This study compared the creativity levels of 15 recreational MDMA users, 15 cannabis users, and 15 controls. It found higher scores for cannabis users on one scale and self-rating of creativity on another scale for MDMA users. As this was just an observational study, nothing much about the creativity of all three groups can be said.
This study investigated the associations between chronic cannabis and Ecstasy/MDMA use and one objective and two subjective measure of creativity. Fifteen abstinent Ecstasy users, 15 abstinent cannabis users, and 15 nondrug-user controls, completed three measures of creativity: the Consequences behavioral test of creativity, self-assessed performance on the Consequences test, and Gough's Trait Self-Report Creative Adjective Checklist. The Consequences test involved five scenarios where possible consequences had to be devised; scoring was conducted by the standard blind rating (by two independent judges) for “remoteness” and “rarity,” and by a frequency and rarity of responses method. Cannabis users had significantly more “rare-creative” responses than controls (Tukey, p < 0.05); this effect remained significant with gender as a covariate. There were no significant differences between the groups on the number of standard scoring “remote-creative” ideas or for fluency of responses. On self-rated creativity, there was a significant ANOVA group difference (p < 0.05), with Ecstasy users tending to rate their answers as more creative than controls (Tukey comparison; p = 0.058, two-tailed). Ecstasy users did not differ from controls on the behavioral measures of creativity, although there was a borderline trend for self-assessment of greater creativity. Cannabis users produced significantly more “rare-creative” responses, but did not rate themselves as more creative.
Earlier literature has often linked recreational use of psychoactive drugs with artistic or musical creativity, and some users report taking drugs to enhance creative thinking. Empirical findings have been mixed: laboratory work with cannabis suggested dose-dependent effects on behavioural creativity, while survey work found that recreational Ecstasy/MDMA users sometimes endorse increased creativity as a positive outcome. Theoretical and methodological uncertainty remains about whether and how different drugs might alter creative cognition. Jones and colleagues set out to re-examine the relationship between drug use and creativity by comparing behavioural and subjective measures of creativity in three groups: recent Ecstasy users, cannabis users (who had not used Ecstasy), and nondrug-using controls. The study used an established behavioural test of divergent thinking (the Consequences test), an objective frequency-based scoring method for rarity of responses, and two self-assessment measures; intelligence was also measured to control for possible confounding by fluid ability. No specific directional predictions were made because prior findings were inconsistent.
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Krippner, S. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (1985)
ten Berge, J. T. · Journal of Creative Behavior (2011)
Papers in Blossom that reference this study
Iszáj, F., Griffiths, M. D., Demetrovics, Z. · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (2016)
Sweat, N. W., Bates, L. W., Hendricks, P. S. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2016)
This was a cross-sectional, between-groups study of 45 undergraduate students at a single UK university, with three groups of 15 participants each: Ecstasy users (11 men, 4 women; mean age 23.00, SD = 2.56), cannabis users (6 men, 9 women; mean age 22.26, SD = 3.05) and nondrug controls (4 men, 11 women; mean age 21.86, SD = 2.13). Recruitment used snowball sampling and flyers. Inclusion criteria included self-reported recent Ecstasy use for the Ecstasy group (use within the previous three months) and no lifetime Ecstasy use for the cannabis and control groups. Participants reported being drug-free at testing and were paid £10; ethics approval and debriefing were provided. The extracted text does not report random sampling or biological verification of abstinence. Behavioural and self-report measures included: (1) the Consequences test of divergent thinking (five hypothetical scenarios, 2 minutes per scenario), scored by two independent, blinded judges according to the standard manual classifications (responses labelled "obvious," "remote," "duplicate" or "irrelevant"); (2) a frequency-based/objective scoring method in which responses across all participants were categorised and those occurring in less than 5% of responses were classed as "rare"; (3) a self-rated creativity item asking participants to compare their Consequences performance with peers on a five-point Likert scale; and (4) Gough's Adjective Creativity Checklist (ADCL), a trait self-report with 18 positive and 12 negative items producing a score range of -12 to +18. Fluid intelligence was assessed using 18 items from Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM), scored as percent correct. Two sets of independent judges performed blind ratings for standard and frequency scoring; agreement statistics were reported. Analyses were primarily ANOVAs comparing the three groups on the various creativity measures, with follow-up Tukey tests for pairwise comparisons. Gender was examined as a potential covariate and was included in some analyses; correlations among creativity measures were also computed with group partialled out. The text reports use of partial eta squared for some effect sizes and t-tests for select group comparisons (for example, cocaine use).
Participant characteristics: the three groups did not differ on RAPM fluid intelligence scores (F(2,44) = 1.124, p = .335) or years of education since age 16 (F(2,44) = 0.274, p = .762). Current alcohol and nicotine use did not differ across groups, but Ecstasy users reported significantly greater lifetime cocaine use than cannabis users (t(28) = 2.941, p < .01). Cannabis and Ecstasy users reported having used cannabis a mean of 3.33 and 3.53 days before testing, respectively; Ecstasy users reported last taking Ecstasy a mean of 7.40 days prior. The study relied on self-reported abstinence. Gender effects: men scored higher than women on the Creativity Adjective Checklist (male M = 6.85, SD = 3.81; female M = 3.87, SD = 4.05; t(43) = 2.530, p < .05) and showed lower fluency on the Consequences test in some scoring variants, but there were no significant gender differences for remote (standard scoring), rare (frequency scoring) or self-rated Consequences performance. Consequences test — standard scoring (judge-rated remote responses and fluency): there were no significant group differences in the number of remote (creative) responses (F(2,45) = 0.600, p = .553, partial eta squared = .028). Fluency (total number of responses) also did not differ between groups (F(2,45) = 1.500, p = .235, partial eta squared = .067); these null results persisted after controlling for gender. Consequences test — frequency scoring (objective rarity): a significant group effect emerged for the total number of rare responses (F(2,44) = 4.440, p < .05). Post hoc Tukey tests indicated that cannabis users produced significantly more rare responses than controls (Tukey p < .05). This difference remained when gender was included as a covariate. Frequency-scored fluency showed no group differences (F(2,44) = 1.556, p = .223). Self-assessment and trait checklist: group differences were observed on the self-rated Consequences performance (F(2,44) = 3.448, p < .05). Follow-up tests showed that Ecstasy users tended to rate their responses as more creative than controls, but this comparison narrowly missed conventional significance in the post hoc test (Tukey p = .058). The group effect on this self-rating became a trend rather than statistically significant when gender was controlled (F(2,44) = 3.160, p = .053). Scores on the ADCL did not differ between groups (F(2,44) = 0.143, p = .867). Inter-rater reliability and correlations: across all five Consequences scenarios judges agreed on 870 of 1,350 responses (64.44% agreement). The two Consequences scoring methods correlated with one another (r = .41, p < .01). Self-rated Consequences performance correlated strongly with judge-rated remote responses (r = .60, p < .001) but did not correlate significantly with frequency-defined rare scores (r = .22).
Jones and colleagues interpret the pattern of findings as indicating a dissociation between objective rarity-based creativity measures and subjective or judge-rated measures. Cannabis users produced significantly more rare responses on the objective frequency scoring of the Consequences test, whereas no group differed on judge-rated remote responses or on fluency. Ecstasy users showed a tendency to perceive their Consequences responses as more creative than controls, despite lacking objective increases on the behavioural measures. The authors note that intelligence (RAPM) and years of post-16 education did not differ between groups and therefore are unlikely to account for the observed effects. The investigators acknowledge several limitations that temper the conclusions. Groups were not fully matched for gender, although the main positive finding (cannabis > controls on rare responses) persisted when gender was statistically controlled. Abstinence before testing relied on self-report and no urinalysis was carried out, so recent substance use cannot be definitively ruled out; the cannabis users reported not having smoked for three days but the possibility of recent use remains. Raven's Matrices assess fluid intelligence but not broader aspects of general intelligence, so the authors recommend using an additional measure such as the National Adult Reading Test in future work. The Consequences test assesses divergent thinking — the production of many novel ideas from a single stimulus — rather than real-world creativity, which may involve problem identification and construction; this distinction limits generalisability. Possible neurochemical mechanisms are discussed cautiously. The authors note prior observations that acute cannabis use can elevate dopaminergic activity, which theoretically could increase arousal and reduce latent inhibition, thereby facilitating generation of uncommon ideas; nevertheless, reported abstinence and the lack of biological verification make it uncertain whether such acute effects explain the current results. Two alternative causal accounts are proposed by the researchers: more creatively inclined individuals might be more likely to use psychoactive substances, or regular cannabis use might enhance aspects of creative thinking. The authors recommend that future research use urine screening to verify abstinence, include multiple intelligence measures, consider cultural or sampling effects (this sample was drawn from a single UK university), and distinguish between divergent thinking and other forms of creativity when investigating drug–creativity relationships.
. There have been s tudies claiming that there is a link be tween musical and artistic talent and psychedelic drug use, with many influential musicians and ar tists also using cannabis, LSD, heroin and drinking alco hol; ten Berge 1 999; Lapp, Collins & Izzo 1 994; Masters & Houston 1 968). Creativity has been ci ted as a reason for ongoing drug use in women (Prather & Fidell 1 978) and adolescents have s tated that drug use increases their cre a tivi ty. Al though the s tudies referred to above do associate drug use with increased crea tivi ty, Weckowicz and colleagues ( 1 975) found that after giving high or low doses of marijuana, behavioral creativity scores (Consequences test, described below) were highes t for the low marijuana dosage group and lowest for the high dosage group. The low dose group did not differ significantly from the placebo controls. In a recent article,argued that the possible connection between psychedelic drug use and creativity needs to be revisited. Following the finding by Topp and colleagues ( 1 999) that recreational Ecstasy users rated cre ativity as a positive outcome of Ecstasy use, the aim of the present study is to assess creativity in Ecstasy/MDMA users, cannabis users and nondrug users, with creativity assessed behaviorally with the Consequences test, and also by two self-assessment measures.
The Consequences test of creativityMerrifield & Guilford 1 958) was developed to measure originality, ideational fluency and divergent thinking, each of which is linked to creativity (Guilford & Guildford 1 980). Guilford and Guilford ( 1 980: 1 ) define divergent thinking as "the efficient generation of a variety of ideas to meet a given question or problem." The Consequences test involves participants producing a number of consequences to a scenario or situation. The results are then scored for number of creative responses (assessed as remote or as rare), and fluency of ideas (total number of responses). It has been suggested that if external appropriate judges can agree on a product's creativity, it can be accepted as such (Amabile 1 983). The test was selected because, in addition to the standard assessment of responses by independent judges, which this test has in common with other measures of creativity, this test also allows for the measuring of a frequency distribution of types of responses, and hence a measure of objective rarity of responses. The test also has good predictive validity of creativity (Oral, Kaufman & Agars 2007; Goor & Sommerfield 1 975; Eisenstadt 1 966; Garwood 1 964; Barron 1 955). Creativity and divergent thinking have been linked to individual difference factors such as IQ (Crockenberg 1 972; Cicirelli 1 964). Creativity and IQ have been found to corre late between .02 to . 80 for fluency, flexibility and originality scores on the Torrance Verbal creativity task (Cicirelli 1 964). Further, some intelligence models integrate creativity with divergent thinking ability (Guilford 1 979, 1 967). Therefore, this study will assess IQ as well as creativity.
1 . This study aims to investigate behavioral and self rated creativity in Ecstasy users. 2. As the literature reviewed was not clear about the effects of drugs on creativity, no specific predictions were made. 3. This study implemented a more objective scoring method for the Consequences test. Responses on Ecstasy/MDMA and Creativity the Consequences test were rated according to their rarity, as well as by the standard method of two in dependent judges rating each response as "remote" or "obvious." 4. Intelligence was measured as a potential confound.
In 2008, Ecstasy users (n = 1 5 , 1 1 men, four women, mean age = 23, SD = 2.56), cannabis users (n = 1 5 , six men, nine women, mean age = 22.26, SD = 3.05) and controls (n = 1 5, four men, 1 1 women, mean age = 2 1 .86, SD = 2. 1 3) who were all students at Swansea University Wales were recruited to the study using the snowball technique (Solowij 1 993) and by responses to flyers in bars around the campus. Ecstasy users had to have used Ecstasy within the last three months and cannabis users and controls had to. have never used Ecstasy. Current use of alcohol, nicotine and cannabis was recorded along with estimations of lifetime drug con sumption (see Table) . Participants were drug free at the time of testing and were paid £ 1 0 for their participation in the study. The study had full ethics clearance from the Depart ment of Psychology ethics board at Swansea University, and all participants were assured of confidentiality and were fully debriefed. They were paid £ 1 0 for their participation.
VEL Lifetime Drug Use Questionnaire). This measure recorded lifetime usage of drugs (e.g., Ecstasy, amphetamine, cocaine, opiates, amyl nitrate) and weekly usage of alcohol, nicotine and cannabis (if any). Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM) (18 matched items, set I & II from Raven 's Advanced Progres sive Matrices;. RAPM is designed to measure a person's ability to form perceptual re lations. It is used as a test to differentiate between individual persons of superior intellectual ability. The test comprises nine designs in a 3 x 3 arrangement. One of the designs is missing and must be chosen from a set of alternative designs so as to best complete the 3 x 3 arrangement. Participants were given a RAPM set I as practice, and were then given 1 8 of the 3 x 3 questions taken from RAPM set II (i.e., items I , 3, 5, 7 ... etc). They were told, "The problems in set II are exactly like those in set I, only that there are more of them and they get more difficult as the task progresses." Partici pants had 1 5 minutes to complete set II and were told that they did not have to finish all the problems in the time limit but to try to complete as many as possible. Performance was measured as the percentage of correct responses on set II.
Consequences Test of Creativity). Five hypothetical scenarios were presented. For example, "What would be the results if noneo f u s needed food anymore i n order to live?" and "What would be the resul ts if humans los t their group feeling to the ex ten t that they preferred to live alone?" Participan ts were given two minutes per scenario to wri te as many con sequences as they can. The tes t was no t described as a tes t of crea tivi ty to the participan ts. Immediately below each scenario four examples of consequences were given. Standard Scoring Method. The responses to each scenario were rated blindly by two independen t judges ac cording to the s tandard cri teria given in the Consequences manual (Guilford & Guilford 1 980). Judges rated each response as ei ther "obvious," "remo te," "duplicate" or "irrelevant." Ra ting was performed blind to drug group membership. Irrelevan t was defi ned as not apparen tly con nected to the question; duplicate was defi ned as a response that may repeat one of the four prin ted examples for conse quences of the i tem, or that repea ted a previous answer given by the participan t, ei ther word for word or with exac tly the same meaning. An obvious response was defi ned as "one that indicates an immediate resul t, in terms of cessation of usual func tions, or absence of commonly associated things, with less aware ness of social, economic, or cul tural ramifications" (Guilford & Guilford 1 980: 3). For example, an obvious response to "What would be the resul ts if the force of gravi ty was sud denly cut in half' would be "more acciden ts" or "could lift heavier things." Remote responses, on the o ther hand, were defined as "one evidencing a consideration of consequences that are more dis tan t, temporally or geographically, or indicating a specific subs t i tu te, a new sys tem, or some fairly specific way of adjus ting to the new si tuation" (Guilford & Guilford 1 980: 3). For example, using the force of gravity scenario, a remo te response would be " tides would change" or "easier to get to the moon." Only where bo th judges agreed was a response classed as remo te. The number of remo te and obvious responses for each par ticipan t were summed to give a fluency measure. Frequency Scoring Method. The responses from all 45 participan ts to each scenario were categorised blindly by two further independen t judges so as to provide a frequency table for all the responses to each scenario. Rare responses were then de termined for each of the scenarios, defined as occurring for less than 5% of all responses. The five lis ts of rare responses were used to ascertain each participan t's to tal number of rare responses. Fluency was assessed as the total number of all responses. As with the s tandard scoring me thod judges were reques ted to exclude responses if they thought that the participan t did not answer the question or gave a repeated answer. Self-Rated Creativity Scale. After the Consequences tes t was completed the following question was asked: "In comparison to o ther young people in general of your age, how original and creative do you think the answers to the previous fi ve questions were?" Par ticipan ts had to rate their response on a five-poin t Likert scale ( 1 = far less creative, 2 = less creative, 3 = the same/equally as crea tive, 4 = more creative, 5 = far more creative). Subjects were only told that Consequences was a tes t of their creativi ty after the task was completed, and before this self-rating of Consequences performance occurred. Gough Creativity Adjective Checklist (ADCL: Gough 1979). A list of 30 adjectives were presented to the partici pants and they were asked to tick all that apply to them. There were 18 items weighted positive for creativity and 12 items negatively weighted. The positive items were: capable, clever, confident, egotistical, humorous, indi vidualistic, informal, insightful, intelligent, interests wide, inventive, original, reflective, resourceful, self-confident, sexy, snobbish and unconventional. The negative items were: affected, cautious, commonplace, conservative, con ventional, dissatisfied, honest, interests narrow, mannerly, sincere, submissive and suspicious. One point was given each time one of the 18 positive items was checked, and one point was subtracted each time one of the 12 negative items was checked. The range of scores for self-rated creativity was therefore -12 to + 18, with high scores indicating high creativity.
Tableshows full drug histories and current usage patterns for the three groups. Ecstasy users had used signifi cantly more cocaine (t (28) = 2.941, p < .O l ) than cannabis users. The Ecstasy and cannabis groups did not differ for current cannabis use (t (28) = 0. 186, p = .853). The three groups did not differ significantly for current use of alcohol (F (2, 44) = 0. 162, p = .85 1) or nicotine (F (2, 44) = 2.277, p = .115). Cannabis and Ecstasy users had consumed cannabis a mean of 3.33 and 3.53 days respectively prior to the study, while Ecstasy users had consumed Ecstasy a mean of 7.40 days previously. Tableshows fluid intelligence scores (RAPM) and number of years in education since reaching age 16. There were no significant group differences for RAPM (F (2, 44) = 1. 124, p = .335) nor for number of years in education (F (2, 44) = 0.274, p = .762), indicating that the three groups were matched for intelligence.
There were significant differences between males and females for self-rated creativity on the Creativity Adjective Checklist ( male = 6.85, SO = 3.8 1; female = 3.87, SO = 4.05: t (43) = 2.530, p < 0.05), and on Consequences fluency scores for both frequency ( male = 5. 19, SO = 1.32; female = 6.30, SO = 1.76: t (43) = 2.352, p < 0.05) and standard (male = 5.18, SO = 1.37; female = 6. 18, SO = 1.73 : t (43) = 2. 127, p < 0.05) scoring methods. However, there were no significant differences between males and females for Raven's Matrices scores (p = .233), Consequences remote (standard scoring method, p = .183) and rare (frequency method, p = .664) scores, and self-rating scores of perfor mance on the Consequences task (p = .540).
Tableshows that there were no significant differences between groups for number of remote (creative) responses (F (2, 45) = 0.600, p = .553, partial eta squared = .028). This did not change after gender was added as a covariate (F (2, 44) = 0.315, p = .732, partial eta squared = .015). Tableshows that there were no significant differences for fluency between the groups (F (2, 45) = 1.500, p = .235, partial eta squared = .067) ; this also did not change once gender was included as a covariate (F (2, 44) = 2.375, p = .106, partial eta squared =.104).
Tableshows there was a significant difference between groups for rare scores (F (2, 44) = 4.440, p < 0.05), with cannabis users having significantly more rare responses on the Consequences test than did controls (Tukey p < 0.05). These differences remained when gender was controlled for as a covariate (F (2, 44) Tablealso shows that there were no significant dif ferences for frequency scored fl uency on the Consequences test (F (2, 44) = 1 .556, p = .223). This did not change once gender was included as a covariate (F (2, 44) = 2.3 1 4, p = . 1 1 2, partial eta squared = . 10 1 ).
Tableshows that there was a significant difference between the groups for self-rating of Consequences per formance (F (2, 44) = 3.448, p < 0.05). However, post hoc tests revealed that the difference Jay between the Ecstasy group and controls but also that this just missed signifi cance (Tukey, p = .058). The significant difference between groups for this measure just missed significance after controlling for gender (F (2, 44) = 3 . 1 60, p = .053, partial eta squared = . 1 34). Table 3 also shows that there were no significant differences for scores on the Creativity Adjective Checklist (F (2, 44) = 0. 143,p = .867) ; there were no significant differ ences on this after controlling for gender (F (2, 44) = 0.744, p = .482).
Tableshows the percentage of agreement between judges using the standard scoring method for each scenario.
Total number of responses across all scenarios was 1 ,350 and total number of agreements for all categories between the two judges was 870. Therefore the percentage agreement across all five scenarios was 64.44%
Tableshows the correlations between each of the cre ativity measures, with group partialled out. Importantly, both Consequences scoring methods for rare/remote responses correlate with one another (r = .4 1 , p < 0.0 1 ). Self-rated performance on the Consequences test correlates highly with remote scores using the standard method (r = .60, p < 0.00 1 ). However, it did not correlate with rare scores using the frequency method (r = .22).
Cannabis users produced significantly more rare (creative) responses on the Consequences creativity test than did controls, when scored by the objective frequency method. Using the standard scoring method where judges rated creativity subjectively, there were no significant dif ferences between groups for remote (creative) responses. There were no significant differences between groups for fluency (number of ideas) using either scoring method. There were no significant differences between groups on the creativity adjective checklist. However, on self-rat ings of performance on the Consequences task there was a significant difference between the groups, mainly due to Ecstasy users reporting having more creative responses than controls. Such a perception of one's creativity in the absence of an objective increase in creativity has similarly been found for LSD (Janiger & de Rios 1 989). Fluid intelligence and education level were not sig nificantly different between the groups and hence cannot account for the above group differences. This supports previous work that has found no significant differences between Ecstasy users and controls on Raven's Matrices performance. However, despite being used as an intelligence measure by a number of other studies investigating Ecstasy use and cognitive performance), Raven's Matrices is accepted as a measure of fluid intelligence alone rather than a marker of general intelligence. Future studies should use two measures of intel implementing the National Adult Reading Test to measure general intelligence, as was used in a recent study on emotional intelligence in Ecstasy users. We acknowledge that the groups were not adequately matched for gender; however, for the two variables where drug group differences were found there were no gender dif ferences on those variables. Furthermore, when gender was used as a covariate in the analyses, the significant difference between cannabis users and controls on rare (creative) scores remained. However, there was only a trend for a difference between groups on self-assessment of Consequences per formance, after gender was statistically controlled. Neurochemically, it is unclear why cannabis users produced more creative ideas. It has been argued that three factors mediate the creative drive. Firstly, the frontal lobes mediate idea generation. Temporal lobes then edit and evaluate the information and, finally, higher dopamine levels increase general arousal and goal directed behaviors and reduce latent inhibition. A combination of all three is then held to increase the drive to generate novel ideas. It has been found following urinalysis that levels of dopamine increase in cannabis users immediately after smoking. This may theoretically increase arousal and decrease latent inhibition. However, cannabis users in this study reported not having smoked for three days before testing. It has to be considered, though, that Ecstasy/MDMA and Creativity some cannabis users may have consumed cannabis before testing, and future studies should therefore use urinalysis to corroborate self-reported abstinence. The present study focused on potential beneficial aspects of drug usage. This contrasts with most studies which generally investigate the more problematic aspects of psychoactive drug use. For instance, most Ecstasy/MDMA research is concerned with functional problems such as im paired sleep) and memory loss (Parrott & Lasky 1 998; Parrott, 200 1 ; Parrott, 2006). This study is the fi rst to address objective behavioral and subjective creativ ity in Ecstasy users. However, although the Consequences test is a recognised behavioral measure of creativity, it has been argued that the test assesses divergent thinking, that is, the production of many novel ideas from one stimulus or problem, rather than real-world creativity, which involves the finding and construction of problems (Weisberg 1 993). Future research on the relationship between drug use and creativity will have to differentiate between the production of novel, creative solutions, as in the present study, and the creative discovery of problems to solve. Future research should also take account of the home country of the partici pants, as there may be cultural differences in responses to these creativity tests. For the present study, all that can be stated is that the participants were attending one particular UK University. In conclusion, this study provides a good platform from which a number of hypotheses can be formed concerning drug use and creativity. Two possibilities have to be ac knowledged: it may be that more creative individuals seek out psychoactive drugs such as cannabis, possibly to enhance their creativity. The other possibility is that regular cannabis use enhances creative thinking. Cannabis users in this study reported not having used the drug for three days before test ing and therefore the enhanced creative effects would not be solely short-term. However, without drug urine screening we cannot be sure that recent use had not occurred. The other area of future work concerns the finding that Ecstasy/MDMA users perceived their performance on the Consequences task to be more creative than did controls. Again, whether self-perceived creatives choose to take Ecstasy/MDMA, or whether Ecstasy/MDMA causes individuals tb see their performance as creative, remains to be investigated.
Create a free account to open full-text PDFs.
Gallimore, A. R. · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (2015)
Humphrey, D. E., Mckay, A. S., Primi, R. et al. · Imagination Cognition and Personality (2014)
Frecska, E., Móré, C. E., Vargha, A. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2012)