社会学习对知错效应的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析及对未来的建议。

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Health Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1080/17437199.2024.2394682
Cosette Saunders, Winston Tan, Kate Faasse, Ben Colagiuri, Louise Sharpe, Kirsten Barnes
{"title":"社会学习对知错效应的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析及对未来的建议。","authors":"Cosette Saunders, Winston Tan, Kate Faasse, Ben Colagiuri, Louise Sharpe, Kirsten Barnes","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2024.2394682","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Individuals frequently update their beliefs and behaviours based on observation of others' experience. While often adaptive, social learning can contribute to the development of negative health expectations, leading to worsened health outcomes, a phenomenon known as the nocebo effect. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined: whether social learning is sufficient to induce the nocebo effect, how it compares to other forms of induction (classical conditioning and explicit instruction), and factors that influence these effects. The meta-analysis included twenty studies (<i>n</i> = 1388). Social learning showed a medium-large effect size (Hedges' <i>g</i> = .74) relative to no treatment and a to small-medium effect (<i>g</i> = .42) when compared to neutral modelling. The effect of social learning was similar in magnitude to classical conditioning but greater than explicit instruction with a small-medium effect (<i>g</i> = .46). Face-to-face social modelling, longer exposure, higher proportions of female participants and models, and greater observer empathy led to stronger socially-induced nocebo effects. However, further research is essential as only a minority of studies measured important constructs like negative expectancies and state anxiety. Nonetheless, the study highlights social learning as a key pathway for nocebo effects, suggesting it as a target for interventions to reduce the substantial personal and societal burden caused by nocebo effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"934-953"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of social learning on the nocebo effect: a systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for the future.\",\"authors\":\"Cosette Saunders, Winston Tan, Kate Faasse, Ben Colagiuri, Louise Sharpe, Kirsten Barnes\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17437199.2024.2394682\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Individuals frequently update their beliefs and behaviours based on observation of others' experience. While often adaptive, social learning can contribute to the development of negative health expectations, leading to worsened health outcomes, a phenomenon known as the nocebo effect. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined: whether social learning is sufficient to induce the nocebo effect, how it compares to other forms of induction (classical conditioning and explicit instruction), and factors that influence these effects. The meta-analysis included twenty studies (<i>n</i> = 1388). Social learning showed a medium-large effect size (Hedges' <i>g</i> = .74) relative to no treatment and a to small-medium effect (<i>g</i> = .42) when compared to neutral modelling. The effect of social learning was similar in magnitude to classical conditioning but greater than explicit instruction with a small-medium effect (<i>g</i> = .46). Face-to-face social modelling, longer exposure, higher proportions of female participants and models, and greater observer empathy led to stronger socially-induced nocebo effects. However, further research is essential as only a minority of studies measured important constructs like negative expectancies and state anxiety. Nonetheless, the study highlights social learning as a key pathway for nocebo effects, suggesting it as a target for interventions to reduce the substantial personal and societal burden caused by nocebo effects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48034,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"934-953\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2394682\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2394682","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要个人经常会根据对他人经验的观察来更新自己的信念和行为。虽然社会学习通常具有适应性,但它也可能导致负面健康预期的形成,从而导致健康结果的恶化,这种现象被称为 "前兆效应"(nocebo effect)。这篇系统综述和荟萃分析研究了:社会学习是否足以诱发知错效应,它与其他诱导形式(经典条件反射和显性指令)的比较,以及影响这些效应的因素。荟萃分析包括 20 项研究(n = 1388)。相对于无疗法,社会学习显示出中-大效应(Hedges' g = .74),而与中性模型相比,社会学习显示出中-小效应(g = .42)。社会学习的效果与经典条件反射的效果相似,但大于显性指导的中小型效果(g = .46)。面对面的社会建模、更长的暴露时间、更高比例的女性参与者和模型以及更多的观察者移情,都会导致更强的社会诱发的滞后效应。然而,由于只有少数研究测量了消极预期和状态焦虑等重要结构,因此进一步的研究是必不可少的。尽管如此,这项研究还是强调了社会学习是消错效应的一个关键途径,并建议将其作为干预目标,以减轻消错效应对个人和社会造成的巨大负担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The effect of social learning on the nocebo effect: a systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for the future.

Individuals frequently update their beliefs and behaviours based on observation of others' experience. While often adaptive, social learning can contribute to the development of negative health expectations, leading to worsened health outcomes, a phenomenon known as the nocebo effect. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined: whether social learning is sufficient to induce the nocebo effect, how it compares to other forms of induction (classical conditioning and explicit instruction), and factors that influence these effects. The meta-analysis included twenty studies (n = 1388). Social learning showed a medium-large effect size (Hedges' g = .74) relative to no treatment and a to small-medium effect (g = .42) when compared to neutral modelling. The effect of social learning was similar in magnitude to classical conditioning but greater than explicit instruction with a small-medium effect (g = .46). Face-to-face social modelling, longer exposure, higher proportions of female participants and models, and greater observer empathy led to stronger socially-induced nocebo effects. However, further research is essential as only a minority of studies measured important constructs like negative expectancies and state anxiety. Nonetheless, the study highlights social learning as a key pathway for nocebo effects, suggesting it as a target for interventions to reduce the substantial personal and societal burden caused by nocebo effects.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信