New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Watching Shot Can Boost Pain

Subjects who watched a hand being pricked by a needle while they received a gentle electric shock felt more pain than others who watched gentler material. Rose Eveleth reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

For some, the quick prick of a needle at the doctor’s office is no big deal. For others it can be a nightmare. New research suggests that the difference could lie in what you’re looking at.

Researchers simulated needle pricks by giving participants a little shock to their hand. As they did that, subjects had to watch three different videos. One was of a needle pricking a hand, another was of a Q-tip touching a hand, and the third was just a hand all by its lonesome self.

Subjects who watched the hand being pricked while they were shocked found the pain far more intense than those who watched a Q-tip or nothing at all.


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 also tried telling patients which one—the needle or the Q-tip—would be more painful. If the patients expected the Q-tip to be worse, they felt worse when watching the Q-tip, and vice versa. The work was published in the journal aptly named Pain. [Marion Höfle et al., "Viewing a needle pricking a hand that you perceive as yours enhances unpleasantness of pain"]

So the next time you’re at the doctor’s office getting ready for a shot, take the advice often offered by mountain climbers: don’t look down.

—Rose Eveleth

[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