Table of contentsSummaryIntroductionLiterature reviewMethodsParticipantsMeasurementsProceduresResults: Results have yet to be determinedDiscussionReferencesSummaryPain is a physiological response that our body uses to alert us from any dangerous stimuli, but it has been found that pain goes beyond a simple physiological response. Studies have provided inconclusive results on the environmental factors at play in the development of an individual's nociceptive processing. The difference between an undesirable painful stimulus and a desirable stimulus can greatly contribute to the overall development of pain tolerance and the intensity experienced during a painful stimulus. Knowing a patient's history of painful stimuli can provide crucial insight into behaviors before and after treatment. This will also allow us to better understand the relationship between the physiological and psychological components of the nociceptive system. This is a quantitative, correlational study design. Participants will be recruited from the university and surrounding neighborhoods. Subjects will complete several questionnaires, tests, and tasks to determine the relationship between a painful environmental stimulus and the development of psychological pain. The Revised Reduction-Increase Scale (RRAS) and Trauma History Questionnaire (THQ) will be administered to measure preferred stimuli and past traumatic experiences. A cold pressure task (CPT) will be administered to measure pain tolerance and intensity for each individual. The results of this proposal remain to be determined. The aim is that the results of this study will provide more information on the evolution between the physiological and psychological processes of pain. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayIntroductionThe ability to feel pain goes far beyond nociception and the nervous system. Humans share an identical physical pain process, but there are psychological differences. Evidence suggests that pain perception is shaped by many factors, such as genetics and environmental stressors (Croy et al. 2011). These overlap to create individual differences in people's pain tolerance. Few studies have been conducted to address these differences between individuals. There are many ways to experience painful stimulation. Traumatic painful stimuli throughout life will be experienced differently from painful stimuli experienced during encouraged activities. The neurological understanding of pain has been widely studied and is well understood in the scientific world. Little research has been done on the development of pain tolerance. We must not take into account that not all pain is the same. The study supports the theory that not all painful stimuli are psychologically processed in the same way. It is assumed that pain experienced with fear and anxiety will lead to a decrease in pain tolerance (Rhudy and Meagher, 1999): compared to accepted pain, pain tolerance will increase. This pain can provide information to develop more individualized care for those who will experience painful situations. This study aims to deepen the relationship between different exposures to painful stimuli and the development of pain tolerance. Literature review Psychological and biological factorswork together to shape the way humans perceive pain. Creating categorical constructs, such as desirable and undesirable experiences, of pain can provide a large body of literature and theory explaining how and why humans perceive pain differently from one another. Pain is both objective, within the nervous system, and subjective, its perception varying from one person to another. Nature and nurture work together to impact human perception of pain. This review will focus on research that supports four topics of considerable interest. Much research suggests that factors such as genetics, fear and anxiety, cultural norms, and personality all contribute to these key differences. Pain perception includes a variety of pain-related concepts, but this review will primarily focus on pain tolerance. A human's genetic makeup includes an exceptional amount of information, and the expression of certain genes can adjust depending on a person's environmental environment (Croy et al. 2011). When in a frightening situation, the nervous system tends to slow down the transmission of signals to the pain center, thereby removing the painful stimulus. When the body is subjected to stress, the fight or flight system is activated creating an analgesia effect (Rhudy, 2000). Escaping a dangerous situation without being distracted by pain is a survival instinct. Biological numbing of pain, correlated with the experience of fear, may have an effect on future pain tolerance. It would be useful to the field to further examine these differences in pain with each fearful experience. Anxiety and fear work together to induce an appropriate response to painful or dangerous situations. This is a survival tactic that affects humans even when the situation is not necessarily dangerous, but uncomfortable. For example, research shows that children who are anxious when receiving medical care have lower pain tolerance than those who are distracted (Nilsson et al. 2013). Something as simple as distracting ourselves from pain changes the way humans perceive feeling it. When children are distracted from anxiety about medical care, pain tolerance is shown to be higher than those who are not distracted from anxiety and medical care. Croy's (et al., 2011) study used interactive games as a distraction while children received medical treatment. The study examined the importance of active versus passive distraction by having one group play a video game, another group a less interesting distraction; the control group received no distractions. It is widely accepted that personality is an important factor when experiencing stimulation. Schwedtfeger (2007) studied two distinct personality traits that serve as likely predictors of how well an individual will tolerate pain. These traits are known as increasing and decreasing behaviors. Augmenters will exhibit behavior that avoids painful stimuli, resulting in impaired pain tolerance; for example, people avoiding dental work or limping to adapt to a foot injury. Reducers will attenuate painful stimuli, resulting in an increased ability to tolerate pain. Reducers are more likely to participate in contact sports or activities that may result in injury from excitable stimulation. Over their lifetime, they are more likely tohave more painful experiences than reducers, who limit their exposure to painful stimuli. Environmental factors can influence these fears and anxieties through many channels. The customs and demands of society play an important role in the perception of pain. Expectations regarding pain management differ by gender, age, and culture. These differences can only be learned through social experience and interaction. Gender differences have attracted great interest and much research suggests that there is a significant difference in pain perception between men and women (Robinson et al., 2003). The results indicate that men have a higher pain tolerance than women when experiencing a painful stimulus. This may be because society expects men to be less vocal when experiencing pain in order to maintain their “manliness.” Thus, when men are confronted with painful stimuli, they are expected to internalize this painful experience. On the other hand, women are not expected to manage pain in the same way. Expressing pain and not tolerating it is what is expected, which creates a difference in pain tolerance. Cultural differences impact reactions to painful stimuli as well. The expression of pain depends specifically on societal norms, beliefs and values. Studies support a significant difference between pain expression and tolerance of Western and Eastern cultures. Although gender appears to have a collective influence worldwide, Eastern countries demonstrate greater tolerance and a weaker reaction, or expression, to pain. Cultural expectations and rituals are thought to contribute to these findings. Rituals practiced from childhood to adulthood induce painful stimuli. The exposure and expectation of following these rituals forces an individual to find their own way to personally cope with pain in order to avoid cultural isolation (Belfer, 2013). In contrast, Western countries, such as the United States, accept verbal and nonverbal expression of painful stimuli. The culture is conditioned to treat the slightest discomfort, thus exposing the population to fewer and shorter painful situations. Similar to the differences between men and women, Eastern cultures are expected to resist more suffering to satisfy their religious and cultural beliefs. Western countries do not have the same beliefs regarding practices, which lead to less exposure to pain and less acceptance of pain. Previous exposure to painful situations can lead to either protected behavior or unprotected behavior (Linton et al. 2016). You may avoid a certain activity or have negative thoughts that repeat in your head, such as “this is going to hurt like hell,” increasing pain and decreasing tolerance. Anticipation of painful stimulation causes already perceived expectations regarding that stimulation. For example, a needle is known to inflict pain, which causes anxiety or fear and often leads to a lower tolerance for pain in general. Others may seek more stimulating activities, such as individuals who dabble in tattoo art, thereby increasing tolerance. Some research suggests that the experience of pain increases pain tolerance (Tajet-Foxell & Rose, 1995), while others suggest the opposite, suggesting that prior exposure to pain will result in lower tolerance. Little research has classified painful stimulation as multidimensional. HeThere is usually a single pain measure and several behavioral manipulations. The idea of ​​“different” painful stimuli in relation to the development of pain sensation, particularly tolerance, remains to be examined. This study distinguishes two of these differences, classifying them as desirable painful stimulation, accepted and sought-after stimulation, or unwanted, imposed and traumatic stimulation. It is assumed that desirable painful stimuli will lead to increased tolerance, whereas undesirable painful stimuli will lead to decreased tolerance. This study examines the relationship between desirable and undesirable painful stimuli and pain tolerance. MethodsParticipantsIt is anticipated that this study will include between 90 and 100 accepted male and female participants. Recruitment will be by means of an advertisement posted on a campus and in the surrounding neighborhood within a 1 mile radius. Two different rewards will be offered to encourage participation. All student participants will receive one credit per session, in fulfillment of a university requirement. Local participants will receive a $25.00 gift card per session, to a local coffee shop. The accepted age range is 18 to 32 years, with an expected average of 23 years. Given the diversity of the university and neighborhood, it is anticipated that participants will be representative of Hispanic Americans, Caucasians, and African Americans. Measures The revised version of the Vando Reduction-Increase Scale (RRAS) by Rock Clapper (1990) was used to identify specific behavioral traits in participants. This is a self-report questionnaire that can measure the preferred stimulation that will elicit a central nervous system response. It also demonstrated predictions about a person's participation in high or low risk behaviors. It is a 21-item questionnaire with a six-point scale, measuring between two types of stimulation, high and low. Two listed events or feelings, such as “being with people” and “being alone,” are presented with the scale. Low risk behaviors are rated at a value of 6 and high risk behaviors at a value of 1. Final scores will be on two traits, namely reducers or enhancers. Reducers prefer highly stimulating experiences and enhancers prefer low-stimulating experiences. When calculating, the scale is reversed and the summed scores for enhancers will be represented by low totals and reducers will be represented by high totals. For the purposes of this study, cutoff scores were distinguished between low and high, without an average measure. This means that the cutoff score for determining increase or decrease will be divided in half equally. Participants with a total score of 63 or less will be labeled as “augmenters.” Those with a total of 64 and above will be labeled as “reducers”. Regarding test validity and reliability, there was a strong correlation with comparable constructs from other studies and consistency across high school and college test takers. This scale is used to measure participants' preferences for external stimulation. The General Activity Survey is a 42-item survey prepared by the author. The validity and reliability of this questionnaire are not yet known. This is the first time it has been used. The goal is to examine each participant's past exposures, or lack thereof, to different activities that do or do not stimulate painful stimuli across a variety of activities. Each activity is listed on a 5-point Likert scale, rating the likeability of eachactivity from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. For example, the participant is asked to indicate their level of agreement with a statement such as "You like getting tattoos" and "The activities you participate in often result in bruises." There are 4 subscale measures in this questionnaire demonstrating exposures to (a) intense physical performance (9 items), (b) low impact (8 items), (c) high impact (13 items), and (d) no impact or constraint. (11 items) experiences. Included is a final (1) item offered as a self-assessment on anything that was not covered in any of the other items. Whether this item is counted in the total is up to the discretion of the investigator. There is a total score between 0 and 210. Participants with low scores are considered to have “low exposure” to painful stimuli, unlike those with high scores expressing “high exposure” to painful stimuli. . A Trauma History Questionnaire (Hooper, 2011) is a 24-item trauma history questionnaire. It is a self-assessment instrument that collects reliable information on “individuals’ lifelong exposure to various traumatic experiences.” The questions asked sound like these: "Has anyone ever tried to take something from you directly using force or the threat of force, such as a hold-up or assault" or "Have you ever had a serious accident at work, in a car, or elsewhere”? The total score can range from 0 to 24, with a subscale reflecting traumatic events such as (a) crime-related events (4 items), (b) general disasters and traumatic experiences (13 items) and (c) physical and sexual trauma. (6 items). The last item is provided as a self-assessment which may not be covered and it is at the discretion of the investigator whether to include it or not. Low-scoring participants were labeled as those who experienced “low-level” trauma. Participants with high scores were labeled as those who experienced “high magnitude” trauma. To test the hypotheses, the Cold Pressor task will be used to measure the intensity and tolerance of the nociceptive stimulus. This is a standard laboratory technique often used to measure subjects' pain tolerance thresholds. An 8" by 8" tank was used to hold the water. The water was maintained at 4°C using two tubes to circulate the water continuously to ensure a constant temperature. A total of three thermometers were placed in the tank to ensure the temperature remained the same throughout the testing. All thermometers were checked once before the start and once after the end of the course. To ensure that all participants had the same starting point, the left hand was placed in a tank containing water at 37°C for 2 minutes. Participants used a 5-point verbal rating scale (VRS-5) to indicate pain intensity every 30 seconds for the duration of the trial. The time of extraction of the hand from the cold water/was recorded with the last intensity indicated. Procedures All participants will be subjected to two sessions consisting of multiple tests and questionnaires. Upon arrival, students were informed of the purpose of this study, the tasks that will be performed, and informed that they had the option to leave the study at any time. The first credit was given to students and the first gift card was given to non-students. Immediately afterwards, they were asked to indicate whether they were athletes orhigh school or college non-athletes. The first session is expected to last approximately 90-120 minutes and will include the Revised Reduce-Increase Scale (RRAS) test and the General Activity Survey (GAS). Participants will be placed in a regular conference room with the test and a pencil. It was requested that the test not be timed and that the questions be answered as honestly as possible. The RRAS test was distributed first, followed by the GAS. Participants were given a 10-minute break between the test and the survey. After completing the test and survey and another 10-minute break, the first trial of CPT was administered. To establish a baseline, participants were asked to place their non-dominant hand in a bucket of 37°C water for 2 minutes. Directly from the bucket, they put the same hand in the tank at 4°C for as long as they can stand, without exceeding 5 minutes. Every 30 seconds, they were asked to report verbally based on the 5-point Likert scale. The extraction time was recorded as well as the last nominal intensity. Participants were debriefed and invited to return exactly two weeks later for the second session. The second session included the THQ and the CPT. This session should last approximately 60 to 90 minutes. The trauma questionnaire will be distributed before the second trial of the cold pressure task. Participants will be taken to the same office space as the previous week, given a pencil, and read the same instructions from the previous session. A 10-minute break is given before starting the second attempt for the CPT. The procedures will remain the same as during the first session. After the end of the second session, the second credit for students and gift cards for non-students will be distributed. Results: Results to be determined Discussion The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between different exposures to pain on the development of pain tolerance. Those who have faced traumatic experiences involving painful stimuli are expected to perform lower on the RAS and questionnaires. They will also report a lower threshold and higher intensity on the Cold Pressor Task (CPT). Alternatively, those who participated in or experienced desirable painful stimuli will score high on the RAS and questionnaires provided. Testing will show that these people will report higher tolerance and lower intensity. Research has suggested that pain is a greater experience than just the alarm of dangerous stimuli. Recognizing differences in painful stimuli will better address differences in people's tolerance to painful stimulation. It will be shown that people who participate in desirable experiences that include painful stimulation will generally develop higher tolerance. It has been found that children who engage in self-harm show increased pain tolerance, even after a year of reducing or stopping the behavior. Another study showed that an athlete's training and participation will generally follow this pattern of increased tolerance due to constant exposure to painful stimulation. This can lead to in-game impact, muscle soreness, or both at the same time, increasing exposure and duration of exposure. Both of these studies focus on behaviors that are desirable but nevertheless stimulate pain. Alternatively, unwanted experiences will develop low tolerance. For example, child abuse and other types of abuse during childhood or even at the age, 79, 105-111.