School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Department of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Ireland.
J Pain Res. 2015 Mar 17;8:139-51. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S58559. eCollection 2015.
This study compared an acceptance-based strategy with a control-based strategy (distraction) in terms of the ability of participants to tolerate a painful stimulus, across two experiments. In addition, participants were either actively encouraged, or not, to link pain tolerance with pursuit of valued goals to examine the impact of pursuing a personally meaningful goal or value on the extent to which pain will be tolerated.
Participants in experiment 1 (n=41) and experiment 2 (n=52) were equally assigned to acceptance or distraction protocols. Further, half the participants in each group generated examples from their own lives in which they had pursued a valued objective, while the other half did not. In experiment 2, the values focus was enhanced to examine the impact on pain tolerance.
There were no significant differences overall between the acceptance and distraction groups on pain tolerance in either experiment. However, in experiment 2, individuals classified as accepting in terms of general coping style and who were assigned to the acceptance strategy showed significantly better pain tolerance than accepting individuals who were in the distraction condition. Across both experiments, those with strong goal-driven values in both protocols were more tolerant of pain. Participants appeared to have more difficulty adhering to acceptance than to distraction as a strategy.
Acceptance may be associated with better tolerance of pain, but may also be more difficult to operationalize than distraction in experimental studies. Matching coping style and coping strategy may be most effective, and enhancement of goal-driven values may assist in pain coping.
本研究在两项实验中比较了基于接纳的策略和基于控制的策略(分心)在参与者忍受疼痛刺激的能力方面的差异。此外,参与者被积极鼓励或不鼓励将疼痛耐受与追求有价值的目标联系起来,以检验追求个人有意义的目标或价值观对耐受疼痛程度的影响。
实验 1(n=41)和实验 2(n=52)的参与者被平均分配到接纳或分心协议组。此外,每组有一半的参与者从自己的生活中生成了追求有价值目标的例子,而另一半则没有。在实验 2 中,价值观焦点得到了增强,以检验其对疼痛耐受的影响。
在两项实验中,接纳组和分心组在疼痛耐受方面总体上没有显著差异。然而,在实验 2 中,一般应对方式被归类为接纳的个体,并且被分配到接纳策略的个体,与处于分心状态的接纳个体相比,具有更好的疼痛耐受能力。在两项实验中,在两个方案中都具有强烈目标驱动价值观的个体对疼痛的耐受性更强。与分心相比,参与者似乎更难以接受接纳作为一种策略。
接纳可能与更好的疼痛耐受能力相关,但在实验研究中,可能比分心更难以实施。匹配应对方式和应对策略可能是最有效的,增强目标驱动的价值观可能有助于应对疼痛。