Placebo effects in alternative medical treatments for anxiety: false hope or healing potential?
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To investigate whether anxiety reductions attributed to healing crystals reflect placebo responses driven by conditioning and belief-related biases rather than specific therapeutic effects. Methods: In a randomized, controlled study, 138 adults were classified as believers or nonbelievers in crystal efficacy and assigned to rose quartz (experimental) or a visually matched placebo. Participants followed a standardized 14-day protocol. Anxiety was assessed pre- and post-intervention with the Beck Anxiety Inventory and the Spanish Kuwait University Anxiety Scale. Multilevel analyses of variance (ANOVA) and Bayesian models were used to evaluate main effects, interactions, and evidence for treatment specificity. Results: Anxiety reductions occurred only among believers, regardless of crystal assignment. No differences were detected between groups in primary outcomes, and improvements did not exceed the magnitudes typically associated with placebo responses. Bayesian estimates favored the null hypothesis for specific treatment effects. Preexisting belief strongly predicted perceived efficacy and symptom change, consistent with causal illusions plausibly shaped by conditioning mechanisms. Nonbelievers showed no reliable improvement. Conclusion: Healing crystals did not demonstrate anxiolytic effects beyond those of the placebo. Symptom change was mediated by expectancy and conditioning, particularly in individuals inclined toward intuitive or magical thinking. Although nonspecific, context-dependent factors—such as elements of the therapeutic alliance—may amplify placebo responsiveness in clinical settings, these findings do not support attributing inherent therapeutic value to crystals. Future work should delineate how expectations, clinician-patient rapport, and related variables interact to shape placebo response and how such mechanisms might be ethically leveraged to enhance evidence-based care without promoting pseudoscientific practices.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Exploring a latent cause theory of classical conditioning
Gershman, S. J., & Niv, Y. (2012) · Learning & Behavior · doi:10.3758/s13420-012-0080-8 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Placebo effects in psychotherapy: a framework
Enck, P., & Zipfel, S. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00456 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Levin, A. W., Lancelotta, R., Sepeda, N. D., Gukasyan, N., Nayak, S., Wagener, T. L., Barrett, F. S., Griffiths, R. R., & Davis, A. K. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0300501 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Classical conditioning of antidepressant placebo effects in mice
Krimmel, S. R., Zanos, P., Georgiou, P., Colloca, L., & Gould, T. D. (2020) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-019-05347-4 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Escolà-Gascón, Á., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., Denovan, A., & Benito-León, J.
- Affiliations
- Comillas Pontifical University
- Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
- Liverpool John Moores University
- University Hospital
- Venue
- CNS Spectrums
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2025
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e70-e70
- ISSN
- 1092-8529 (ISSN-L)
- 2165-6509
- PMC
- PMC13064771
- OpenAlex
- W4413653737
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 0.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- CNS Spectrums (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Comillas Repository (Comillas Pontifical University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (acceptedVersion)
- Liverpool John Moores University (acceptedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- University of Cambridge
- European Commission
- Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (MCIN/AEI/10, PID2022-138585OB-C33, / AEI/10, TED2021-130174B-C33, PID2022)
- National Institutes of Health
- Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (TED2021-130174B-C33)
- Agencia Estatal de Investigación (13039, AEI/10)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS094607, NS39422, NS094607, R01 NS 39422, R01NS039422)
- NextGenerationEU
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
- Keywords
- placebo effect, rose quartz, anxiety, complementary and alternative medicine, expectancy, conditioning, treatment specificity, therapeutic relationship, intuitive thinking, magical thinking
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Anxiety, Bayes Theorem, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Placebo Effect, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review