Expectancy priming of smoking cessation messages enhances the placebo effect of tailored interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Previous research (Webb, Simmons, & Brandon, 2005) suggested that smokers' reactions to self-help materials were more positive if they believed that the materials had been personally tailored to their individual characteristics and if they held expectancies that tailored interventions are superior to standard, or generic, interventions. The authors' objective in the current study was to replicate and extend this research by testing the efficacy expectancy priming before intervention delivery. DESIGN: In a 2 x 2 factorial experiment, 210 smokers (M = 23 cigarettes/day) recruited from the community (62% female; 92% Caucasian; mean age = 49) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 conditions: placebo-tailored intervention/no priming, placebo-tailored intervention/priming, standard intervention/no priming, or standard intervention/priming. The tailoring-related expectancies of participants' in the priming conditions were primed before they were presented with the respective intervention booklets. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Content evaluations, readiness to quit smoking, cessation self-efficacy, smoking-related knowledge, and progress toward quitting (behavior changes). Assessments occurred by mail at baseline and at 1-month postintervention. RESULTS: Similar to the earlier study, the placebo-tailored booklets produced superior evaluations and smoking-related cognitive and behavioral changes. Moreover, the pretreatment expectancy priming successfully altered participants' tailoring-related expectancies and also produced superior evaluations and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Findings support a causal role of tailoring-related expectancies on the efficacy of tailored interventions and suggest that interventions can be enhanced via expectancy priming.     

A Community of Psychotherapists

Services for chronic mental patients in this era of deinstitutionalization present a major challenge to clinicians and planners alike. The complexity of these patients' clinical and other programmatic needs requires that an array of viable comprehensive services be made available to them. Following certain established principles of service planning will help facilitate patients' longitudinal, psychological, financial, and geographical access to care.     

Double Effect and the End-Not-Means Principle: A Response to Bennett

Proponents of double-effect reasoning — relying in part on a distinction between intention and foresight — assert that it is worse intentionally to cause harm than to cause harm with foresight but without intention. They hold, for example, that terror bombing is worse than tactical bombing in so far as terror bombing is the intentional harming of non-combatants while tactical bombing is not. In articulating the ethical relevance of the intended/foreseen distinction, advocates of double effect employ the Kantian end-not-means principle.
Jonathan Bennett has recently argued that this principle cannot ground the ethical relevance of the intended/foreseen distinction. He holds that the principle demands that one benefit others while double effect deals with acts that do not benefit others. Thus, he maintains, the intended/foreseen distinction does not have ethical import and double effect is not tenable. I argue for a reading of the end-not-means principle that grounds the ethical relevance of both the intended/foreseen distinction and double effect.