This study compares the effect of an acceptance-based protocol (ACT) and a cognitive control—based (CONT) protocol on three measures of pain coping: tolerance, self-report, and believability. Specific methodological controls were employed to further isolate the role of the value of participating in a pain task, compared to previous investigations on the alteration of the function of aversive stimulation. Twenty participants were randomly assigned to one of the conditions (ACT vs. CONT), and a pre—post design was used. In the ACT condition, the protocol established a relation of coordination between the pain-related thoughts and the actions in the valued direction. In the CONT condition, the protocol established a relation of opposition between the same aspects. Results show an increase in pain tolerance and a reduction of self-reported pain at posttest for both conditions. However, ACT participants showed significantly lower believability of pain than did CONT participants. Conceptual and clinical implications are discussed.
Ahles, T.A., Banchard, E.B., & Leventhal, H. (1983). Cognitive control of pain: Attention to the sensory aspect of the cold pressor stimulus. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7(2), 159-178.
2.
Casarett, D., Karlawish, J., Sankar, P., Hirschman, K., & Asch, D.A. (2001). Obtaining informed consent for clinical pain research: Patient's concerns and information needs. Pain, 92, 71-79.
3.
Cioffi, D., & Holloway, J. (1993). Delayed costs of suppressed pain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 274-282.
4.
Clark, D.M., Ball, S., & Pape, D. (1991). An experimental investigation of thought suppression . Behaviour Research and Therapy, 29, 253-257.
5.
Dahl, J., Wilson, K., Luciano, C., & Hayes, S.C. (2005). ACT for chronic pain. Reno, NV: Context Press.
6.
Eccleston, C. (1995). The attentional control of pain: Methodological and theoretical concerns. Pain, 63, 3-10.
7.
Eifert, G.H., & Heffner, M. (2003). The effects of acceptance versus control contexts on avoidance of panic-related symptoms. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 34, 293-312.
8.
Feldner, M.T., Zvolensky, M.J., Eifert, G.H., & Spira, A.P. (2003). Emotional avoidance: An experimental test of individual differences and response suppression using biological challenge. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 403-411.
9.
Flor, H., & Turk, D.C. (1988). Rheumatoid arthritis and back pain: Predicting pain and disability from cognitive variables. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 11, 251-265.
10.
Gutiérrez, O., Luciano, M.C., Rodríguez, M., & Fink, B. (2004). Comparison between an acceptance-based and a cognitive-control based protocol for coping with pain. Behavior Therapy, 35, 767-783.
11.
Hayes, S.C. (2004). Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame theory, and the third wave of behavioral and cognitive therapies. Behavior Therapy, 35, 639-665.
12.
Hayes, S.C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
13.
Hayes, S.C., Bissett, R., Korn, Z., Zettle, R.D., Rosenfarb, I., Cooper, I., et al. (1999). The impact of acceptance versus control rationales on pain tolerance. Psychological Record, 49, 33-47.
14.
Hayes, S.C., Luoma, J.B., Bond, F.W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behavior Research and Therapy, 44, 1-25.
15.
Hayes, S.C., Masuda, A., Bissett, R., Luoma, J., & Guerrero, L.F. (2004). BDT, FAP and ACT: How empirically oriented are the new behavior therapy technologies? Behavior Therapy, 35, 35-54.
16.
Hayes, S.C., Strosahl, K.D., & Wilson, K.G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy. New York: Guilford.
17.
Luciano, C., Rodriguez, M., & Gutiérrez, O. (2004). A proposal for synthesizing verbal context in experiential avoidance disorder and acceptance and commitment therapy. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4, 377-394.
18.
Masedo, A.I., & Esteve, R. (2007). Effects of suppression, acceptance and spontaneous coping on pain tolerance, pain intensity and distress. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 199-209
19.
McCaul, K.D., & Malott, J.M. (1984). Distraction and coping with pain. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 516-533.
20.
Purdon, C., & Clark, D.A. (2001). Suppression of obsession-like thoughts in non clinical individuals: Impact on thought frequency, appraisal and mood state . Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 1163-1181.
21.
Purdon, C., Rowa, K., & Anthony, M.M. (2005). Thought suppression and its effects on thought frequency, appraisal and mood state in individual with obsessive-compulsive disorders. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 93-108.
22.
Sullivan, M.J.L., Rouse, D., Bishop, S., & Johnston, S. (1997). Thought suppression, catastrophizing and pain . Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 555-568.
23.
Suls, J., & Fletcher, B. (1985). The relative efficacy of avoidant and nonavoidant coping strategies: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 4, 279-288.
Wegner, D.M., Schneider, D.J., Carter, S.R., & White, T.L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 5-13.
26.
Wilson, K., & Luciano, C. (2002). Terapia de aceptación y compromiso (ACT): Un tratamiento conductual orientado a los valores [Acceptance and commitment therapy: A behavioral treatment oriented to personal values]. Madrid, Spain: Pirámide.
