<p>It has been shown that even if you tell a patient this pill is placebo and it's not going to help you, there's still some positive effect. It's all about perception.</p>

<p>There was <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWQfe__fNbs" rel="nofollow">a really good TED talk with the topic <em>"Is there scientific proof we can heal ourselves?"</em> at TEDxAmericanRiviera presented by Lissa Rankin</a>, MD.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-21T17:45:06.673Z
Welcome to cogsci.SE! This looks like a very useful answer, but the Stack Exchange community prefers that they be somewhat more self-contained. I.e., this would be even more useful if you could tell us a little bit about the content included in these links (e.g., in case they close down someday, or a reader can't play videos while at work, using the mobile SE app, or because Flash Player is a hassle to update in Firefox). Any chance we could trouble you to tell us a little more about what you've found?
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-21T14:07:27.207Z
2014-03-21T14:54:40.550Z
2014-03-21T14:54:40.550Z
Ariel
<p>Despite a recent dubious claim that placebos don't require deception (<a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo-effects-without-deception-well-not-exactly/" rel="nofollow">critiqued here</a>), placebos appear to function on the basis that a subject believes <code>X</code> will have effect <code>Y</code>. Without knowing too much detail, we say that the subject's mind/body will assist or attempt to achieve <code>Y</code> upon the <em>perception</em> that <code>X</code> causes <code>Y</code>.</p>

<p>Can a person, <em>without</em> self-deception [1] and <em>with</em> knowledge of the placebo effect, induce a placebo response? Or can a person knowledgeable of the placebo effect induce the same "reactions" that a placebo can normally be used to induce?</p>

<p><strong>Consider a silly example.</strong></p>

<p>Persons A and B each have a headache. They are told that <em>balancing a spoon on one's nose eliminates headaches with very high success rates by conducting electricity via the sinuses</em>. Person A believes the claim. Person A balances a spoon on their nose, and their headache is eliminated.</p>

<p>Person B, having a background in medicine, doesn't believe it <em>at all</em>. Person B, to prove the point, balances the spoon on their nose and remains in pain.</p>

<p>At this point, is there any way for Person B to "simply decide" that this ritual, which he knows to be an attempt at a placebo, to start working?</p>

<p>Would there be a difference using a pill instead of something purely ritualistic?</p>

<p><sub>[1] <strong>self-deception</strong>. [for the purpose of this question,] any mental activity in the general category of suspending one's "participation" in the full body knowledge they normally possess.</sub></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-20T04:06:48.253Z
suggestion itself can cause a placebo effect. By suggestions I mean what the subject is expecting from the procedure. Even if not informed at all, due to cultural commonalities a western control subject will assume that he is given "something" that will make him feel better of whatever he might or might not have.
Wolphram jonny
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-20T04:30:18.527Z
@julianfernandez Can the subject, without self-deception, self-suggest? E.g., Can the subject simply decide, knowing that they're attempting to "invoke" a placebo effect, *efficaciously* say, "This chocolate chip cookie will make my cold go away?"
svidgen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-20T05:21:55.233Z
I am not sure to understand what you are suggesting (I mean, if you think that rational thought is the main source of our behavior), but they way I see it is more like a reflex. Like many optical illusions, even if you know what is the trick, you still cannot stop perceiving them. To me the ideal control subject would be one that doesn't even know he is being part of an experiment (or, at least, one dumb enough to not have any expectations from it).
Wolphram jonny
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-21T18:40:44.257Z
@svidgen What, to you, is the difference between self-suggestion[ of a belief] and self-deception?
BenCole
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-21T19:08:34.570Z
@BenCole I've added a generalized definition of self-deception that can be applied to the question. But, I hadn't given much thought into what specific mental activity I was trying to denote. So, if there's a better, generic, psychological definition of self-deception that can be inserted, I suspect that would also be sufficient. Without putting too much thought into it, per the definition as I've stated it above, I think self-suggestion often *overlaps* self-deception. But, I could conceive self-suggestion being used to *correct* an "innate" belief, based on intellectual knowledge.
svidgen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-21T19:13:10.480Z
And maybe that last bit isn't clear either: An example might be a longstanding, "innate" belief in unicorns. Not that the subject is born with the belief, but that they acquired it and internalized it. If the subject then researches unicorns and finds them to be mythical, there's probably no self-deception in convincing one's self repeatedly through self-"suggestion" that unicorns are not real, physical creatures. (Probably the worst example of all time. But, hopefully illustrates a distinction, if there is one!)
svidgen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-21T20:27:46.120Z
I suspect that the key difference between the two is one of agency, intent, or awareness - with self-suggestion having much more self-awareness than self-deception (which, by definition, includes a lack of self-awareness).  I...doubt that that distinction is helpful though, sorry.
BenCole
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-21T20:37:05.030Z
@svidgen while I suspect you are asking with the specific context of taking a placebo *pill*, as mentioned in what's answer you'll find that undergoing rituals is well-documented for producing altered states of consciousness (yoga, shamanic practices, religious rituals, etc).  Or, for a more modern/relevant example, performing exercise for mood regulation.  At some point, it's not self-suggestion *or* self-deception: it's a true belief that doing a certain thing will produce certain results (whether or not that thing is a self-induced 'placebo' effect, or a biochemical effect). *a.k.a magic!*
BenCole
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-21T20:51:35.203Z
@BenCole Your examples are relevant. Can a person, having discovered that ritual X does not produce effect Y (other than through "sheer expectation"/placebo effect), still produce effect Y through ritual X?
svidgen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-21T20:53:33.460Z
... or, would the person have to convince him/her-self that _there must be some link between X and Y I'm just unaware of_? As opposed to, _I know there's no link between X and Y, but I'm going to perform X to cause Y anyway._
svidgen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-21T21:11:37.003Z
@BenCole I've edited the question with a hypothetical scenario, along the line of ritual, that might help clarify the question.
svidgen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-21T21:24:54.817Z
Excellent example! Unfortunately, now we're getting into more complex/fuzzy areas. In your example, person A attempts the ritual *without expectation* as to the result - whereas person B attempts the ritual *with strong expectations* as to the outcome. Could B, the same person B with the same prior knowledge, instead perform the ritual with the (to them, inaccurate) expectation of success? That is, can B suspend their disbelief for the length of the ritual? If possible (and I suspect this is personality-dependent), I see no reason why person B couldn't also create the same outcome.
BenCole
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-21T21:27:44.590Z
It's also worth adding that the suspension of disbelief is a gradient, not an on-off thing. We can be all levels of suspicious/disbelieving. So the suspension of disbelief may only be half of it - person B would also have to acknowledge the possibility of a result (even if they don't expect a result, they are to some degree [more would be better] open to its occurrence). Most of this seems to come down to expectations, personality, and the ability to say, "this doesn't fit my current model of the universe, but *that's okay*".
BenCole
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-21T21:37:23.047Z
@BenCole Interesting ... So, the answer *seems* to be yes; so long as Person B can "expect" the result, regardless of whether they believe that the ritual works *in and of itself.* (For my next question ... _What the devil is expectation anyway!?_)
svidgen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-21T21:45:03.723Z
*seems*, yes, though most of this is speculation, haha. As for your next question, it's a good one, and one I can't answer. I'll definitely upvote it if you ask though!
BenCole
<deception><placebo>
Can a person "self-induce" the placebo effect?
svidgen
# Can a person "self-induce" the placebo effect?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-19)

Despite a recent dubious claim that placebos don't require deception ([critiqued here](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo-effects-without-deception-well-not-exactly/)), placebos appear to function on the basis that a subject believes `X` will have effect `Y`. Without knowing too much detail, we say that the subject's mind/body will assist or attempt to achieve `Y` upon the *perception* that `X` causes `Y`.

Can a person, *without* self-deception [1] and *with* knowledge of the placebo effect, induce a placebo response? Or can a person knowledgeable of the placebo effect induce the same "reactions" that a placebo can normally be used to induce?

**Consider a silly example.**

Persons A and B each have a headache. They are told that *balancing a spoon on one's nose eliminates headaches with very high success rates by conducting electricity via the sinuses*. Person A believes the claim. Person A balances a spoon on their nose, and their headache is eliminated.

Person B, having a background in medicine, doesn't believe it *at all*. Person B, to prove the point, balances the spoon on their nose and remains in pain.

At this point, is there any way for Person B to "simply decide" that this ritual, which he knows to be an attempt at a placebo, to start working?

Would there be a difference using a pill instead of something purely ritualistic?

[1] **self-deception**. [for the purpose of this question,] any mental activity in the general category of suspending one's "participation" in the full body knowledge they normally possess.

**Tags:** deception, placebo

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: suggestion itself can cause a placebo effect. By suggestions I mean what the subject is expecting from the procedure. Even if not informed at all, due to cultural commonalities a western control subject will assume that he is given "something" that will make him feel better of whatever he might or might not have.  
> **username_0**: @julianfernandez Can the subject, without self-deception, self-suggest? E.g., Can the subject simply decide, knowing that they're attempting to "invoke" a placebo effect, *efficaciously* say, "This chocolate chip cookie will make my cold go away?"  
> **username_1**: I am not sure to understand what you are suggesting (I mean, if you think that rational thought is the main source of our behavior), but they way I see it is more like a reflex. Like many optical illusions, even if you know what is the trick, you still cannot stop perceiving them. To me the ideal control subject would be one that doesn't even know he is being part of an experiment (or, at least, one dumb enough to not have any expectations from it).  
> **username_2**: @username_0 What, to you, is the difference between self-suggestion[ of a belief] and self-deception?  
> **username_0**: @username_2 I've added a generalized definition of self-deception that can be applied to the question. But, I hadn't given much thought into what specific mental activity I was trying to denote. So, if there's a better, generic, psychological definition of self-deception that can be inserted, I suspect that would also be sufficient. Without putting too much thought into it, per the definition as I've stated it above, I think self-suggestion often *overlaps* self-deception. But, I could conceive self-suggestion being used to *correct* an "innate" belief, based on intellectual knowledge.  
> **username_0**: And maybe that last bit isn't clear either: An example might be a longstanding, "innate" belief in unicorns. Not that the subject is born with the belief, but that they acquired it and internalized it. If the subject then researches unicorns and finds them to be mythical, there's probably no self-deception in convincing one's self repeatedly through self-"suggestion" that unicorns are not real, physical creatures. (Probably the worst example of all time. But, hopefully illustrates a distinction, if there is one!)  
> **username_2**: I suspect that the key difference between the two is one of agency, intent, or awareness - with self-suggestion having much more self-awareness than self-deception (which, by definition, includes a lack of self-awareness).  I...doubt that that distinction is helpful though, sorry.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 while I suspect you are asking with the specific context of taking a placebo *pill*, as mentioned in what's answer you'll find that undergoing rituals is well-documented for producing altered states of consciousness (yoga, shamanic practices, religious rituals, etc).  Or, for a more modern/relevant example, performing exercise for mood regulation.  At some point, it's not self-suggestion *or* self-deception: it's a true belief that doing a certain thing will produce certain results (whether or not that thing is a self-induced 'placebo' effect, or a biochemical effect). *a.k.a magic!*  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Your examples are relevant. Can a person, having discovered that ritual X does not produce effect Y (other than through "sheer expectation"/placebo effect), still produce effect Y through ritual X?  
> **username_0**: ... or, would the person have to convince him/her-self that _there must be some link between X and Y I'm just unaware of_? As opposed to, _I know there's no link between X and Y, but I'm going to perform X to cause Y anyway._  
> **username_0**: @username_2 I've edited the question with a hypothetical scenario, along the line of ritual, that might help clarify the question.  
> **username_2**: Excellent example! Unfortunately, now we're getting into more complex/fuzzy areas. In your example, person A attempts the ritual *without expectation* as to the result - whereas person B attempts the ritual *with strong expectations* as to the outcome. Could B, the same person B with the same prior knowledge, instead perform the ritual with the (to them, inaccurate) expectation of success? That is, can B suspend their disbelief for the length of the ritual? If possible (and I suspect this is personality-dependent), I see no reason why person B couldn't also create the same outcome.  
> **username_2**: It's also worth adding that the suspension of disbelief is a gradient, not an on-off thing. We can be all levels of suspicious/disbelieving. So the suspension of disbelief may only be half of it - person B would also have to acknowledge the possibility of a result (even if they don't expect a result, they are to some degree [more would be better] open to its occurrence). Most of this seems to come down to expectations, personality, and the ability to say, "this doesn't fit my current model of the universe, but *that's okay*".  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Interesting ... So, the answer *seems* to be yes; so long as Person B can "expect" the result, regardless of whether they believe that the ritual works *in and of itself.* (For my next question ... _What the devil is expectation anyway!?_)  
> **username_2**: *seems*, yes, though most of this is speculation, haha. As for your next question, it's a good one, and one I can't answer. I'll definitely upvote it if you ask though!  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-03-21. Score: 1

It has been shown that even if you tell a patient this pill is placebo and it's not going to help you, there's still some positive effect. It's all about perception.

There was [a really good TED talk with the topic *"Is there scientific proof we can heal ourselves?"* at TEDxAmericanRiviera presented by Lissa Rankin](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWQfe__fNbs), MD.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Welcome to cogsci.SE! This looks like a very useful answer, but the Stack Exchange community prefers that they be somewhat more self-contained. I.e., this would be even more useful if you could tell us a little bit about the content included in these links (e.g., in case they close down someday, or a reader can't play videos while at work, using the mobile SE app, or because Flash Player is a hassle to update in Firefox). Any chance we could trouble you to tell us a little more about what you've found?  

---

