Limits...
Attachment style moderates partner presence effects on pain: a laser-evoked potentials study.

Krahé C, Paloyelis Y, Condon H, Jenkinson PM, Williams SC, Fotopoulou A - Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci (2015)

Bottom Line: Yet, in experimental and clinical pain research, the presence of others has been found to both attenuate and intensify pain.We found that the effects of partner presence vs absence on pain-related measures depended on AAS but not partner attentional focus.As LEPs are thought to reflect activity relating to the salience of events, our data suggest that partner presence may influence the perceived salience of events threatening the body, particularly in individuals who tend to mistrust others.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK, Department of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK, charlotte.krahe@kcl.ac.uk.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Partner presence by attachment avoidance interaction effects for pain rating (top panel), N2 local peak amplitude (middle panel) and P2 local peak amplitude (bottom panel). Statistically significant differences are marked by asterisk.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526477&req=5

nsu156-F1: Partner presence by attachment avoidance interaction effects for pain rating (top panel), N2 local peak amplitude (middle panel) and P2 local peak amplitude (bottom panel). Statistically significant differences are marked by asterisk.

Mentions: The hypothesised partner presence by attachment anxiety interaction was not significant for any outcome measures (see Table 2). However, partially supporting our first hypothesis, we found a significant partner presence by attachment avoidance interaction on pain rating, and on N2 and P2 local peak amplitude. The interaction effect on pain rating, b = 0.35, SE = 0.13, P = 0.007, ƒ2 = 0.185, is presented in the top panel of Figure 1. Follow-up tests showed that the difference between presence and absence was significant for high attachment avoidance, b = −0.48, SE = 0.19, P = 0.011, but not for moderate, b = −0.11, SE = 0.11, P = 0.324, or low attachment avoidance, b = 0.25, SE = 0.17, P = 0.131. The significant partner presence by attachment avoidance interaction on N2 local peak amplitude, b = −2.60, SE = 1.06, P = 0.014, ƒ2 = 0.334, is displayed in the middle panel of Figure 1 (see also Supplementary Figure S3). The difference between presence and absence was significant for high attachment avoidance, b = 2.93, SE = 1.44, P = 0.043, but not moderate, b = 0.35, SE = 0.84, P = 0.676, or low avoidance, b = −2.22, SE = 1.14, P = 0.051. The significant partner presence by attachment avoidance interaction on P2 local peak amplitude, b = 3.29, SE = 1.32, P = 0.013, ƒ2 = 0.371, is presented in the bottom panel of Figure 1 (see also Supplementary Figure S3). The difference between presence and absence was significant for high, b = −5.67, SE = 1.82, P = 0.002, and moderate, b = −2.49, SE = 1.06, P = 0.019, but not low attachment avoidance, b = 0.70, SE = 1.44, P = 0.626.Fig. 1


Attachment style moderates partner presence effects on pain: a laser-evoked potentials study.

Krahé C, Paloyelis Y, Condon H, Jenkinson PM, Williams SC, Fotopoulou A - Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci (2015)

Partner presence by attachment avoidance interaction effects for pain rating (top panel), N2 local peak amplitude (middle panel) and P2 local peak amplitude (bottom panel). Statistically significant differences are marked by asterisk.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526477&req=5

nsu156-F1: Partner presence by attachment avoidance interaction effects for pain rating (top panel), N2 local peak amplitude (middle panel) and P2 local peak amplitude (bottom panel). Statistically significant differences are marked by asterisk.
Mentions: The hypothesised partner presence by attachment anxiety interaction was not significant for any outcome measures (see Table 2). However, partially supporting our first hypothesis, we found a significant partner presence by attachment avoidance interaction on pain rating, and on N2 and P2 local peak amplitude. The interaction effect on pain rating, b = 0.35, SE = 0.13, P = 0.007, ƒ2 = 0.185, is presented in the top panel of Figure 1. Follow-up tests showed that the difference between presence and absence was significant for high attachment avoidance, b = −0.48, SE = 0.19, P = 0.011, but not for moderate, b = −0.11, SE = 0.11, P = 0.324, or low attachment avoidance, b = 0.25, SE = 0.17, P = 0.131. The significant partner presence by attachment avoidance interaction on N2 local peak amplitude, b = −2.60, SE = 1.06, P = 0.014, ƒ2 = 0.334, is displayed in the middle panel of Figure 1 (see also Supplementary Figure S3). The difference between presence and absence was significant for high attachment avoidance, b = 2.93, SE = 1.44, P = 0.043, but not moderate, b = 0.35, SE = 0.84, P = 0.676, or low avoidance, b = −2.22, SE = 1.14, P = 0.051. The significant partner presence by attachment avoidance interaction on P2 local peak amplitude, b = 3.29, SE = 1.32, P = 0.013, ƒ2 = 0.371, is presented in the bottom panel of Figure 1 (see also Supplementary Figure S3). The difference between presence and absence was significant for high, b = −5.67, SE = 1.82, P = 0.002, and moderate, b = −2.49, SE = 1.06, P = 0.019, but not low attachment avoidance, b = 0.70, SE = 1.44, P = 0.626.Fig. 1

Bottom Line: Yet, in experimental and clinical pain research, the presence of others has been found to both attenuate and intensify pain.We found that the effects of partner presence vs absence on pain-related measures depended on AAS but not partner attentional focus.As LEPs are thought to reflect activity relating to the salience of events, our data suggest that partner presence may influence the perceived salience of events threatening the body, particularly in individuals who tend to mistrust others.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK, Department of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK, charlotte.krahe@kcl.ac.uk.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus