Hypotheses
chronic illness, anxiety
CHRONIC ILLNESS
Our quantitative hypotheses were based on previous research findings and included the following:Qualitative hypothesis: Existing perceptions of placebos will vary with regard to the underlying level of knowledge and personal attitudes. However, a common theme will be a perceived need for deception to ensure placebo effectiveness.Framing hypothesis: Participant ratings for general treatment acceptability, personal treatment acceptability and expected treatment efficacy of different placebos will be affected by the terminology used. Participants in the sugar pill condition (vs. placebo condition) will rate placebo treatments as more acceptable, but less effective.Treatment type hypothesis: There will be significant differences in the acceptability and effectiveness ratings for different treatment options in the hypothetical patient scenarios. Open-label placebos will be rated more acceptable but less effective than blinded placebos. Any placebo treatment will be rated as less acceptable and less effective compared to antibiotic treatment. Acceptability and effectiveness ratings will be lowest for the “no treatment” scenario.Demographic hypothesis: Participants of a lower age (vs higher age), and participants, who have visited a doctor in the past 12 months (vs. not visited a doctor), taken antibiotics in the past 12 months (vs. not taken antibiotics), never taken a placebo (vs. previously taken a placebo) and who consider themselves to have a chronic illness or be immunocompromised (vs. healthy with normal immune systems) will rate placebo treatments as more acceptable and effective.Covariate hypothesis: High scores in health anxiety and health risk aversion and low scores in health risk literacy will be correlated with lower acceptance levels and lower effectiveness ratings of placebos. All three variables will explain a significant amount of variance in the ANCOVA analysis.