Power to Detect What? Considerations for Planning and Evaluating Sample Size.

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT: In the wake of the replication crisis, social and personality psychologists have increased attention to power analysis and the adequacy of sample sizes. In this article, we analyze current controversies in this area, including choosing effect sizes, why and whether power analyses should be conducted on already-collected data, how to mitigate the negative effects of sample size criteria on specific kinds of research, and which power criterion to use. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings), given the limitations of interest-based minimums or field-wide effect sizes. We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology. PUBLIC ABSTRACT: Recently, social-personality psychology has been criticized for basing some of its conclusions on studies with low numbers of participants. As a result, power analysis, a mathematical way to ensure that a study has enough participants to reliably "detect" a given size of psychological effect, has become popular. This article describes power analysis and discusses some controversies about it, including how researchers should derive assumptions about effect size, and how the requirements of power analysis can be applied without harming research on hard-to-reach and marginalized communities. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings). We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology.

Experiencing Pain Invalidation is Associated with Under-Reporting of Pain: A Social Psychological Perspective on Acute Pain Communication.

Pain invalidation involves the dismissal or lack of understanding of another's pain, undermining their subjective experience. Frequent exposure to invalidation negatively impacts mental and physical health as well as pain-related behaviors, potentially leading people to conceal their pain from others in the future and/or withdraw from potential sources of support. It is therefore possible that experiencing pain invalidation may also impact pain-reporting behavior in clinical settings. Across 2 separate samples of emerging adults, we examined whether exposure to invalidation of one's pain was associated with cognizant modulation of one's subjective acute pain ratings within routine medical and dental settings. Drawing upon social psychological theories of impression management and self-presentation, we hypothesized that exposure to pain invalidation would be associated with the under-rating of one's pain. In Study 1, previous experiences of invalidation were associated with under-rating of one's pain when visiting the doctor and the dentist. Study 2 found that invalidation from family and medical professionals-but not from friends-was associated with under-rating pain in both settings. Findings provide further evidence for the harmful effects of pain invalidation, particularly for emerging adults, as the dismissal of one's subjective experience may sow self-doubt while reinforcing cultural stigmas against pain, leading to alterations in pain communication that ultimately creates barriers to efficacious clinical treatment and care and increase pain-related suffering. PERSPECTIVE: Pain invalidation imparts harm to those who already suffer from pain, be it mentally, physically, and/or behaviorally. We show that people who have encountered invalidation are more likely to under-rate their pain when seeking care, impeding assessment and treatment, and further highlighting the importance of clinical validation of pain experiences.

Over-Rating Pain is Overrated: A Fundamental Self-Other Bias in Pain Reporting Behavior.

Wide-spread cultural beliefs influence personal experiences and clinical treatment of pain, yet are often unexamined and unchallenged in the pain literature. The common cultural belief that people generally over-report or exaggerate pain is familiar, reflected in discordant patient-provider pain assessments, and compounded in the context of disparities in pain treatment. However, no studies have directly measured the prevalence of this belief among the general population, nor challenged the validity of this assumption by assessing normative pain reporting in clinical settings. Results of an initial and replication study suggest that reporting pain accurately "as-is" is the norm, yet most people still believe that others normatively over-report pain. We refer to the phenomenon by which most people report their pain as they experience it while paradoxically believing that others over-report their pain as the fundamental pain bias, and suggest this false perception may contribute to larger scale pain stigma and poor outcomes for people in pain. We also identify counter-stereotypical patterns of pain reporting among groups (ie, women, Latinx Americans) that face more disparate care. Results reinforce the need for respecting patient pain reports, and suggest that distrust surrounding others' pain experiences is prevalent in society. PERSPECTIVE: Most people claim to report their pain as accurately as possible, while simultaneously perpetuating common cultural beliefs that others over-report their pain. This fundamental pain bias highlights a pervasive misconception that likely contributes to patient-provider mistrust and broader cultural pain stigma.

How and Why Patient Concerns Influence Pain Reporting: A Qualitative Analysis of Personal Accounts and Perceptions of Others' Use of Numerical Pain Scales.

Complex factors influence how people report and interpret numerical pain ratings. Such variability can introduce noise and systematic bias into clinical pain assessment. Identification of factors that influence self-rated pain and its interpretation by others may bolster utility of these scales. In this qualitative study, 338 participants described motivations for modulating their own pain reports relative to a numerical pain scale (0-10), as well as perceptions of others' pain reporting modulation. Responses indicated that people over-report pain to enhance provider belief/responsiveness or the likelihood of pain relief, and out of fear of future pain or potential illness. Concerns of how one's pain affects and is perceived by others, and financial concerns motivated pain under-reporting. Unprompted, many participants reported never modulating their pain ratings, citing trust in providers and personal ethics. Similar reasons were assumed to motivate others' pain ratings. However, participants often attributed others' over-reporting to internal causes, and their own to external. This bias may underlie common assumptions that patients over-report pain for nefarious reasons, distort interpretation of pain reports, and contribute to pain invalidation. Recognition of patient concerns and one's own personal biases toward others' pain reporting may improve patient-provider trust and support precision of numerical pain ratings.

Happiness, Meaning, and Psychological Richness.

What kind of life do people want? In psychology, a good life has typically been conceptualized in terms of either hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. We propose that psychological richness is another neglected aspect of what people consider a good life. In study 1 (9-nation cross-cultural study), we asked participants whether they ideally wanted a happy, a meaningful, or a psychologically rich life. Roughly 7 to 17% of participants chose the psychologically rich life. In study 2, we asked 1611 Americans and 680 Koreans what they regret most in their lives; then, if they could undo or reverse the regretful event, whether their lives would have been happier, more meaningful, or psychologically richer as a result. Roughly 28% of Americans and 35% of Koreans reported their lives would have been psychologically richer. Together, this work provides a foundation for the study of psychological richness as another dimension of a good life.

The influence of Latinx American identity on pain perception and treatment seeking.

INTRODUCTION: Latinx-Americans are underserved across healthcare contexts, and racial disparities in pain management are pervasive. One potential contributor is racial bias in pain perception - including low-level implicit biases and explicitly held lay-beliefs. Delays in seeking pain treatment may compound these disparities. However, experiments testing these factors in the context of Latinx-American pain are limited, and mechanisms by which Latinx-American group-membership influences pain perception and treatment are not understood. METHODS: Here, Latinx-American and White-American participants read vignettes including a Latinx or White patient's pain description and numerical pain rating. Participants then rated how much pain they thought each patient was in using the same numerical scale. Participants also reported how much pain they themselves would need to experience to prompt treatment-seeking. RESULTS: In contrast to prior work identifying lay beliefs that Latinx-Americans feel less pain than White-Americans, participants in the current study revealed a bias in the opposite direction. This was largely driven, however, by Latinx-American participants, who have been under-represented in previous studies of empathy and pain perception. Latinx-Americans ascribed more pain to patients overall - irrespective of patient race - relative to White-Americans. Latinx-American participants also reported that their own pain would need to be significantly more intense before seeing a doctor. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that, relative to White-Americans, Latinx-Americans may be more likely to believe people are in more pain than they report - or may be more perceptive of others' pain - and that they may be in more pain upon presenting to medical settings.