New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Placebos Work Better on Stoics

Placebo painkillers do less for people who tend toward hostility and work best for the naturally resilient. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Aches and pains getting you down? Or maybe they really tick you off. If that’s the case, maybe don’t look to a placebo to give you any relief. Because a new study shows that sugar pills are less effective for people who are quick to anger. The work appears in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology. [Marta Peciña et al., Personality Trait Predictors of Placebo Analgesia and Neurobiological Correlates]

For centuries, physicians have known that some patients improve when given fake medicine, like pills that contain no real drugs. But how can docs predict which of their cases are most likely to benefit from the "placebo effect"?

To find out, researchers ran 50 volunteers through a battery of personality tests. They then injected a bit of saltwater into the subjects’ muscles and told them they’d be getting a little something to relieve the resulting pain. Although that little something was actually a sham.


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.


The researchers found that pretend meds don’t do much for people who tend toward hostility. They work best for folks who are naturally resilient, and altruistic.

The subjects who responded to the faux treatment actually produced more of the body’s own natural painkillers. That’s good news for the stoic, and one more thing for the angry to be mad about.

—Karen Hopkin

[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