Effects of psychedelic use on authoritarian attitudes revisited

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.