Why does one man cry in anguish with a toothache while another maintains a stoic silence and goes uncomplaining about his business? What motivates some patients to describe their symptoms freely while others minimize their suffering? Are these differences inherent in individuals or are they culturally determined? Do persons from similar cultural backgrounds display similar responses to pain and similar attitudes about illness? Are these similarities identifiable and attributable to specific cultural similarities? By addressing these questions, People in Pain adds to our understanding of one another a long-neglected awareness of the relationship of responses to pain to cultural and social differences. Zborowski did his research in a large metropolitan veterans hospital whose patient population comprised Irish, Italian, Jewish, and "old" American ethnic groups. He worked daily in the hospital, interviewing, observing, questioning, recording. He discovered that individuals of different cultural backgrounds do respond differently to pain, and that persons of similar cultural background respond similarly. It is often against hospital codes and practices to attribute a patient's "incorrect" or uncooperative behavior to his membership in a specific ethnic or national group. Although this book reveals that Jews and Italians consistently show emotional responses to pain, hospitals continue to identify an overemotional patient as a "mental case" rather than as a Jew or Italian. (In many cases, hosptial staff handle "exaggerated" behavior by transferring the patient to a psychiatric ward.) The greater understanding of human behavior that this book contributes can help to prevent such inappropriate and often unjust treatment of patients. People in Pain contributes the awareness--either long neglected or long denied--that people's cultural roots determine their ways of tolerating and expressing pain. Zborowski reveals the differences among four national groups and the similarities among individuals within each group. Transcriptions of interviews lend the findings a touch of humanity, individuality, and authenticity. Implications for practical use may extend beyond professional understanding of patients to other areas of human relations.