Skip to main content
Log in

Specific versus placebo effects in biofeedback: Some brief back-to-basics considerations

  • Published:
Biofeedback and Self-regulation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Following the semantic complexities raised in earlier papers, this paper seeks to return to some of the more basic considerations arising from the preceding discussion. A critical part of the context of that discussion is the increasingly important issue of accountability. In this context, the citing of supportive studies is not enough, one must also be able to justify the logical relevance of those studies. The discussion therefore turns of the logic of treatment evaluation, which must be treated as objectively as possible. Also critical is the distinction between the question of whether an effect is present and the question of what the source of that question might be. In the quest for treatment evaluation, only the former question is important. However, this quest is one that is in the interest of researchers, clinicians, and consumers, for all of whom only the facts will do.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Furedy, J. J. (1985). Specific vs. placebo effects in biofeedback: Science-based vs. snake-oil behavioral medicine.Clinical Biofeedback and Health, 8 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furedy, J. J. (1987a). Specific versus placebo effects in biofeedback training: A critical lay perspective.Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 12 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furedy, J. J. (1987b). On some research-community contributions to the myth and symbol of biofeedback.International Journal of Psychophysiology, 4 293–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furedy, J. J., Riley, D. M. (1982). Classical and operant conditioning in the enhancement of biofeedback: Specifics and speculations. In L. White & B. Tursky (Eds.),Clinical Biofeedback: Efficacy and mechanisms (pp. 74–102). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, J., & Shellenberger, R. (1986). Clinical biofeedback training and the ghost in the box: A reply to Furedy.Clinical Biofeedback and Health, 9 96–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, J. P. (1987). Can clinical biofeedback be scientifically validated? A follow-up on the Green-Shellenberger-Furedy-Roberts debates.Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 12,

  • Shellenberger, R., & Green, J. (1987). Specific effects and biofeedback versus biofeedback-assisted self-regulation training.Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 12 185–209.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

The preparation of this paper was supported by grants from the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada to both authors. We are indebted to Hal Scher for comments on an earlier draft.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Furedy, J.J., Shulhan, D. Specific versus placebo effects in biofeedback: Some brief back-to-basics considerations. Biofeedback and Self-Regulation 12, 211–215 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999200

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999200

Descriptor Key Words

Navigation