3.8 Article

Interpersonal behavior in anticipation of pain: a naturalistic study of behavioral mimicry prior to surgery

期刊

PAIN REPORTS
卷 2, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000605

关键词

Anticipated pain; Perioperative pain; Affiliation; Interpersonal behavior

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Social relationships facilitate coping with pain, but research suggests that it may be difficult to galvanize social support during an episode of acute pain. Objectives: The current research examined whether social connections are optimized in the anticipation of pain by observing patients' mimicry of an interaction partner prior to surgery. We hypothesized that when controlling for their current experience of pain, patients' anticipation of pain would be associated with greater mimicry of an interaction partner. Methods: Sixty-five patients were interviewed in the waiting room of a maxillofacial surgery unit prior to the removal of an impacted wisdom tooth. Patients' spontaneous mimicry of an interviewer was observed. Patients then rated the quality and intensity of their anticipated pain, as well as the intensity of their current pain and their affective distress. Results: Anticipated pain, current pain, and affective distress were positively correlated. Current pain was associated with less frequent mimicry of an interaction partner. The zero-order correlation between anticipated pain and mimicry did not reach conventional levels of significance; however, when controlling for current pain, anticipated pain predicted more frequent mimicry of an interaction partner. The relationship between anticipated pain and mimicry was not explained by affective distress. Conclusion: This is the first study to demonstrate that anticipated and current pain relate to behavioral mimicry in divergent ways. Further research is needed to investigate whether the current pattern of results generalizes to other interpersonal behaviors that facilitate social bonds.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据