Cited by 155Pain Management and Placebo EffectPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Behavioural and neural evidence for self-reinforcing expectancy effects on pain

Open access
Jepma, Marieke, Koban, Leonie, van Doorn, Johnny, Jones, Matt, Wager, Tor D.·2018·Nature Human Behaviour

Abstract

Beliefs and expectations often persist despite evidence to the contrary. Here we examine two potential mechanisms underlying such 'self-reinforcing' expectancy effects in the pain domain: modulation of perception and biased learning. In two experiments, cues previously associated with symbolic representations of high or low temperatures preceded painful heat. We examined trial-to-trial dynamics in participants' expected pain, reported pain and brain activity. Subjective and neural pain responses assimilated towards cue-based expectations, and pain responses in turn predicted subsequent expectations, creating a positive dynamic feedback loop. Furthermore, we found evidence for a confirmation bias in learning: higher- and lower-than-expected pain triggered greater expectation updating for high- and low-pain cues, respectively. Individual differences in this bias were reflected in the updating of pain-anticipatory brain activity. Computational modelling provided converging evidence that expectations influence both perception and learning. Together, perceptual assimilation and biased learning promote self-reinforcing expectations, helping to explain why beliefs can be resistant to change.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41562-018-0455-8

Cites

129 of 129 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Early evidence indicates biases in pain perception caused by predictive cues can short-circuit learning, creating positive feedback loops between predictions and experiences that result in resistance to disconfirming evidence.

    “Studies of confirmation bias in direct perceptual experiences like pain are more rare, but early evidence indicates biases in pain perception caused by predictive cues can short-circuit learning, creating positive feedback loops between predictions and experiences that result in resistance to disconfirming evidence (26).”
  • Even cues conditioned to conceptual representations of reinforcers can elicit enduring effects in some cases.

    “Even cues conditioned to conceptual representations of reinforcers (e.g., images of thermometers indicating high or low pain) can elicit enduring effects in some cases (26).”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 130 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [57]Dayan P & Kakade S Explaining away in weight space in Advances in neural information processing systems Vol. 13 (ed Dietterich TG Leen TK, Tresp V) 451– 457 (MIT Press, 2000).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jepma, M., Koban, L., van Doorn, J., Jones, M., & Wager, T. D.
Affiliations
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
Corresponding author
Jepma, Marieke
Venue
Nature Human Behaviour
Published
2018-10-29
Volume
2
Issue
11
Pages
838-855
ISSN
2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2898173573
Cited by
155
References
130
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 1
FWCI
6.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH076136)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA027794)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
pain anticipation, confirmation bias, biased learning, pain perception, expectation updating, belief updating, thermal pain, computational modelling, individual differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Culture, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Motivation, Neuropsychological Tests, Pain, Psychological Theory, Reinforcement, Psychology, Pain Perception

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