AUTHOR=Russell Katherine , Duncan Michael , Price Michael , Mosewich Amber , Ellmers Toby , Hill Mathew
TITLE=A comparison of placebo and nocebo effects on objective and subjective postural stability: a double-edged sword?
JOURNAL=Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
VOLUME=16
YEAR=2022
URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2022.967722
DOI=10.3389/fnhum.2022.967722
ISSN=1662-5161
ABSTRACT=Background: Positive expectations (i.e., placebo effect) can improve postural control during quiet standing. This raises an important question: if postural control is susceptible to positive expectations, is it possible to elicit the opposite, a decline in postural stability, simply by suggesting a performance impairment (i.e., nocebo) will take place? Yet no studies have examined the nocebo effect on balance performance. To better understand both phenomena, comparative studies, which include both placebo and nocebo conditions, are needed.
Method: Forty-two healthy adults were initially assessed for objective (center of pressure movement) and subjective (perceived) postural stability and performance expectations. Participants were then randomly assigned in equal numbers to a placebo (positive expectation), nocebo (negative expectation) or control (no suggestion) group. Participants in the placebo/nocebo groups were deceptively administered an inert capsule described as a potent supplement which would either positively or negatively influence their balance performance. Objective and subjective postural stability, and performance expectations were reassessed 20 min later.
Results: The nocebo procedure evoked an increase in COP sway movements and reduced perceived stability compared to a control group. The placebo group presented with reductions COP sway movements and increased perceived stability following expectation manipulation. Compared to the control group, the placebo group showed a significantly higher performance expectation whilst the nocebo group showed a significantly lower performance expectation. Regression analyses also revealed that performance expectations following the placebo/nocebo procedure significantly predicted perceptions of postural instability (i.e., perceived performance), accounting for around 50% of the variance. These results remained even when controlling for actual performance (i.e., objective postural stability).
Conclusion: Our findings indicate that positive and negative performance expectations evoked by instructional manipulation can profoundly influence both objective and subjective postural stability. Postural control—and perceptions regarding such—are clearly susceptible to expectation manipulation, which could have important practical implications and repercussions on testing, training interventions and rehabilitation programs. Positive and negative expectancies are a double-edged sword for postural control.