2005
Goal Activation, Expectations, and the Placebo Effect.
Abstract: Motivational factors receive little attention in current theories of the placebo effect. Reasons for this position are reviewed, and an argument is made for reconsidering the influence of motivation on the placebo effect. The authors hypothesize that nonconscious goals alter reactions to a placebo expectation. Specifically, the authors predict that the placebo effect is most likely to occur when individuals have a goal that can be fulfilled by confirmation of the placebo expectation. The authors tested this no…
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Select...
127
26
16
7
Citation Types
1
120
0
1
Year Published
2005
2026
Publication Types
Select...
139
13
9
7
Relationship
6
162
Authors
Journals
Cited by 166 publications
(122 citation statements)
References 130 publications
1
120
0
1
“…In our studies, it seems that optimism also alters both placebo and nocebo effects. These results correspond with the views of some medical scholars that the same underlying mechanisms are responsible for placebo and nocebo effects [12,18,19,55,56]. Consistent with this view [21,58], we believe that the term placebo effect should be used to encompass both positive and nocebo effects [35].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…In our studies, it seems that optimism also alters both placebo and nocebo effects. These results correspond with the views of some medical scholars that the same underlying mechanisms are responsible for placebo and nocebo effects [12,18,19,55,56]. Consistent with this view [21,58], we believe that the term placebo effect should be used to encompass both positive and nocebo effects [35].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…As higher scores on half of the items equated to less arousal (i.e., calm, relaxed, sluggish, lazy), the scoring for these items was reversed prior to computing the placebo-response index. These placebo-response items have been used successfully in prior caffeine—placebo studies (e.g., Geers et al 2005; Walach et al 2002) and the items demonstrated an acceptable level of internal consistency in the present study, α = .71. Finally, using a 1–7 scale (1 = not at all , 7 = very much ), participants also answered the self-reported attention question, “How closely did you pay attention to feelings and sensations that were caffeine-related?” ( M = 4.83, SD = 1.57).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…As noted by , the purchasers of the Shakti are likely to be highly suggestible, which may explain the success that this device has achieved. However, placebo responses are the product of a number of factors including multiple aspects of personality and gender (Thompson, 2000;Geers, et al, 2005;Enck, et al, 2008;Klosterhalfen & Enck, 2008;Price, et al, 2008;Hyland, 2011). In the present study, the role that such factors may play in relation to individual responses to the Shakti device was not specifically investigated, and therefore, this report cannot speak directly to the contribution that participant expectancies and individual personality factors may contribute to the effects of the Shakti.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
