners’ reports of punishing spouse responses.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 2 factors were weakly correlated (r = -.17), with approximately 3% shared variance.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Exploratory Factor Analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No significant differences were found for correlations with spouse marital quality variables.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Exploratory Factor Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Validation by persons with pain was not related to perceived spouse responses.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, measures assessing the same construct and sharing the same method were consistently correlated with each other.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Correlations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Validation and invalidation by spouses were significantly negatively correlated (r = -.38, p < .001) whereas validation and invalidation by persons with pain were not significantly related.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Correlations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the Nonempathic Responding factor was more strongly correlated with marital satisfaction and perceived spousal support in persons with pain.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Last, correlations conducted with the factor scores demonstrated that each factor was correlated with marital quality in both partners.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although empathic responses such as validation were not coded and these interactions were not focused on pain, the results provide preliminary support for the emotion regulation properties of marital interaction in chronic pain couples.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In fact, Newton-John & Williams 28 demonstrated that the frequency with which female patients and their spouses talked about pain was correlated positively with satisfaction with general marital communication.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28]
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Furthermore, in couples where only one partner reported pain, spouses reported greater depressive symptoms when both partners expressed anger and contempt.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that validation did not load on the Solicitous Responding Factor suggests that validation and solicitousness are tapping different constructs.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both measures were highly reliable in persons with pain and spouses (αs ranged from .86 to .95).”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rwg(2) was excellent for validation in persons with pain (mean rwg(2) = .92) and in spouses (mean rwg(2) = .88).”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Johansen and Cano 20 demonstrated that spouses rated the patients’ pain as being more severe when patients expressed anger and contempt.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inter-item reliability was fair to good for all 3 spouse response subscales for Persons with pain (punishing α = .83, solicitous α = .82, distracting α = .70) and spouses (punishing α = .69, solicitous α = .69, distracting α = .68).”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This result suggests that there is some overlap between the variables of spouse responses and spouse validation, as one would expect given that both sets of variables focus on spouse communications in the context of pain.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Agreement was also excellent for invalidation in persons with pain (mean rwg(2) = .91) and in spouses (mean rwg(2) = .88).”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It has been demonstrated that systematic method variance and measurement error contribute to the attenuation of associations between self-reports and observations of similar behaviors 25.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Because validation involves empathic responses, this type of interaction may contribute to healthy emotion regulation within the couple 13, 14.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At this time, it appears that the Nonempathic Responding, rather than pain-specific support, is more important to the marital quality of persons with pain.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Another possible reason for the differentiation is that researchers have shown that solicitous responses may not always be delivered in an empathic manner 28, 34.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28]
- Not checked yetcites [34] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 20
- Probably not a substantial claim. 25
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, the Nonempathic Responding factor contained items assessed with different methods (i.e., observation and self-report) and also one item with a different valence (i.e., validation).”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eigenvalues of 1 or greater indicated that there were 2 factors that accounted for 57% of the variance whereas visual inspection of the scree plot suggested 3 factors that accounted for 69% of the variance in the variables.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Exploratory Factor Analysis
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Validation and invalidation were most consistently correlated with punishing spouse responses to pain, with invalidation and punishing spouse responses sharing approximately 9% of shared variance.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Correlations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 3, both factors were significantly correlated with these indicators of marital quality with the exception of spouses’ perceived spousal support.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Exploratory Factor Analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Validation scores of both spouses were significantly correlated as were both spouses’ invalidation scores (r = .46, p < .001 and r = .55, p < .001).”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Correlations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, validation by both partners was correlated positively with marital satisfaction in both partners and perceived spousal support in persons with pain.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With respect to self-reports of spouse responses, the correlations between negative and solicitous spouse responses and between negative and distracting responses as reported by persons with pain were also significant (r = -.30, p < .01 and r = -.20, p < .05).”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Correlations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Validation, invalidation, and the spouse response variables were consistently and significantly correlated with marital satisfaction in both partners, perceived spousal support in persons with pain, and to a lesser extent, perceived spousal support as reported by spouses.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Correlations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 2, solicitous and distracting spouse responses loaded on the same dimension whereas punishing spouse responses, spouse validation, and spouse invalidation loaded on the other dimension.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Exploratory Factor Analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two factors were allowed to correlate but in fact, shared little variance.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Researchers have found a negative association between an intense form of invalidation (i.e., contempt) and marital and psychological adjustment in healthy couples 4, 15.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the loading patterns, one might label Factor 1 as Solicitous Responding and Factor 2 as Nonempathic Responding.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Exploratory Factor Analysis
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Goubert et al. 16 proposed that knowing the thoughts and feelings of someone in pain impacts an observer’s affective and behavioral reactions (i.e., expressions of empathy) to the observed person with pain.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One-tailed tests of significance were used because it was expected that negative and positive aspects of relationships would be inversely associated whereas relationship aspects sharing similar valence would be positively correlated.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Correlations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Solicitousness may be interpreted as pain-specific support 3 whereas validation may be conceptualized as an empathic response that generally builds intimacy.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The VIBCS was developed from an emotion regulation perspective of couples’ interactions 13.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Measures
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“According to emotion regulation theory in couples, both partners may engage in behaviors that affect the emotion regulation of the self and the other 13.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Solicitous spouse responses as assessed by the Multidimensional Pain Inventory are also positively related to pain severity and pain behaviors 8.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Newton-John 29 noted that operant models cannot explain the fact that negative or punishing spouse responses are associated with increased pain behaviors and pain severity 3, 22.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Abstract
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the results were similar with untransformed and transformed variables, we present analyses with untransformed variables for ease of interpretation.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Correlations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Operant theory 11 has provided a useful framework for understanding the role of marriage in the pain experience.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The MPI has been shown to have good construct and discriminant validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability (8, 21).”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Agreement was poor for 8 codes across 7 individuals (rwg(2) < .60). Therefore, mean scores for these individuals were deleted and not used in further analyses.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Measures
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Margolin et al. 26 noted that an advantage of global methods of coding marital interaction such as the method used in the current study is that such systems allow for the simultaneous observation and coding of different dimensions of interaction (e.g., quantity and quality, non-verbal and verbal).”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Measures
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taken together, these results provide preliminary evidence suggesting that spouse validation and invalidation are distinct from solicitous and distracting spouse responses and that validation and invalidation share the most variance with punishing spouse responses.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Exploratory Factor Analysis
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As indicated by Tabachnick and Fidell [34], interpreting such factors is risky.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Results > Exploratory Factor Analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several teams have used global rating scales to demonstrate the extent to which marital interaction is related to satisfaction and other outcomes 19, 30, 36.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Measures
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Coders were not blind to the identity of the person with pain because the topic of discussion was the impact of pain but coders were blind to the couples’ survey responses.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Romano and colleagues 31, 32 have demonstrated that observed solicitous spouse responses to pain behavior often result in increases in pain behavior.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This makes sense since spouses had more opportunities to respond to the emotional expressions of the person with pain because the discussion was about the pain of the person with pain.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Measures
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Recent research suggests that spouse responses may not always serve a reinforcement function 28.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28]
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Within group inter-rater agreement was assessed with the rwg(j) statistic, which is calculated from observed and expected variances across coders and items 18.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Measures
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Fekete et al. 7 found that perceptions of the spouses’ tendency to respond empathically mediated the relationship of perceived support to marital satisfaction and depressive symptoms.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Different interaction coding schemes may produce different results 9 but the choice of a coding scheme depends on the researchers’ questions 26.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9]
- Not checked yetcites [26]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this study, we were interested in the empathic climate, not on reinforcement contingencies, so the chosen coding system fit our research questions.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One possible limitation is that the interaction coding system was not developed specifically for couples with pain.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Finally, it is likely that validation requires mindfulness, tolerance, and acceptance of one’s own emotions as well as the emotions of the partner 13.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The validation and invalidation observed during the two 10-minute laboratory discussions reflect the couples' typical interaction patterns.
“Couples were encouraged to act as natural as possible and that both partners should be engaged in the discussions.”
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?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Finally, higher levels of validation were not related to patient reports of pain or symptoms of anxiety or depression.”
From Validating pain communication: current state of the science (2015) · cites this paper as [1]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“First, observers were able to reliably code both validating behaviors and invalidating behaviors.”
From Validating pain communication: current state of the science (2015) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“Second, these behaviors were found to be distinct from other spousal responses such as partner solicitousness.”
From Validating pain communication: current state of the science (2015) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“A number of studies have used the Validation and Invalidation Behavioral Coding System (VIBCS[7]) to code validation occurring in interactions between patients with chronic pain and their partners.[1–3]”
From Validating pain communication: current state of the science (2015) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“Third, in couples where the partner provided higher levels of validation, patients were much more likely to engage in disclosure and much less likely to report a sense of support entitlement.”
From Validating pain communication: current state of the science (2015) · cites this paper as [1]
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(88) = 8.96reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“t (88) = 8.96, p < .0001”
- Consistentt(87) = 2.18reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .032
“t (87) = 2.18, p < .05”
- Consistentz = 2.59reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .010
“(z = 2.59, p < .01”
- Consistentz = 2.58reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .010
“(z = 2.58, p < .01”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Caucasians comprised 46.2% (n = 43) of the spouses, followed by African Americans (45.2%, n = 42), and members of other groups (2%, n = 2). Four Persons with pain (4.3%) and 7 spouses (7.5%) did not report their race.”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Participants
Reported 92 · recomputed 94
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Participants were 92 couples who participated in the first phase of an ongoing 3-phase longitudinal study of chronic pain couples. Over 50% of the persons with pain were female (52.7%, n=56).”
§ Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in Chronic Pain Couples > Method > Participants
Reported 52.7 · recomputed 60.869565
Citations
Cites
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · Cited by 88,282
Hirono, N., Mori, E., Ikejiri, Y., Imamura, T., Shimomura, T., Hashimoto, M., Yamashita, H., & Ikeda, M. (1997) · PubMed · Cited by 21,012
Kok, J. S., Berg, I. J., & Scherder, E. J. A. (2013) · Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra · doi:10.1159/000353441 · Cited by 20,589
Older Adults' Reasons for Using Technology while Aging in Place
Peek, S. T. M., Luijkx, K. G., Rijnaard, M. D., Nieboer, M. E., van der Voort, C. S., Aarts, S., van Hoof, J., Vrijhoef, H. J., & Wouters, E. (2015) · Gerontology · doi:10.1159/000430949 · Cited by 19,852
Sensitivity and False Alarm Rate of a Fall Sensor in Long-Term Fall Detection in the Elderly
Kangas, M., Korpelainen, R., Vikman, I., Nyberg, L., & Jämsä, T. J. (2014) · Gerontology · doi:10.1159/000362720 · Cited by 19,007
Measuring Dyadic Adjustment: New Scales for Assessing the Quality of Marriage and Similar Dyads
Spanier, G. B. (1976) · Journal of Marriage and the Family · doi:10.2307/350547 · Cited by 7,095
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach
Davis, M. H. (1994) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-2454 · Cited by 2,442
rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306 · Cited by 2,221
The West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI)
Kerns, R. D., Turk, D. C., & Rudy, T. E. (1985) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(85)90004-1 · Cited by 2,128
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pain and emotion: a biopsychosocial review of recent research
Lumley, M. A., Cohen, J. L., Borszcz, G. S., Cano, A., Radcliffe, A. M., Porter, L. S., Schubiner, H., & Keefe, F. J. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1002/jclp.20816 · Cited by 836
A biopsychosocial formulation of pain communication.
Hadjistavropoulos, T., Craig, K. D., Duck, S., Cano, A., Goubert, L., Jackson, P. L., Mogil, J. S., Rainville, P., Sullivan, M. J. L., Williams, A. C. D. C., et al. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0023876 · Cited by 466
Brain-to-brain coupling during handholding is associated with pain reduction
Goldstein, P., Weissman-Fogel, I., Dumas, G., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1703643115 · Cited by 311
Cheng, Y., Chen, C., Lin, C., Chou, K., & Jean Decety, A. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.047 · Cited by 255
The Social Modulation of Pain: Others as Predictive Signals of Salience – a Systematic Review
Krahé, C., Springer, A., Weinman, J. A., & Fotopoulou, A. (2013) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00386 · Cited by 245
Metadata
- Authors
- Cano, A., Barterian, J. A., & Heller, J. B.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- ORCID
- Barterian, Justin A.
- Venue
- The Clinical Journal of Pain
- Published
- 2008-10
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 678-684
- ISSN
- 0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2562912
- OpenAlex
- W2113653767
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 2.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Human Biology (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (K01MH066975, K01 MH66975)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
- Keywords
- chronic pain, couples, empathy, validation, invalidation, marital satisfaction, perceived spousal support, musculoskeletal pain, social factors in pain, marital interaction
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Disability Evaluation, Empathy, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Family Characteristics, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Pain Measurement, Personal Satisfaction, Personality Inventory, Reproducibility of Results
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
