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.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe