Annals of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 445–451 | Cite as

You Can’t Always Get What You Want: The Influence of Choice on Nocebo and Placebo Responding

  • Hannah Bartley
  • Kate Faasse
  • Rob Horne
  • Keith J. Petrie
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

Choice may be an important influence on the effectiveness and side effects of medical treatments.

Purpose

We investigated the impact of having a choice of medication compared to no choice on both nocebo and placebo responding.

Methods

Sixty-one participants were randomly assigned to either choose between or be assigned to one of the two equivalent beta-blocker medications (actually placebos) for pre-examination anxiety.

Results

There was a greater nocebo response in the no choice group and an increased placebo response in the choice group. Participants in the no choice group attributed significantly more side effects to the tablet than the choice group (p = 0.045), particularly at the 24-h follow-up (p = 0.002). The choice group showed a stronger placebo response in heart rate than the non-choice group.

Conclusion

Not being given a choice of medication increased the nocebo effect and reduced the placebo response to the treatment.

Keywords

Choice Nocebo effect Placebo effect Side effects Medication efficacy 

References

  1. 1.
    Leotti LA, Iyengar SS, Ochsner KN. Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010; 14: 457-463.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leotti LA, Delgado MR. The inherent reward of choice. Psychol Sci. 2011; 22: 1310-1318.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Suzuki S. Effects of number of alternatives on choice in humans. Behav Process. 1997; 39: 205-214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Botti S, Iyengar SS. The psychological pleasure and pain of choosing: When people prefer choosing at the cost of subsequent outcome satisfaction. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004; 87: 312-326.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thompson SC, Schlehofer MM. The many sides of control motivation: Motives for high, low, and illusory control. In: Shah JY, Gardner WL, eds. Handbook of motivation science. New York: Guilford Press; 2008: 41-56.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chilvers C, Dewey M, Fielding K, et al. Antidepressant drugs and generic counselling for treatment of major depression in primary care: Randomised trial with patient preference arms. BMJ. 2001; 322: 772-775.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Handelzalts JE, Keinan G. The effect of choice between test anxiety treatment options on treatment outcomes. Psychother Res. 2010; 20: 100-112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morris J, Royle G. Offering patients a choice of surgery for early breast cancer: A reduction in anxiety and depression in patients and their husbands. Soc Sci Med. 1988; 26: 583-585.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown JA, Fowler SL, Rasinski HM, Rose JP, Geers AL. Choice as a moderator of placebo expectation effects: Additional support from two experiments. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 2013; 35: 436-444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rose JP, Geers AL, Rasinski HM, Fowler SL. Choice and placebo expectation effects in the context of pain analgesia. J Behav Med. 2012; 35: 462-470.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faasse K, Petrie KJ. The nocebo effect: Patient expectations and medication side effects. Postgrad Med J. 2013; 89: 540-546.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheema PK, Gavura S, Migus M, Godman B, Yeung L, Trudeau ME. International variability in the reimbursement of cancer drugs by publically funded drug programs. Curr Oncol. 2012; 19: e165-e176.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Godman B, Shrank W, Wettermark B, et al. Use of generics—a critical cost containment measure for all healthcare professionals in Europe? Pharmaceuticals. 2010; 3: 2470-2494.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kirschbaum C, Pirke KM, Hellhammer DH. The ‘Trier Social Stress Test’—A tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology. 1993; 28: 76-81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eriksen HR, Ihlebaek C, Ursin H. A scoring system for subjective health complaints (SHC). Scand J Public Health. 1999; 27: 63-72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol. 1992; 31: 301-306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tluczek A, Henriques JB, Brown RL. Support for the reliability and validity of a six-item state anxiety scale derived from the state-trait anxiety inventory. J Nurs Meas. 2009; 17: 19-28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Persson LO, Sjoberg L. Mood and somatic symptoms. J Psychosom Res. 1987; 31: 499-511.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Piccinelli M, Simon G. Gender and cross-cultural differences in somatic symptoms associated with emotional distress: An international study in primary care. Psychol Med. 1997; 27: 433-444.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Faasse K, Cundy T, Gamble G, Petrie KJ. The effect of an apparent change to a branded or generic medication on drug effectiveness and side effects. Psychosom Med. 2013; 75: 90-96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Faasse K, Cundy T, Petrie KJ. Thyroxine: Anatomy of a health scare. BMJ. 2010; 340: 20-21.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Petrie KJ, Frampton T, Large RG, Moss-Morris RE, Johnson M, Meechan G. What do patients expect from their first visit to a pain clinic? Clin J Pain. 2005; 21: 297-301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Behavioral Medicine 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannah Bartley
    • 1
  • Kate Faasse
    • 1
  • Rob Horne
    • 2
  • Keith J. Petrie
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health SciencesUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Centre for Behavioural MedicineUCL School of PharmacyLondonUK

Personalised recommendations