Nabywanie reakcji emocjonalnych: rekonstrukcja i rewizja eksperymentu z udziałem Małego Alberta

In 1920 John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner published the results of the study experiment describing how they had conditioned an 11-month-old boy (known as Little Albert) to fear a rat. The experiment is one of the best known and the most frequently cited empirical studies in  the history of psychology. Many studies and theories suggesting the role of learning processes in the development of emotional responses were initiated by the Little Albert experiment.  The article summarizes the procedures and results of the experiment reported by J.B. Watson and R. Rayner. The importance and impact of the results of the experiment on the development of psychological theories and research is discussed. Errors in the discussions of the Little Albert experiment in Polish psychological literature are identifi ed. The results of the latest historical research on the Little Albert experiment are summarized and their consequences are discussed

How People Remember Pain: The Role of Situational and Emotional Factors

Coraz więcej danych dowodzi, że pamięć bólu ulega zniekształceniom. Wyniki niektórych badań wskazują, że zarówno ból przewlekły, ostry, jak i wywoływany eksperymentalnie pamiętany jest jako silniejszy niż był doświadczany. Z drugiej jednak strony kilka badań wykazało, że ból ostry i eksperymentalny może być także pamiętany jako słabszy. Inne dane wskazują na brak różnic między pamiętanym a rzeczywistym bólem przewlekłym, ostrym i eksperymentalnym. Dotychczasowe badania dowodzą, że na pamięć bólu wpływa wiele czynników, w tym średnia siła bólu rzeczywiście odczuwanego, najsilniejszy i ostatni epizod bólu, czas, jaki upłynął od doświadczenia bólu do jego odpamiętania oraz siła bólu odczuwana w momencie przypominania. Do czynników psychologicznych, które mogą być powiązane z pamięcią bólu należą: oczekiwania dotyczące bólu, negatywny afekt, stan i cecha lęku, stres i skłonność do katastrofizowania. Niniejszy artykuł podsumowuje wyniki serii badań przeprowadzonych przez Zespół Badania Bólu z Instytutu Psychologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, które miały na celu odpowiedzieć na pytania, dlaczego rezultaty dotychczasowych badań są tak zróżnicowane, a także określić, jakie czynniki wpływają na pamięć bólu. Do najważniejszych i najbardziej nowatorskich wyników zaliczyć należy stwierdzenie, że na pamięć bólu wpływa znaczenie i wartość afektywna doświadczenia bólu wraz z odkryciem, że nie tylko negatywny, ale także pozytywny afekt mają wpływ na pamięć bólu. Rezultaty te mają ważne implikacje zarówno dla badań klinicznych, jak i dla praktyki klinicznej.   Artykuł został przygotowany w ramach realizacji projektu badawczego nr 2016/23/B/HS6/03890 finansowanego przez Narodowe Centrum Nauki.There is growing evidence that people may not remember pain accurately. Some studies have shown that recalled chronic, acute, and experimental pain is exaggerated. However, a few studies have demonstrated that recalled acute and experimental pain may be underestimated. Additional data shows that past chronic, acute, and experimental pain may be remembered accurately. Previous studies have found that many factors may influence the memory for pain, including the mean pain intensity that is experienced, the peak and the end of pain, the length of delay between the pain experience and its recall, and current pain during pain recall. Psychological factors that may be related to the memory for pain include pain expectations, negative affect, state and trait anxiety, distress, and pain catastrophizing. This article summarizes the results of a series of studies conducted by the Pain Research Group from the Institute of Psychology of the Jagiellonian University aimed to answer the question why previous findings are so diverse and to identify factors influencing the memory of pain. The most important and novel results of these studies include the finding that memory of pain is influenced by the meaning and affective value of the pain experience together with the finding showing that the memory of pain is influenced not only by negative affect, but also by positive affect. These results may have important implications for both clinical research and clinical practice.   The article is part of a research project no. 2016/23/B/HS6/03890 funded by the National Science Centre, Poland

Pain rating is worth a thousand words. Nocebo hyperalgesia induced by verbal modeling prevails over the effects of symbolic modeling and verbal suggestion

This study compares the effectiveness of verbal modeling, symbolic modeling, and verbal suggestion in inducing nocebo hyperalgesia. It is the first study to examine the contribution of stress to observationally induced nocebo hyperalgesia. This study’s experimental groups represented various sources of social information: a group of people participating in the study (verbal modeling), a single participant (symbolic modeling), and an experimenter (verbal suggestion). During the experiment, participants received electrocutaneous stimuli at the same intensity, half of which were applied with a placebo (sham device). Participants in the verbal modeling group were acquainted with pain ratings that had allegedly been provided by other participants. The ratings suggested that other participants experienced more pain in the placebo trials than in the control trials. In the symbolic modeling group, participants observed a model experiencing more pain in the placebo than in the control trials. In the verbal suggestion group, participants received a verbal suggestion of hyperalgesia in the placebo trials and no suggestion in the control trials. No manipulations were used in the control group. To investigate whether nocebo hyperalgesia is stable over time, an additional extinction phase was conducted. Nocebo hyperalgesia was induced by verbal modeling only and was mediated by expectancy. Stress was a significant moderator of the induced effect. Nocebo hyperalgesia was extinguished during the extinction phase. The obtained results provide potential implications for minimizing nocebo hyperalgesia in clinical practice by, for instance, controlling patients’ expectancies and stress levels

The Anaesthetic Context: Placebo Effects and the Experience of Pain (the Psychological Aspect)

Intensywnie prowadzone w ostatnich latach badania nad działaniem placebo doprowadziły do rozwoju kilku propozycji teoretycznych dotyczących jego mechanizmów. Celem artykułu jest podsumowanie i krytyczna dyskusja aktualnego stanu badań nad działaniem placebo w badaniach nad bólem i w praktyce klinicznej. Zaproponowano konceptualizację pojęcia placebo i omówiono główne skutki działania placebo, tj. efekt placebo i efekt nocebo. Oceniono skuteczność placebo w badaniach nad bólem i w praktyce klinicznej. Zaprezentowano najważniejsze metody wywoływania działania placebo, tj. warunkowanie klasyczne, sugestie słowne i uczenie się przez obserwację. Dyskusji poddano psychologiczne mechanizmy działania placebo, tj. oczekiwania i warunkowanie klasyczne, a także czynniki emocjonalne, które wpływają na działanie placebo, tj. lęk, strach i stres. Artykuł kończą rozważania etyczne nad wykorzystywaniem placebo w badaniach i praktyce klinicznej. Artykuł został przygotowany w ramach realizacji projektu badawczego nr 2014/14/E/HS6/00415 finansowanego przez Narodowe Centrum Nauki.Placebo effects have been extensively investigated in recent years and a number of conceptual frameworks have been developed to capture their mechanisms. The aim of the article is to summarize and critically discuss the current state of the art of placebo effects in pain research and clinical practice. Conceptualization of a placebo is proposed and main placebo effects, i.e., placebo effect and nocebo effect, are described. The effectiveness of the placebo in pain research and clinical practice is evaluated. Main methods of the induction of placebo effects are presented, i.e., classical conditioning, verbal suggestions and observational learning. Psychological mechanisms of placebo effects are discussed, including expectancy and classical conditioning, as well as emotional factors contributing to the placebo effects, i.e., anxiety, fear and stress. Last but not least, ethical issues in the placebo use in research and clinical practice are considered. The article is part of a research project no. 2014/14/E/HS6/00415 funded by the National Science Centre, Poland

Learning pain from others: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on placebo hypoalgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia induced by observational learning

Observing someone experience pain relief or exacerbation after an intervention may induce placebo hypoalgesia or nocebo hyperalgesia. Understanding which factors contribute to these effects could help in the development of strategies for optimizing treatment of chronic pain conditions. We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the literature on placebo hypoalgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia induced by observational learning (OL). A systematic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, PsycARTICLES, Scopus, and Academic Search Ultimate. 21 studies were included in the systematic review, 17 of which were suitable for meta-analysis (18 experiments; n=764 healthy individuals). The primary endpoint was the SMD for pain following placebo cues associated during OL with low versus high pain. OL had a small-to-medium effect on pain ratings (SMD 0.44; 95%CI 0.21 to 0.68; p<.01) and a large effect on pain expectancy (SMD 1.11; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.04; p<0.01). The type of observation (in-person vs. video) modulated the magnitude of placebo hypoalgesia/nocebo hyperalgesia (p<.01), whereas placebo type did not (p=.23). Finally, OL was more effective when observers’ empathic concern (but no other empathy-related factors) was higher (r=0.14; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; p=0.03). Overall, the meta-analysis demonstrates that OL can shape placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia. More research is needed to identify predictors of these effects and to study them in clinical populations. In the future, OL could be an important tool to help maximize placebo hypoalgesia in clinical settings

Placebo hypoalgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia induced by observational learning may be difficult to disentangle in a laboratory setting

Observational learning (OBL) can evoke placebo hypoalgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia, however, these effects have rarely been systematically compared. Healthy participants (n=105) were randomised to: 1) placebo OBL, 2) nocebo OBL, or 3) a no-observation control group. During OBL, a videotaped model simulated pain relief or increase after a sham ointment was applied. Thermal pain was evoked on two arms (ointment, control) at baseline and post-OBL. A three-way interaction confirmed that OBL modulates pain: F(2,93)=6.08, p=.003, ηp2=.12. Pain increased after nocebo OBL, with a bigger increase for the ointment arm (both p≤.007). After placebo OBL, pain increased for the control arm only (p<.001). Expectations mediated these effects. That pain for the control stimuli increased after placebo OBL could reflect nocebo learning. Experimental paradigms typically examine relative differences between ointment and control stimuli. Our results show that this can complicate disentangling placebo hypoalgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia in laboratory settings

Reliability of measurement.

<p>Intraclass correlation coefficients for each of measured variables associated with condition stimuli (placebo, nocebo, control) or control stimuli.</p

Details of the study design using an example of the placebo group with an orange light serving as a placebo.

<p>Part ‘A’ depicts the time-course of the procedure: there were four blocks of conditioning trials, two of them with pain, expectancy, and fear ratings (Blocks 1 and 3), and two without any ratings (Blocks 2 and 4). Each conditioning block consisted of 18 electrical stimuli. After the conditioning phase was completed, the testing phase consisting of 24 electrical stimuli began. Orange lights (orange vertical bars) served as placebo stimuli (nonpainful intensity, i.e. [<i>t</i> + 0.8 × (<i>T—t</i>)] mA), while blue lights served as control stimuli (painful intensity, i.e. 1.5 × T mA). During the testing phase, the stimuli of the same painful intensity (i.e. 1.5 × T mA) were applied, regardless of the colour of the preceding light. Part ‘B’ depicts the design of single a trial: a colour light was presented for 10 seconds. For each block, one-third of the lights was displayed with the NRS for the expectancy rating, one-third was displayed with the NRS for the fear rating and one-third was displayed without any scale. In the latter case, a slide with the NRS for pain intensity rating was shown for another 6 sec immediately after the electrical stimulus (depicted by red lightning) was applied.</p

Descriptive statistics for all the analyzed variables from the testing phase of the study (Mean ± SD).

<p>Descriptive statistics for all the analyzed variables from the testing phase of the study (Mean ± SD).</p

Mean differences (horizontal bars) in pain intensity, expectancy and fear during the testing phase of the study.

<p>Individual scores were plotted to show data distribution. In the testing phase, the differences in pain intensity in the placebo and nocebo groups were significantly higher than in the control group. * <i>p</i> < 0.01, ** <i>p</i> < 0.001.</p