master_joana_santos_alegrete

IUL School of Social Sciences and Humanities
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology
The relationship between significant other (in)validation responses and pain

experiences: The mediating role of emotional regulation
Dissertation submitted as partial requirement for the conferral of

Master in Science on Emotions,
by
Joana Margarida dos Santos Alegrete
Supervisor:
Ph.D. Sónia Gomes da Costa Figueira Bernardes,
Assistant Professor at ISCTE – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
Co-supervisor:
Ph.D. Marta Alexandra Osório de Matos,
Invited Assistant Professor at ISCTE – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
October 31st, 2018
I
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
During this process a lot of changes happened in my life, and if were not for the
support of all of you, I would not be able to finish the dissertation. This section will be mainly
written in Portuguese as, almost everyone that I would like to thank are Portuguese.
Primeiro gostaria de agradecer à Associação Força3P – Associação de Pessoas com
Dor, que me abriu as portas e os seus contactos para podermos abrir novos caminhos na
investigação da Dor.
Gostaria de agradecer à minha orientadora Professora Sónia Bernardes, por ter
aceitado desde logo embarcar nesta aventura comigo, e à minha co-orientadora, Professor
Marta Matos, por nos ter acompanhado. A vocês as duas, o meu grande bem-haja, sem vocês
esta dissertação não existiria, vocês foram a bússola e o astrolábio que permitiram
reencontrar-me vezes sem contas, neste mar imenso que é o conhecimento. Muito Obrigada.
I would like to thank Dr. Allan Fruzzetti for allow me to use VIRS-C and to Dr.
Steven Linton that had me provide it.
Gostaria de agradecer ainda à Sara Dyer, ao Pedro Cordeiro e à Anabela Caetano por
terem participado no processo de tradução do instrumento traduzido.
Não ajudando diretamente na dissertação, mas estando sempre presentes na minha
vida, quero agradecer às pessoas mais importantes da minha vida: o meu pai João Alegrete, e
a minha mãe Fernanda Alegrete. Mesmo sendo maior de idade e vacinada recorro a eles para
me salvarem a vida no último instante, e o último dia da dissertação não foi exepção.
Obrigada por tudo o que me dão, de alma e coração.
Quero agradecer ao meu irmão João Alegrete que por muito que eu queira, não tenho
sempre razão.
Não me posso esquecer de agradecer à minha amiga e colega de casa Tatiana Pavliuc,
que se chateou umas quantas vezes , devido às tarefas que ficaram por fazer.
Por último, mas não menos importante, ao André Mendes, que apesar de só ter entrado
a meio desta aventura, deu-me forças para recomeçar sempre que era necessário.
Fica o agridoce de ter terminado esta mini viagem num oceano cheio de cantos por
descobrir. Fica a inspiração deixada por todos vós e fica este nosso contributo, que
esperemos, um dia possa contribuir para ajudar alguém nas dores.
O meu grande bem-haja.
III
ABSTRACT
The main aim of this study is to investigate what is the mediating role of emotional regulation
in the relationship between significant other (in)validation responses and pain experiences. As
the lack of instruments to meausure significant other (in)validation responses emerge, a
corollary aim emerges: To translate, adapt and validate a Portuguese Version of the Validating
and Invalidating Response Scale for couples (PVIRS-C)(Fruzzetti & Shenk, n.d.). It was
hypothesised that in/validation would be associated worse/better pain outcomes, and emotion
regulation would mediate these relationships. Portuguese adults (N= 116) completed an online
questionnaire assessing significant other (in)validation responses, emotion regulation, pain
related outcomes and dyadic satisfaction. The results of PVIRS-C showed a 2 factor structure:
validation and invalidation, both correlated (invalidation negatively) with Dyadic Satisfaction.
Concerning the mediation analyses, findings revealed a negative indirect effect of validation on
pain disability, through positive emotions sharing and a positive indirect effect for invalidation
on pain disability, through the same pathway. These findings demonstrate that sharing positive
emotions with a romantic partner, in part, account for the association between (in)validation
and pain disability. This study not only contributes with a new Portuguese instrument with good
internal consistency and concurrent validity, but also highlights factors that may be useful to
focus on in psychosocial interventions addressing pain experiences.
Key-words: validation, invalidation, emotional regulation, pain
PsycINFO Codes:
2223 Personality Scales & Inventories
2360 Motivation & Emotion
2950 Marriage & Family
3370 Health & Mental Health Services
V
RESUMO
O objectivo principal é investigar qual o papel de mediação que a regulação emocional

tem na relação entre percepções de respostas conjugais (in)validantes e as experiências de dor.
Devido à falta de instrumentos para medir respostas conjugais (in)validantes, surgiu o
objectivo corolário de traduzir, adaptar e validar a versão portuguesa do Validating and
Invalidating Response Scale for couples (PVIRS-C)( Fruzzetti & Shenk, n.d.).
Foi hipotetizado que percepções (in)validantes estariam correlacionados melhor/pior
com a experiência de dor, e que seriam mediadas pela regulação emocional.
Adultos Portugueses (N= 116) completaram um questionário online avaliando as
percepções de respostas conjugais (in)validantes, regulação emocional, experiência da dor e
satisfação diádica.
Resultados do PVIRS-C revelam uma estrutura com 2 fatores: validação e invalidação,
ambas correlacionadas (a invalidação negativamente) com a satisfação diádica. Relativamente
à mediação, análises revelaram um efeito negative indireto para a validação, e um efeito
indireto positivo para a invalidação na incapacidade relacionada com a dor, através da partilha
de emoções positivas.
As evidências demonstram que a partilha de emoções positivas com um(a) parceiro(a)
romântico(a) explicam, em parte, a associação entre (in)validação e incapacidade relacionada
com a dor.
Este estudo contribui com um novo instrumento Português, que apresenta boa
consistência interna e validade concorrente comprovada; e com evidências que podem ser
uteis nas intervenções psicossociais nas àrea da dor.
Palavras Chave: validação, invalidação, regulação emocional, dor

PsycINFO Codes:
2223 Escalas e Inventários de Personalidade
2360 Motivação e Emoção
2950 Casamento e Família
3370 Serviços de Saúde e Saúde Mental
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... III
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... V
Resumo ..................................................................................................................................... VI
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... VII
Index of Figures ....................................................................................................................... XI
Index of Tables ....................................................................................................................... XII
CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1
Pain and Emotions .................................................................................................................. 2
Emotion Regulation, and Pain ................................................................................................ 4
Romantic Partner, Social Support and Pain ........................................................................... 5
Spouse Validation/Invalidation, Emotional Regulation and Pain .......................................... 5
Current Study ......................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2 – VIRS-C PORTUGUESE VERSION TRANSLATION AND CROSS-

CULTURAL ADAPTATION .................................................................................................... 8
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 8
Method ................................................................................................................................. 10
Participants and Research Design .................................................................................... 10
Measures........................................................................................................................... 12
Significant other Validation and Invalidation responses to Pain Behaviors ................ 12
Dyadic Satisfaction ...................................................................................................... 12
Procedures ........................................................................................................................ 13
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 13
Results .................................................................................................................................. 14
Item descriptive analyses and sensitivity ......................................................................... 14
Construct Validity and Reliability.................................................................................... 15

VII
Exploratory factor analysis........................................................................................... 15
Factor and Variable’s descriptive analyses and sensitivity .............................................. 16
Concurrent Validity .......................................................................................................... 16
Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 17
CHAPTER 3 – THE influence of perceive (in) VALIDATION in pain experiences, through

emotional regulation ................................................................................................................. 19
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 19
Method ................................................................................................................................. 21
Participants and Research Design .................................................................................... 21
Measures........................................................................................................................... 21
Acute Pain, Present and Past Chronic Pain .................................................................. 21
Significant other Validation and Invalidation responses to Pain Behaviors ................ 21
Cognitive reappraisal and emotional suppression ........................................................ 22
Couples Emotions Sharing Index (CESI).................................................................... 22
Pain Severity ................................................................................................................ 23
Pain Disability .............................................................................................................. 23
Depression, Anxiety and Stress .................................................................................... 24
Procedures ........................................................................................................................ 24
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 24
Results .................................................................................................................................. 25
Model’s Variable’s Descriptive Analyses and Distribution ............................................. 25
Spearman Correlations ..................................................................................................... 26
The influence of (in)validation on pain outcomes: through emotional regulation ........... 26
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 4 – GENERAL DISCUSSION ............................................................................. 30
Limitations and directions for future research ..................................................................... 30
Theoretical and practical implications of the present findings ............................................ 31
VIII
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 33
APPENDICE ............................................................................................................................ 39
APPENDIX A - Dyadic Satisfaction: Scale USED ................................................................. 40
APPENDIX B - Couples Emotions Sharing Index (CESI) ..................................................... 42
IX
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Hypothesis 1 to 5 - Validation would be associated with/predicted lower Pain

Disability (H1), Pain Severity (H2), Depression (H3), Stress (H4) and Anxiety (H5), by
influencing higher levels of cognitive reappraisal (path a), lower levels of Expressive
Suppression (path b), higher levels of Hostile Negative Emotional (path c), Positive
Emotional (path d) and Unassertive Negative Emotional Sharing (path e) ............................... 7
Figure 2- Hypothesis 6 to 7. Invalidation would be associated with/predicted higher Pain
Disability (H6), Pain Severity (H7), Depression (H8), Stress (H9) and Anxiety (H10), by
influencing lower levels of cognitive reappraisal (path a), higher levels of Expressive
Suppression (path b), Lower levels of Hostile Negative Emotional (path c), Positive
Emotional (path d) and Unassertive Negative Emotional Sharing (path e). .............................. 7
XI
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1 - Participants’ Socio-demographic characteristics by Types of Pain Experiences:

Age, Years of Education, Relationship duration and pain duration ......................................... 10
Table 2 - Participants’ Sociodemographic characteristics by Types of Pain Experiences: Sex,
Occupation, Nationality, Type of Relationship, if they Lived Together, Partner Sex and if the
Partner suffer from Chronic Pain ............................................................................................ 11
Table 3 - Descriptive analysis of VIRS-C items for the global sample and EFA Factor
Loadings and internal reliability (n=115)................................................................................. 14
Table 4 - Variable's Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Normality........................................ 16
Table 5- Models Variable's Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Normality............................. 25
Table 6 - Spearman correlations between all variables in the models .................................... 26
Table 7 - Model’s Variables Multiple Mediation test ............................................................. 27
XII
CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
Unless you have a very rare specific disorder, you had, have, or you are going to have
pain during your lifespan. According to the International Association for the Study of the
Pain (IASP, 1994), pain is “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with
actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage”. This experience can
be adaptive as long as it works as a body alarm that helps to avoid and to prevent damage
(Lumley et al., 2011), or maladaptive, when it persists longer than it is reasonably expected,
even without the presence of nociceptive triggers. When pain persists longer than 3 months, it
is designated chronic pain; when it is shorter, it is called acute pain (Merskey & Bogduk,
1994).
Worldwide, chronic pain has epidemic proportions (Dorner, 2017) and a massive
impact on economic and social resources (Hadjistavropoulos & Craig, 2004). Global Pain
Management Market Report points that more than 1.5 billion people suffer with chronic pain
(Global Industry Analysts, 2011). Around the same percentage is verified in Europe, 20%.
(Van Hecke, Torrance, & Smith, 2013). A Portuguese study indicated that chronic pain
reaches 36,7% of the Portuguese population, with an average pain duration of around 10
years, (Azevedo, Costa-Pereira, Mendonça, Dias, & Castro-Lopes, 2012), higher than the 7
years European mean length (Breivik, Collett, Ventafridda, Cohen, & Gallacher, 2006).
Chronic pain also bears a potential destructive impact in psychological and physical well-
being and social functioning (Gatchel, Peng, Peters, Fuchs, & Turk, 2007) and has been
associated with mood and emotional states, several comorbidities as anxiety and depression
disorders (Azevedo et al., 2012; Rabiais, Nogueira, & Falcão, 2003; Sobral, 2014). A Cohort
study with 1211483 adults, showed that, according to the pain conditions, the proportion of
comorbidities could vary: 6% to 27% of the chronic pain participants had depression, 4% to
13% had anxiety 13% to 43% had other mental health comorbidities (Davis, Robinson, Le, &
Xie, 2011). This relationship works both ways, since 65% of depressive patients had reported
one or more pain complains (Bair, Robinson, Katon, & Kroenke, 2003). An epidemiologic
Portuguese study by Azevedo et al.(2012) has shown that chronic pain had a high emotional
impact on feeling sad/depressed or anxious/nervous, 13% of the participants had a medical
depression/depressive disorder diagnose, and there was an evident impact on the mood and
risk of anxiety.
1
Individually, people with chronic pain present major disabilities in personal, domestic
and social activities, leading to a massive economic impact. Only in Portugal the absenteeism
costs have reached 739,85€ million (Gouveia & Augusto, 2011) .
In sum, considering the high prevalence of chronic pain, the economic global burden
and the tremendous impact in the quality of life (Phillips, 2009) of more than a fifth of all
humanity, it is imperative to develop studies that help to minimize the impact of the chronic
pain.
In such a complex scenario, the previously presented definition of pain, seems to fall
short (Williams & Craig, 2016). Further below we will describe how pain perception is
influenced by social, psychological and biological factors, the complex pain-emotion
connection, how social factors influence emotional regulation and pain perception, and the
importance of spouse dyads. This structure will give us the motto to our principal
investigation question: Which is the relationship between perceived partner
validation/invalidation and pain experiences, and whether emotional regulation mediates such
relationship? We will finish this chapter presenting the specific aims of this study.
Pain and Emotions

Perpetuating the Cartesian tradition, the traditional biomedical model, the main Pain
model used until the 1960’s, considered pain as a mere physical reaction to noxious receptors
(Hadjistavropoulos & Craig, 2004). Around the 1960’s some researchers started to equate that
other factors, as cognitive, emotional and social factors were able to influence the experience
of the pain. (Hadjistavropoulos & Craig, 2004; Rainville, 2004). These factors explained why
different individuals experience the same noxious stimulus in different ways ( Gatchel et al.,
2007).
Nowadays, the Biopsychosocial Model (Engel, 1977) adapted and adopted by Turk,
Meichenbaum, & Genest, (1983) is the most widely used model to the understanding and
treatment of chronic pain (Hadjistavropoulos et al., 2011). This model acknowledges pain as
being determined by biological, psychological and social factors that shape pain perception
(Hadjistavropoulos & Craig, 2004).
One of the psychological factors that can influence pain perception are emotions. Pain
and emotions appear to be intimately related in several forms (Rainville, 2004). As seen
before in the definition of pain, pain is often characterized by unpleasant emotional
experiences. Emotions are so intrinsically related to pain that some researchers assert that
“pain is an emotion” (Nesse & Ellsworth, 2009; Wells & Nown, 1998), supporting this
2
contention by the existence of a pain-specific facial expression as in other discrete emotions
reported by Ekman and Izard (Price & Bushnell, 2004; Prkachin, 2009).
In fact, the connection between pain and emotions (especially the negative ones) is
complex and intricate, once they share a lot of neurological pathways (Price & Bushnell,
2004). This may happen because pain and negative emotions have evolved with the same
evolutionary goal, namely, keeping the homeostasis, and moving away from dangers to
minimize uncomfortable situations (Price & Bushnell, 2004). Pain and negative emotions also
share certain coping mechanisms: avoidance, catastrophizing and suppression, all of which
seem to be adaptive in short term, but in long term can evolve to maladaptives outcomes,
increasing physical disabilities and chronic pain (Linton, 2013).
As the emotional pain-related processes overlaps (Lumley et al., 2011), these
processes can be explored using both perspectives used in emotion research: (1) using the
dimensional perspective or (2) the discrete-emotions perspective.
The Dimensional Emotions Perspective conceptualized emotions as the sum of
different irreducible structure dimensions (Gross, 2014). Using a two-dimensional structure
the emotions can be conceptualized according to the valence (positive or negative) and the
arousal (High or Low)(Gross, 2014). Following this line of reasoning, arousal works as an
amplifier, negative valence emotions appear associated with exacerbating pain perception and
positive valence emotions buffer pain perception (Rainville, 2004).
The Discrete Emotions Perspective advocates emotions as specific concepts in
abstract hierarchical categories. Ekman & Cordaro, (2011), developed one of the most
accepted models, which discriminates 7 discrete basic emotions: (1) Anger, (2) Fear, (3)
Surprise, (4) Sadness, (5) Disgust, (6) Contempt, (7) Happiness. Concerning the discrete
emotions and pain perception, the anger expression inhibits pain perception by decreasing
physiological arousal, whereas anger suppression increases it. Another basic emotion that has
a large impact in pain perception is fear, which combined with the derivate anxiety, an
emotional state, leads to an amplified pain perception and physical disabilities increase,
leading to chronic pain (Lumley et al., 2011; Rainville, 2004). Unfortunately, this sensitive
emotional state is not the only emotional comorbidity related with pain perception and
chronic pain.
Edlund (2017) showed that there were benefits of the implementation of emotional
regulation strategies in chronic pain patients and patients suffering from anxiety
disorders.Therefore, both emotion and emotional states may be changed by emotional
regulation, leading to a change in the pain perception and related outcomes.
3
Emotion Regulation, and Pain
Emotion Regulation consists of a transactional, internal process, in that the
individuals change, consciously or unconsciously, one or more emotion components, through
the change of self-behaviors/expressions/experiences or emotion elicitation (Diamond &
Aspinwall, 2003; Gross, 1999). This happens, normally, in a social context with a specific
aim (Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003). To understand the connection between emotional
regulation, social context and pain, we are going to focus in two specific emotion regulation
models: the Process Model of Emotion Regulation by Gross & John (2003), and the Social
Sharing of Emotion Model by (Rimé, 2009).
The Process Model of Emotion Regulation by Gross & John (2003) is based in
hedonistic assumptions. Humans try to avoid pain and seek pleasure, through the regulation of
their emotions in order to achieve specific social goals and maintain good relationships with
significant others (Gross & John, 2003). This model focuses on individual processes of
emotional regulation and advocates that emotions can be regulated during 5 points of the
emotion generative process: 4 response antecedent points (Situation Selection, Situation
Modification, Attentional Deployment, and Cognitive Change), and 1 point during the
response (Response Modulation). Gross & John (2003) identify two specific strategies in this
process; an antecedent focused strategy considered adaptive - the cognitive reappraisal- and a
longterm maladaptive response focused strategy: suppression.
Regarding pain, the use of these emotional strategies has been showing inconsistent results
once that, only rarely, studies show impact of emotional regulation on pain outcomes
(Koechlin, Schechter, Coakley, Werner, & Kossowsky, 2018). However, as previously
suggested, anger suppression leads to an increase in pain perception (Lumley et al., 2011), but
emotional suppression may lead to decrease pain intensity too (Saskatchewan, 2014).
Concerning cognitive reappraisal, this strategy appears to be associated with pain intensity
decreases (Saskatchewan, 2014). In some cases, emotional regulation does not impact direct
pain outcomes, but plays an important role in depression, anxiety and stress (Saskatchewan,
2014).
The Social Sharing of Emotion Model by Rimé (2009) integrates social functions of
emotional sharing elicitation, either in positive and negative emotional events. This model
(Rimé, 2009) shows that social emotional sharing helps to achieve quickest negative emotion
disclosure, as fear, that when related to pain leads to chronic pain and increased anxiety levels
(Lumley et al., 2011; Rainville, 2004); and capitalizes positive emotions, boosting social
4
bonds, and individual’s positive affect, associated with a decreased pain perception (Gross,
2014). In order to understand these inconsistent results between emotional regulation and pain
is necessary to frame this relationship through social relationships and context.
Romantic Partner, Social Support and Pain

People with chronic pain, in order to cope with pain and emotional distress (Cano,
Corley, Clark, & Martinez, 2018) look for available help (Bernardes, Forgeron, Fournier, &
Reszel, 2017) and type and quality of the relationship created, between the help provider and
chronic pain person, impacts pain outcomes (Delongis, Capreol, Holtzman, Brien, &
Campbell, 2004). As married persons commonly have numerous psychological and social
advantages over unmarried (Coyne & DeLongis, 1986), romantic partners are pointed as
central social supporters (Bernardes et al., 2017), and from all functions of pain-related social
support (Bernardes et al., 2017), spousal validation may play a major role on emotional
regulation processes (Fruzzetti, Shenk, & Hoffman, 2005).
Spouse Validation/Invalidation, Emotional Regulation and Pain
Validation/Invalidation is a dyadic communication technique (Linehan, 1993). This
technique that approves, empowers, allows and supports other’s communication and emotions
(Linehan, 1997) was primarily used to help regulate emotions in obsessive-compulsive
disorder patients (Linehan, 1993), and was adopted to the pain context by Cano (Cano,
Barterian, & Heller, 2008).
Validation, in couples, happens when the spouse provides feedback, acceptance and
understanding of the pain/emotion. Invalidation consists on the transmission of disrespect,
contempt or unacceptance of the other’ experiences (Cano et al., 2008). When there is a
dismissal validation opportunity, it’s considered invalidation as well (Issner, Cano, Leonard,
& Williams, 2012).
The Biopsychosocial Model describes that the validation of pain-related thoughts and
feelings, in chronic pain patients, decrease negative affect, self-reported pain intensity and
other pain behaviors (Edmond & Keefe, 2015). In other theoretical models, Couples
Emotional Regulation Model by Fruzzetti et al., 2005, validation responses concedes
emotional regulation skills, that promote the disclosure of emotional states, facilitating the
emotional experience and regulation as in the Social Emotional Sharing Model. This strategy
of emotional communication in couples dyads, if accountable for empathy transmission,
communication increasing, emotions soothing and negative spouse reactions decreases,
5
building up couples trust (Fruzzetti, 2006). Shenk & Fruzzetti (2011) showed that validation
responses promote emotional regulation by increasing positive affect and helped to cope with
distress. Whereas invalidation increased the negative affect, hearth rate, skin conductance and
emotion reactivity (Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2011), therefore had promoted emotional
dysregulation (Cano et al., 2008; Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2011).This underlines the importance of
emotional regulation within the pain context, because spouse validation was positively
correlated with distraction responses and emotional distress disclosure (emotional regulation
techniques/pain coping techniques), negatively correlated with pain interference and severity,
and showed several positive correlations with marital satisfaction indicators (Cano et al.,
2008; Cano, Leong, Williams, May, & Lutz, 2012a; Cano, Leong, Heller, & Lutz, 2009;
Edlund et al., 2017).
Current Study
There is a correlation between (in)validation and emotional (dys)regulation, but the
influence of the (in)validation responses, in different emotional regulation strategies and
social emotional sharing, in the context of pain, appears to be, so far unknown. This gap lead
us to our main investigation questions: Is there a relationship between perceived spouse
validation/invalidation responses and pain outcomes? Will emotion regulation strategies and
social sharing mediate such relationship?
Having this as our main aim (Chapter 3), a starting corollary aim emerges: to translate,
adapt and validate a Portuguese Version of the Validating and Invalidating Response Scale
for couples (PVIRS-C) (on chapter 2).
Generally, it was expected that, as showed in figure 1: Validation would be associated
with/predicted lower Pain Disability (H1), Pain Severity (H2), Depression (H3), Stress (H4)
and Anxiety (H5), by influencing higher levels of cognitive reappraisal (path a), lower levels
of Expressive Suppression (path b), higher levels of Hostile Negative Emotional (path c),
Positive Emotional (path d) and Unassertive Negative Emotional Sharing (path e); and, as
showed in figure 2, Invalidation would be associated with/predicted higher Pain Disability
(H6), Pain Severity (H7), Depression (H8), Stress (H9) and Anxiety (H10), by influencing
lower levels of cognitive reappraisal (path a), higher levels of Expressive Suppression (path
b), Lower levels of Hostile Negative Emotional (path c), Positive Emotional (path d) and
Unassertive Negative Emotional Sharing (path e).
6
Figure 1 – Hypothesis 1 to 5 - Validation would be associated with/predicted lower Pain Disability (H1), Pain Severity (H2),
Depression (H3), Stress (H4) and Anxiety (H5), by influencing higher levels of cognitive reappraisal (path a), lower levels of
Expressive Suppression (path b), higher levels of Hostile Negative Emotional (path c), Positive Emotional (path d) and
Unassertive Negative Emotional Sharing (path e)
Figure 2- Hypothesis 6 to 10. Invalidation would be associated with/predicted higher Pain Disability (H6), Pain Severity
(H7), Depression (H8), Stress (H9) and Anxiety (H10), by influencing lower levels of cognitive reappraisal (path a), higher
levels of Expressive Suppression (path b), Lower levels of Hostile Negative Emotional (path c), Positive Emotional (path d)
and Unassertive Negative Emotional Sharing (path e).
7
CHAPTER 2 – VIRS-C PORTUGUESE VERSION TRANSLATION AND CROSS-
CULTURAL ADAPTATION
Introduction
As pointed before, chronic pain has achieved epidemic proportions (Dorner, 2017)
affecting 1.5 billion people worldwide and 36,7% of the Portuguese population. Such
condition has high impact both on social and economic resources (Hadjistavropoulos & Craig,
2004), and personally, carrying a potential destructive impact in physical well-being, social
and psychological functioning, (Gatchel et al., 2007), being associated with mood and
emotional states, personal costs, and several comorbidities (Azevedo et al., 2012; Rabiais et
al., 2003; Sobral, 2014).
Emotional regulation has been proven to be important for the pain perception (Dima,
Gillanders, & Power, 2013; Linton, 2013; Lumley et al., 2011; Robinson & Riley, 1999).
Romantic dyadic interaction and communication plays a major central role, both in emotional
regulation (Kappas, 2013 ) and pain regulation (Badr & Acitelli, 2017) moderating, mediating
and being correlated with several emotional states (Gross, 2014) and pain outcomes (Leong,
Cano, & Johansen, 2011).
In romantic dyads, validation (e.g., being respectful, conveying and accepting the
spouse emotions) is a communication strategy that influences emotional regulation (Linehan,
1997), promotes the disclosure of emotional states, facilitates emotional regulation and
experiences (Fruzzetti et al., 2005). Whereas invalidation (ignore the spouse emotion, being
hostile, disrespect,…) promotes emotional distance and emotional regulation difficulties
(Leong et al., 2011).
The Validating and Invalidating Response Scale for couples (Fruzzetti & Shenk, n.d.)1
was created to bridge the gap of instruments measuring dysfunctional behaviors in couples
interaction (Fruzzetti, 1996). This instrument measures the perceived validating/invalidating
spouse responses, and was created based on the observational Validating & Invalidating
Behavior Coding Scale (VIBCS) (A. E. Fruzzetti, 2001) that allowed to code
validation/invalidation behaviors while chronic pain patient interact with their partners. The
VIBCS model was imported from the Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, a Cognitive Behavioral
Therapy, created by Marsha Linehan (1993).
1
This instrument can not be in appendice since it has not been published, in order to obtain the instrument please
contact the original author
8
As Lee and Fruzzetti are currently undergoing VIRS-C validation study in the United
States, the psychometric measures are not available yet (Edlund, 2017; Lee, Hyun, &
Fruzzetti, 2012). VIRS-C, so far, was used, translated and adapted to other languages,
originating 3 instruments: (1) Korean (K-VIRS) (Lee et al., 2012), (2) Swedish (VIRS-
C)(Carlsson & Larsson, 2010) and (3) Swedish (VIRS-HCP)(Edlund et al., 2017).
The Korean version of VIRS was tested in a dating violence context, with 346
female’s college students in heterosexual relationships. The confirmatory factor analysis had
revealed only a single factor with a high internal consistency (Cronbach α = .92) with one
item removed due low total score. Convergence validity was also confirmed with a high
correlation with a partner violence scale, and linear regression showed that this version
significantly predicted 23% of emotional adjustment difficulties and 54% of respondent
satisfaction (Lee et al., 2012).
The Swedish version of VIRS-C (Carlsson & Larsson, 2010) was tested with 20
couples in a within-group with pre- and post-intervention design. No convergent analysis
verification, internal consistency or validity analyses were made, but two factors were used:
(1) Validation (10 items), (2) Invalidation (5 items) and one item number was removed.
The Swedish VIRS-HCP was tested with 108 patients in a longitudinal design and as
on the Swedish VIRS-C there were no convergent analysis verification or validity analyses.
Innternal consistency of both scales was very good: Validation (9 items not specified; α =
.92), and (2) Invalidation (5 items not specified; α = .92).
To cover the need of a Portuguese instrument to measure perceived spouse (in)
validation we aimed to translate, adapt and validate a Portuguese Version for the Validating
and Invalidating Response Scale for couples (PVIRS-C). We translated the instrument using a
shorter process of translation and adaptation Beaton’s Guidelines, and, as the original
instrument was not published, so far, and were not present the original psychometric measures
(Edlund, 2017; Lee et al., 2012), and assuming similar psychometric results with the ones in
K-VIRS adaption and validation (Lee et al., 2012) we hypothized that: (1) the scale would
present only one factor - validation, (2) with good internal consistency and (3) that this factor
would be positively correlated with Dyadic Satisfaction.
9
Method
Participants and Research Design
Only one hundred and sixteen participants from the 263 surveys collected online were
elected to participate in this correlational and cross-sectional study. The inclusion criteria
were: (1) participants needed to be older than 18; (2) participants had experienced, recently,
some kind of pain; (3) and in the moment of the survey, were in a romantic relationship.
Moreover, 49.9% (n=133) were excluded due to the withdrawal of the survey before it was
completed; thirteen surveys were excluded due to the absence of (acute and chronic) pain and
one because of no current romantic relationship.
Concerning the socio-demographic characteristics, as show in table 1 and 2, most of
the participants were Portuguese (90.5%), female (89.7%), aged between 21 and 65 years
(Mage= 40.78 SD= 9.82). Participants’ years of formal education ranged from 6 to 22 (M=
14.82; SD=3.40) and most were employed (75.0%), 12.9% were unemployed, and 5.2%
retired.
Most of the participants were in a heterosexual relationship (94.8%) for 1 to 45 years
(M= 14.72; SD=11.27), and lived together (88.8%) with different relationship status: married
(51.7%), civil union (29.3%), dating (17.2%) or others (0.9%) were engaged and 0.9% in an
open relationship. Almost one quarter of the participants, (23.3%) reported that their partners
were in chronic pain.
Regarding participants’ pain experiences, 11.2% reported experiencing current acute
pain (11.2%) or chronic pain (67.2%), or having had past chronic pain experiences (21.6%).
The presence of the present and past chronic pain ranged from 3 months to 40 years (MCP
duration=7.8 SD=9.82), 16 participants were not able to specify the duration (but it was more
than 3 months).
Table 1- Participants’ Socio-demographic characteristics by Types of Pain Experiences: Age, Years of
Education, Relationship duration and pain duration
N Valid Mean SD Min. Max.

Age Total Participants 116 40.78 9.82 21 65
Present Chronic Pain 78 41.37 10.32 21 65
Past Chronic Pain 25 40.04 8.52 25 60
Present Acute Pain 13 38.62 10.00 22 57
Years Education Total Participants 116 14.82 3.40 6 22
10
Relationship Duration Total Participants 116 14.72 11.27 1 45
Pain Duration Total Participants 84 7.78 9.82 .25 40
Present Chronic Pain 66 8.08 10.29 .25 40
Past Chronic Pain 18 6.67 8.01 .33 30
Present Acute Pain * * * * *
* Acute Pain participants were not required to answer that question
Table 2 - Participants’ Sociodemographic characteristics by Types of Pain Experiences: Sex, Occupation, Nationality,
Type of Relationship, if they Lived Together, Partner Sex and if the Partner suffer from Chronic Pain
Total Participants Pain Types

Present Chronic Past Chronic Pain Acute Pain
Pain
Count Row Count Row Count Row Count Row
Valid N Valid N Valid N Valid N
% % % %
Total 116 100.0% 78 67.2% 25 21.6% 13 11.2%
Sex: Male 12 10.3% 8 10.3% 3 12.0% 1 7.7%
Female 104 89.7% 70 89.7% 22 88.0% 12 92.3%
Other 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Ocupation Active 87 75.0% 61 78.2% 14 56.0% 12 92.3%
Student 1 0.9% 1 1.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Domestic 7 6.0% 3 3.8% 4 16.0% 0 0.0%
Retired 6 5.2% 6 7.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Unemployed 15 12.9% 7 9.0% 7 28.0% 1 7.7%
Nationality: Portugal 105 90.5% 72 92.3% 23 92.0% 10 76.9%
Other 11 9.5% 7 7.7% 2 8.0% 3 23.1%
Type of Relationship Marriage 60 51.7% 40 51.3% 16 64.0% 4 30.8%
Fact Union 34 29.3% 25 32.1% 6 24.0% 3 23.1%
Dating 20 17.2% 12 15.4% 2 8.0% 6 46.2%
Other 2 1.7% 1 1.3% 1 4.0% 0 0.0%
Lived Together Yes 103 88.8% 69 88.5% 24 96.0% 10 76.9%
No 13 11.2% 10 11.5% 1 4.0% 3 23.1%
Partner sex Same Sex 6 5.2% 5 6.4% 1 4.0% 0 0.0%
Other Sex 110 94.8% 74 93.6% 24 96.0% 13 100.0%
Partner Chronic Pain
Yes 27 23.3% 20 25.6% 4 16.0% 3 23.1%
No 89 76.7% 59 74.4% 21 84.0% 10 76.9%
11
Measures
Significant other Validation and Invalidation responses to Pain Behaviors
The Portuguese version of the Validating and Invalidating Response Scale2 was cross-
culturally adapted and translated following a shorter process of the Beaton’s Guidelines
(Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin, & Ferraz, 2000). In this instrument participants were
instructed to think about the moments when they felt pain. A new instruction was added in
this study to condition the answer to a specific state, and they had to “rate how often your
partner responds in these ways when you express what you are thinking, feeling, or wanting
(from him/her, or in general)”. All items were answered on a likert scale ranging from 0
“Never” to 4 “Almost”.
The 16 items questionnaire was translated and adapted from English to Portuguese
following a shorter process of the Beaton’s Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural
adaptation of self-report measures (Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin, & Ferraz, 2000). Two
independent translations of the English VIRS-C into Portuguese were conducted with an
informed and an uninformed translator, respectively and, after resolving translators’
discrepancies, the Portuguese versions was back translated to English again by two
uninformed English native speakers. Afterwards, the original and back-translated versions
were compared and final adjustments were made to produce the final version of the PVIRS-C,
the questionnaire was not pre-tested.
The PVIRS-C is composed by 2 subscales: (1) perceived partner invalidating
responses/ behaviors (4 items; e.g., “My partner tells me that I should not feel what I am
feeling, think what I am thinking, or want what I am wanting – that my experiences are wrong
or not legitimate.”) and (2) perceived partner validating responses/ behaviors (8 items;e.g.,
“My partner pays attention and listens carefully). The scores had been calculated as in the
other VIRS-C versions, by summing the total items scores of each scale.
Dyadic Satisfaction
The Dyadic Satisfaction can be a predictor of the partner’s (in)validation and was
measured through the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) (Spanier, 1976), translated and
adapted to the Portuguese Population (Gomez & Leal, 2008) and was used to confirm PVIRS-
C concurrent validity.This scale was created to measure the relationship quality through four
2
This instrument can not be in appendice since the original instrument had not be published, in order to obtain
the instrument please contact us
12
subscales Dyadic Consensus, Dyadic Satisfaction, Dyadic Cohesion and Affective Expression
with acceptable internal consistency, once that reliability scores had ranged from .58 to .96
(Graham, Liu, & Jeziorski, 2006). From the Four scales, we only had used two for this study
(Appendix A) : Dyadic Satisfaction (original items:16,17,inverted 18, inverted 19,20,21,22,
inverted A, inverted B and inverted C ,this version items: 3,4,inverted 5, inverted 6,7,8,9,
inverted A, inverted B and inverted C) and Affective Expression (same items as the original:
inverted 1 and inverted 2).
This complex scale presents several instructions (e.g. the participants are requested to
indicate the “approximate extent agreement or disagreement” or “How often would you say
the following events occur between you and your mate?” ). The likert scales varied in
number, according to the different instructions. These can be yes or no questions, 5-point
likerst scales (e.g.: from 0- none of them to 4-all of them), 6-point likert scales (e.g.: 0-always
disagree to 5 – always agree, or 0-all the time to 5 – never), among others. Scores are made
with the sum of the every item of the scale. Higher items scores indicates higher Dyadic
Satisfaction and Affective Expression. Our analyses revealed good internal consistency, as
Dyadic Satisfaction split-half reliability was .71 and Affective Expression’s Cronbach alpha
was .84.
Procedures
The study complied to the ethical principles suggested by ISCTE-IUL Ethics
Committee and the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American
Psychological Association, 2017). The data collection protocol was composed by an initial
informed consent form, the PVIRS-C, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and Socio-demographic
(in this order). The instrument had been distributed through an anonymous qualtrics survey
link on Facebook, Linkedin, and through the members of the Portuguese chronic pain
association Força3P – Associação de Pessoas com Dor. All the data were collected between
17th of April and 28th of May.
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics v22. First, we started with the
analyses of the participants’ descriptive statistics (N=116). Second, we analyzed the PVIRS-C
items descriptive statistics and normality. Third we ran an exploratory factor analysis with a
principal axis factor (PAF) analysis, with Oblimin rotation; and after the items with lowest
communalities (>.40) and high cross-loadings (difference lower than <.30) were eliminated,
13
we ran reliability analyses of the factors extracted. Fourth, we analyzed the descriptive
statistics of DASS-21, ran t-tests and Spearman correlations between PVIRS-C and DAS.
Results
Item descriptive analyses and sensitivity
Table 3 shows the general participants (N=116) distribution of VIRS-C. As show in
the same table, participants responses covered the scale range for every item (min=0 and
max=4) except for the item number 12 (min=1). The calculated means varied between .71 and
3.40 and the standard deviations fluctuated between .82 and 1.28. (Table 3).
Most of the items distributions presented a normal kurtosis (kurtosis/SE kurtosis > |1.96|)
values, except the items 13,14 and 15 but as only the item 13 does not as an abnormal
skewness (skewness/SE skewness > |1.96|), none of the items present a normal distribution.
Table 3 - Descriptive analysis of VIRS-C items for the global sample and EFA Factor Loadings and internal reliability (n=115)
N K/SE Factor Loadings
S/SE S
Item Question Valid Missing M SD Min Max K Validation Invalidation
My partner pays attention
1 115 1 2.97 1.11 0 4 -.72 -.55 1.022 .164
and listens carefully.
My partner listens with an
2 115 1 2.97 1.10 0 4 -.70 -.56 .938 .086
open mind.
My partner tries hard to
understand what I’m
thinking, feeling, or wanting
and shows this by asking
6 116 0 2.61 1.21 0 4 -.46 -.72 .796 -.143
sincere questions, and this
helps me to clarify and
express myself more
accurately.
My partner is accepting and
7 understanding about what I 116 0 2.88 1.13 0 4 -.79 -.22 .789 -.082
think, feel, or want.
My partner communicates
that he or she understands
what I’m saying and
4 116 0 2.81 1.08 0 4 -.59 -.42 .789 -.082
acknowledges my point of
view, my feelings, and what
I want.
My partner responds with a
lot of support, patience,
15 warmth, and/or soothing 116 0 .71 1.03 0 4 1.49 1.58 .647 -.300
when I am struggling or
upset.
14
My partner tries to help me
or support me in solving
16 whatever problem I might 116 0 2.94 1.14 0 4 -1.01 .31 .614 -.271
have rather than taking over
and solving it for me.
When I feel vulnerable with
my partner, he or she
reassures me and tells me
13 116 0 2.43 1.20 0 4 -.308 -.899 .549 -.077
how he or she feels the same
way with me, or how he or
she feels vulnerable, too.
My partner is very critical or
11 judgmental of my thoughts, 116 0 1.33 1.05 0 4 .58 -.19 .082 .832
feelings, or desires.
My partner is patronizing,
belittling, disrespectful, or
condescending toward me,
14 116 0 .95 1.28 0 4 .76 -1.24 -.079 .767
or blames me for even
ordinary things that don’t go
well.
My partner fails to
8 understand me when I 116 0 1.39 1.12 0 4 .71 -.02 -.095 .560
express myself.
My partner tells me that I
should not feel what I am
feeling, think what I am
5 thinking, or want what I am 116 0 .93 1.04 0 4 1.05 .55 -.085 .441
wanting – that my
experiences are wrong or
not legitimate.
My partner does not make
unnecessary excuses for me
when I make mistakes and
9* 116 0 2.90 1.13 0 4 -.82 -.18 - -
could do better, but is not
judgmental of me when I do
make mistakes.
My partner treats me with
respect, like a valued and
12** equal human being, and like 116 0 3.40 .82 1 4 -1.05 -.11 - -
I am capable and
worthwhile.
My partner does not listen to
me, ignores me, or even
3** 116 0 1.04 1.07 0 4 .98 .38 - -
changes the subject when I
try to express myself.
My partner tells me that
what I am feeling, thinking,
or wanting makes sense, is
10** 116 0 2.77 1.05 0 4 -.67 -.01 - -
legitimate, is
understandable, or is simply
normal.
Cronbach α .96 .79
* removed due low comunality
** removed due crossloadings
Construct Validity and Reliability

Exploratory factor analysis.
After running several PAF’s with Oblimin rotation and removed 4 items sequentially: item 9
(low communality), and 12, 3 and 10 (due crossloadings), two factors were extracted with
15
64% of the variance explained with good adequate sampling (KMO = .930; Bartlett's χ2 (66)
= 1084.856, p˂.001). The two factors extracted were consistent with the original scale, 1)
Validation factor (composed by the sum of items number 1,2,6,7,4,15,16 and 13) and 2)
Invalidation factor (sum of the items 11, 14, 8 and 5) and were negatively correlated (-.76).
The factor loadings are present in Table 3 and the factors internal consistency showed good
reliability levels for both factors (αvalidation =.96 ; αinvalidation =.76).
Factor and Variable’s descriptive analyses and sensitivity

Concerning the PVIRS-C subscales, participants showed (table 4) high levels of validation
perception (M=17.83, SD=5.45), and low perceived invalidation values (M=3.65, SD=2.52).
Regarding the distribution this factor showed a high negative skewness (-.773) but very low
negative Kurtosis (-.217). Invalidation factor showed also a flatted (Kurtosis=-.118) with a
left-modal skewness distribution (.630), and low mean values. (M=3.65, SD=2.52).
On DAS, subscales participants revealed medium levels of Affective Expression and High
levels of Dyadic Satisfaction, these variables present an non-normal distribution
(Kolmogorov-Smirnov<.05) through a normal skewness (skewness/SE skewness > |1.96|),
and kurtosis (kurtosis/SE kurtosis > |1.96|).
Table 4 - Variable's Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Normality
Variable Min Max Mean SD S/SE S K/SE K K-Sa.

Instrument
Validation 3 25 17.83 5.45 -.77 -.22 .000
PVIRS-C
Invalidation 0 11 3.65 2.52 .63 .12 .000
Affective 0 10 5.70 2.34 -.70 -.66 .005
Expression
DAS
Dyadic 11 48 35.98 7.52 -1.11 .68 .000
Satisfaction
*This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a.Lilliefors Significance Correction
With these results, non-parametric tests were used to test the correlations.
Concurrent Validity
Validation perception factor was positively correlated with DAS factors: moderate positive
correlation with Dyadic Satisfaction (r=.533, p>.001, n=116), and weak positive correlation
with Affective Expression (r=.289, p=.002, n=115). While Invalidation presented a moderate
16
negative correlation with the Dyadic Satisfaction (r=-.616, p>.001, n=116) and weak negative
correlation with Affective Expression (r=-.190, p=.042, n=115)
Discussion
To achieve our dissertation main goal, we needed a Portuguese scale to measure
perceived spouse (in) validation, so, we aimed to translate, adapt and validate a Portuguese
Version of VIRS-C. Following a Korean adaption and validation of the same instrument (Lee
et al., 2012) we hypothized that: (1) the scale would present only one factor - validation, (2)
with good internal consistency and (3) that this factor would be positively correlated with
Dyadic Satisfaction.
An initial item descriptive analyses sensitivity showed that, in this sample, none of the
items had a normal distribution, so we used non-parametric test. Contrary to what we first
hypothesized, an Exploratory Factor Analyses with Oblimin rotation revealed two factors:
Validation and Invalidation. This finding supports the factorial structure used on the study
with the Swedish VIRS-C and the Swedish VIRS-HCP (Carlsson & Larsson, 2010; Edlund,
2017), and supports the idea that validation and invalidation, even with a strong negative
correlation, are not totally antagonic (Issner et al., 2012) given space to the same person be
able to perceived both at the same time (Edlund et al., 2017).
Both perceptions present good levels of internal reliability, confirming hypothesis 2,
which was not affected by the new conditioning instruction. However, participants reported
validation perception levels skewed to the higher end of the scale (high perceived frequency),
and reported invalidation perception levels skewed to the lower end of the scale (low
perceived frequency), where both factors distributions deviated from normality. This bias can
be justified, once that saying that the partner is invalidating may been considered taboo and
by the socially desirable responding, that had been showed to affect both self-reports and
spouse ratings (Vésteinsdóttir, Steingrimsdottir, Joinson, Reips, & Thorsdottir, 2018). Even
with the deviation, a good fit to the data was ensured by a non-parametric approach towards
the factorial structure.
Also, was confirmed that, not only validation positively correlated with Dyadic
Satisfaction, Hypothesis 3, and Affective Expression, as Invalidation correlated negatively
with the same factors, supporting the concurrent validity, as KVIRS (Lee et al., 2012).Thus,
this study, shows that PVIRS-C, so far, the only translated Portuguese measure of partner
perceived (in)validation responses, present good levels of internal reliability and reasonable
concurrent validity.
17
CHAPTER 3 – THE INFLUENCE OF PERCEIVE (IN) VALIDATION IN PAIN
EXPERIENCES, THROUGH EMOTIONAL REGULATION
Introduction
The most widely used model (Hadjistavropoulos et al., 2011) to understand and treat
chronic pain, the Biopsychosocial Model of Pain (Turk et al., 1983) acknowledges pain as a
perception, shaped by biological, psychological and social factors (Hadjistavropoulos &
Craig, 2004).
Psychologically, Pain and Emotions have a complex and intricate interaction (Price &
Bushnell, 2004). Even if that connection is not linear, it is possible to see some connections
looking through different emotional theoretical point of views. In a Dimensional Emotional
Perspective, the negative valence of emotions/affect usually exacerbates pain perception,
positive valence emotions/affect commonly buffers that perception and arousal amplifies
working as an intensity regulator (Rainville, 2004). In an emotional discrete perspective anger
expression inhibits pain perception, as anger suppression increases it, pain derived fear and
anxiety amplifies pain perception leading to chronic pain (Lumley et al., 2011; Rainville,
2004).
Changing emotion is changing pain. Emotions can be change by switching, one or
more of the follow components: self-behaviors, expressions, experiences, emotion elicitation
(Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003; Gross, 1999); consciously or unconsciously, in a process
called Emotion Regulation. (Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003).
As Gross Model of Emotion Regulation (Gross & John 2003) is focused in individual
emotional regulation through 2 specific strategies: one adaptive the cognitive reappraisal, and
one maladaptive the Expressive Suppression (Gross & John, 2003). The Social Sharing of
Emotion Model by Rimé, (2009) is focused on emotional social sharing; when is negative
emotion sharing accelerates emotional disclosure and in positive emotions boost individuals
positive affect and social bonds (Rimé, 2009).
Socially, people with chronic pain, count on significant others (Bernardes et al., 2017)
to help them to cope with pain and regulate emotions/emotional states (Cano, Corley, Clark,
& Martinez, 2018). Spouses provide emotional support that other intervenients fail in
compensate (Delongis et al., 2004).
Validation is a dyadic communication technique (Linehan, 1993), that has a social
support function (Bernardes et al., 2017), and promotes emotional regulation ( . After an idea
or emotion transmission, validation occurs when there is acceptance, approvement, empower
and comprehension (Cano et al., 2008; Linehan, 1997) , and Invalidation occurs with it
19
disrespect, contempt or unacceptance or with the validation opportunity dismissal (Issner et
al., 2012).
There is several results from this communication technique found in pain context.
Spouse Validation was correlated with the decrease of reported negative emotions (Edlund,
Carlsson, Linton, Fruzzetti, & Tillfors, 2015), marital satisfaction increase (Issner et al.,
2012), perceived entitlement decrease (Cano et al., 2009) and negative affect decrease. While
Spouse Invalidation was correlated increased levels of emotional reactivity (A. E. Fruzzetti &
Shenk, n.d.), helplessness catastrophizing , affective pain distress, anxiety (Cano, Leong,
Williams, May, & Lutz, 2012b), perceived support entitlement (Issner et al., 2012), pain
severity, depressive symptoms (Leong et al., 2011). Pain interference was correlated with
heightened Invalidation, not in a pain context but in a clinic context (Edlund et al., 2017).
With the results and with theoretical models start to emerge there’s a need to
understand what’s the real mediation effect of the emotional regulation on the relationship
between perceive spouse valtidation/invalidation and pain outcomes and related outcomes, a
model, that so far, in the best of our knowledge, had not been tested.
Our main aim is to uncover the relationship between perceived spouse
validation/invalidation and pain outcomes and if emotion regulation is a mediating process.
However, since there was no instrument to measure what emotions were shared between
couples, we aimed to create one. In order to achieve our main aim, we explored the indirect
effects of perceived spouse validation Pain Severity (H1), Pain Disability(H2),
Depression(H3), Stress (H4) and Anxiety(H5)) and perceived spouse invalidation on the same
outcomes (Pain Severity (H6), Pain Disability(H7), Depression(H8), Stress (H9) and
Anxiety(H10)) using 5 different path. Two paths coming from the Emotional Regulation
Model, by Gross (Cognitive Reappraisal (a) and Expressive Suppression(b)) and three paths
using Rimé’s Model (Hostile Negative Emotion Sharing (c) , Positive Emotion (d) ,
Unassertive Negative Emotion (e)).
We hypothesized, as seen the Figure 1 in Chapter 1, that validation will diminish all the pain
outcomes ( H1 to H5), through the increasing of emotional sharing, increasing cognitive
reappraisal (paths a,c,d,e) and diminishing of expressive suppression (path b), and , as seen
the Figure 2 in Chapter 1, that invalidation will increase all the pain outcomes(H6 to H10),
through the diminishing of emotional sharing, diminishing cognitive reappraisal (paths
a,c,d,e) and increasing of expressive suppression (path b).
20
Method
Participants and Research Design
As seen and described in chapter 2, in this cross-sectional and correlational study, due
to the inclusion criteria: (1) being older than 18; (2) had experience, recently, of some kind of
physical pain; (3) being in a romantic relationship, only 116 survey’s from the total answer
surveys (N=263) were elected to general sample. As the sample is the same as the one used
previously, the characteristics were present in Chapter 2.
Measures
Acute Pain, Present and Past Chronic Pain
Participants’ pain experiences were assessed by yes-or-no-questions (e.g., Matos &
Bernardes, 2013): 1) ‘Have you ever had constant or intermittent pain for more than three
consecutive months?’ (2) ‘Did you feel this pain during the last week?’ and (3) ‘Did you feel
any pain in the last week?’ Participants were considered as having current chronic pain if they
answered positively to questions 1 and 2; and having past chronic pain if they answered yes to
1 and no to 2. Participants who only answered positively to question 3 were considered as
having current acute pain. Finally, all participants who answered negatively to questions 2
and 3 were considered as having no current pain.
Significant other Validation and Invalidation responses to Pain Behaviors
The Portuguese Validating and Invalidating Response Scale for couples (PVIRS-C) is
a 16 items instrument, translated and adapted from a not validated or published scale, the
Validating and Invalidating Response Scale for couples ( Fruzzetti & Shenk, n.d.) that
measures perceived spouses validating and invalidating responses/ behaviors.
In PVIRS-C, participants were instructed to rate, from a 5 likert scale points (from 0 “Never”
to 4 “Almost all of the Time”), “how often your partner responds in these ways when you
express what you are thinking, feeling, or wanting (from him/her, or in general)” when they
feel pain.
Exploratory factor analyses (reported in Chapter 2), have shown, after 4 items being deleted
(due to cross-loadings and low communalities), that this instrument contains two dimensions:
(1) perceived spouse invalidating responses/ behaviors (4 items: 14, 11, 8 and 5); e.g., “My
partner does not listen to me, ignores me, or even changes the subject when I try to express
myself.”) and (2) perceived spouse validating responses/ behaviors (8 items: 1, 2, 6, 7, 4, 15,
21
16, 13 and 11, e.g., “My partner listens with an open mind”) with good internal consistency
(αvalidation =.96 ; αinvalidation =.76; Chapter 2).
The scores were calculated through the total factors items sums, and higher scores signified
higher perceived spouse’s validation/invalidation.
Cognitive reappraisal and emotional suppression
In order to assess two individual emotional regulation strategies (Cognitive Reappraisal and
Expressive Suppression) the translated and adapted Portuguese (Vaz & Martins, 2009)
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Gross & John, 2003) was used.
To the original instruction (“We would like to ask you some questions about your emotional
life, in particular, how you control (that is, regulate and manage) your emotions”) we added
a condition (“When you are in pain”) and participants were request to rate on a 7-point likert
scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Both subscales: (1) Cognitive Reappraisal (6-items e.g., “When I want to feel less negative
emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the situation”) and (2) Expressive Suppression,
(4-items: e.g. “When I am feeling negative emotions, I make sure not to express them”)
exhibited higher internal consistency: (αCognitive Reappraisal=.89 αExpressive Suppression=.84) than in
the Original Portuguese Version translation (αCognitive Reappraisal=.76 αExpressive Suppression=.65)
(Vaz & Martins, 2009).
To keep the total scores as the original instrument, they were calculated by the total of items
sum, a higher value indicates a greater use of the specific strategy.
Couples Emotions Sharing Index (CESI)

We have developed an index of couple’s emotions sharing. This index (Appendix B) intends
to measure how often people, in the past week, had shared the discrete basic emotions
described by Ekman & Cordaro, (2011) (“Anger”, “Fear”, “Surprise”, “Sadness”,
“Disgust”, “Contempt”, “Happiness”) with their spouse. Participants could indicate the
frequency, in a 5-point likert scale, ranging from 0 to 4 (0-”Very Rarely”, 1-“Rarely”, 2-
“Occasionally”, 3-“Frequently”, 4-“Very Frequently”). An Exploratory Principal Factor
Analysis, with an Oblimin Rotation, extracted three factors accounting for 71% of the
variance and an adequate sampling (KMO = .666; Bartlett's χ2 (10) = 140.511, p˂.001). The
first factor was composed by contempt, disgust and anger sharing and as a good internal
consistency (α=.79), the second factor had poor reliability (rsb=.46) as it was composed by
22
happiness and surprise sharing and the third factor was composed by the fear and sadness
sharing with an acceptable consistency (rsb=.57).
The factors were renamed Hostile Negative Emotions (items1, 5 and 6: Anger, Disgust
and Contempt), Positive Emotions (items 3 and 7: Surprise and Happiness) and Unassertive
Negative Emotions (items 2 and 4:Fear and Sadness). All the subscales were scored using the
item’s sum, and the higher the valued more frequently the participant shared the emotions
with the spouse.
Pain Severity
The pain severity sub-scale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Cleeland, 1989) was used. The
BPI is a multidimensional questionnaire to measure several pain dimensions. In this
questionnaire we used the Portuguese BPI Short Form Version translated, adapted and
validated for the Portuguese population (Azevedo et al., 2007). Participants were requested to
indicate the maximum, the minimum, and the average pain during the last week and in the
moment, they were doing the questionnaire, using a likert scale scored from 0, “No pain”, to
10 “pain as bad as you can imagine”.
The factor was calculated with the item weighted average, and a higher value represents a
higher severity. In our study the scale showed a high internal consistency (α=.89).
Pain Disability
To measure which aspects of the participants life are disrupted by chronic pain we used the
Portuguese (Azevedo et al., 2007) form of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) (Pollard, 1984).
Participants were requested to rate, in a likert scale of 10 points, ranging from 0 (no
disability) to 10 (total disability), the level of disability that they typically experienced in 7
items activities (Family/Home Responsibilities, Recreation, Social Activity, Occupation,
Sexual Behavior, Self-Care and Life-Support Activities), that can be interpreted all together,
alone or grouped into two subscales: Voluntary and Mandatory.
To check for the psychometric qualities of this measure in our present sample we conducted a
principal axis factoring analysis with oblimin rotation (KMOPDI= .87, Bartlett's χ2 (21) =
489.229, p˂.001) that extracted only 1 factor accounting for 67% of the total variance with
good internal consistency (α=.909).
The total score was made by summing all the items, and the higher it is the higher is the
disability associated with pain.
23
Depression, Anxiety and Stress
The Portuguese version (Pais-Ribeiro, Honrado, & Leal, 2004) of the short form of
Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21) by Lovibond and Lovibond (1995) was used.
This clinical assessment measure presents 21 sentences to the participants, and requests them
to select a number from 0 (“Did not apply to me at all”) to 3 (“Applied to me very much, or
most of the time”) for each item. As the scale name indicates, it measures 3 factors:
depression (“I felt that I had nothing to look forward to.”), anxiety (“I was aware of dryness
of my mouth”) and stress (“I found it hard to wind down”), composed by 7 items each. All
the 3 factors, in this study, presented good internal consistency (αAnxiety=.719, αstress=.763,
αDepression=.778).The factor scores were made by summing all the items, as in the original
scale, and the higher they were the higher was participants’ depression, the anxiety and/or the
stress symptoms.
Procedures
As explained in Chapter 2, this study followed the Ethical Principles of Psychologists
and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2017) and ISCTE-IUL Ethics
Guidelines (ISCTE-IUL, 2016).
The data collection protocol was composed by an initial consent form, pain-related
questions, the PVIRS-C, the ERQ, the CESI, the BPI, the PDI, the DASS-21 and Socio-
demographic questions (in this order).
The data collection occurred between 17th of April and 28th of May through an
anonymous qualtrics survey link on Facebook, Linkedin, and through the members of the
Portuguese chronic pain association Força3P – Associação de Pessoas com Dor.
Data Analysis
Data collection were made through Qualtrics software, and analyzed through IBM SPSS
Statistics v22. First, we analyzed participant’s descriptive statistics (N=116). Second, we
analyzed the Model’s variables descriptive statistics and ran tests of normality to ascertain the
distribution. Third, as only one variable had a normal distribution, we used non-parametric
test, and tested the Spearman Correlations. Fourth, to test mediation the Hayes Process’
model 4 (fig. 1, 3 and 4) was used, with perceived spouse validation/invalidation as predictor
through different emotional regulation pathways and pain outcomes. Using a bootstrapping
24
approach, the indirect effects of the mediation paths, were considered significant, when a
5000 estimate (with 95% bias-corrected and 2.5% highest and lowest scores cutoffs of the
empirical distribution) confidence intervals did not include zero (Hayes, 2018).
Results
Model’s Variable’s Descriptive Analyses and Distribution
Descriptive statistics and distribution of the study’s variables are presented in Table 5.
Concerning the predictors, participants reported high levels of Validation and low levels of
Invalidation. Regarding the mediators, participants reported high levels of Cognitive
Appraisal, moderate levels of Expressive Suppression, Positive Emotion Sharing, Unassertive
Negative Emotion Sharing, and very low levels of Hostile Negative Emotion sharing.
Concerning the outcomes, the Pain Severity and Pain disability were moderate, and
Depression, Stress and Anxiety presented low levels.
In the distribution analyses, only Pain Severity followed a normal distribution and Hostile
Negative Emotion Sharing showed a leptokurtic distribution (kurtosis/SE of kurtosis > 1.96).
Table 5- Models Variable's Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Normality

Skewness/
Kurtosis/S
Min Max Mean SD SE K-S a.
E kurtosis
skewness
Validation 3 25 17.83 5.45 -.77 -.22 .000
Predictor
Invalidation 0 11 3.65 2.52 .63 .12 .000
Cognitive 9 42 30.30 7.55 -.33 -.47 .043
Appraisal
Mediator Expressive 4 27 14.00 6.08 .24 -.72 .018
Suppression
Hostile Negative 1 5 1.71 .83 1.47 2.12 .000

Emotion
Positive Emotion 1 5 3.11 .83 -.01 .13 .000
Mediator
Unassertive 1 5 2.69 .99 .24 -.36 .000
Negative
Emotion
Outcome Pain Severity .50 10 5.09 2.01 -.01 -.43 .200*
Outcome Pain Disability 0 55 26.13 16.51 -.08 -1.25 .001
Depression 0 26 8.82 7.33 .52 -.85 .000

Outcome Stress 0 35 13.35 8.26 .31 -.80 .000
Anxiety 0 31 8.92 7.73 .97 .31 .000
25
*This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a.Lilliefors Significance Correction
Spearman Correlations
Table 6 shows the Spearman correlations between all variables in the model.
Validation was weakly and positively correlated with Positive emotional sharing, and was
negatively correlated with Expressive Suppression, Hostile Negative Emotional Sharing,
Depression and Stress. Conversely, the Invalidation was positively but weakly associated with
Expressive Suppression, Depression, Stress and Anxiety; and negatively correlated with
Positive emotional sharing.
Table 6 - Spearman correlations between all variables in the models
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Validation - - - - - - - - - - - -
2. Invalidation -.561** - - - - - - - - - - -
3. Cognitive .056 -.026 - - - - - - - - - -
Appraisal
4. Expressive -.378** .281** .114 - - - - - - - - -
Suppression
5. Hostile -.216* .157 -.131 .077 - - - - - - - -
Negative
Emotion
6. Positive .369** -.353** .121 -.355** -.096 - - - - - - -
Emotion
7. Unassertive -.035 -.057 -.013 -.044 .308** .007 - - - - - -
Negative
Emotion
8. Pain Severity .080 -.033 .016 .187* .071 -.094 .135 - - - - -
**
9. Pain Disability .103 .012 -.049 -.029 .086 -.170 .126 .478 - - - -
** ** * ** ** ** ** *
10. Depression -.373 .301 -.145 .222 .354 -.263 .409 .273 .232 - - -
11. Stress -.254** .251* -.170 -.002 .371** -.032 .404** .242** .225* .642** - -
12. Anxiety -.158 .205* -.106 .119 .213* -.089 .422** .260** .172 .517** .586** -
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The influence of (in)validation on pain outcomes: through emotional regulation

Table 7 shows the mediation analyses results of the influence of the predictors
(invalidation/validation) on dependent variables (pain outcomes), through all the mediators
(emotional regulation), as tested by the Model 4 on the Hayes Process.
Results of the bootstrapping analyses, based on 5000 bootstrap samples, revealed an indirect
effect for validation on pain disability, through positive emotion sharing, as the bias-corrected
bootstrap confidence interval (BCI) was below zero and negative (95 % BCI -.717 to -.056).
Positive emotion sharing was also a significant mediator of the relationship between
26
invalidation and pain disability, a positive, above zero, BCI (95 % BCI .003 to 1.173). All the
others results fit zero on the BCI, showing that there were no more significative mediating
processes.
Table 7 - Model’s Variables Multiple Mediation test

Dependent Effect of Effect of Direct Total Indirect effect(s) of X on Y:
Independent Mediator (M)
Variable X on M M on Y Effect of X Effect
Variable (X) ab BootLLCI BootULCI
(Y) (a) (b) on Y (c') (c)
Cognitive .06 -.07
.05 -.35* .00 -.023 .016
Appraisal (H1.a)
Expressive
-.43** -.40* .04 -.011 .119
Suppresion (H1.b)
Hostil Negative
Severity -.41** -.40* .00 -.022 .028
Emotion (H1.c)
(H1)
Positive emotion
.06** -.36* .02 -.038 .095
(H1.d)
Unassertive
Negative Emotion .00 -.3*4 -.01 -.048 .016
(H1.e)
Cognitive .61 0.31
.05 .02 .00 -.065 .072
Appraisal (H2a)
Expressive
-.43** -.16 .67 -.169 .330
Suppresion (H2.b)
Pain Hostil Negative
-.41** 1.53 -.64 -.257 .104
Disability Emotion (H2.c)
(H2) Positive emotion
.06** -5.05* -.31* -.717 -.056
(H2.d)
Unassertive
Negative Emotion .00 2.33 .01 -.099 .108
(H2.e)
Cognitive -.34** -.50**
.05 -.34 .00 -.008 .005
Appraisal (H3a)
Expressive
-.43** -.14 -.01 -.024 .004
Suppresion (H3.b)
Hostil Negative
Depression -.41** .15 .00 -.019 .007
Validation Emotion (H3.c)
(H3)
Positive emotion
.06** .58 -.01 -.030 .001
(H3.d)
Unassertive
Negative Emotion .00 2.80** .00 -.012 .014
(H3.e)
Cognitive -.40** -.40**
.05 -.15 -.01 -.070 .035
Appraisal (H4.a)
Expressive
-.43** -.10 .04 -.058 .175
Suppresion (H4.b)
Hostil Negative
-.41** 1.21 -.05 -.197 .021
Stress (H4) Emotion (H4.c)
Positive emotion
.06** .11 .01 -.129 .116
(H4.d)
Unassertive
(H4.e)
Cognitive -.16 -.06
.05 -.14 -.01 -.066 .034
Appraisal (H5.a)
Expressive
-.43** .20 -.09 -.215 .029
Suppresion (H5.b)
Hostil Negative
Anxiety -.41** -.07 .00 -.098 .086
Emotion (H5.c)
(H5)
Positive emotion
.06** -.03 .00 -.128 .126
(H5.d)
Unassertive
(H5.e)
Cognitive -.07 -.01
Invalidation -.10 .00 .00 -.023 .016
Appraisal (H6.a)
27
Expressive
.69** .06 .04 -.011 .119
Suppresion (H6.b)
Hostil Negative
.04 .07 .00 -.022 .028
Pain Emotion (H6.c)
Severity Positive emotion
-.12** -.19 .02 -.038 .095
(H6) (H6.d)
Unassertive
Negative Emotion -.03 .27 -.01 -.048 .016
(H6.e)
Cognitive -.24 .01
-.10 .029 .00 -.169 .870
Appraisal (H7.a)
Expressive
.69** -.29 -.20 -.650 .120
Suppresion (H7.b)
Pain Hostil Negative
.04 .63 .03 -.228 .180
Disability Emotion (H7.c)
(H7) Positive emotion
-.12** -4.19* .50* .003 1.173
(H7.d)
Unassertive
Negative Emotion -.03 2.38 -.08 -.381 .133
(H7.e)
Cognitive .62* .87**
-.10 -.14 .02 -.074 .126
Appraisal (H8.a)
Expressive
.69** -19 .13 -.078 .323
Suppresion (H8.b)
Hostil Negative
Depression .04 .89 .04 -.026 .198
Emotion (H8.c)
(H8)
Positive emotion
-.12** -1.41 .17 -.033 .423
(H8.d)
Unassertive
Negative Emotion -.03 2.87** -.10 -.328 .133
(H8.e)
Cognitive .91** .83**
-.10 -.15 .02 -.091 .133
Appraisal (H9.a)
Expressive
.69** -.06 -.04 -.261 .120
Suppresion (H9.b)
Hostil Negative
.04 1.53 .06 -.022 .309
Stress (H9) Emotion (H9.c)
Positive emotion
-.12** .171 -.02 -.261 .228
(H9.d)
Unassertive
(H9.e)
Cognitive .67* .68*
-.10 -.14 .01 -.074 .140
Appraisal (H10.a)
Expressive
.69** .19 .13 -.052 .35
Suppresion (H10.b)
Hostil Negative
Anxiety .04 -.06 .00 -.097 .119
Emotion (H10.c)
(H10)
Positive emotion
-.12** .25 -.03 -.267 .197
(H10.d)
Unassertive
(H10.e)
Values in the table refer to unstandardized regression coefficients.
* p> , 0.05. ** p> , 0.01.
Values in bold are significant indirect effects.
Conclusions
We aim to uncover the relationship between perceived spouse validation/invalidation and pain
outcomes, through emotional regulation mediating process.To achieve our main aim, we
explored the indirect effects of perceived spouse validation and invalidation on pain severity
(H1 and H6), pain disability (H2 and H7), depression (H3 and H8), stress (H4 and H9) and
anxiety (H5and H10) using 5 different path. Two paths coming from the Emotional
28
Regulation Model, by Gross (Cognitive Reappraisal (a) and Expressive Suppression(b)) and
three paths using Rimé’s Model (Hostile Negative Emotion Sharing (c) , Positive Emotion (d)
, Unassertive Negative Emotion (e)). In order to measure couple.
The CESI was created to suppress the gap created by the lack of instruments to
measure spouse’s emotions sharing, based on Rimé’s Social Sharing of Emotion Model
(Rimé, 2009) and discrete basic emotions by Ekman & Cordaro, (2011). With this instrument,
we measure social emotional sharing (path c, d and e), as it has been indicated as an
emotional regulator (Fruzzetti et al., 2005) through emotional states disclosure. An
Exploratory Factor Analysis, with an Oblimin Rotation PAF, extracted three factors, Hostile
Negative Emotions, Positive Emotions and Unassertive Negative Emotions. This structure is
congruent, and thereby supported, by a hierarchal cluster structure study of emotion (Shaver,
Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987), even that the factors, presented low internal reliability.
Concerning the main hypotheses test, non-parametric tests were used since all model’s
variables, except for pain severity, did not present a normal distribution. As explained in
Chapter 2 this might be due to socially desirable responding bias, that affects self-reports and
spouse ratings (Vésteinsdóttir et al., 2018).
Contrary to expectation, (in)validation did not influence any pain outcomes through
any individual emotional regulation strategies’ path (path a and b) as previously mentioned in
literature (Koechlin et al. 2018). Also, there were no mediating effects through partner social
negative emotions sharing (path c, and e), on the relationship between (in)validation and pain.
The findings that positive emotions sharing mediates the (in)validation-pain disability
relationship, is consistent with theories of Rimé and Fruzzetti concerning emotional social
sharing and pain ( Fruzzetti & Worrall, 2010; Rimé, 2009). Validation decreases pain
disability by increasing positive emotions sharing, and invalidation increases pain disability
by decreasing partner’s positive emotions sharing. This study shows that there is a social
emotional regulation mediating role, through the positive emotions sharing, on the
relationship between (in) validation and pain disability.
29
CHAPTER 4 – GENERAL DISCUSSION
This dissertation was motivated by the need to investigate if perceived (in)validation is

associated with emotional (dys)regulation in pain experiences, which has been identified in
emergent theoretical fields (Cano et al., 2008; Fruzzetti & Worrall, 2010; Hadjistavropoulos
et al., 2011). Our main aim was to unveil the emotional regulation mediation, on the
relationship between perceived spouse validation/invalidation and pain outcomes. In order to
achieve our main aim, we needed to translate, adapt and validate the PVIRS-C (first corollary
aim), developed in chapter 2, and create an index to measure couples emotions sharing
(second corollary aim), developed in Chapter 3 with the main aim.
In Chapter 2, we translated and adapted the VIRS-C to a Portuguese version. This
version was composed by two negatively correlated factors – 1) Validation and 2)
Invalidation, both with good internal consistency and sensitivity. As there is no other scale to
measure the same constructs, convergent validity could not be tested but the scales’concurrent
validity was tested. As in previous studies, perceived spouse validation correlated with a
higher dyadic satisfaction, while perceived spouse invalidation showed correlation with lower
dyadic satisfaction values (Edlund, 2017; Lee et al., 2012). The PVIRS-C is the first
Portuguese instrument, known so far, that measures perceived spouse validation and
invalidation.
In Chapter 3, first, the CESI was created to measure couples emotions sharing with 3
factors: 1) Hostile Negative Emotions Sharing, 2) Positive Emotions Sharing and 3)
Unassertive Negative Emotions sharing. This study revealed that perceived partner (in)
validation did not influence pain outcomes, through individual emotional regulation strategies
and couple’s negative emotion sharing. Concerning couple’s positive emotion sharing path,
validation responses from the spouse were associated with less severe pain disability, through
the increase positive emotions sharing. Moreover invalidation responses were associated with
more severe pain disability, through the decrease of positive emotions sharing.
Limitations and directions for future research
This dissertation contributed to understand what was the mediation effect of the
emotional regulation on the relationship between perceived spouse validation/invalidation and
pain outcomes. However, some limitations could be pointed out, informing further research
on the topic.
Some of limitations are specifically linked with the instruments used. First, a measure
of couples emotions sharing was used that was not yet validated. Second, due the lack of
30
access to the original psycometric meausures (Lee et al., 2012), data should be interpreted
with caution. Third, the respondent-to-item ratio used on this study on PVIRS-C translations
and adaptation, might be considered insufficient (Tsang, Terkawi, & Royse, 2017). In further
uses of the PVIRS-C , we recommend a confirmation of the structure with a wider and more
heterogeneous samples, with the ratio of 10 participants by item, and when use in others
participants, that not are in pain, remove the new instruction added (“when you feel pain”).
Others limitations had emerge during the model’s test. As all model variables, exept
for pain severity show a skewed distribution, that might had happen through socially desirable
responding bias (Vésteinsdóttir et al., 2018), in further studies, to help to control this bias is
important to include partner’s measure of provided (in)validation responses.
Furthermore, it was not possible to test if the lack of mediation effects through the
negative sharing emotion happened because of the emotional disclosure (Rimé, 2009). As the
link pain-fear leads to pain chronification (Lumley et al., 2011; Rainville, 2004), further
investigation may help to unveil what is the role of social emotional regulation on chronic
pain prevention. In order to unveil this connection, an in-group (present chronic pain, versus,
acute pain) experimental longitudinal study might be done.
Theoretical and practical implications of the present findings

Regarding the theoretical implications, the present dissertation contributes to unveil
the mediation effect of emotional regulation, on perceived (in) validation-pain related
responses from spouses. The adaptation, translation and validation of PVIRS-C covers the
lack of Portuguese instruments measuring perceived spouse (in) validation, which provides
with a methodological contribution to the field.
Furthermore, present findings are supportive of the mediation effects of emotional
regulation, on the relationship described before, not through individual emotional regulation
strategies, but through positive emotions sharing with the partner. These findings are
meaningful by providing insight about how social emotional regulation may influence pain
experiences. This research highlights the need of the social context evaluation and
intervention in pain consultations. Pain specialists might provide specific spouse’s training in
validation, leading to larger social sharing of emotions, decreasing pain disability, or even,
potencially, preventing pain chronification. This dissertation leaves its contribution by
bringing new insights into the relationship between perceived partner (in) validation reponses
and pain outcomes, mediated by positive emotions sharing.
31
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (2017). American Psychological Association. Ethical

Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. American Psychological Association,
57(12), 1060–1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060
Azevedo, L., Costa Pereira, A., Agualusa, L., Dias, C. C., Lemos, L., Romão, J., … Serra, S.
V. (2007). Questionários sobre Dor Crónica. Dor - Órgão de Expressão Oficial Da
APED, 15(4), 38–39.
Azevedo, L. F., Costa-Pereira, A., Mendonça, L., Dias, C. C., & Castro-Lopes, J. M. (2012).
Epidemiology of chronic pain: A population-based nationwide study on its prevalence,
characteristics and associated disability in Portugal. Journal of Pain, 13(8), 773–783.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2012.05.012
Badr, H., & Acitelli, L. K. (2017). Re-thinking dyadic coping in the context of chronic illness.
Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.001
Bair, M. J., Robinson, R. L., Katon, W., & Kroenke, K. (2003). Depression and Pain
Comorbidity. Archives of Internal Medicine, 163(20), 2433.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.163.20.2433
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the
Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures, 25(24), 3186–3191.
Bernardes, S. F., Forgeron, P., Fournier, K., & Reszel, J. (2017). Beyond solicitousness: A
comprehensive review on informal pain-related social support (accepted for publication).
PAIN, 1–45.
Breivik, H., Collett, B., Ventafridda, V., Cohen, R., & Gallacher, D. (2006). Survey of
chronic pain in Europe: Prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. European
Journal of Pain, 10(4), 287–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.06.009
Cano, A., Barterian, J. a, & Heller, J. B. (2008). Empathic and Nonempathic Interaction in
Chronic Pain Couples. Clinical Journal of Pain, 24(8), 678–684.
https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e31816753d8.Empathic
Cano, A., Leong, L. E. M., Williams, A. M., May, D. K. K., & Lutz, J. R. (2012a). Correlates
and consequences of the disclosure of pain-related distress to one’s spouse. PAIN,
153(12), 2441–2447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2012.08.015.Correlates
Cano, A., Leong, L. E. M., Williams, A. M., May, D. K. K., & Lutz, J. R. (2012b). Correlates
and consequences of the disclosure of pain-related distress to one’s spouse. Pain,
153(12), 2441–2447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2012.08.015.Correlates
Cano, A., Leong, L., Heller, J. B., & Lutz, J. R. (2009). Perceived Entitlement to Pain-Related
Support and Pain Catastrophizing: Associations with Perceived and Observed Support.
PAIN, 147, 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2009.09.023.Perceived
Carlsson, M., & Larsson, S. (2010). Jag ser att du har ont.
Cleeland, C. (1989). Measurement of pain by subjective report. In C. Chapman & J. Loeser
(Eds.), Issues in Pain Measurement (Advances i, pp. 391–403). New York: Raven Press.
Coyne, J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Going Beyond Social Support. The Role of Social
Relationships in Adaptation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(4), 454–
460. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.54.4.454
Davis, J. A., Robinson, R. L., Le, T. K., & Xie, J. (2011). Incidence and impact of pain
conditions and comorbid illnesses. Journal of Pain Research, 4, 331–345.
https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S24170
Delongis, A., Capreol, M., Holtzman, S., Brien, T. O., & Campbell, J. (2004). Social Support
and Social Strain Among Husbands and Wives : A Multilevel Analysis, 18(3), 470–479.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.3.470
33
Diamond, L., & Aspinwall, L. (2003). Emotion Regulation Across the Life Span: an
Integrative Perspective Emphasizing Self-Regulation, Positive Affect and Dyadic
Processes. Motivation and Emotion, 27(June). https://doi.org/10.1023/A1024521920068
Dima, A. L., Gillanders, D. T., & Power, M. J. (2013). Dynamic pain-emotion relations in
chronic pain: A theoretical review of moderation studies. Health Psychology Review,
7(SUPPL1). https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2011.569937
Dorner, T. E. (2017). Pain and chronic pain epidemiology. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift,
0–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-017-1301-0
Edlund, S. M. (2017). Calm down. Strategies for emotion regulation in clinical practice.
Orebro University. Orebro University. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,url,cookie,uid&an=34
514922&db=awh&scope=site&site=ehost%5Cnhttp://olinks.ohiolink.edu/olinks.php?sid
=CentralSearch:EAL&genre=article&atitle=Calm+down.&volume=38&issue=9&title=
Natural+Health&is
Edlund, S. M., Carlsson, M. L., Linton, S. J., Fruzzetti, A. E., & Tillfors, M. (2015). I see
you’re in pain - The effects of partner validation on emotions in people with chronic
pain. Scandinavian Journal of Pain, 6(C), 16–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2014.07.003
Edlund, S. M., Wurm, M., Holländare, F., Linton, S. J., Fruzzetti, A. E., & Tillfors, M.
(2017). Pain patients’ experiences of validation and invalidation from physicians before
and after multimodal pain rehabilitation: Associations with pain, negative affectivity,
and treatment outcome. Scandinavian Journal of Pain, 17, 77–86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2017.07.007
Edmond, S. N., & Keefe, F. J. (2015). Validating pain communication: Current state of the
science. Pain, 156(2), 215–219.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.j.pain.0000460301.18207.c2.Validating
Engel, G. L. (1977). Need for a New Medical Model - A Challenge for Biomedicine. Science.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.847460
Fruzzetti, A. E. (1996). Causes and consequences: Individual distress in the context of couple
interactions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(6), 1192–1201.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.64.6.1192
Fruzzetti, A. E. (2001). Validating and invalidating behaviors coding scale. Reno, NV:
University Nevada., Of.
Fruzzetti, A. E. (2006). The high conflict couple – a dialectical behavior therapy guide to
finding peace, intimacy, and validation. Oakland: New Harbinger Publications, Inc.
Retrieved from https://books.google.pt/books?hl=pt-
PT&lr=&id=SY2dYfeZPVwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=The+high+conflict+couple+–
+a+dialectical+behavior+therapy+guide+to+finding+peace,+intimacy,+and+validation&
ots=qpFICnnRdP&sig=2mR0E1rtJ1OHu-
8_fqI2gVJ3YPw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=e
Fruzzetti, A. E., & Shenk, C. E. (n.d.). Validating and invalidating responses on emotional
arousal. Unpublished Manuscript.
Fruzzetti, A. E., Shenk, C. E., & Hoffman, P. (2005). Family interaction and the development
of borderline personality disorder: A transactional model. Development and
Psychopathology, 17(04). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050479
Fruzzetti, A. E., & Worrall, J. M. (2010). Accurate Expression and Validating Responses : A
Transactional Model for Understanding Individual and Relationship Distress. In K.
Sullivan & J. Davila (Eds.), Support Processes in Intimate Relationships (First, pp. 121–
150). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gatchel, R. J., Peng, Y. B., Peters, M. L., Fuchs, P. N., & Turk, D. C. (2007). The
34
biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: Scientific advances and future directions.
Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 581–624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.581
Global Industry Analysts, I. (2011). Global Pain Management Market to Reach US $ 60
Billion by 2015 , According to a New Report by Global Industry Analysts , Inc . PRWeb.
Gomez, R., & Leal, I. (2008). Ajustamento conjugal: Características psicométricas da versão
portuguesa da Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Análise Psicológica, 4, 625–638.
Gouveia, M., & Augusto, M. (2011). Custos indirectos da dor crónica em Portugal. Revista
Portuguesa de Saude Publica, 29(2), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0870-
9025(11)70013-X
Graham, J. M., Liu, Y. J., & Jeziorski, J. L. (2006). The dyadic adjustment Scale: A reliability
generalization meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(3), 701–717.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00284.x
Gross, J. J. (1999). Emotion Regulation: Past, Present, Future. Cognition & Emotion, 13(5),
551–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379186
Gross, J. J. (Ed.). (2014). Handbook of Emotion Regulation (Second). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual Differences in Two Emotion Regulation
Processes: Implications for Affect, Relationships, and Well-Being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.85.2.348
Hadjistavropoulos, T., & Craig, K. D. (2004). Pain Perception Psychological Perspectives.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.3138/physio.60.2.203
Hadjistavropoulos, T., Craig, K. D., Duck, S., Cano, A., Goubert, L., Jackson, P. L., …
Fitzgerald, T. D. (2011). A biopsychosocial formulation of pain communication.
Psychological Bulletin, 137(6), 910–939. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023876
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysi.pdf. (T. Little, Ed.) (Second). The Guilford Press.
ISCTE-IUL. (2016). Ética na Investigação: Melhores práticas, melhor Ciência - Código de
Conduta.
Issner, J., Cano, A., Leonard, M., & Williams, A. M. (2012). How do I empathize with you?
Let me count the ways: Relations between facets of pain-related empathy. Journal of
Pain, 27(3), 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.3066.Non-invasive
Kappas, A. (2013). Social regulation of emotion: messy layers. Frontiers in Psychology,
4(February), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00051
Koechlin, H., Schechter, N., Coakley, R., Werner, C., & Kossowsky, J. (2018). The role of
emotion regulation in chronic pain: A systematic literature review. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research Journal, 107, 38–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2018.02.002
Lee, J., Hyun, M., & Fruzzetti, A. E. (2012). Validity study of the Validation and Invalidation
Scale ( VIRS ) among college women with dating violence, (January).
Leong, L. E. M., Cano, A., & Johansen, A. B. (2011). Sequential and base rate analysis of
emotional validation and invalidation in chronic pain couples: Patient gender matters.
Journal of Pain, 12(11), 1140–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2011.04.004
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder.
New York: The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/0-89862-183-6
Linehan, M. M. (1997). Validation and psychotherapy. Empathy Reconsidered: New
Directions in Psychotherapy., (February), 353–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/10226-016
Linton, S. J. (2013). A Transdiagnostic Approach to Pain and Emotion. Journal of Applied
Biobehavioral Research, 18(2), 82–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/jabr.12007
Lumley, M. A., Cohen, J. L., Borszcz, G. S., Cano, A., Alison, M., Porter, L. S., … Keefe, F.
35
J. (2011). Pain and emotion: a biopsychosocial review of recent research. J Clin
Psychol., 67(9), 942–968. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20816.Pain
Nesse, R. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2009). Evolution, Emotions, and Emotional Disorders.
American Psychologist, 64(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013503
Pais-Ribeiro, J. L., Honrado, A., & Leal, I. (2004). Contribuição Para O Estudo Da Adaptação
Portuguesa Das Escalas De Ansiedade , Depressão E Stress ( Eads ) De 21 Itens De
Lovibond E Lovibond. Psicologia, Saúde & Doenças, 5(2), 229–239.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13548500500524088
Phillips, C. J. (2009). The Cost and Burden of Chronic Pain. Reviews in Pain, 3(1), 2–5.
https://doi.org/10.1177/204946370900300102
Pollard, C. (1984). Preliminary validity study of the pain disability index. Percept Mot Skills,
59(3), 974. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1984.59.3.974
Price, D., & Bushnell, C. (2004). Overview of Pain Dimensions and Their Psychological
Modulation. In D. Price & C. Bushnell (Eds.), Psychological Methods of Pain Control:
Basic Science and Clinical Prespectives. Progress in Research and Management (pp. 3–
17). Seattle: IASP Press.
Prkachin, K. M. (2009). Assessing pain by facial expression: Facial expression as nexus. Pain
Research and Management, 14(1), 53–58.
Rabiais, S., Nogueira, P., & Falcão, J. (2003). A Dor na população portuguesa, alguns
aspectos epidemiológicos. Ecos, 2–78.
Rainville, P. (2004). Pain and Emotions. In D. Price & C. Bushnell (Eds.), Psychological
Methods of Pain Control: Basic Science and Clinical Perspectives. Progress in Pain
Research and Management (pp. 117–141). Seattle: IASP Press.
Rimé, B. (2009). Emotion Elicits the Social Sharing of Emotion : Theory and Empirical
Review. Emotion Review, (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073908097189
Robinson, M., & Riley, J. (1999). The Role of Emotion in Pain. In R. Gatchel & D. Turk
(Eds.), Psychosocial Factors in Pain - Critical Perspectives (pp. 74–88). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Saskatchewan, A. (2014). The Effect of Emotion Regulation Strategies on the Pain
Experience. Clinical Psychology University of Regina.
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion Knowledge: Further
Exploration of a Prototype Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52(6), 1061–1086. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1061
Shenk, C. E., & Fruzzetti, A. E. (2011). The Impact of Validating and Invalidating Responses
on Emotional Reactivity. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 30(2), 163–183.
https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2011.30.2.163
Sobral, M. (2014). Crenças sobre a doença, morbilidade psicológica e dimensões da dor em
doentes com dor crónica, 76. Retrieved from
http://repositorio.ucp.pt/bitstream/10400.14/17242/1/Dissertaçação Manuel.pdf
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of
marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.
Tsang, S., Terkawi, A., & Royse, C. (2017). Guidelines for developing, translating, and
validanting a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi Journal of
Anesthesia, 11(3), S80–S89. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_203_17
Turk, D. C., Meichenbaum, D., & Genest, M. (1983). Pain and Behavioral Medicine: A
Cognitive-Behavioral Perspective. New York and London: The Guilford Press.
Van Hecke, O., Torrance, N., & Smith, B. H. (2013). Chronic pain epidemiology and its
clinical relevance. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 111(1), 13–18.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aet123
Vaz, F., & Martins, C. (2009). Diferenciação e Regulação Emocional na Idade Adulta:
36
Tradução e Validação de Dois Instrumentos de Avaliação para a População
Portuguesa. Universidade do Minho.
Vésteinsdóttir, V., Steingrimsdottir, E., Joinson, A., Reips, U. D., & Thorsdottir, F. (2018).
Social Desirability in Spouse Ratings. Psychological Reports, (April).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118767815
Wells, C., & Nown, G. (1998). The Pain Relief Handbook. (R. Melzack, Ed.). Firefly Books.
Williams, A. C., & Craig. (2016). Updating the Definition of Pain. Pain, 1(157), 11.
https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000613
37
APPENDICE
39
APPENDIX A - DYADIC SATISFACTION: SCALE USED
Q16 A maioria das pessoas têm discordâncias nas suas relações. Por favor, indique com uma
cruz a extensão aproximada da concordância ou discordância entre si e o/a seu/sua parceiro/a
para cada um dos itens na lista.
Mais
A maior
vezes
Sempre parte do Ocasionalmente Raramente Nunca
sim do
(1) tempo (4) (5) (6)
que
(2)
não (3)
Demonstrações de afeto.
(1) o o o o o o
Relações sexuais. (2)
o o o o o o
Com que frequência
discutem ou consideram
o divórcio, separação ou
o fim de relação? (3)
o o o o o o
Com que frequência
algum dos parceiros
deixa a casa após uma
discussão (4)
o o o o o o
Em geral, com que
frequência pensa que as
coisas entre si e o seu
parceiro estão a ir bem? o o o o o o
(5)
Confia no seu parceiro?

(6) o o o o o o
Alguma vez se
arrependeu de ter casado
ou de viver em
conjunto? (7)
o o o o o o
Com que frequência
discutem? (8) o o o o o o
Com que frequência
“dão cabo da paciência
um ao outro”? (9) o o o o o o
40
Q17 Por favor indique a frequência com que:
Todos os Quase todos Ocasionalmente Raramente
Nunca (5)
dias (1) os dias (2) (3) (4)
Beija o seu
parceiro? (1) o o o o o
Q18 Os pontos na linha em baixo representam graus diferentes de felicidade na vossa relação.
O ponto "feliz" representa o grau de felicidade da maioria das relações. Por favor, seleccione
o ponto que melhor descreve o grau de felicidade, considerando todos os componentes da
vossa relação.
Extremamente Ligeiramente Ligeiramente Muito Extremamente
Feliz Perfeito
Infeliz Infeliz Feliz Feliz Feliz
3 (4) 6 (7)
0 (1) 1 (2) 2 (3) 4 (5) 5 (6)
Grau
Felicidade
(1)
o o o o o o o
Q19 Qual das seguintes afirmações descreve melhor como se sente em relação ao futuro da
sua relação.
o 5. Quero desesperadamente que a minha relação tenha sucesso e faria tudo para que
isso acontecesse. (1)
o 4. Quero muito que a minha relação tenha sucesso e farei tudo para que isso possa
acontecer. (2)
o 3. Quero muito que a minha relação tenha sucesso e farei a minha parte para que isso
aconteça. (3)
o 2. Seria bom que a minha relação tivesse sucesso e eu não posso fazer muito mais do
que faço actualmente para que isso aconteça. (4)
o 1. Seria bom que a minha relação tivesse sucesso mas eu recuso-me a fazer mais do
que faço actualmente para que isso aconteça. (5)
o 0. A minha relação nunca pode ter sucesso e não há mais nada que possa fazer para a
manter. (6)
41
APPENDIX B - COUPLES EMOTIONS SHARING INDEX (CESI)
Q13 Ainda acerca da sua vida emocional, gostaríamos que nos indicasse, para cada emoção
ou estado emocional abaixo indicado, qual a frequência com que partilhou essas emoções
com o seu/sua parceiro/a. Por favor, foque-se nos estados emocionais partilhados na última
semana. Com que frequência partilhou estas emoções com o seu/sua parceiro/a na última
semana?
Pouco Muito
Pouquíssimo Moderadamente Muitíssimo
frequente frequente
frequente (1) frequente (3) frequente (5)
(2) (4)
Raiva (1)
o o o o o
Medo (2)
o o o o o
Surpresa (3)
o o o o o
Tristeza (4)
o o o o o
Nojo (5)
o o o o o
Desprezo
(6) o o o o o
Alegria (7)
o o o o o
42

master_joana_santos_alegrete

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

master_joana_santos_alegrete

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

master_joana_santos_alegrete

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

IUL School of Social Sciences and Humanities

Department of Social and Organizational Psychology

The relationship between significant other (in)validation responses and pain

Dissertation submitted as partial requirement for the conferral of

October 31st, 2018

Key-words: validation, invalidation, emotional regulation, pain

O objectivo principal é investigar qual o papel de mediação que a regulação emocional

Palavras Chave: validação, invalidação, regulação emocional, dor

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... III

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... VII

Index of Figures ....................................................................................................................... XI

Index of Tables ....................................................................................................................... XII

CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1

Pain and Emotions .................................................................................................................. 2

Emotion Regulation, and Pain ................................................................................................ 4

Romantic Partner, Social Support and Pain ........................................................................... 5

Spouse Validation/Invalidation, Emotional Regulation and Pain .......................................... 5

Current Study ......................................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 2 – VIRS-C PORTUGUESE VERSION TRANSLATION AND CROSS-

Participants and Research Design .................................................................................... 10

Significant other Validation and Invalidation responses to Pain Behaviors ................ 12

Dyadic Satisfaction ...................................................................................................... 12

Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 13

Item descriptive analyses and sensitivity ......................................................................... 14

Construct Validity and Reliability.................................................................................... 15

Factor and Variable’s descriptive analyses and sensitivity .............................................. 16

Concurrent Validity .......................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER 3 – THE influence of perceive (in) VALIDATION in pain experiences, through

Participants and Research Design .................................................................................... 21

Acute Pain, Present and Past Chronic Pain .................................................................. 21

Significant other Validation and Invalidation responses to Pain Behaviors ................ 21

Cognitive reappraisal and emotional suppression ........................................................ 22

Couples Emotions Sharing Index (CESI).................................................................... 22

Pain Severity ................................................................................................................ 23

Pain Disability .............................................................................................................. 23

Depression, Anxiety and Stress .................................................................................... 24

Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 24

Model’s Variable’s Descriptive Analyses and Distribution ............................................. 25

Spearman Correlations ..................................................................................................... 26

The influence of (in)validation on pain outcomes: through emotional regulation ........... 26

CHAPTER 4 – GENERAL DISCUSSION ............................................................................. 30

Limitations and directions for future research ..................................................................... 30

Theoretical and practical implications of the present findings ............................................ 31

APPENDIX A - Dyadic Satisfaction: Scale USED ................................................................. 40

APPENDIX B - Couples Emotions Sharing Index (CESI) ..................................................... 42

Figure 1 – Hypothesis 1 to 5 - Validation would be associated with/predicted lower Pain

Table 1 - Participants’ Socio-demographic characteristics by Types of Pain Experiences:

Pain and Emotions

Romantic Partner, Social Support and Pain

N Valid Mean SD Min. Max.

* Acute Pain participants were not required to answer that question

Total Participants Pain Types

No 89 76.7% 59 74.4% 21 84.0% 10 76.9%

Construct Validity and Reliability

Factor and Variable’s descriptive analyses and sensitivity

Table 4 - Variable's Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Normality

Variable Min Max Mean SD S/SE S K/SE K K-Sa.

Couples Emotions Sharing Index (CESI)

Table 5- Models Variable's Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Normality

Hostile Negative 1 5 1.71 .83 1.47 2.12 .000