Symptom self-reports are susceptible to misinformation.

Dalsklev, Madeleine; Helvoort, Daniël van; Bošković, Irena; Otgaar, Henry

doi:10.1037/cns0000159

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, participants who concurrently detected the misinformation did not exhibit a reduction in their pain ratings. These findings are consistent with past research demonstrating that people can be led to misremember their own reports on their internal states (Merckelbach et al, 2018), that choice blindness can have lasting effects for memory (i.e., memory blindness; Cochran et al, 2016;Stille et al, 2017), and that when people detect the discrepancy between misinformation and facts, they are less likely to be swayed by the misinformation (Tousignant, Hall, & Loftus, 1986). These findings add to the literature by demonstrating that memory blindness can be found in memory for a painful, lived experience, not just in symptoms on a checklist.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Nonblind participants showed no difference between manipulated and control symptoms at any time. A more recent article replicated these findings using a symptom checklist that included both psychological and somatic symptoms and demonstrated that participants could also be led to underestimate their symptom ratings as a result of misinformation (Merckelbach, Dalsklev, Van Helvoort, Boskovic, & Otgaar, 2018). These studies illustrate that people can be misinformed about their own internal states.…”

Section: Misinformation and Healthcarementioning

confidence: 79%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Misremembering pain: A memory blindness approach to adding a better end

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How people remember feeling in the past informs future decisions; however, memory for past emotion is subject to a number of biases. Previous research on choice blindness has shown that people often fail to notice when they are exposed to misinformation about their own decisions, preferences, and memories. This type of misinformation can influence how they later remember past events. In the present study, we examined the memory blindness effect in a new domain: memory for pain. Participants (N = 269) underwent a cold-pressor task and rated how much pain, distress, and positive and negative affect they had experienced. Later, participants were shown their pain ratings and asked to explain them. Some of the participants were shown lower pain ratings than they had actually made. In a second session, participants recalled how painful the task had been and how much distress and positive and negative affect they remembered experiencing. The results indicated that the majority of participants who were exposed to misinformation failed to detect the manipulation, and subsequently remembered the task as being less painful. The participants in the misinformation condition were not overall more willing to repeat the study tasks, but the participants who recalled less distress, less negative affect, and more positive affect were more willing to repeat the study tasks again in a future experiment. These results demonstrate the malleability of memory for painful experiences and that willingness to repeat aversive experiences may depend more on memory for affective reactions to the original experience than on memory for the physical pain itself.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Misinformation and Healthcarementioning

confidence: 79%

Misremembering pain: A memory blindness approach to adding a better end

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our hypotheses and the analyses reported below were preregistered at Open Science Framework. Most analyses were confirmatory and in line with previous articles on the topic (Merckelbach et al, 2011, 2018). Tests that involved total CSDL scores, symptom-change scores from Test 1 to Test 2, DES-T scores, and/or TAS-20 scores were exploratory.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…In the current study, α was .63. Specifically, we measured self-reported trait alexithymia and dissociation because we suspected that these traits—associated with poor introspective monitoring—relate to susceptibility to symptom escalation (but see Merckelbach et al, 2018). Finally, participants completed an exit questionnaire that measured their ideas about the experiment, after which they were fully debriefed (see Table S1 in the Supplemental Material).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Experimental studies demonstrated that misinformation may inflate participants’ self-reported symptoms when they are exposed to false expectancies (e.g., Crichton, Dodd, Schmid, Gamble, & Petrie, 2014; Lorber, Mazzoni, & Kirsch, 2007) or exaggerated symptom feedback (e.g., see Baumann, Cameron, Zimmerman, & Leventhal, 1989, Study 1; see also Merckelbach, Dandachi-FitzGerald, van Helvoort & Otgaar, 2019). For example, Merckelbach, Jelicic, and Pieters (2011) and Merckelbach, Dalsklev, van Helvoort, Boskovic, and Otgaar (2018, Study 1) provided undergraduates with suggestive feedback that they had raised levels of certain symptoms (e.g., concentration difficulties). Considerable percentages of participants (63% and 82%, respectively) accepted the misinformation and some confabulated reasons for symptoms they initially did not report (e.g., “I have been drinking too much coffee lately”).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Worsening of Self-Reported Symptoms Through Suggestive Feedback

Helvoort

Otgaar

2019

Clinical Psychological Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies found that misleading feedback may increase self-reported symptoms. Does this reflect social demand or internalized misinformation? We investigated whether suggestive misinformation may escalate symptoms when it is provided in a context that minimizes social demand. Eighty participants completed the Checklist for Symptoms in Daily Life twice. Between test and retest, participants were given standardized symptom feedback through a bogus computer program that allegedly produced an analysis of their symptom ratings. The feedback pertained to randomly selected symptom ratings of participants: accurate feedback on four ratings (controls) and manipulated feedback (i.e., misinformation) on two other ratings (i.e., targets), which we increased by two full-scale points. Forty-nine (66%) participants accepted both target manipulations, of whom 35 (71%) confabulated explanations for the inflated ratings. Critically, at retest, participants who accepted the misinformation increased their ratings for target symptoms dramatically, whereas ratings for control symptoms and relevant ratings by participants who rejected the misinformation increased moderately. Our findings may help to understand iatrogenic effects of psychotherapy.

show abstract

From past pain to future pain through the pain of others: Information about other people's pain ratings can alleviate our subsequent pain

Bajcar

Bieniek

Brączyk

et al. 2022

European Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Previous studies have shown that pain memories have a profound impact on subsequent pain experiences. This study investigated whether pain ratings derived from other people can modify an individual's memory of past pain.This study also examined whether pain memory modified by others' pain ratings determines subsequent pain experiences.Methods: Participants were divided into two groups: an experimental group and a control group. Participants in both groups were exposed to pain stimulation; then, they recalled its intensity twice over a period of time; after a break, they were again exposed to pain stimulation of the same intensity. The final sample consisted of 53 participants. The only difference between the experimental group and the control group was that in the former the pain ratings of other alleged participants were presented between the two consecutive pain recalls. These ratings suggested that other people experienced the same pain as less intense. Results:The pain ratings derived from other people did not alter the pain memory; nevertheless, they affected an individual's next pain experience even for a certain period of time after their presentation. This type of pain-related information shaped participants' subsequent pain experiences regardless of their empathy, conformity, and susceptibility to social influence. Conclusions:Information on pain derived from other people not only shapes the response to a novel stimulation but also substantially modifies the subsequent experience of that stimulation. Significance:The study demonstrates the importance of social information on pain and provides evidence that this type of information substantially modifies the subsequent experience of the same pain. These results suggest that social information on pain can be used to alleviate pain associated with recurring medical procedures and thus increase patients' willingness to continue treatment.

show abstract

Symptom self-reports are susceptible to misinformation.

Cited by 8 publications

References 38 publications

Misremembering pain: A memory blindness approach to adding a better end

Misremembering pain: A memory blindness approach to adding a better end

Worsening of Self-Reported Symptoms Through Suggestive Feedback

From past pain to future pain through the pain of others: Information about other people's pain ratings can alleviate our subsequent pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About