The role of pain catastrophizing in the mood-as-input model

There are differen therethical models to explain why some people develop
chronic pain symptoms. The wellknown fear avoidance model postulates that
people who interpret pain negatively develop a vicious crikle in which pain and
disability increase. That is, a catastrophic interpretation of pain results in
fear of pain and avoidance of physical tasks. In turn, avoidance of physical
tasks results in less muscle strength increasing disability and pain even more.
There are many research findings supporting the Fear avoidance model.
However, research shows that there is a group of patients that develop chronic
pain due to overuse rather than disuse. To explain the mecahnisms that explain
the developemnt of these two groups of patients the mood-as-input model has
been proposed. This model assumes that a negative mood (such as fear) does not
always result in avoidance behaviour. The effect of mood on avoidance behaviour
depends on the goals that people strive for. Individuals with a performance
goal will interpret negative moods as a signal that not enough progress on the
task has been made. These people will persist longer in a task than in positive
moods.
In contrats individuals that enjoy the moment will interpret negative moods as
a signal that they are not enjoying the task any more.
It has been suggested that the mood-as-input model and the fear-avoidance
model partially overlap. That is, people with an Enjoy goal show similar
avoidance behaviour when in a negative mood as people who catatsrophize about
pain.
A negative mood will inform a person who catastrophizes about pain that the
situation is dangerous, whereas a positive mood will inform the person that the
situation is safe. It still remains unclear whether the combination of mood and
pain catastrophizing influence task persistence

The aim of the experiment is to test whether people who catastrophize about
pain stop sooner with a task in a negetaive mood than in a positive mood

The study is an experimental design in which mood and threat of pain will be
manipulated.
The design is a 2 Mood (positive versus negative) x 2 Threat (Threat versus No
threat) fecatorial design with mood and threat as within subjects factors and
task persistence as dependent variable.

The study has two interventions:
1) Positive and negative mood will be induced by false feedback during an
intelligence test. In the negative condition 80% of the answers will be
incorrect. In the positive mood condition 80% of the anwers will be correct.
2)Threat of pain will be induced by providing a warning message before a
painfultask. This warning message will state that the painful stimulus may
cause painful symptoms after the task that will be very much like RSI
(Repetitive Strain Injury)

The risk of participation is the experience of negative moods after the false
negative feedback on the intelligence test. To minimize the negative
consequences of experiencing negative moods partcipants will be explained about
the goal of the negative feedback at the end of the experiment. Moreover, they
will watch a positive film to induce positive moods. Participants who still
experience negative moods after the positive film will be givven a phone call
by the researcher some hours after the film.

It is possible that participants get the idea that they can get RSI symptoms
after the experiment due to the threat message before the mars attack task.
Participants will be explained the reason for this threat message at the end of
the experiment. Moreover they will be explained that the electrocuteneaus
stimuli do not cause any symptoms or physical damage.

Finally, participants will experience pain symptoms due to the elctrocuteneous
stimuli during the mars attack task. The intensity of these stimuli will not be
higher than 10 mA. It is known that electrocuteneous stimuli of less than 10 mA
will not cause any physical damage. Moreover, participants are able to stop the
painful stimuli at any moment during the mars attack task by pressing a stop
button.