Placebo and nocebo effects in youth: subjective thermal discomfort can be modulated by a conditioning paradigm utilizing mental states of low and high self-efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Conditioning is a key mechanism of placebo and nocebo effects in adults, but little is known about these effects in youth. This study investigated whether personalized verbal cues evoking a sense of high or low self-efficacy can induce conditioned placebo and nocebo effects on subjective discomfort of noxious heat in youth. METHODS: In a structured interview, 26 adolescents (13-18 years) described personal situations in which they experienced a sense of high, low or neutral self-efficacy. Participants were then asked to recall these memories during a conditioning paradigm, in which a high thermal stimulus applied to the forearm was repeatedly paired with a low self-efficacy cue and a low thermal stimulus with a high self-efficacy cue. In a testing phase, high, low and neutral self-efficacy cues were paired with the same moderate temperature. We hypothesized that conditioned high and low self-efficacy cues would induce conditioned placebo and nocebo responses to moderate temperatures. RESULTS: Moderate temperatures were rated as more uncomfortable when paired with the conditioned low compared with the neutral self-efficacy cue (nocebo effect). While in the whole-group analysis, there was no significant difference between ratings of moderate thermal stimuli paired with high compared with neutral self-efficacy cues (placebo effect), a sub-group of participants with a greater range of emotional valence between high and neutral self-efficacy cues revealed a significant placebo effect. The strength of the nocebo effect was associated with higher anxiety and lower hope. CONCLUSION: Conditioned associations using internal self-efficacy states can change subjective discomfort of thermal sensations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".