Literature DB >> 22102140

Beliefs about expectations moderate the influence of expectations on pain perception.

Ian M Handley1, Stephanie L Fowler, Heather M Rasinski, Suzanne G Helfer, Andrew L Geers.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Expectations congruently influence, or bias, pain perception. Recent social psychological research reveals that individuals differ in the extent to which they believe in expectation biases and that individuals who believe in expectation biases may adjust for this bias in their perceptions and reactions. That is, idiosyncratic beliefs about expectations can moderate the influence of expectations on experience.
PURPOSE: Prior research has not examined whether idiosyncratic beliefs about expectations can alter the degree to which one's expectations influence pain perception. Using a laboratory pain stimulus, we examined the possibility that beliefs about expectation biases alter pain responses following both pain- and placebo-analgesic expectations.
METHODS: Participants' beliefs about expectation biases were measured. Next, participants were randomly assigned to receive either a pain expectation or a placebo-analgesia expectation prior to a cold-pressor task. After the task, participants rated their pain.
RESULTS: Beliefs about expectation biases significantly influenced pain reports. Specifically, pain reports were more influenced by provided expectations the less participants believed in expectation biases (i.e., pain expectations resulted in more pain than analgesia expectations).
CONCLUSIONS: Beliefs about the expectation bias are an important and under-examined predictor of pain and placebo analgesia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22102140     DOI: 10.1007/s12529-011-9203-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Behav Med        ISSN: 1070-5503


  14 in total

Review 1.  Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment.

Authors:  A Hróbjartsson; P C Gøtzsche
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-05-24       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  A comprehensive review of the placebo effect: recent advances and current thought.

Authors:  Donald D Price; Damien G Finniss; Fabrizio Benedetti
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 24.137

3.  Further evidence for individual differences in placebo responding: an interactionist perspective.

Authors:  Andrew L Geers; Kristin Kosbab; Suzanne G Helfer; Paul E Weiland; Justin A Wellman
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.006

4.  The effects of manipulating expectations through placebo and nocebo administration on gastric tachyarrhythmia and motion-induced nausea.

Authors:  Max E Levine; Robert M Stern; Kenneth L Koch
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  2006 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.312

5.  When the expectations from a message will not be realized: Naïve theories can eliminate expectation-congruent judgments via correction.

Authors:  Ian M Handley; Dolores Albarracín; Rick D Brown; Hong Li; Ece C Kumkale; G Tarcan Kumkale
Journal:  J Exp Soc Psychol       Date:  2009-07-01

6.  Flexible correction processes in social judgment: the role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias.

Authors:  D T Wegener; R E Petty
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1995-01

Review 7.  The importance of placebo effects in pain treatment and research.

Authors:  J A Turner; R A Deyo; J D Loeser; M Von Korff; W E Fordyce
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-05-25       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Revision of the self-monitoring scale.

Authors:  R D Lennox; R N Wolfe
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1984-06

9.  The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire.

Authors:  Ronald Melzack
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 10.  Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations.

Authors:  T D Wilson; N Brekke
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 17.737

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Prediction of placebo responses: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Bjoern Horing; Katja Weimer; Eric R Muth; Paul Enck
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-10-01

2.  Unraveling Negative Expectations and Nocebo-Related Effects in Musculoskeletal Pain.

Authors:  Giacomo Rossettini; Andrea Colombi; Elisa Carlino; Mattia Manoni; Mattia Mirandola; Andrea Polli; Eleonora Maria Camerone; Marco Testa
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-03-16

3.  Psychomotor Predictive Processing.

Authors:  Stephen Fox
Journal:  Entropy (Basel)       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 2.524

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.