Small, interesting study on placebo effect

[Korpo]

Being a maid in a hotel is usually a physically demanding job, but when scientists questioned 84 selected maids 67% said they did no sport or demanding physical activities. These were checked for blood pressure, BMI and weight, and instead of correlating with their actual level of activity, their values correlated with their own self-image and self-estimation.

44 of the group were then told how much work they actually do, how much calories that burns, etc. The other 40 were not. After a month the value of those who knew about their actual level of activity had dropped, improving their overall condition, while the control group did not improve, both doing similar work.

The scientists attibute this to a placebo effect - the knowledge of effectivity is required to be effective, not knowing that something is effective might also prevent it from being effective. Just by knowing that their work could improve their health it did.

See here: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/members/journal_issues/psinpress/crum.pdf.

Oliver

[White Wolf]

Ever since I started doing energy work, I've always wondered if my scepticism of most of the common knowledge and curiosity to know more about how this really stuff works have held me back. If one considers this effect and if it translates to energy work, then I have a REALLY HUGE hurdle to jump before I can continue to develop. Considering that scepticism is one of my core philosophies, I'm not sure I'l ever be able to make that leap.

Interesting study, though they may be a bit liberal in their definition of significant, but that may be just thier fields common conventions. Many of their "significant" results were within error. Either that, or I read it wrong, which is entirely possible considering I don't usualy read statistical data. :P

I'm older than the journal I which the this arctical was published. I don't know anything about psycology or it's journals, I'll have to trust that it is reputable, but with a grain of salt.

[Korpo]

Ever since I started doing energy work, I've always wondered if my scepticism of most of the common knowledge and curiosity to know more about how this really stuff works have held me back. If one considers this effect and if it translates to energy work, then I have a REALLY HUGE hurdle to jump before I can continue to develop. Considering that scepticism is one of my core philosophies, I'm not sure I'l ever be able to make that leap.

The easiest solution to this is just continuing to do energy work. As results accumulate, the skeptic mind loses "all its bases" (pwned!1! :P :lol:). I have been doing energy work of my kind for about two years, and I had *many* times doubts. Now I can no longer doubt, because it has proven to work over and over again with the most interesting effects. Even if sometimes I was sabotaging myself.

The trick is to continue. Journal or write down when something remarkable happens, or you have good success. After a year or two there should be enough for the skeptic mind give up most of its reservations. Being persistent is the key in this "struggle within".

Take good care,
Oliver

[ButterflyWoman]

Yup. I tend to be quite skeptical. It's just my nature to be so. I generally don't believe stuff just because people tell me it's so. I have to try it, test it, play with it, chew on it, and other sorts of experiential things before I'll accept it.

I agree with Korpo. Just keep going. Yeah, you'll have doubts, but energy work is not something that requires "faith", just practice and an open mind. You don't have to believe in it for it to work. I admit I thought it was pretty weird when I first read about it, but I tried it and have had some quite remarkable results, despite my doubts. The more I work with energy, the more I'm convinced there's absolutely and definitely something to it.

I probably couldn't prove it in a laboratory, but I can't prove much in a laboratory, anyway, seeing as how I haven't got a laboratory and I'm not a scientist... ;)

[Air3]

Interesting study, though they may be a bit liberal in their definition of significant, but that may be just thier fields common conventions. Many of their "significant" results were within error. Either that, or I read it wrong, which is entirely possible considering I don't usualy read statistical data. :P

I'm older than the journal I which the this arctical was published. I don't know anything about psychology or it's journals, I'll have to trust that it is reputable, but with a grain of salt.

Yes, it was an interesting study - and the results seem quite intuitive. I am a Psychologist and I would, however, have expected more details regarding the following:

> How was the 0 - 10 scale (perceived amount of exercise) anchored? Was it just anchored at either end (0 = no exercise/none to 10 = regular exercise), or was it a Likert scale where every point from 0 - 10 had a qualifying descriptor (0 = never, 1 = hardly ever...etc)? What/how was the question asked?

> 'Yes' and 'No' responses are nominal, qualitative (dichotomous) data - how was this translated into a quantitative, numerical score for analysis (as indicated in the table of results)?

> For perceived work as exercise - they were asked how often they go to the gym? - Was this a scale of 0 - 10 again (how was it anchored if so)?

The way a question is asked, and the information in the question, has a massive impact on how someone responds to it. We all perceive things in a different way. Moreover, it is important to know how responses are translated into scores to be used in a statistical analysis (as this could have been arbitrary).

One of the measures of success in demonstrating a psychological phenomena is the ability to replicate that phenomena, by being able to replicate the original study. I would have trouble replicating this study exactly, as many of the details regarding the self-report questionnaire are glossed over.

In terms of interpreting the (statistical) significance of the results, we have to take into account the relatively small sample size (84 participants). A small sample reduces the statistical 'power' of the analysis, therefore differences may not be deemed significant (i.e. only occurred by chance) even if in fact they are (i.e. a result of the psychological phenomena). However, if we conducted the same study, but with a larger sample - differences would be deemed significant (i.e. result did not occur by chance).
As many of the results were significant in this study (some indicating a 99.9% confidence [p = .001] that the result was a result of the change in perception to exercise and not chance), even with a relatively small sample, I would expect significance to remain the same - if not increase - if more than 84 participants were used.

In short - the results are impressive, but not conclusive - clearer picture needed as to the details of the study and what exactly was measured.

Psychologists are their own worst enemies! lol