Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Randomized Experiments01:13

Randomized Experiments

8.7K
The randomization process involves assigning study participants randomly to experimental or control groups based on their probability of being equally assigned. Randomization is meant to eliminate selection bias and balance known and unknown confounding factors so that the control group is similar to the treatment group as much as possible. A computer program and a random number generator can be used to assign participants to groups in a way that minimizes bias.
Simple randomization
Simple...
8.7K
The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic01:25

The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic

7.7K
In order to make good decisions, we use our knowledge and our reasoning. Often, this knowledge and reasoning is sound and solid. However, sometimes, we are swayed by biases or by others manipulating a situation. For example, let’s say you and three friends wanted to rent a house and had a combined target budget of $1,600. The realtor shows you only very run-down houses for $1,600 and then shows you a very nice house for $2,000. Might you ask each person to pay more in rent to get the...
7.7K
Blinding01:11

Blinding

3.8K
Blinding is a commonly used method of not telling participants which treatment a subject is receiving. Blinding is a critical part of a randomized control trial or RCT. It reduces the bias that affects the results. In an RCT, blinding is used in the form of a placebo. A placebo effect occurs when untreated subjects falsely believe they have received the treatment and report improved symptoms. A placebo or a dummy treatment is administered to subjects to negate the bias caused by such an effect.
3.8K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Comment to: Efficacy of totally extraperitoneal endoscopic hernioplasty (TEP) versus Lichtenstein hernioplasty.

Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery·2026
Same author

Winner of the Ronald Melzack-Canadian Journal of Pain Paper of the Year Award for 2024/Récipiendaire du Prix Ronald Melzack Pour L'Année 2024 Des Articles Parus Dans La Revue Canadienne de La Douleur.

Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur·2025
Same author

Editorial to accompany the special issue: Social and health inequities in chronic pain across the life span.

Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur·2025
Same author

Predicting Clinical Outcomes at the Toronto General Hospital Transitional Pain Service via the Manage My Pain App: Machine Learning Approach.

JMIR medical informatics·2025
Same author

Ten years of transitional pain service research and practice: where are we and where do we go from here?

Regional anesthesia and pain medicine·2025
Same author

Identification of Presurgical Risk Factors for the Development of Chronic Postsurgical Pain in Adults: A Comprehensive Umbrella Review.

Journal of pain research·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Dec 26, 2025

Psychophysically-anchored, Robust Thresholding in Studying Pain-related Lateralization of Oscillatory Prestimulus Activity
07:28

Psychophysically-anchored, Robust Thresholding in Studying Pain-related Lateralization of Oscillatory Prestimulus Activity

Published on: January 21, 2017

7.2K

Influencing Pain Inferences Using Random Numerical Anchoring: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Rebecca Elizabeth Lewinson1, Joel D Katz1

  • 1Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.

JMIR Human Factors
|March 10, 2020
PubMed
Summary

Exposure to random numbers significantly influenced pain ratings, demonstrating numerical anchoring. This effect was observed only when participants believed the number affected their judgment, suggesting potential implications for healthcare providers evaluating patient pain.

Keywords:
anchoring effectchronic painheuristicsmechanical Turknumerical anchoringpainpain inference

More Related Videos

Dynamic Quantitative Sensory Testing to Characterize Central Pain Processing
09:16

Dynamic Quantitative Sensory Testing to Characterize Central Pain Processing

Published on: February 16, 2017

17.4K
Author Spotlight: Methodologies and Advancements of Chronic Pain Management Research
08:33

Author Spotlight: Methodologies and Advancements of Chronic Pain Management Research

Published on: January 5, 2024

1.6K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Dec 26, 2025

Psychophysically-anchored, Robust Thresholding in Studying Pain-related Lateralization of Oscillatory Prestimulus Activity
07:28

Psychophysically-anchored, Robust Thresholding in Studying Pain-related Lateralization of Oscillatory Prestimulus Activity

Published on: January 21, 2017

7.2K
Dynamic Quantitative Sensory Testing to Characterize Central Pain Processing
09:16

Dynamic Quantitative Sensory Testing to Characterize Central Pain Processing

Published on: February 16, 2017

17.4K
Author Spotlight: Methodologies and Advancements of Chronic Pain Management Research
08:33

Author Spotlight: Methodologies and Advancements of Chronic Pain Management Research

Published on: January 5, 2024

1.6K

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Health Psychology
  • Medical Decision Making

Background:

  • Numerical anchoring describes how exposure to a number influences judgments about other quantities.
  • This phenomenon may impact pain evaluations, where unrelated numbers could skew pain ratings.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate if a random numeric anchor affects subsequent pain intensity ratings.
  • To explore the influence of numerical anchors on hypothetical patient pain assessments.

Main Methods:

  • 385 participants rated hypothetical patient pain after exposure to numeric anchors (high/low numbers) or control conditions (letter wheel/no wheel).
  • Participants were randomly assigned to groups exposed to a programmed number wheel (0-10) or a letter wheel.
  • Pain intensity was rated on a 0-10 numeric rating scale.

Main Results:

  • The high-number group reported significantly higher pain ratings compared to control and low-number groups.
  • The low-number group reported significantly lower pain ratings than both control groups.
  • Anchoring effects were significant (P=.02 and P<.001 for high-number group; P=.045 for low-number group).

Conclusions:

  • Prior exposure to irrelevant numbers, acting as anchors, significantly influenced pain ratings.
  • Anchoring effects were evident only when participants perceived the anchor's influence, differing from traditional definitions.
  • Findings suggest potential anchoring biases in healthcare providers evaluating patient pain, warranting further investigation.