The tendency to "catastrophize" during painful stimulation contributes to more intense pain experience and increased emotional distress. Catastrophizing has been broadly conceived as an exaggerated negative "mental set" brought to bear during painful experiences. Although findings have been consistent in showing a relation between catastrophizing and pain, research in this area has proceeded in the relative absence of a guiding theoretical framework. This article reviews the literature on the relation between catastrophizing and pain and examines the relative strengths and limitations of different theoretical models that could be advanced to account for the pattern of available findings. The article evaluates the explanatory power of a schema activation model, an appraisal model, an attention model, and a communal coping model of pain perception. It is suggested that catastrophizing might best be viewed from the perspective of hierarchical levels of analysis, where social factors and social goals may play a role in the development and maintenance of catastrophizing, whereas appraisal-related processes may point to the mechanisms that link catastrophizing to pain experience. Directions for future research are suggested.

A cold pressor task (CPT) was used with 203 college students (112 women and 91 men) in a study of sex differences in pain response. Physiological measures were taken before and after pain induction, and sex-differentiating personality traits were assessed with the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) was given with standard instructions prior to the CPT, and it was re-administered after the CPT with modified instructions to assess catastrophic thinking during the CPT. Hypotheses were formulated into an explanatory model that was evaluated by path analysis. Pain induction elevated blood pressures and cortisol levels for both sexes, but systolic blood pressure reactivity and cortisol response were greater in men, even with sex differences in CPT tolerance times controlled statistically. Post-CPT PCS scores were positively related to pain ratings and negatively related to tolerance, but baseline PCS scores did not predict tolerance or pain ratings. Pre-PCS scores were not well correlated with post-PCS scores (r=0.46) and underestimated post-PCS scores, particularly for women. The Sex difference on the post-CPT PCS was largely attributable to the PAQ personality trait of Emotional Vulnerability. The differential results obtained from assessing catastrophizing before and after the CPT emphasized the importance of specifying the context in which catastrophizing is assessed (both timing and instructions). Theoretical considerations in the construct of catastrophizing are also highlighted, including, but not limited to, the confounding of variables such as pain intensity and unpleasantness.

This study empirically examined MBCT for the treatment of headache pain. Results indicated that MBCT is a feasible, tolerable, acceptable, and potentially efficacious intervention for patients with headache pain. This study provides a research base for future RCTs comparing MBCT to attention control, and future comparative effectiveness studies of MBCT and cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Pain beliefs represent patients' own conceptualizations of what pain is and what pain means for them. Such beliefs may be discordant with current scientific understanding and may serve to adversely affect compliance with modern methods of chronic pain treatment. This study attempts to assess several of the core dimensions around which pain beliefs develop and examines the relationship between pain beliefs and behavioral manifestations of the pain experience. An empirically and factorially derived product of this study, the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory (PBAPI) assess 3 dimensions of pain beliefs: (1) self-blame, (2) perception of pain as mysterious, and (3) beliefs about the duration of pain. These core pain beliefs were found to be predictive of subjective pain intensity, multidisciplinary chronic pain treatment compliance, poor self-esteem, somatization and psychological distress, and associated with attributions about health locus of control.

No abstract

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.practicing professionals. In the proposals, the authors address the following topics: definitions and categories; preparing the system; self-assessment; remediation; diversity; communication across various levels of the system; confidentiality; and ethical, regulatory, and legal underpinnings. They also propose future directions for the assessment of problems in professional competence in both students and practicing psychologists.

No abstract

Chronic pain is a common and costly experience. Cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBT) are efficacious for an array of chronic pain conditions. However, the literature is based primarily on urban (white) samples. It is unknown whether CBT works in low-socioeconomic (SES), minority and non-minority groups. To address this question, we conducted a Randomized Controlled Trial within a low-SES, rural chronic pain population. Specifically, we examined the feasibility, tolerability, acceptability, and efficacy of group CBT compared to a group education intervention (EDU). We hypothesized that while both interventions would elicit short- and long-term improvement across pain-related outcomes, the cognitively-focused CBT protocol would uniquely influence pain catastrophizing. Mixed design ANOVAs were conducted on the sample of eligible participants who did not commence treatment (N=26), the intent-to-treat sample (ITT; N=83), and on the completer sample (N=61). Factors associated with treatment completion were examined. Results indicated significantly more drop-outs occurred in CBT. ITT analyses showed that participants in both conditions reported significant improvement across pain-related outcomes, and a nonsignificant trend was found for depressed mood to improve more in CBT than EDU. Results of the completer analyses produced a similar pattern of findings; however, CBT produced greater gains on cognitive and affect variables than EDU. Treatment gains were maintained at 6-month follow-up (N=54). Clinical significance of the findings and the number of treatment responders is reported. Overall, these findings indicate CBT and EDU are viable treatment options in low-SES, minority and non-minority groups. Further research should target disseminating and sustaining psychosocial treatment options within underserved populations.