When someone steps on your toe on purpose, it seems to hurt more than when the person does the same thing unintentionally. The physical parameters of the harm may not differ your toe is flattened in both cases but the psychological experience of pain is changed nonetheless. Intentional harms are premeditated by another person and have the specific purpose of causing pain. In a sense, intended harms are events initiated by one mind to communicate meaning (malice) to another, and this could shape the recipient's experience. This study examined whether self-reported pain is indeed higher when the events producing the pain are understood as intentionally (as opposed to unintentionally) caused by another person. Although pain was traditionally conceived to be solely physical in nature (Aydede, 2005), its experience varies substantially with psychological context. The placebo analgesia effect, for example, is the reduction of pain without a change in physical stimulation when context, expectations, or sugar pills challenge the interpretation of a sensation as painful (e.g., Fields, 2008). The nocebo effect, in turn, is the experience of pain without any physical stimulation as when participants report headaches when told that a (nonexistent) electric current is passing through their heads (Schweiger & Parducci, 1981). These variations in pain experience seem to depend on the meaning of the stimulus: A sugar pill is meant to decrease pain, whereas electric current is meant to increase pain. In an interpersonal context, the meaning of an action is derived from the perceiver's perceptions of the actor's intention (Clark, 1996), which means that intentional harms, unlike accidental harms, are meant to cause pain. The possibility that the malicious intent of other people could be translated into additional physical pain is suggested by studies demonstrating that similar areas of cortex respond to both physical pain and social harms (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). Social harms, which are presumably laden with intention, have also been shown to be more painful to relive than simple physical harms (Chen, Williams, Fitness, & Newton, 2008). So, although a broken toe (or electric shock) may hurt, an intentionally broken toe (or electric shock) should hurt more. METHOD

中文翻译：

---

故意痛苦的刺痛

当有人故意踩到你的脚趾时，它似乎比无意中做同样的事情更痛。伤害的物理参数可能没有什么不同，你的脚趾在这两种情况下都变平了，但疼痛的心理体验却发生了变化。故意伤害是另一个人有预谋的，具有造成疼痛的特定目的。从某种意义上说，故意伤害是由一个人发起的向另一个人传达意义（恶意）的事件，这可能会影响接受者的体验。这项研究检查了当产生疼痛的事件被理解为由另一个人有意（而不是无意）引起时，自我报告的疼痛是否确实更高。尽管传统上认为疼痛本质上只是身体上的（Aydede，2005），它的经历因心理背景而有很大差异。例如，安慰剂镇痛效果是当环境、期望或糖丸挑战将感觉解释为疼痛时，在不改变物理刺激的情况下减轻疼痛（例如，Fields，2008）。反过来，反安慰剂效应是在没有任何物理刺激的情况下的疼痛体验，就像参与者在被告知（不存在的）电流通过他们的头部时报告头痛一样（Schweiger & Parducci，1981）。疼痛体验的这些变化似乎取决于刺激的含义：糖丸旨在减轻疼痛，而电流旨在增加疼痛。在人际交往中，行动的意义来源于感知者对行动者意图的感知（克拉克，1996），这意味着与意外伤害不同，故意伤害是为了引起疼痛。研究表明，其他人的恶意意图可能会转化为额外的身体疼痛，这表明皮质的相似区域对身体疼痛和社会伤害都有反应（Eisenberger、Lieberman 和 Williams，2003 年）。社会伤害可能充满了意图，也已被证明比简单的身体伤害更痛苦（Chen、Williams、Fitness 和 Newton，2008 年）。因此，虽然断脚趾（或电击）可能会受伤，但故意折断脚趾（或电击）应该会造成更大的伤害。方法 研究表明，其他人的恶意意图可能会转化为额外的身体疼痛，这表明皮质的相似区域对身体疼痛和社会伤害都有反应（Eisenberger、Lieberman 和 Williams，2003 年）。社会伤害可能充满了意图，也已被证明比简单的身体伤害更痛苦（Chen、Williams、Fitness 和 Newton，2008 年）。因此，虽然断脚趾（或电击）可能会受伤，但故意折断脚趾（或电击）应该会造成更大的伤害。方法 研究表明，其他人的恶意意图可能会转化为额外的身体疼痛，这表明皮质的相似区域对身体疼痛和社会伤害都有反应（Eisenberger、Lieberman 和 Williams，2003 年）。社会伤害可能充满了意图，也已被证明比简单的身体伤害更痛苦（Chen、Williams、Fitness 和 Newton，2008 年）。因此，虽然断脚趾（或电击）可能会受伤，但故意折断脚趾（或电击）应该会造成更大的伤害。方法 也被证明比简单的身体伤害更痛苦（Chen、Williams、Fitness 和 Newton，2008 年）。因此，虽然断脚趾（或电击）可能会受伤，但故意折断脚趾（或电击）应该会造成更大的伤害。方法 也被证明比简单的身体伤害更痛苦（Chen、Williams、Fitness 和 Newton，2008 年）。因此，虽然断脚趾（或电击）可能会受伤，但故意折断脚趾（或电击）应该会造成更大的伤害。方法