Using semistructured interviews with 30 microdosers and the sociology of accounts, the authors show that participants offered no excuses but instead deployed six justificatory strategies—denial of injury, self-sustaining, self-fulfilment, appeal to normality, appeal to loyalties and knowledgeableness—when describing their practice. The study highlights how these justifications reveal microdosers’ subjective experiences and their attempts to align the practice with societal expectations.
Microdosing classic psychedelics (e.g., LSD [lysergic acid diethylamide] and psilocybin) is the practice of taking small amounts of these substances to bring about various positive life changes. Little is known about the subjective experiences and perceptions of those who engage in the practice. Accordingly, we use the sociology of accounts as a theoretical framework to explore the ways that those who microdose excuse or justify their practice. Using data from semistructured interviews with 30 people who had microdosed, we find that none provided excuses for their microdosing, but all offered one or more justifications. When discussing their microdosing, participants emphasized six key justifications: denial of injury, self-sustaining, self-fulfillment, appeal to normality, appeal to loyalties, and knowledgeableness. Findings provide insights into the subjective experiences of those who microdose, including the ways that they attempt to align their actions with societal expectations.
Microdosing classic psychedelics (for example LSD and psilocybin) involves taking sub‑perceptual or very small doses with the aim of producing subtle improvements in mood, creativity, cognition, or functioning rather than the full psychedelic ‘‘trip’’. Popular and media attention to microdosing has emphasised potential benefits, but classic psychedelics remain illegal in many jurisdictions and social stigma persists. The paper uses the sociology of accounts — a framework distinguishing excuses (denials of responsibility) from justifications (acceptance of responsibility while arguing the act is permissible in context) — to examine how people who microdose linguistically manage potential stigma and align their behaviour with societal expectations. Beaton and colleagues set out to explore how people who currently or formerly microdosed classic psychedelics account for that behaviour when questioned. Using semistructured interviews, the study investigates whether participants offered excuses or justifications and identifies the specific justificatory themes they used to neutralise or normalise microdosing in social contexts.
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Anderson, T., Petranker, R., Rosenbaum, D. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2019)
Fadiman, J., Korb, S. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2019)
Hutten, N. P. W., Mason, N. L., Dolder, P. C. et al. · International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology (2019)
Johnson, M. W., Hendricks, P. S., Barrett, F. S. et al. · Pharmacology and Therapeutics (2019)
The study used qualitative semistructured interviews with 30 participants who had experience microdosing classic psychedelics. Participants were recruited via criterion‑based sampling from Facebook groups and online discussion forums devoted to microdosing; an author posted study invitations and interested individuals contacted the research team. Eligible participants were at least 18 years old and had microdosed for at least 5 weeks within the prior year. The study adopted a common operational definition of microdosing (small doses taken on a regimented schedule for ≥5 weeks). Interviews occurred between June 2017 and January 2018 and were conducted by telephone or Facebook call, with participant consent for audio recording. Interview length ranged from about 30 to 75 minutes. The sample spanned multiple U.S. states (n = 12) and several other countries (n = 4); ages ranged 18–69 with a median of 31; 10 participants identified as women and 20 as men; racial/ethnic self‑identification included Asian (n = 1), Middle Eastern (n = 2), Hispanic/Latino (n = 3), and White (n = 24). Substance use patterns included psilocybin and LSD/1P‑LSD, with 6 participants using both, 13 using only psilocybin, and 11 using only LSD/1P‑LSD. Reported duration of microdosing ranged from 2 months to 5 years (mean ~1 year); 12 participants reported current or past larger‑dose psychedelic use and six reported never using psychedelics outside microdosing protocols. Interview topics covered initiation, motivations, perceived effects (positive or negative), procurement, dosing schedules, prior drug use, and concerns about detection. Transcripts were anonymised. Coding combined deductive codes drawn from the sociology of accounts literature with inductive, data‑driven codes to capture emergent justificatory themes.
Participants acknowledged legal penalties for possession of LSD and psilocybin but generally expected low risk of formal detection; their primary concern was reputational harm if friends, family, or employers discovered their microdosing. Many kept use secret from coworkers and family because of perceived negative public attitudes; illustrative quotes show fears of being labelled or judged and of workplace consequences such as drug testing. Contrary to offering excuses (denying responsibility), none of the 30 participants framed their microdosing as excused behaviour. Instead, all offered one or more justifications to reposition microdosing as acceptable. The investigators identified six recurring justificatory themes and report participant counts for each: denial of injury (n = 15), self‑sustaining (n = 23), self‑fulfillment (n = 30), appeal to loyalties (n = 16), appeal to normality (n = 19), and knowledgeableness (n = 12). Denial of injury: Half the sample (n = 15) stressed that microdosing caused no physical, mental, or emotional harm. Some compared microdosing favourably with over‑the‑counter medications or caffeine, while others emphasised no adverse impact on work, study, or mood. Representative participants denied experiencing negative effects and characterised microdosing as benign. Self‑sustaining: Twenty‑three participants framed microdosing as a coping or therapeutic strategy to relieve stress, anxiety, depression, or to aid recovery from heavier substance use. Several described microdosing as enabling them to manage overwhelming emotions or to reduce use of alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs; a few gave specific examples of quitting heroin or substantial reductions in other substance use coincident with microdosing. Self‑fulfillment: All 30 participants reported that microdosing enhanced personal wellbeing, cognition, creativity, or spirituality. Participants described improved mood, greater energy, increased focus, and enhanced capacity to process problems. This theme positioned microdosing as a tool for personal growth and prevention of problems rather than merely a remedial measure. Appeal to loyalties: Sixteen participants justified microdosing by emphasising benefits to close relationships. They reported that microdosing improved bonding with spouses, family, and friends, increased compassion and communication, or facilitated shared recreational experiences. Appeal to normality: Nineteen participants compared microdosing to socially accepted substances or medical treatments, framing it as analogous to prescription stimulants (e.g. Adderall), caffeine, alcohol, or as a legitimate therapeutic medicine (for anxiety or depression). Some cited clinical research or used cultural norms to argue microdosing should be treated as normal or medicinal. Knowledgeableness: Twelve participants reported curiosity and prior research as motives for trying microdosing; these participants emphasised experimentation and information gathering rather than an initial therapeutic intent. Overall, the data indicate participants accepted responsibility for microdosing and relied on culturally available vocabularies to neutralise potential stigma, using pragmatic, health‑oriented, relational, or normalising arguments.
Beaton and colleagues interpret the findings as showing that people who microdose classic psychedelics commonly reframe the practice as an instrumentally useful, socially acceptable activity rather than a deviant one. By deploying justificatory accounts — denial of injury, self‑sustaining, self‑fulfillment, appeal to loyalties, appeal to normality, and knowledgeableness — participants sought to align microdosing with conventional values such as self‑improvement, health maintenance, and responsible caretaking. The authors note that participants’ tone tended toward reasoned argument rather than apology; stigma was managed by keeping use private and by explaining microdosing in terms already legitimate in the culture (for example, comparison to supplements, coffee, or prescription medicines). The investigators acknowledge important limitations. The sample was purposive and interpretivist rather than probabilistic, so frequencies reported should not be generalised to the wider population of microdosers. Selection bias likely favoured people who viewed microdosing positively, and the interviewer’s social characteristics may have shaped responses. The authors emphasise that accounts are social constructions drawn from culturally available vocabularies; social location of speakers and audience contexts will influence justificatory repertoires, and microdosers from different backgrounds might employ different accounts. Finally, they caution that participant claims about benefits and lack of harm are subjective and not proof of clinical efficacy or safety. Directions for further work include examining how media coverage and decriminalisation efforts shape the legitimacy of microdosing accounts, and conducting more clinical research to evaluate the effectiveness and potential harms of microdosing under controlled conditions.
To understand how people accounted for their microdosing classic psychedelics, we rely on data gathered from semistructured interviews with 30 people who were currently microdosing classic psychedelics or who had formerly microdosed classic psychedelics. We recruited participants using criterion-based sampling techniques via various Facebook groups and discussion forums dedicated to microdosing. One of the authors made posts to these groups and discussion forums explaining the study and asked that anyone who was interested in participating in an interview contact her. Eligible participants had to be at least 18 years of age and must have had experience with microdosing for at least 5 weeks within the last year. Following the most frequently cited dosage protocol, we defined microdosing as taking small doses of a classic psychedelic, following a regimented schedule for a period of at least 5 weeks,. All interviews were conducted between June 2017 and January 2018. We recruited participants using the Internet; thus, participants lived in multiple states in the United States (n = 12) and in various countries (n = 4). We interviewed participants via telephone or the Facebook call feature and recorded all interviews with the consent of each participant. The interviews lasted between 30 and 75 min. Participants were between the ages of 18 and 69 years, with a median age of 31 years. Ten of the participants self-identified as women and 20 as men. All the participants' races were self-identified and included Asian (n = 1), Middle Eastern (n = 2), Hispanic/Latino (n = 3), and White (n = 24). Six of the participants microdosed with both psilocybin mushrooms and LSD or its analogue, 1-propionyl-lysergic acid diethylamide (1P-LSD), 13 with only psilocybin mushrooms, and 11 with only LSD or 1P-LSD. Participants reported microdosing for a period ranging from 2 months to 5 years, with an average of about 1 year microdosing. Twelve of the participants also reported using classic psychedelics in larger recreational doses, 12 did so in the past, and six reported never using classic psychedelics outside of microdosing protocols. All interviews were semistructured and began with questions related to when, why, and how the participant began to microdose. We used an interview guide to ensure we asked questions related to their motivations for microdosing, the effects (positive or negative) experienced during or after microdosing, how they procured the substances, how they scheduled their dosages, their prior drug use, and their concerns regarding detection. The use of semistructured interviews means that we sought to develop conversations about their experiences. Although we ensured that all participants addressed these topics, we did not ask questions in the same order or with the same phrasing. During transcription, we removed all names and identifying information from the transcripts. All participants were assigned aliases, which are used throughout the results. When coding the interviews, we used both deductive and inductive coding. For the deductive codes, we used sensitizing concepts from the sociology of accounts. We began by creating a list of accounts, drawing from the literature examining drug use and accounting. In addition, as we read through the transcripts, we looked for emerging accounts that were not included in the literature.
Unlike the use of moderate to large doses of classic psychedelics, the purpose of microdosing is not to experience mystical effects, unitary consciousness, or ego dissolution. Instead, those who microdose say they are seeking more subtle outcomes that contribute to healthful lives. Although this sample contains none who were dissatisfied with microdosing, and this was likely due to how participants were selected, it is clear that participants believed they achieved the boosts they sought. However, participants said that they were still concerned with potential negative judgment from others and sought to keep their drug use secret. When they were questioned by others about their microdosing, they relied on a variety of justifications to avoid or manage the stigma associated with their behavior. By emphasizing justifications, such as denial of injury, self-sustaining, self-fulfillment, appeal to loyalties, appeal to normality, and knowledgeableness, participants repositioned microdosing classic psychedelics as being a tool for success. This allowed them to show how their drug use was acceptable. Although participants did justify their microdosing, the experienced stigma of microdosing appears to be relatively mild and easily managed. It was neither difficult to explain nor emotionally challenging for participants to discuss their decision to microdose. Indeed, the stigma did not appear to be all that worrying to them. In tone, how participants managed it was akin to how others manage taking prescription medication (both prescribed and not;. For the most part, participants would rather keep their microdosing private so as not to advertise their vulnerabilities or diagnoses, but if the subject was raised in company deemed polite, safe, and understanding, it was not trying for them to discuss and our results suggest the ways they justified it. The ease with which the stigma of microdosing was managed is interesting theoretically. Assuggest, people draw from preexisting accounts and cultural beliefs when accounting for their actions. Indeed, the nature of the justifications was consistent with current perceptions of the benefit of using supplements for self-improvement. The content of the various justifications participants offered are in line with this way of thinking. A possible future direction of research is to uncover how current media attention to the use of supplements to improve life and to the potential positive benefits of microdosing shape the way people talk about their use of classic psychedelics in small doses. Recent popular press and online media such as The Atlantic, GQ, and AlterNet have reported favorably about microdosing classic psychedelics, and a few U.S. cities are engaged in decriminalization efforts for psychedelics already undertaken in some European countries. More needs to be known about how such favorable media attention and efforts may provide legitimacy to the accounts made by those who microdose. In our study of people who microdose, we used an interpretivist framework and a purposive sample (i.e., a nonprobability sample). As such we caution readers about generalizing the findings to the larger population of people who microdose classic psychedelics. We cannot make claims about the actual distribution of the various justifications in the larger population of those who microdose. Rather, the data allow us simply to speak to the range of justifications that people may use when accounting for their actions. Although we did provide frequencies with which our participants use each justification, care should be taken when trying to generalize to the larger population. In addition, the nature of the sample (people who valued microdosing) as well as the characteristic of the interviewer (middle-class, woman) undoubtedly shaped the responses toward microdosing. Accounts are not created by the individuals. Rather, people draw from preexisting accounts when making sense of their actions). People's social locations (including age, gender, race, and class) will influence how they talk about their behaviors. The same is true for the characteristics of the audience with whom they are speaking. Thus, microdosers from different backgrounds may have different ways of justifying their actions than do our participants. In addition, readers should be aware that the accounts of participants should not be taken as absolute truths, but should instead be interpreted as social constructions. Although the participants were certain that microdosing benefited them in numerous ways and led to no lasting negative effects, we cannot say for certain if this is the case. Indeed, clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of microdosing are limited. More research on the effectiveness and potential harmfulness of microdosing are needed.
Create a free account to open full-text PDFs.
Johnstad, P. G. · Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (2018)
Polito, V., Stevenson, R. J. · PLOS ONE (2019)
Prochazkova, L., Lippelt, D. P., Colzato, L. S. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2018)
Webb, M., Copes, H., Hendricks, P. S. · International Journal of Drug Policy (2019)
Yanakieva, S., Polychroni, N., Family, N. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2018)
Papers in Blossom that reference this study
Joy Donegan, C., Daldegan-Bueno, D., Sumner, R. L. et al. · Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology (2025)
Haijen, E. C. H. M., Hurks, P. P. M., Kuypers, K. P. C. · European Psychiatry (2024)
Polito, V., Liknaitzky, P. · Psyarxiv (2021)