Perceiving pain in others: validation of a dual processing model

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 [27], 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.