Suggestion Timing Moderates the Effects of Prior Pain Experiences on Pain Perception.

Two common elements in patient care are reoccurring painful events (eg, blood draws) and verbal suggestions from others for lessened pain. Research shows that verbal suggestions for lower pain can decrease subsequent pain perception from novel noxious stimuli, but it is less clear how these suggestions and prior painful experiences combine to influence the perception of a reoccurring painful event. The presented experiment tested the hypothesis that the order of these 2 factors influence pain perception for a reoccurring painful event. All participants (702 healthy college-student volunteers, 58% women, 85.5% White) experienced a novel painful event on one arm, then again on their other arm (now a familiar pain event). Participants who received the suggestion that they can tolerate more pain on the second arm relative to the first from the outset, before the initial pain event, perceived relatively less pain during the repeated event as compared to participants who received the same suggestion after the first painful event or no-suggestion (control). Given many pain events within medical contexts are, or become, familiar to patients, further researching the timing at which patients receive verbal suggestions for lower pain can inform practices to optimize the therapeutic, pain-reducing potential of such suggestions. PERSPECTIVE: Providing suggestions that a familiar pain event (ie, the second of 2) will be less painful than a prior event can reduce perceived pain for the familiar event depending on when it is presented. These findings can inform practices to optimize the therapeutic potential of verbal suggestions for reduced pain.

Does collaboration help or hurt recall? The answer depends on working memory capacity.

Collaborative inhibition (reduced recall in collaborative vs. nominal groups) is a robust phenomenon. However, it is possible that not everyone is as susceptible to collaborative inhibition, such as those higher in working memory capacity (WMC). In the current study, we examined the relationship between WMC and collaborative inhibition. Participants completed three shortened span tasks (automated operation span, automated reading span, symmetry span). They then viewed categorized word lists individually and then recalled the word lists alone or with a partner (Test 1), followed by an individual recall (Test 2). For correct recall, collaborative inhibition was greater among lower WMC individuals, and they showed no post collaborative benefits. Only higher WMC individuals benefited from prior collaboration. For false recall, higher WMC individuals had less false recall on Tests 1 and 2, and collaboration reduced errors on Test 1 for both lower- and higher WMC individuals. There were no lasting effects of collaboration on Test 2 errors. Furthermore, partner WMC appeared to influence recall, although this tentative finding is based on a smaller sample size. Specifically, on Test 2, participants had less false recall when their partner was higher in WMC and greater correct recall when both they and their partner were higher in WMC. We conclude that collaboration is relatively more harmful for lower WMC individuals and more beneficial for higher WMC individuals. These results inform theories of collaborative inhibition by identifying attentional control and WMC as mechanisms that moderate the magnitude of the effect. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Collaborative inhibition in same-age and mixed-age dyads.

This study examined the influence of same-age and mixed-age dyads on the collaborative inhibition effect (reduced recall in collaborative groups compared to the combined recall of the same number people who recall individually). Younger (age 18-25) and older (age 65+) adults recalled categorized word lists alone or in collaboration with a same-age or a different-age partner. On an initial recall test, the magnitude of collaborative inhibition for veridical recall was similar across dyads, regardless of age. However, age differences emerged in false recall as older adults were less likely to correct each other's errors than younger adults in same-age dyads. Older adults in same-age dyads continued to demonstrate greater false recall on a subsequent recall test, but there were no lasting costs of collaboration on subsequent recall or recognition for same-age or mixed-age dyads. Mixed-age dyads were more likely to provide a simple acknowledgment and less likely to remain silent in response to partner suggestions than were same-age partners, however, this did not affect the magnitude of collaborative inhibition. Any lasting effects of collaboration are invariant across same-age and mixed-age partners. The results demonstrate age-invariance of the retrieval strategy disruption theory and highlight collaborative process variables as complementary mechanisms of collaborative inhibition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).