ArticleBritish journal of health psychology2026
Effects of likelihood framing on side effect expectations and nocebo side effects: Results from three experimental studies with a placebo analgesic cream.
Article in British journal of health psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of likelihood framing on side effect expectations and nocebo side effects: Results from three experimental studies with a placebo analgesic cream.British journal of health psychology · 2026Article
- Expectation framing in psychotherapy: effects of approach- and avoidance-oriented video interventions on help-seeking intentions.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis research examined whether different framings of the likelihood of side effects influence their occurrence in response to a placebo analgesic.
designThree independent experimental studies in non-clinical samples were performed.
methodsStudy 1 investigated the effects of likelihood framing on side effect expectations, while Studies 2 and 3 investigated the effects of likelihood framing on side effect experiences in terms of nocebo side effects.
resultsStudy 1 (N = 244) showed that participants had higher side expectations when the side effect likelihood was negatively framed (e.g. 1% occurrence) than positively framed (e.g. 99% no occurrence). Side effect expectations were also more negative when frequencies (e.g. 1 in 100) rather than percentages were used. Study 2 tested the effects of positive vs. negative framing and percentages vs. frequencies on the occurrence of itch as a side effect of a placebo analgesic cream, which was applied in an experimental heat pain paradigm in a non-clinical sample (N = 179). Only 11% reported itch, with no significant differences between conditions. Study 3 (N = 110) increased the stated likelihood of itch, yet only 17% reported experiencing it. Crucially, reports of itch did not differ between experimental groups and a control group where itch was not mentioned as a possible side effect.
conclusionThis research failed to induce itch as a nocebo response. While examining likelihood framing in nocebo side effects is valuable, establishing an appropriate experimental model remains challenging. Future research directions and methodological considerations to move forward are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.