This re-analysis of three studies found no clear change in authoritarian attitudes after psychedelic use, including in people who planned to take psychedelics, healthy volunteers given psilocybin, and patients with depression in a randomised trial.
Background
Previous research suggests that psychedelics may, under certain conditions, decrease authoritarian attitudes, but larger and more rigorously designed studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Aims
We aimed to examine the effects of psychedelic use on authoritarian attitudes.
Methods
Using data from three separate studies with different designs and populations, we investigated the relationship between psychedelic use and authoritarian attitudes. Study 1 was a naturalistic observational study with participants who planned to use psychedelics at their own initiative, Study 2 was a single-arm study with healthy volunteers who received psilocybin, and Study 3 was a randomized, controlled trial with patients diagnosed with depression who received psilocybin or escitalopram.
Results
Across the three studies, results showed no significant changes in authoritarian attitudes after psychedelic use.
Conclusions
Contrary to previous research, the latest evidence is not compelling that psychedelic use influences authoritarian attitudes in a reliable direction. Future research should recruit larger and more diverse samples, collect additional context-related data, and also investigate political outcomes other than authoritarian attitudes.
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Aday, J. S., Davis, A. K., Mitzkovitz, C. M. et al. · ACS Pharmacology and Translational Science (2021)
Brouwer, A., Carhart-Harris, R. L. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2020)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Giribaldi, B., Watts, R. et al. · New England Journal of Medicine (2021)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Kaelen, M., Whalley, M. G. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2014)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Roseman, L., Haijen, E. C. H. M. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2018)
Psychedelics are described as substances that can alter perception and cognition and may increase psychological and neural plasticity, making people more open to environmental influences. The authors note that earlier work suggested psychedelics might affect non-clinical outcomes such as personality and political attitudes, including authoritarian attitudes, but the evidence was limited and mixed. Prior studies cited in the paper were either cross-sectional, so they could not establish timing, or small and open-label, which left uncertainty about whether any observed changes were robust or due to study design factors. Simonsson and colleagues set out to revisit this question using three exploratory studies with different designs and populations. Their aim was to examine whether psychedelic use was associated with changes in authoritarian attitudes in naturalistic users, healthy volunteers receiving psilocybin, and patients with major depressive disorder receiving psilocybin or escitalopram. The study was intended to provide a more rigorous test of earlier claims and to assess whether any effect could be detected across different contexts and methodologies.
The paper combined three separate studies. Study 1 was a prospective online observational study of adults who intended to use a psychedelic soon, including LSD or 1P-LSD, psilocybin, ayahuasca, DMT or 5-MeO-DMT, Salvia divinorum, mescaline, or ibogaine. Participants were recruited through online advertisements, gave digital consent, and completed questionnaires at baseline and then 2 and 4 weeks after their psychedelic experience. The data formed part of a larger study and the research was approved by the relevant ethics bodies. Study 2 was a controlled single-blind within-subjects study in healthy adults with no previous psychedelic experience and no significant physical or mental health problems. Participants were recruited online, gave written consent, and received two oral doses of psilocybin 4 weeks apart: first 1 mg, described as a subthreshold control dose, and then 25 mg, a fully active dose. They were told they would receive psilocybin in both sessions with a variable dose up to 25 mg, to reduce expectancy effects. Participants were asked to avoid recreational drugs during the study and alcohol for 24 hours before visits. Study 3 was a double-blind randomised controlled trial in adults with moderate to severe major depressive disorder. Participants were randomised 1:1 to escitalopram or psilocybin. The escitalopram group received 1 mg psilocybin on two occasions 3 weeks apart, psychological support, and 6 weeks of daily escitalopram capsules (10 mg for 3 weeks, then 20 mg for the final 3 weeks). The psilocybin group received 25 mg psilocybin on two occasions 3 weeks apart, psychological support, and placebo capsules. Expectations were standardised by informing participants that they would receive psilocybin without disclosing the dose. Across all three studies, authoritarian attitudes were the primary outcome. These were measured with a five-item questionnaire covering respect for traditional values, punishment, obedience to authority, obedience to law, and support for protest restrictions. Responses were on a 1 to 5 Likert scale, and scores were averaged. Reliability at baseline was modest, with Cronbach’s alpha between 0.62 and 0.70. Because the assessment schedules differed, the authors focused on roughly comparable time points across studies. Study 1 used baseline, 2-week, and 4-week follow-up; Study 2 used baseline plus repeated measures after the 1 mg and 25 mg sessions; Study 3 used baseline and 6-week follow-up. Analyses used linear mixed-effects models in Studies 1 and 2, paired t-tests in Study 3, and independent samples t-tests to compare change scores between the two Study 3 conditions. Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons in Studies 1 and 2.
In Study 1, 629 adults completed the baseline survey, but follow-up retention was lower: 269 participants (43%) completed the 2-week survey and 180 (29%) completed the 4-week survey. Among those with 2-week follow-up, 30% were female, the mean age was 32 years, and 9% had no prior psychedelic use. The most commonly reported psychedelic used was LSD or 1P-LSD (42%), followed by psilocybin (26%) and ayahuasca (12%). Study 2 included 28 adults, 43% female, with a mean age of 41 years; none had used psilocybin or other psychedelics before the study. Study 3 included 29 participants in the escitalopram arm and 30 in the psilocybin arm. In the escitalopram arm, 31% were female and the mean age was 39 years; 72% had not previously used psilocybin. In the psilocybin arm, 37% were female, the mean age was 43 years, and 73% had not previously used psilocybin. The main finding across all studies was null. In Study 1, the linear mixed-effects model showed no significant effect of time on authoritarian attitudes (F(2,262)=1.56, p=0.213), and there were no significant differences at 2 weeks (mean 1.79, SD 0.55; p=0.329; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.09) or 4 weeks (mean 1.79, SD 0.60; p=0.175; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.10) relative to baseline. In Study 2, there was also no significant effect of time (F(4,26)=2.57, p=0.061). Authoritarian attitudes did not change significantly after the 1 mg control dose at 2 or 4 weeks, nor after the 25 mg psilocybin dose at 2 or 4 weeks. In Study 3, there were no significant within-group changes from baseline to 6 weeks in either the escitalopram group (t(28)=0.91, p=0.372) or the psilocybin group (t(29)=0.33, p=0.742). There were also no significant between-group differences at baseline, follow-up, or in change scores between the two treatment arms.
The authors interpret the three studies together as providing no evidence that psychedelic use produces reliable changes in authoritarian attitudes. They note that this contrasts with earlier research and with cultural expectations from the 1960s that psychedelics might shift political attitudes in a progressive direction. On the basis of these null findings, they conclude that evidence for a directional effect on authoritarian attitudes is limited and inconsistent. Simonsson and colleagues also state that an effect could still occur under particular conditions. They suggest that psychedelic experiences may amplify the surrounding sociopolitical context, including factors such as mindset, social and physical setting, music, and exposure to political content before, during, or after the experience. They therefore recommend further work on contextual moderators and on whether proximity to political content changes outcomes. The main limitations they acknowledge are that baseline authoritarian attitudes were relatively low in all three studies, raising the possibility of a floor effect that could have limited detectable decreases. They also report that no contextual data were collected on broader social and political environment, social media or traditional media exposure, or the political views of providers and facilitators. Another limitation is that authoritarian attitudes may not be the most sensitive political outcome for psychedelic-related change, and other domains such as attitudes towards political outgroups or environmental attitudes may be more informative. The authors suggest that future research should use larger and more diverse samples, incorporate more contextual information, and examine a wider range of political outcomes.
In Study 1, adult individuals who intended to use certain types of psychedelics (i.e., LSD or 1P-LSD, psilocybin, ayahuasca, DMT or 5-MeO-DMT, Salvia divinorum, mescaline, or ibogaine) in the near future could participate in the study. Recruitment occurred through online advertisements (e.g., posted and shared on Facebook, online drug forums, and email newsletters). The eligible individuals who wanted to participate in the study provided informed consent digitally and entered the expected date of their planned psychedelic experience, which ensured they received email links to the questionnaires at the appropriate time points. The data were collected as part of a larger study. The study was approved by the Imperial College Research Ethics Committee and the Imperial College London Joint Research Compliance Office (seefor more information about the study). In Study 2, adult individuals who did not have physical or mental health problems and who had not had any prior experience with psychedelics could participate in the study, as long as they did not meet any of the exclusion criteria (e.g., medically significant condition, current or previously diagnosed psychiatric disorder, immediate family members with a current or previously diagnosed psychotic disorder). Recruitment occurred through online advertisement on the homepage of the Centre for Psychedelic Research at Imperial College London. The eligible individuals who wanted to participate provided written informed consent and received two oral doses of psilocybin, 4 weeks apart. The first dose was 1 mg psilocybin, considered to be a subthreshold dose that is unable to occasion a psychedelic experience. The second dose took place 4 weeks later and was a fully active dose of 25 mg psilocybin, considered to be a high dose and capable of inducing a psychedelic experience. The participants were instructed to refrain from recreational drug use for the duration of the study and alcohol for at least 24 hours before each study visit. To uphold blinding and control for expectancy effects, participants were informed that they would receive psilocybin in both sessions with a variable dose up to 25 mg. No further information regarding dosage was provided. The data were collected as part of a larger study. The study was approved by the London-Surrey Research Ethics Committee, the Imperial College London Joint Research Compliance Office, and other relevant authorities (seefor more information about the study). In Study 3, adult individuals diagnosed with moderate-tosevere major depressive disorder could participate in the study, as long as they did not meet any of the exclusion criteria (e.g., medically significant condition, immediate family members with a current or previously diagnosed psychotic disorder). Recruitment occurred through trial networks, social media, and additional outreach channels. The eligible individuals who wanted to participate provided written informed consent and were informed that they would receive psilocybin, but the dose was not disclosed to standardize expectations. The participants were randomized (1:1 ratio) to an escitalopram condition or a psilocybin condition. The participants in the escitalopram condition received 1 mg of psilocybin on two occasions, 3 weeks apart, plus psychological support and 6 weeks of daily capsules containing 10 mg of escitalopram, increasing to ×2 capsules for the final 3 weeks (i.e., 20 mg escitalopram daily). The participants in the psilocybin condition received 25 mg of psilocybin on two occasions, 3 weeks apart, plus psychological support and 6 weeks of daily capsules containing inert placebo (i.e., microcrystalline cellulose). The data were collected as part of a larger study
The outcome measure across all three studies was authoritarian attitudes (Cronbach's alpha between 0.62 and 0.70 at baseline in all three studies), which was measured using five survey items derived from a larger questionnaire: "Young people today don't have enough respect for traditional values," "People who break the law should be given stiffer sentences," "Schools should teach children to obey authority," "The law should always be obeyed, even if a particular law is wrong," and "Organizing public meetings to protest against the government should not be allowed." The 5-item questionnaire has been psychometrically evaluated and has been used in previous studies on psychedelic use and authoritarian attitudes. The responses were rated on a 1-(strongly disagree) to 5-(strongly agree) Likert scale. The total score was computed by averaging the scores of all survey items. Because the three studies included slightly different assessment schedules, we focused on the time points that were roughly comparable across studies. In Study 1, authoritarian attitudes were measured at baseline (T1), 2-weeks post-psychedelic experience (T2), and 4-weeks post-psychedelic experience (T3). In Study 2, authoritarian attitudes were measured at baseline (T1), 2-weeks post-placebo experience (T2; 1 mg psilocybin), 4-weeks post-placebo experience (T3; 1 mg psilocybin), 2-weeks postpsilocybin experience (T4; 25 mg psilocybin), and 4-weeks postpsilocybin experience (T5; 25 mg psilocybin). In Study 3, authoritarian attitudes were assessed at baseline (T1) and 6-weeks post-baseline (T2).
In Study 1, data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model (LME) with Bonferroni-corrected paired t-tests to test for differences in authoritarian attitudes at the 2-week (T2) and 4-week (T3) time points, relative to pre-experience baseline (T1) scores. In Study 2, data were analyzed using a LME with Bonferronicorrected post hoc comparisons to test for differences in authoritarian attitudes between the time points relative to baseline scores. In Study 3, paired t-tests were performed to test for differences in authoritarian attitudes at the 6-week (T2) follow-up relative to pre-experience baseline (T1) scores. Independent samples t-tests were used to determine whether there were statistically significant mean differences in pre-post change scores for authoritarian attitudes across conditions (escitalopram, psilocybin).
In Study 1, the baseline survey was completed by 629 adult participants, of which 269 (43%) completed the 2-week follow-up survey, and 180 (29%) completed the 4-week follow-up survey. Among the 269 participants who completed the 2-week survey, 30% were female. The mean age was 32 years (range, 18-71), and 9% of the participants had not used psychedelics before the study, with most using LSD or 1P-LSD (42%), psilocybin (26%), or ayahuasca (12%) during the psychedelic experience reported in the study. In Study 2, there were 28 adult participants, of which 43% were female. The mean age was 41 years (range, 29-59), and none of the participants had used psilocybin or other psychedelics before the study. In Study 3, there were 29 adult participants who were randomized to the escitalopram condition, of which 31% were female. The mean age in the escitalopram condition was 39 years (range, 22-60), and 72% of the participants had not used psilocybin before the study. There were 30 adult participants randomized to the psilocybin condition, of which 37% were female. The mean age in the psilocybin condition was 43 years (range, 21-60), and 73% of the participants had not used psilocybin before the study.
In Study 1, the LME revealed no significant effect of time on authoritarian attitudes (F (2,262) = 1.56, p = 0.213) and post hoc comparisons between the time points confirmed that participants did not report changes in authoritarian attitudes at two (M = 1.79, standard deviation (SD) = 0.55; p = 0.329, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-0.02, 0.09]) or 4 (M = 1.79, SD = 0.60; p = 0.175, 95%CI [-0.02, 0.10]) weeks after the psychedelic experience, relative to baseline scores (see Table). In Study 2, the LME revealed no significant effect of time on authoritarian attitudes (F (4,26) = 2.57, p = 0.061) and post hoc comparisons between the time points confirmed no changes in authoritarian attitudes at two (M = 2.22, SD = 0.56; p = 0.623, 95%CI [-0.29, 0.08]) or 4 (M = 2.09, SD = 0.58; p = 0.999, 95%CI [-0.18, 0.23]) weeks after the 1 mg control, relative to baseline scores. Similarly, no significant changes in authoritarian attitudes were observed at two (M = 1.92, SD = 0.62; p = 0.352, 95%CI [-0.09, 0.43]) or 4 (M = 1.96, SD = 0.62; p = 0.475, 95%CI [-0.09, 0.36]) weeks after the 25 mg psilocybin experience (see Table). In Study 3, there were no significant within-group changes from T1-to-T2 in the escitalopram group (t(28) = 0.91, p = 0.372) or the psilocybin group (t(29) = 0.33, p = 0.742; see Table). There were also no significant between-group differences at either time point (T1: t(57) = 0.30, p = 0.767; T2: t(57) = 0.51, p = 0.616) or in change scores from T1-to-T2 (t(57) = 0.34, p = 0.739; see Table).
In three exploratory studies with different designs and populations, we investigated the relationship between psychedelic use and authoritarian attitudes. The results showed no significant changes in authoritarian attitudes after psychedelic use, which contrasts with findings from previous research on psychedelic use and authoritarian attitudes, as well as common beliefs during the 1960s counterculture around the political effects of psychedelic use. Taken together, these null findings therefore suggest that there is limited and inconsistent evidence that psychedelic use influences authoritarian attitudes in a reliable direction. Even though we did not find evidence that psychedelic use can influence authoritarian attitudes, it is still conceivable that psychedelic use could have an effect on authoritarian attitudes under certain conditions. For example, given that the acute and post-acute effects of psychedelics appear to depend on contextual factors (e.g., mindset, social and physical environment, music;, psychedelics might act as non-specific amplifiers of the sociopolitical context(s) before, during, and after the psychedelic experience. It is therefore possible that exposure to particular political content in close time proximity to the psychedelic experience could influence authoritarian attitudes. Future research should investigate such possibilities.
While the inclusion of studies with different designs and populations increases the reliability of the (null) findings, several limitations should be considered when interpreting the overall evidence across the three studies (seefor overall limitations in these studies). First, in all three studies, the mean score on authoritarian attitudes at baseline was lower than in the study that found a decrease in authoritarian attitudes following psychedelic use. The relatively low baseline scores of authoritarian attitudes mean there might have been a floor effect (i.e., limited potential for scores to decrease further), which may explain the discrepancy in findings. Second, no data were collected on contextual factors that could possibly modulate effects on authoritarian attitudes (e.g., the broader social and political environment, exposure to political content through social media or traditional media, political beliefs of the experience providers or facilitators). Such data may have added nuance to the results. Third, we assessed items related to authoritarian attitudes, but it is possible that psychedelics, under certain conditions, could influence other facets of political psychology, including attitudes and feelings toward the political outgroup or environmental attitudes. It may also be that authoritarian attitudes (or the questionnaire that was used in this study to measure them) are not the most sensitive to psychedelic-induced belief change. Future research should recruit larger and more diverse samples, collect additional contextrelated data, and also investigate political outcomes other than authoritarian attitudes.
Create a free account to open full-text PDFs.
Dourron, H. M., Nichols, C. D., Simonsson, O. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2023)
Gandy, S., Forstmann, M., Carhart-Harris, R. L. et al. · Health Psychology Open (2020)
Haijen, E. C. H. M., Kaelen, M., Roseman, L. et al. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2018)
Kettner, H., Gandy, S., Haijen, E. C. H. M. et al. · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2019)
Lyons, T., Carhart-Harris, R. L. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2018)
Lyons, T., Spriggs, M. J., Kerkelä, L. et al. · Nature Communications (2026)
Nardou, R., Sawyer, E., Song, Y. J. et al. · Nature (2023)
Nour, M. R., Evans, J., Carhart-Harris, R. L. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2017)
Pace, B. A., Devenot, N. · Frontiers in Psychology (2021)
Roseman, L., Karkabi, N. · Frontiers in Psychology (2021)
Roseman, L., Ron, Y., Saca, A. et al. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2021)
Siegel, A. N., Lipsitz, O., Gill, H. et al. · Journal of Psychiatric Research (2021)
Simonsson, O., Hendricks, P. S., Chambers, R. et al. · Journal of Affective Disorders (2023)
Simonsson, O., Hendricks, P. S., Swords, C. M. et al. · Journal of Affective Disorders (2025)