Abstract: | In this reply, the authors explore several issues raised by I. Kirsch (2004; see record 2004-11156-008) concerning their original article (S. Stewart-Williams & J. Podd, 2004; see record 2004-11156-007), which dealt with the roles of expectancy and classical conditioning in the placebo effect. The only notable disagreement concerns a definitional issue, namely, Stewart-Williams and Podd's claim that the placebo concept can be extended to inert psychotherapies. The authors defend this claim against the criticisms Kirsch raised. In addition, they comment on the suggestion that nonconscious learning processes play only a small role in human placebo effects, arguing that there are theoretical reasons to expect these processes to be more important than has previously been recognized. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |