The influence of external information on judgements of pain.
Fake feedback bends pain scores, so guard every self-report against outside nudges.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers told adults to rate heat pain on a scale. After each rating the computer showed fake feedback. Some saw inflated scores, some saw deflated scores, some saw true scores, and some saw none.
The goal was to see if outside information changes how people report pain.
What they found
False feedback pulled pain reports up or down. Inflated scores made people rate pain higher. Deflated scores made them rate pain lower.
True feedback and no feedback stayed in the middle. External cues clearly bent the numbers.
How this fits with other research
Striefel et al. (1974) found the same pull in a classroom. Feedback alone cut disruptive behavior and lifted peer praise without any rewards. Both studies show words on a screen can reshape human reports.
Morawska et al. (2007) saw observer effects in parent training. Mothers who knew they were watched reported calmer kids and better parenting. The pain lab and the living-room study echo each other: outside cues twist self-report data.
Bhaumik et al. (2008) and McGeown et al. (2013) warn us on the staff side. Performance feedback changes how teachers and supervisors themselves follow protocols. If we give feedback to clients, we may also be swaying our own integrity scores.
Why it matters
Next time you ask a client to rate pain, stress, or mood, first check what messages they just heard. Turn off extra screens, wait for quiet, and give no leading comments. Record the number, then move on. Clean data means better decisions.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before you ask for a pain or mood rating, clear the room of extra comments, screens, or sighs that could steer the answer.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Two studies were performed to assess the relationship between estimates of subjective pain and a graduated ischemic pain stimulus. In the first, 20 subjects received a 7-minute pressure stimulus with a blood-pressure cuff and then rated their pain on a 0-5 scale. At three separate sessions, subjects saw either no feedback or a visual feedback slide that ostensibly depicted cuff pressure. The numbers were either accurate, too high, or too low. Subjective estimates of pain rose with increasing cuff pressure, but pain ratings were higher during high-feedback conditions, and lower during low-feedback conditions than during either the no- or true-feedback conditions, which did not differ. Study 2, which evaluated subjective estimates of actual cuff pressure as well as pain, replicated these results. Both studies suggest that false information may alter a subject's report of pain and of the stimulus causing it.
Behavior modification, 1995 · doi:10.1177/01454455950193002