In modern health care, individuals frequently exercise choice over health treatment alternatives. A growing body of research suggests that when individuals choose between treatment options, treatment effectiveness can increase, although little experimental evidence exists clarifying this effect. Four studies were conducted to test the hypothesis that exercising choice over treatment alternatives enhances outcomes by providing greater personal control. Consistent with this possibility, in Study 1 individuals who chronically desired control reported less pain from a laboratory pain task when they were able to select between placebo analgesic treatments. Study 2 replicated this finding with an auditory discomfort paradigm. In Study 3, the desire for control was experimentally induced, and participants with high desire for control benefited more from a placebo treatment when they were able to choose their treatment. Study 4 revealed that the benefit of choice on treatment efficacy was partially mediated by thoughts of personal control. This research suggests that when individuals desire control, choice over treatment alternatives improves treatment effectiveness by enhancing personal control.
Although confrontations can be an effective means of reducing prejudicial responding, individuals often do not confront others due to the interpersonal costs. In the present research, we examined the intrapersonal implications of not confronting prejudice. In three studies, female participants were exposed to a confederate who made a sexist remark. Consistent with self-justification theories, in Study 1, participants who valued confronting and were given the opportunity to confront-but did not-subsequently made more positive evaluations of the confederate. Study 2 found that when participants were given a chance to affirm an important aspect of the self prior to evaluating the confederate, these inflated evaluations of the confederate did not occur. Finally, in Study 3, participants who initially valued confronting but did not confront a sexist partner reduced the amount of importance they placed on confronting. These data reveal that there are important intrapersonal consequences of not confronting prejudice.
The current experiment examined whether having choice over treatment options facilitates or inhibits the strength of placebo expectations in the context of pain perception. All participants were exposed to an aversive stimulus (i.e., the cold pressor task), and participants in some conditions were given expectations for two pain-relieving treatments (actually the same inert ointment mixture). Critically, participants in these expectation conditions were also given a choice or not about which of the two treatments they preferred to use. Participants in a control condition were not provided with a treatment expectation. Despite receiving the same inert treatment, participants who had a choice over treatments showed increased placebo analgesia as compared to participants not given a choice and participants in the control condition. Moreover, this effect was mediated by changes in anxiety. Explanations and implications for these results are discussed.
Prior research has found that sex differences in pain are partially due to individual variations in gender roles. In a laboratory study, we tested the hypothesis that the presence of covert gender role cues can also moderate the extent to which women and men experience pain. Specifically, we varied gender role cues by asking male and female participants to write about instances in which they behaved in a stereotypically feminine, masculine, or neutral manner. Pain and cardiovascular reactivity to the cold pressor task were then assessed. Results revealed that, when primed with femininity, men reported less pain and anxiety from the cold pressor task than women. However, no differences existed between the sexes in the masculine or neutral prime conditions. The results indicate that covert gender cues can alter pain reports. Further, at least in some situations, feminine role cues may be more influential on pain reports than masculine role cues.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.