University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pain. 2011 May;152(5):1083-1089. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2011.01.025. Epub 2011 Mar 8.
Accurate perception of another person's painful distress would appear to be accomplished through sensitivity to both automatic (unintentional, reflexive) and controlled (intentional, purposive) behavioural expression. We examined whether observers would construe diverse behavioural cues as falling within these domains, consistent with cognitive neuroscience findings describing activation of both automatic and controlled neuroregulatory processes. Using online survey methodology, 308 research participants rated behavioural cues as "goal directed vs. non-goal directed," "conscious vs. unconscious," "uncontrolled vs. controlled," "fast vs. slow," "intentional (deliberate) vs. unintentional," "stimulus driven (obligatory) vs. self driven," and "requiring contemplation vs. not requiring contemplation." The behavioural cues were the 39 items provided by the PROMIS pain behaviour bank, constructed to be representative of the diverse possibilities for pain expression. Inter-item correlations among rating scales provided evidence of sufficient internal consistency justifying a single score on an automatic/controlled dimension (excluding the inconsistent fast vs. slow scale). An initial exploratory factor analysis on 151 participant data sets yielded factors consistent with "controlled" and "automatic" actions, as well as behaviours characterized as "ambiguous." A confirmatory factor analysis using the remaining 151 data sets replicated EFA findings, supporting theoretical predictions that observers would distinguish immediate, reflexive, and spontaneous reactions (primarily facial expression and paralinguistic features of speech) from purposeful and controlled expression (verbal behaviour, instrumental behaviour requiring ongoing, integrated responses). There are implicit dispositions to organize cues signaling pain in others into the well-defined categories predicted by dual process theory.
准确感知他人的痛苦似乎是通过对自动（无意识、反射）和控制（有意、有目的）行为表现的敏感性来实现的。我们研究了观察者是否会将不同的行为线索理解为属于这两个领域，这与描述自动和控制神经调节过程激活的认知神经科学发现是一致的。使用在线调查方法，308 名研究参与者将行为线索评为“有目的与无目的”、“有意识与无意识”、“无控制与有控制”、“快速与缓慢”、“有意（故意）与无意”、“受刺激驱动（强制性）与自我驱动”以及“需要思考与不需要思考”。这些行为线索是 PROMIS 疼痛行为库提供的 39 个项目，旨在代表疼痛表达的各种可能性。评分量表之间的相互关系提供了足够的内部一致性的证据，证明在自动/控制维度上可以得到一个单一的分数（不包括不一致的快速与缓慢量表）。对 151 名参与者数据集的初始探索性因素分析得出的因素与“控制”和“自动”行为一致，以及被描述为“模糊”的行为。对其余 151 个数据集进行的验证性因素分析复制了 EFA 的发现，支持了这样的理论预测，即观察者将区分即时、反射和自发反应（主要是面部表情和言语的副语言特征）与有目的和控制的表达（言语行为、需要持续的、综合反应的工具行为）。有一种内在的倾向，将暗示他人疼痛的线索组织成双重过程理论所预测的明确类别。
