↓ Skip to main content

Placebo and Nocebo Effects: The Advantage of Measuring Expectations and Psychological Factors

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
127 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
266 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Placebo and Nocebo Effects: The Advantage of Measuring Expectations and Psychological Factors
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00308
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole Corsi, Luana Colloca

Abstract

Several studies have explored the predictability of placebo and nocebo individual responses by investigating personality factors and expectations of pain decreases and increases. Psychological factors such as optimism, suggestibility, empathy and neuroticism have been linked to placebo effects, while pessimism, anxiety and catastrophizing have been associated to nocebo effects. We aimed to investigate the interplay between psychological factors, expectations of low and high pain and placebo hypoalgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia. We studied 46 healthy participants using a well-validated conditioning paradigm with contact heat thermal stimulations. Visual cues were presented to alert participants about the level of intensity of an upcoming thermal pain. We delivered high, medium and low levels of pain associated with red, yellow and green cues, respectively, during the conditioning phase. During the testing phase, the level of painful stimulations was surreptitiously set at the medium control level with all the three cues to measure placebo and nocebo effects. We found both robust placebo hypolagesic and nocebo hyperalgesic responses that were highly correlated with expectancy of low and high pain. Simple linear regression analyses showed that placebo responses were negatively correlated with anxiety severity and different aspects of fear of pain (e.g., medical pain, severe pain). Nocebo responses were positively correlated with anxiety sensitivity and physiological suggestibility with a trend toward catastrophizing. Step-wise regression analyses indicated that an aggregate score of motivation (value/utility and pressure/tense subscales) and suggestibility (physiological reactivity and persuadability subscales), accounted for the 51% of the variance in the placebo responsiveness. When considered together, anxiety severity, NEO openness-extraversion and depression accounted for the 49.1% of the variance of the nocebo responses. Psychological factors per se did not influence expectations. In fact, mediation analyses including expectations, personality factors and placebo and nocebo responses, revealed that expectations were not influenced by personality factors. These findings highlight the potential advantage of considering batteries of personality factors and measurements of expectation in predicting placebo and nocebo effects related to experimental acute pain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 263 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 18%
Student > Bachelor 47 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 12%
Researcher 23 9%
Other 17 6%
Other 37 14%
Unknown 61 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 88 33%
Neuroscience 31 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 73 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,476,699
of 23,726,221 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,840
of 31,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,874
of 312,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#134
of 531 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,726,221 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 531 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.