Annals of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 112–116

Illness by suggestion: Expectancy, modeling, and gender in the production of psychosomatic symptoms

Rapid Communication

Abstract

Background: Expectancy and modeling have been cited as factors in mass psychogenic illness (MPI), which reportedly affects more women than men.Purpose: The purpose of the study is to assess the effects of expectancy and modeling in a controlled laboratory analogue of MPI.Methods: Students were randomly assigned to inhale or not inhale an inert placebo described as a suspected environmental toxin that had been linked to four symptoms typical of reported instances of MPI. Half of the students observed a female confederate inhale the substance and subsequently display the specified symptoms.Results: Students who inhaled the placebo reported greater increases in symptoms, and the increase was significantly greater for the specified symptoms than for other symptoms. Observation of the confederate displaying symptoms increased specified symptoms significantly among women but not among men. Changes in reported symptoms were significantly associated with changes in unobtrusively observed behavior.Conclusions: Symptoms typical of clinical reports of MPI can be induced by manipulating response expectancies, and the effects are specific rather than generalized. Among women, this effect is enhanced by observing another participant (who in this study is also female) display symptoms. This suggests that the preponderance of women showing symptoms in outbreaks of MPI may be due to gender-linked differences in the effects of modeling on psychogenic symptoms.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. (1).
    Hyams KC, Murphy FM, Wessely S: Responding to chemical, biological, or nuclear terrorism: The indirect and long-term health effects may present the greatest challenge.Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law. 2002.27:273–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. (2).
    Bartholomew RE, Wessely S: Protean nature of mass sociogenic illness.British Journal of Psychiatry. 2002,180:300–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. (3).
    Hahn RA: Expectations of sickness: Concept and evidence of the nocebo phenomenon. In Kirsch I (ed),How Expectancies Shape Experience. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1999, 333–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. (4).
    Kirsch I: Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior.American Psychologist. 1985,40:1189–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. (5).
    Kirsch I (ed):How Expectancies Shape Experience. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. (6).
    Jewett DL, Fein G, Greenberg MH: A double-blind study of symptom provocation to determine food sensitivity.New England Journal of Medicine. 1990,323:429–433.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. (7).
    Lancman ME, Asconape JJ, Craven WJ, Howard G, Penry JK: Predictive value of induction of psychogenic seizures by suggestion.Annals of Neurology. 1994,35:359–361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. (8).
    Luparello TJ, Leist N, Lourie CH, Sweet P: The interaction of psychologic stimuli and pharmacologic agents on airway reactivity in asthmatic subjects.Psychosomatic Medicine. 1970,32:509–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. (9).
    Schweiger A, Parducci A: Nocebo: The psychologic induction of pain.The Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science. 1981,16:140–143.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. (10).
    Dalton P: Cognitive influences on health symptoms from acute chemical exposure.Health Psychology. 1999,18:579–590.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. (11).
    Knasko SC, Gilbert AN, Sabini J: Emotional state, physical well-being, and performance in the presence of feigned ambient odor.Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1990,20:1345–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. (12).
    Bandura A:Social Learning Theory, New York: Prentice Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  13. (13).
    Pennebaker JW: Social and perceptual factors affecting symptom reporting and mass psychogenic illness. In Colligan MJ, Pennebaker JW, Murphy LR (eds),Mass Psychogenic Illness: A Social Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1982.Google Scholar
  14. (14).
    Pennebaker JW: Perceptual and environmental determinants of coughing.Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 1980,1:83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. (15).
    Frank JD:Persuasion and Healing (Rev. Ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  16. (16).
    Hahn RA: The nocebo phenomenon: Scope and foundations. In Harrington A (ed),The Placebo Effect: An Interdisciplinary Exploration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997, 56–76.Google Scholar
  17. (17).
    Jones TF, Craig AS, Hoy D, et al.: Mass psychogenic illness attributed to toxic exposure at a high school.New England Journal of Medicine. 2000,342:96–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. (18).
    Kerckhoff AC, Back KW:The June Bug: A Study of Hysterical Contagion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.Google Scholar
  19. (19).
    Sirois F: Epidemic hysteria.Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, Suppl. 252, 1974:44.Google Scholar
  20. (20).
    Boss LP: Epidemic hysteria: A review of the published literature.Epidemiological Reviews, 1997,19:233–243.Google Scholar
  21. (21).
    Colligan MJ, Murphy LR: Mass psychogenic illness in organizations: An overview.Journal of Occupational Psychology. 1979,52:77–90.Google Scholar
  22. (22).
    Bartholomew RE, Sirois F: Occupational mass psychogenic illness: A transcultural perspective.Transcultural Psychiatry. 2000,37:495–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Lorber
    • 1
  • Giuliana Mazzoni
    • 2
  • Irving Kirsch
    • 2
  1. 1.University of ConnecticutUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of HullHullUK

Personalised recommendations