Exploring the Credibility of Psilocybin-assisted Therapy and Cognitive-behavioral Therapy for Depression
This survey study (n=803) assessed the credibility rating of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and psilocybin-assisted therapy (PAT) among individuals reporting depressive symptoms. CBT was rated as more credible than PAT, while men and lifetime psychedelic users rated PAT more credible than women and non-users with few other predictors accounting for variance in credibility.
Authors
- Michael Earleywine
Published
Abstract
Depression treatments succeed with many but leave others unimproved, and they can generate concerns about side effects, time, and cost. Psilocybin has generated media attention and empirical support for antidepressant effects, but lay impressions of its effectiveness are unclear. Although perceptions of treatment credibility contribute to the outcome, beliefs about the credibility of psilocybin-assisted therapy (PAT) among potential patients remain uninvestigated, especially relative to cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), a common, empirically-validated approach. The present study examined credibility ratings for CBT and PAT among individuals reporting depressive symptoms. Participants (N = 803) from Amazon’s MTurk platform reported demographics, depressive symptoms, and psychotherapy experience, then read data-based vignettes describing each therapy and rated their credibility. Individuals rated CBT as more credible than PAT. Those with therapy experience-rated CBT as more credible than those without. Men and lifetime hallucinogen users rated PAT more credible than women and non-users, but few other predictors accounted for much variance in credibility. Results suggest that potential clients appear cautious about PAT. As continued work examines the effectiveness of psychedelic-assisted interventions, researchers and clinicians must consider patients’ beliefs about treatments as potential predictors of outcomes. Additionally, the paradigm used here might have the potential for examining the credibility of many interventions.
Research Summary of 'Exploring the Credibility of Psilocybin-assisted Therapy and Cognitive-behavioral Therapy for Depression'
Introduction
Altman and colleagues situate the study within literature showing that patients' pre-treatment beliefs and expectancies influence therapeutic outcomes, and note persistent limitations of current depression treatments including limited efficacy for some patients, side effects of antidepressant medication, cost and access barriers for psychotherapy, and slow onset of benefit. They describe renewed interest in psychedelic-assisted therapies—particularly psilocybin-assisted therapy (PAT)—and cite early clinical work suggesting rapid antidepressant effects, but emphasise that much of that literature is preliminary, with small samples and short follow-up. The authors note a gap in knowledge about lay impressions of PAT relative to established psychotherapies, and the potential importance of those impressions for uptake and outcomes. This study therefore set out to compare perceived credibility of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and psilocybin-assisted therapy among people reporting depressive symptoms. Using a vignette approach, the investigators examined overall credibility ratings for each treatment and tested whether demographics, prior psychotherapy, lifetime hallucinogen use, and familiarity with the treatments predicted credibility. They hypothesised that, despite publicity around psychedelics, CBT would be rated as more credible than PAT.
Expert Research Summaries
Go Pro to access AI-powered section-by-section summaries, editorial takes, and the full research toolkit.
Study Details
- Study Typeindividual
- Journal
- Compound
- Topic
- Author
- APA Citation
Altman, B. R., Earleywine, M., & De Leo, J. (2022). Exploring the Credibility of Psilocybin-assisted Therapy and Cognitive-behavioral Therapy for Depression. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 54(5), 462-470. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2021.2020382
References (16)
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Barnett, B. S., Siu, W. O., Pope Jr, H. G. · Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (2018)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Bolstridge, &. M., Day, C. M. J. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2017)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Bolstridge, M., Rucker, J. et al. · Lancet Psychiatry (2016)
Corrigan, K., Haran, M., Mccandliss, C. et al. · Irish Journal of Medical Science (2021)
Dos Santos, R. G., Bouso, J. C., Hallak, J. E. · Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology (2018)
Griffiths, R. R., Johnson, M. W. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2016)
Johnson, M. W., Griffiths, R. R., Hendricks, P. S. et al. · Neuropharmacology (2018)
Luoma, J. B., Chwyl, C., Bathje, G. J. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2020)
Muthukumaraswamy, S., Forsyth, B., Lumley, T. · Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology (2021)
Palhano-Fontes, F., Barreto, D., Onias, H. et al. · Psychological Medicine (2018)
Show all 16 referencesShow fewer
Reiff, C. M., Richman, E. E., Nemeroff, C. B. et al. · American Journal of Psychiatry (2020)
Ross, S., Bossis, A. P., Guss, J. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2016)
Nielson, E. M., Tai, S. J., Lennard-Jones, M. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2021)
Wagner, M. T., Mithoefer, M. C., Mithoefer, A. T. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2017)
Watts, R., Luoma, J. B. · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (2020)
Yockey, R. A., King, K. A. · Journal of Psychedelic Studies (2021)
Your Personal Research Library
Go Pro to save papers, add notes, rate studies, and organize your research into custom shelves.