Surveying 1,116 psychedelic users, the study found most microdosed with LSD or psilocybin—typically 2–4 times weekly—primarily to enhance performance and commonly experienced acute psychological side‑effects while under the influence, with many stopping because they perceived no benefit. The authors conclude that placebo‑controlled experimental studies are needed to quantify any performance enhancement and assess longer‑term harms.
Background
Microdosing with psychedelics has gained considerable media attention where it is portrayed as a performance enhancer, especially popular on the work floor. While reports are in general positive, scientific evidence about potential negative effects is lacking aside from the prevalence and motives for use. The present study addressed this gap by surveying psychedelic users about their experience with microdosing including their dosing schedule, motivation, and potential experienced negative effects.
Methods
An online questionnaire was launched on several websites and fora between March and July 2018. Respondents who had consented, were 18 years of age or older, and had experience with microdosing were included in the analyses.
Results
In total, 1116 of the respondents were either currently microdosing (79.5%) or microdosed in the past (20.5%). Lysergic acid diethylamide (10 mcg) and psilocybin (0.5 g) were the most commonly used psychedelics with a microdosing frequency between 2 and 4 times per week. The majority of users, however, were oblivious about the consumed dose. Performance enhancement was the main motive to microdose (37%). The most reported negative effects were of psychological nature and occurred acutely while under the influence.
Conclusion
In line with media reports and anecdotes, the majority of our respondents microdosed to enhance performance. Negative effects occurred mostly acutely after substance consumption. However, the main reason to have stopped microdosing was that it was not effective. Future experimental placebo-controlled studies are needed to test whether performance enhancement can be quantified and to assess potential negative effects after longer term microdosing.
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Carbonaro, T. M., Bradstreet, M. P., Barrett, F. S. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2016)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Roseman, L., Haijen, E. C. H. M. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2018)
Horsley, R. R., Páleníček, T., Kolin, J. et al. · Behavioural Pharmacology (2018)
Johnstad, P. G. · Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (2018)
Microdosing, defined as repeatedly taking a low dose of psychedelics such as LSD or psilocybin without inducing overt perceptual changes, has received substantial media attention as a putative performance enhancer. Earlier research on low doses exists but is limited, and key features of current microdosing practice — including exact doses, schedules, prevalence across substances and workplaces, motives, and possible adverse effects — remain incompletely characterised. Small placebo-controlled laboratory studies have so far produced mixed or null findings on some subjective outcomes, and anecdotal reports dominate public discourse. Hutten and colleagues set out to address this gap by conducting an online questionnaire survey of people with psychedelic experience to quantify lifetime psychedelic use, microdosing practices (dose, frequency, route and how schedules were obtained), motives for microdosing, prevalence of microdosing at work, and the occurrence and timing of negative effects. The stated aim was descriptive: to provide detailed user-reported data that can inform future experimental and clinical investigations of efficacy and safety of microdosing.
The study used an anonymous online questionnaire administered via Qualtrics and advertised on multiple psychedelic-focused websites and internet fora between March and July 2018. The advertisement did not specifically mention microdosing; eligibility required being aged 18 years or older and having prior experience with a psychedelic substance. Respondents provided informed consent and the project received ethics approval from the relevant university committee. Survey items covered demographics (age, gender, continent, daily occupation, highest education) and whether respondents had received a medical diagnosis for psychiatric, neurological, or physical disorders. Psychedelic substance history asked about regular (full-dose) and microdose use across a wide list of compounds (including LSD, 1P-LSD, ALD-52/1A-LSD, psilocybin-containing truffles/mushrooms, ayahuasca, DMT, 5-MeO-DMT, salvinorin A, mescaline, MDMA, NBOMes, 2Cs and others). For each substance respondents reported current versus past use and average amounts; respondents who did not know their dose were instructed to indicate this. Microdosing-specific questions included whether the respondent had microdosed with each listed substance, route of administration, frequency of use, and where they obtained their microdosing schedule (self-designed, internet, friend, book, retreat, other). Motivation to microdose was assessed by a forced-choice item (one of eight preset answers or free text), later clustered into five categories: performance enhancement, mood enhancement, symptom alleviation, curiosity, and other; respondents were also asked whether they microdosed to go to work. Reasons for stopping either regular or microdose use were listed as choices (including negative experience, inability to obtain the substance, having met the purpose, loss of interest, lifestyle change), with an added option of “not effective” for microdosing. Negative effects were assessed by asking whether respondents ever experienced adverse side-effects while microdosing and, if so, whether these were physical, psychological, or both; examples were provided but respondents could not specify particular symptoms, nor identify cause. Analyses were performed in SPSS version 24.0. Respondents who reported never having microdosed were excluded. Outliers in reported doses were identified using z-scores (values more than 3 standard deviations from the mean) and removed for dose-related summary statistics; because reported dose ranges were wide, the mode was presented for dose-per-psychedelic. Frequencies described routes, motivations, workplace microdosing and reasons to stop. Chi-square tests of independence compared categorical outcomes between current and past microdosers and compared reasons to stop between regular and microdosing. The extracted text notes that some detailed methodological information (for example exact item wording for all questions) was reported in tables that are not part of the extracted prose.
From 5,681 people who saw the advertisement, 3,590 respondents consented and completed the questionnaire. After removing two implausible responses and excluding 2,472 respondents who reported never having microdosed, the analysed sample comprised 1,116 respondents (20% of those who initially consented). The extracted text refers to tables for detailed demographics but reports some sample characteristics later (discussed in the Discussion section). All included respondents reported at least one regular (full-dose) psychedelic experience. For regular-dose history the most commonly used substances were psilocybin (n = 954; 85.5%), LSD (n = 910; 81.5%), and MDMA/ecstasy (n = 746; 66.8%); the least frequently reported were 5-MeO-DMT (n = 66; 5.9%), ALD-52/1A-LSD (n = 99; 8.9%), and ayahuasca (n = 113; 10.1%). For microdosing, the most used substances were LSD (n = 666; 59.7%), psilocybin (n = 645; 57.8%), and 1P-LSD (n = 129; 11.6%); the least used were 5-MeO-DMT (n = 5; 0.4%), NBOMes (n = 9; 0.8%), and ayahuasca (n = 15; 1.3%). Regarding dosing and schedules, the modal microdoses reported were 10 mcg for LSD and 0.5 g for psilocybin, and many respondents reported microdosing several times per week. For LSD and psilocybin between 57% and 78% of users reported microdosing multiple times per week, typically 2–4 times weekly; overall reported frequencies ranged from 2 to 7 times per week depending on substance. Nearly one-half of respondents who microdosed (n = 546; 48.9%) reported designing their own microdosing schedule, while others used schedules found on the internet (n = 371; 33.2%), received schedules from a friend (n = 96; 8.6%), read them in a book (n = 38; 3.4%), or used other sources. The extracted text also emphasises that many respondents (up to 67% for some substances) indicated not knowing the exact dose they consumed. Motives to microdose were dominated by performance-oriented reasons: 409 respondents (36.6%) selected performance enhancement (for example increased energy, concentration or creativity). Other motives were mood enhancement (n = 325; 29.1%), curiosity (n = 170; 15.2%), symptom relief (n = 156; 14.0%), and other reasons such as enhancing empathy or spirituality (n = 56; 5.0%). Almost one-half of the sample (n = 531; 47.6%) reported microdosing to go to work; the most common occupations among those who microdosed at work were studying (31.8%) and computer/office work (29.9%), followed by working with people, creative work, physical work and travelling. About one-fifth of microdosers (n = 229; 20.5%) reported having stopped microdosing altogether. In total, 57.0% (n = 636) had stopped using at least one psychedelic at regular doses, and 30.1% (n = 336) had stopped microdosing with at least one psychedelic. Chi-square tests comparing reasons to stop between regular and microdosing showed that negative experiences (χ2(1) = 40.86, P < .01) and loss of interest (χ2(1) = 50.77, P < .01) were more frequently reported reasons to stop regular dosing than microdosing; no statistically significant dose-related differences were observed for other stated reasons to stop. Concerning adverse effects, 225 respondents (20.2%) reported experiencing negative effects while microdosing. These were most commonly psychological in nature and typically occurred acutely, i.e. while under the influence. A chi-square test found that reporting both psychological and physical side-effects differed between past and current microdosers (χ2(1) = 7.52, P < .01), with the co-occurrence reported more often among those who had stopped microdosing. No significant differences between current and past users were found for reporting only psychological effects (χ2(1) = 0.27, P = .61) or only physical effects (χ2(1) < 0.01, P = .98). The timing of negative effects (acute, long term, or both) did not differ between past and current users (acute χ2(1) = 0.77, P = .38; long term χ2(1) = 2.31, P = .13; both χ2(1) = 0.85, P = .36). Only a small minority (reported as about 1–3% in the Discussion) indicated negative effects that lasted for days after dosing.
Hutten and colleagues interpret the results as supporting the anecdotal picture that microdosing is commonly practised with LSD and psilocybin and is frequently motivated by perceived performance enhancement. The modal microdoses reported (10 mcg LSD; 0.5 g psilocybin) are consistent with the oft-cited ‘‘one-tenth of a regular dose’’ rule of thumb, but the investigators emphasise that a large proportion of respondents did not know the doses they were taking, which undermines precision in self-reported dosing. Regular microdosing several times per week was common in this self-selected sample, and almost one-half reported doing so while working, notably in study or office/computer-based occupations. The study team highlights that about 20% of microdosers reported negative effects, most commonly acute psychological symptoms, and that co-occurrence of psychological and physical effects was associated with having stopped microdosing. Nevertheless, the principal reason respondents cited for ceasing microdosing was perceived lack of efficacy rather than adverse events. The authors place these findings alongside mixed results from small placebo-controlled trials and preclinical reports suggesting possible adverse behavioural outcomes, arguing that placebo-controlled experimental studies are required to determine whether self-reported performance enhancements are measurable and to assess acute and longer-term safety. Several limitations are acknowledged. The sample was recruited from psychedelic-focused online fora and therefore is not representative of the general population or of all microdosing users; people who microdose without prior full-dose experience or those who left the community after negative experiences may be underrepresented. Self-report introduces uncertainty in dosing (including apparent reporting errors and unit confusion) and in the precise nature of negative effects because the survey did not permit specification of particular symptoms (for example anxiety versus depression). Causes of adverse events cannot be determined from the data; possible contributors include unintended higher dosing, set and setting, or substance impurity. The authors recommend that future research use more structured dosing questions (for example multiple-choice dose ranges), probe methods used to measure doses, allow specification of adverse symptom types, and employ placebo-controlled designs to quantify efficacy and monitor both acute and long-term adverse effects.
Data were entered into the statistical program SPSS (version 24.0). Respondents who reported to have never microdosed were excluded from analyses. Respondent demographics were categorized into those who currently microdose and those who used to microdose. Frequencies were reported for age, gender, education, continent of origin, daily occupation, psychiatric/ neurological/physical diagnoses, and psychedelic use history. Mean (±SD) is given for age. Outliers, defined as 3 SD away from the mean of the average amount used per psychedelic per route of administration, were calculated using z-scores for regular doses and microdoses. This resulted in a total of 8 and 17 outliers for regular doses and microdoses, respectively. Considering the wide range (min-max) in reported doses (Tablesand), mode is given for dose per psychedelic. Frequencies are reported for the route of administration per psychedelic drug and mean (±SD) is given for frequency of use per week. Motivation to microdose was assessed by summing the total amount of responses for each of the 5 main motivation categories. Responses that were reported in the "other" category were moved into one of the main categories in case of a match; in case there was no fitting category, they remained in the "other" category. Furthermore, frequency is reported for respondents that microdosed to work, followed by the frequency of their daily occupation. In addition, for those who indicated they stopped using at least one psychedelic substance, frequencies are reported separately for regular and microdoses. Furthermore, frequencies of past use reasons are reported. Chi-square tests of independence were calculated comparing the frequency of reasons to stop per dose (regular/micro). In addition, frequencies of experienced negative side effects are reported for microdosing. Further chi-square tests of independence were calculated for the frequency of negative sideeffects of microdosing, separated by current and past users.
The present study aimed to investigate, by means of an online questionnaire, the history of psychedelic use among microdosers, the dose and schedule they use, the prevalence of microdosing in the work environment, their motivation to microdose, and the potential negative effects. The survey was not specifically advertised as a microdosing survey but rather a psychedelic survey in general. Detailed questions about motives to use were only presented for microdosing since the study was not set up to test differences in motivations for use of regular doses and microdoses. Findings showed that all respondents in the present survey had at least used 1 regular dose of a psychedelic, which was expected as the survey was advertised for psychedelic users. The most frequently reported psychedelics used, both in regular and microdoses, were LSD and psilocybin. The most reported regular and microdose for LSD was 200 mcg and 10 mcg, and for psilocybin 3.5 g and 0.5 g, respectively. However, most respondents (up to 67%) indicated not knowing the dosage they normally consume. In addition, one-half of the respondents (48.9%) that microdosed followed their own microdosing schedule. The majority of respondents who microdosed with LSD and psilocybin (57-78%) reported using microdosing several times per week, ranging between 2 and 4 times per week, respectively. One-half of the microdosers (47.6%) indicated to have microdosed while working, of which studying and computer/office work were the most prevalent daily occupations. The motives to microdose in descending order were for performance enhancement (37%), mood enhancement (29%), out of curiosity (15%), and for self-medication (14%). The most reported side effects while microdosing were psychological in nature and occurred acutely. The present study demonstrated that the majority (58-78%) of our microdosing respondents (using LSD and psilocybin) reported to have microdosed on a regular basis, while this was only 2% in the GDS of 2017. While both surveys included respondents from all continents, the majority of respondents in our survey were from North America (62-67%) while the majority of respondents of the GDS2017 were from Europe (70%). In addition, the male to female ratio in the GDS2017 was 2:1, while our survey this ratio was around 5:1. Furthermore, our survey specifically addressed psychedelic users while the GDS is known to assess the prevalence of a broader range of substances including alcohol, not exclusively focusing on psychedelics. Overall both surveys included a slightly different sample, which could indicate that these differences in demographics play a role in whether people microdosed on regular basis. Future studies might focus on these demographical differences. However, it cannot be excluded that the prevalence of microdosing has increased over the last year, which might be due to the enhanced media attention and the extensive information available on the internet about the effects and methods of use. The most reported microdoses of LSD (10 mcg) and psilocybin (0.5 g) are comparable with the doses reported in previous studiesand in line with the reported one-tenth of a regular dose. The limitation here is that people might have reported the dose they were told to have bought or that they simply report one-tenth of the aRoute of administration: "injection" is not shown, as no respondent reported injection as route of administration. regular dose they take. Nonetheless, it is concerning that up to 67% of the respondents reported to not know the dose they were consuming. Our proportion of microdosers unaware of the dose is higher than the 46% reported by the GDS2018; however, the latter survey only included numbers on LSD microdosers in contrast to our survey, which included a broad range of psychedelics. Nevertheless, LSD was one of the most prevalent psychedelic substance to microdose with in the current survey as well as in previous studies. The preference to microdose with LSD may be due to feasibility, as users can measure the amount with a pipet or cut the blotter paper into smaller tabs. Accordingly, the GDS2018 reported that 52.5% use the cutting method to dose LSD, despite the fact that LSD can be unevenly distributed on the blotter paper and is therefore not the most precise way of dosing (thethirdwave, 2018). Nevertheless, specifying the exact dose is difficult for respondents, which might be due to not knowing its purity and/or not having the right equipment to adequately dose when using such small amounts. With regard to microdosing motives, the majority of the respondents (37%) indicated they microdosed for performance enhancement, such as to increase energy, creativity, and concentration. Accordingly, the majority of the microdosers did so at the workplace, of which computer/ office work and studying was their main daily occupation. The use of enhancing substances to improve performance at work or while studying gives rise to some ethical questions, which are extensively discussed in the literature. For instance, the use of cognition enhancing substances to pass exams or to get a promotion at work can be seen as cheatingand may not be fair to those who choose not to use it. Furthermore, observing others engaging in these practices could in some people create the idea that it might be necessary to use substances to keep up in a competitive environment, such as school or a workplace (Academy of Medical. However, despite these practices and attention by the media there is no scientific support for this to date. Placebo-controlled experimental studies are needed to quantify the alleged effects of microdosing with psychedelics. Importantly, one-fifth (20%) of all microdosers reported to have experienced some kind of psychological or physical negative effects. Furthermore, experiencing the co-occurrence of psychological and physical negative effects was a significant reason for users to stop microdosing. Conversely, results demonstrate that when users experienced only psychological or only physical negative effects, they continued to microdose. Overall, the most reported negative side effects were psychological (current microdosing: 9.4%, and stopped microdosing: 10.5%). In general these effects occurred acutely, while under the influence of the substance. This is in line with previous anecdotal reports that reflect the intensification of symptoms, such as anxiety. Nonetheless, in 2 placebo-controlled studies no psychological changes were noted after LSD doses <20 mcg; however, the lack of effects in both studies might be due to low power. Nonetheless, only a small proportion of the microdosers (1-3%) in the present study indicated that the negative effects lasted for days after dosing. Interestingly, the main reason for users to have stopped microdosing was not due to negative side effects but rather because they deemed it to not be effective. This perceived lack of efficacy can be related to the expectations people have developed of microdosing, for instance by anecdotal reports in the media. A recent follow-up study found a mismatch between expected effects and the perceived psychological changes when microdosing for 6 weeks. Accordingly, the expected changes were the ones most reported in the media. It is possible that due to these positive reports, people feel attracted to microdosing and start with high hopes and expectations. When no changes are experienced or they are smaller or other than expected, users could become disappointed and stop using. Subsequently, future studies still need to examine the efficacy of microdosing. To have a more generalizable sample, the present survey was not limited to only healthy respondents, which is in contrast to previous studies. Nevertheless, results need to be interpreted with caution since this survey was advertised on fora focusing on psychedelics, and therefore it specifically targeted the psychedelic community. Consequently, we may not have reached the population that has experience with microdosing without having experienced a regular dose. These individuals' motives to microdose may be different from our sample and perhaps more related to curiosity. In addition, people who might have stopped using psychedelics because of negative experiences will be less likely to fill in the survey, as they might not be visiting these internet fora. Furthermore, the range of reported microdoses in the present survey was very broad; for instance for LSD this was 0.00001 to 500 mg. This wide range could indicate that more respondents than reported did not realize the actual dose they are taking. However, this might also be a result of typing errors or misreading the dosing units in which they needed to report (e.g., reading mcg instead of mg). Future studies might use multiplechoice options and may inquire as to how respondents measure their dose(s). Furthermore, the survey did not allow responders to specify different kinds of negative effects, so it could not be evaluated whether, for instance, "anxiety" or "depression" was a more common (psychological) side effect. In addition, the cause of negative effects is unknown. Specifically, negative effects could be due to taking higher doses than intended due to the mental state of the respondents, because of the set and setting and/or the impurity of the substance. Therefore, future clinical studies should focus on investigating potential acute and long-term side-effects, as this question cannot be reliably answered in an online survey. To conclude, this study demonstrates that microdosing is mostly used to enhance performance. Furthermore, the majority of microdosers are unaware of the dose they are actually taking. Importantly, psychological and physical negative effects were reported but in general do not outlast the "acute" phase. To clarify whether effects of microdosing on performance are restricted to a subjective level or are quantifiable with performance measures, placebo-controlled studies are needed. In addition, it will be important in these studies to assess the acute and long-term positive and negative effects to capture the full consequence of microdosing with psychedelics.
Create a free account to open full-text PDFs.
Liechti, M. E. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2017)
Polito, V., Stevenson, R. J. · PLOS ONE (2019)
Prochazkova, L., Lippelt, D. P., Colzato, L. S. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2018)
Vollenweider, F. X., Kometer, M. · Nature Reviews Neuroscience (2010)
Yanakieva, S., Polychroni, N., Family, N. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2018)
Papers in Blossom that reference this study
Drange, S., Cohen, J., Johansen, S. S. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2026)
Joy Donegan, C., Daldegan-Bueno, D., Sumner, R. L. et al. · Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology (2025)
Cavarra, M., Hutten, N. R. P. W., Schepers, J. et al. · British Journal of Pain (2025)
Modzelewski, S., Waszkiewicz, N., Lukasiewicz, K. et al. · Neuropharmacology (2025)
Syed, O. A., Petranker, R., Fewster, E. C. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2024)
Oblak, A., Korošec Hudnikr, L., Levačić, A. et al. · OSF Preprints (2024)
Murray, C., Frohlich, J, Haggarty, C. J., Tare, I. et al. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2024)
Murphy, R., Sumner, R. L., Evans, W. J. et al. · Biological Psychiatry (2023)
Tagen, M., Mantuani, D., Van Heerden, L. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2023)
Ryan, R. S., Copello, A., Fox, A. P. · BMC Psychiatry (2023)
Kinderlehrer, D. A. · International Medical Case Reports Journal (2023)
Pop, I., Dinkelacker, J. · Journal of Psychedelic Studies (2023)
Kaypak, A. C., Raz, A. · Transcultural Psychiatry (2022)
Cavanna, F., Muller, S., de la Fuente, L. A. et al. · Translational Psychiatry (2022)
Rootman, J. M., Kiraga, M., Kryskow, P. et al. · Scientific Reports (2022)
Hartong, V., van Emmerik, A. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2022)
Sanz, C., Cavanna, F., Muller, S. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2022)
Barker, S. A. · Psychopharmacology (2022)
Haijen, E., Hurks, P. P. M., Kuypers, K. P. C. · Neuroscience Applied (2022)
Polito, V., Liknaitzky, P. · Psyarxiv (2021)
Cavanna, F., Muller, S., de la Fuente, L. A. et al. · Translational Psychiatry (2021)
Rootman, J. M., Kryskow, P., Harvey, K. et al. · Scientific Reports (2021)
Kettner, H., Rosas, F. E., Timmermann, C. et al. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2021)
Kaertner, L. S., Steinborn, M. B., Kettner, H. et al. · Scientific Reports (2021)
Klein, A. K., Chatha, M., Laskowski, L. J. et al. · ACS Pharmacology and Translational Science (2020)
Hutten, N. R. P. W., Mason, N. L., Dolder, P. C. et al. · European Neuropsychopharmacology (2020)
Zhang, D. Z., Holze, F., Liechti, M. E. et al. · Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (2020)
Holze, F., Vizeli, P., Ley, L. et al. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2020)
Kuypers, K. P. C. · Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology (2020)
Bornemann, J. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2020)
Rosenbaum, D., Weissman, C. R., Anderson, T. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2020)
Hutten, N. P. W., Mason, N. L., Dolder, P. C. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2019)
Beaton, B., Copes, H., Webb, M. et al. · Journal of Drug Issues (2019)