Abstract
The study examined the effects of expectation on the subjective effects and oral self-administration of 15 mgd-amphetamine (AMP) and placebo in 40 volunteers who reported no prior use of stimulants other than caffeine. A balanced placebo design was used to create four groups: told Placebo/got Placebo (P/P), told Placebo/got Stimulant (P/S), told Stimulant/got Placebo (S/P), told Stimulant/got Stimulant (S/S). There were three sessions. On one session (INFO), participants received a capsule containing AMP or placebo and were given information about the contents of the capsule according to the balanced placebo design. On another session (NO INFO), participants received no information about the capsule's contents and were given placebo. On the final session, participants were allowed to choose either the INFO or NO INFO capsule. Participants came to the laboratory to ingest their capsules, and then returned to their normal environments where they completed subjective effects questionnaires every 2 h for 8 h. Expectancies influenced the subjective effects reported during the INFO session, regardless of whether subjects actually received AMP or placebo: subjects who expected a stimulant had higher ratings of “feel drug” and “like drug”. The pharmacological effects of AMP were also evident on the INFO sessions: AMP produced its prototypic subjective effects regardless of subjects' expectancies. Significant interactions between drug and expectancy were obtained on self-report measures of anxiety and arousal: anxiety was higher for groups who received substances that did not match their expectations (P/S and S/P) and arousal increased most in volunteers who expected placebo but received stimulant. Choice of drug was determined primarily by pharmacology: participants who received AMP on the INFO session usually chose that capsule, regardless of information about its identity (P/S: 8/10; S/S: 9/10). In contrast, participants who received placebo on the INFO session chose this capsule at chance levels, regardless of information about its identity (S/P: 3/10; P/P: 6/10). Thus, expectancy influenced some of the subjective effects of AMP and placebo, but the pharmacological effects of the AMP were instrumental in determining whether volunteers would self-administer the drug.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th edn). American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC
de Boer MC, Schippers GM, van der Staak CPF (1993) Alcohol and social anxiety in women and men: pharmacological and expectancy effects. Addict Behav 18: 117–126
de Wit H, Chutuape, MD (1993) Increased ethanol choice in social drinkers following ethanol preload. Behav Pharmacol 4: 29–36
Derogatis, L (1983) SCL-90-R manual II. Clinical Psychometric Research, Towson, Md.
Fillmore MT, Vogel-Sprott M (1995) Behavioral effects of combining alcohol and caffeine: contribution of drug-related expectancies. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 3: 33–38
Fillmore MT, Mulvihill LE, Vogel-Sprott M (1994) The expected drug and its expected effect interact to determine placebo responses to alcohol and caffeine. Psychopharmacology 115: 383–388
Goldman MS, Brown SA, Christiansen BA (1987) Expectancy theory: thinking about drinking. In: Blane HT, Leonard KE (eds) Psychological theories of drinking and alcoholism. Guilford, New York, pp 181–226
Hull JG, Bond CF (1986) Social and behavioral consequences of alcohol consumption and expectancy: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 99: 347–360
Johanson CE, Uhlenhuth EH (1980) Drug preference and mood in humans:d-amphetamine. Psychopharmacology 71: 275–279
Johanson CE, Kilgore K, Uhlenhuth EH (1983) Assessment of dependence potential of drugs in humans using multiple indices. Psychopharmacology 81: 144–149
Laberg JC (1986) Alcohol and expectancy: subjective, psychophysiological and behavioral responses to alcohol stimuli in severely, moderately and non-dependent drinkers. Br J Addict 81: 797–808
Laberg JC, Löberg T (1989) Expectancy and tolerance: a study of acute alcohol intoxication using the balanced placebo design. J Stud Alcohol 50: 448–455
Lyerley SB, Ross S, Krugman AD, Clyde DJ (1964) Drugs and placebos: the effects of instructions upon performance and mood under amphetamine sulphate and chloral hydrate. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 68: 321–327
Lyvers MF, Maltzman I (1991a) Selective effects of alcohol on Wisconsin card sorting test performance. Br J Addict 86: 399–407
Lyvers MF, Maltzman I (1991b) The balanced placebo design: effects of alcohol and beverage instructions cannot be independently assessed. Int J Addict 26: 263–272
Marlatt GA, Rohsenow DJ (1980) Cognitive processes in alcohol use: expectancy and the balanced placebo design. Adv Subst Abuse 1: 159–199
Marlatt GA, Deming B, Reid JB (1973) Loss of control drinking in alcoholics: an experimental analogue. J Abnorm Psychol 3: 233–241
Martin CS, Sayette MA (1993) Experimental design in alcohol administration research: limitations and alternatives in manipulation of dosage-set. J Stud Alcohol 54: 750–761
Martin CS, Earleywine M, Finn PR, Young RD (1990) Some boundary conditions for effective use of alcohol placebos. J Stud Alcohol 51: 500–505
Martin WR, Sloan JW, Sapira JD, Jasinski DR (1971) Physiological, subjective, and behavioral effects of amphetamine, methamphetamine, ephedrine, phenmetrazine, and methylphenidate in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther 12: 245–258
McNair DM, Lorr M, Droppleman LF (1971) Manual for the profile of mood states. Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego
Miller PG, Smith GT, Goldman MS (1990) Emergence of alcohol expectancies in childhood: a possible critical period. J Stud Alcohol 51: 343–349
Muntaner C, Cascella NG, Kumor KM, Nagoshi C, Herning R, Jaffe J (1989) Placebo responses to cocaine administration in humans: effects of prior administrations and verbal instructions. Psychopharmacology 99: 282–286
O'Boyle DJ, Binns AS, Sumner JJ (1994) On the efficacy of alcohol placebos in inducing feelings of intoxication. Psychopharmacology 115: 229–236
Oliveto AH, Hughes JR, Higgins ST, Bickel WK, Pepper SL, Shea PJ, Fenwick JW (1994) Forced-choice versus free-choice procedures: caffeine self-administration in humans. Psychopharmacology 109: 85–91
Penick SB, Fisher S (1965) Drug-set interaction: psychological and physiological effects of epinephrine under differential expectations. Psychosom Med 27: 177–182
Rapoport JL, Buchsbaum MS, Weingartner H, Zahn TP, Ludlow C, Mikkelsen EJ (1980) Dextroamphetamine: its cognitive and behavioral effects in normal and hyperactive boys and normal men. Arch Gen Psychiatry 37: 933–943
Stretch R, Gerber GJ (1973) Drug-induced reinstatement of amphetamine self-administration behaviour in monkeys. Can J Psychol 27: 168–177
Wigmore SW, Hinson RE (1991) The influence of setting on consumption in the balanced placebo design. Br J Addict 86: 205–215
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mitchell, S.H., Laurent, C.L. & de Wit, H. Interaction of expectancy and the pharmacological effects ofd-amphetamine: subjective effects and self-administration. Psychopharmacology 125, 371–378 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02246020
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02246020