New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Different Placebos Can Have Different Effects

In a study of patients asked to tolerate discomfort, different placebo treatments achieved different levels of relief, in keeping with individual expectations. Katherine Harmon reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When it comes to providing pain relief, expectations can be a powerful prescription. That’s part of the theory behind the placebo effect, in which people often report feeling better—even after a sugar pill or sham procedure—simply because they expect improvement.

Now a study finds that there may be levels of placebo effect.

Forty-five healthy volunteers had a heating electrode placed on their skin to cause discomfort. Over multiple sessions, they were either given nothing, or Tylenol, or needle-free acupuncture or electro-acupuncture, in which the needles carry a slight current.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Painkillers should let them tolerate the heat longer. The hitch was that the Tylenol and needle-free conventional acupuncture were fakes.

The subjects were later interviewed about their expectations. And their feelings about each treatment largely determined its effect. Those who thought the acupuncture would work were more likely to report pain reduction from both the real and fake acu-treatments. The findings are in the journal PLoS ONE. [Jian Kong et al., Are All Placebo Effects Equal? Placebo Pills, Sham Acupuncture, Cue Conditioning and Their Association]

They suggest a variable placebo effect, one that may depend on whether you swallow that sugar pill with a grain of salt.

—Katherine Harmon

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe