“Placebo Effects in Cognitive Training”, 2016-07-05 (; backlinks; similar):
Placebo effects pose problems for some intervention studies, particularly those with no clearly identified mechanism. Cognitive training falls into that category, and yet the role of placebos in cognitive interventions has not yet been critically evaluated. Here, we show clear evidence of placebo effects after a brief cognitive training routine that led to substantial fluid intelligence gains. Our goal is to emphasize the importance of ruling out alternative explanations before attributing the effect to interventions. Based on our findings, we recommend that researchers account for placebo effects before claiming treatment effects.
Although a large body of research shows that general cognitive ability is heritable and stable in young adults, there is recent evidence that fluid intelligence can be heightened with cognitive training. Many researchers, however, have questioned the methodology of the cognitive-training studies reporting improvements in fluid intelligence: specifically, the role of placebo effects. W
e designed a procedure to intentionally induce a placebo effect via overt recruitment in an effort to evaluate the role of placebo effects in fluid intelligence gains from cognitive training. Individuals who self-selected into the placebo group by responding to a suggestive flyer showed improvements after a single, 1-h session of cognitive training that equates to a 5-point to 10-point increase on a standard IQ test. Controls responding to a non-suggestive flyer showed no improvement.
These findings provide an alternative explanation for effects observed in the cognitive-training literature and the brain-training industry, revealing the need to account for confounds in future research.
…We also observed differences between groups for scores on the Theories of Intelligence scale, which measures beliefs regarding the malleability of intelligence (34). The participants in the placebo group reported substantially higher scores on this index compared with controls [B = 14.96, SE = 1.93, t(48) = 7.75, p < 0.0001, d = 2.15], indicating a greater confidence that intelligence is malleable. These findings indicate that our manipulation via recruitment flyer produced statistically-significantly different groups with regard to expectancy. We did not detect differences in Need for Cognition scores (41) [B = 0.56, SE = 5.67, t(48) = 0.10, p = 0.922] (Figure 3). Together, these results support the interpretation that participants self-selected into groups based on differing expectations.
View PDF: