This national survey (n=795) in the USA assesses public attitudes towards psilocybin use in licensed settings for psychiatric treatment and well-being enhancement. Participants from across the political spectrum overwhelmingly viewed the individual's decision as morally positive in both contexts, suggesting strong bipartisan support for supervised psilocybin use.
The psychedelic psilocybin has shown promise both as treatment for psychiatric conditions and as a means of improving well-being in healthy individuals. In some jurisdictions (e.g., Oregon, USA), psilocybin use for both purposes is or will soon be allowed and yet, public attitudes toward this shift are understudied. We asked a nationally representative sample of 795 US Americans to evaluate the moral status of psilocybin use in an appropriately licensed setting for either treatment of a psychiatric condition or well-being enhancement. Showing strong bipartisan support, participants rated the individual’s decision as morally positive in both contexts. These results can inform effective policy-making decisions around supervised psilocybin use, given robust public attitudes as elicited in the context of an innovative regulatory model. We did not explore attitudes to psilocybin use in unsupervised or non-licensed community or social settings.
Psilocybin is a naturally occurring psychedelic that has re-emerged in scientific and policy conversations because recent clinical research suggests potential therapeutic benefits, particularly when administered in controlled settings alongside psychological support. Earlier work indicates efficacy signals for conditions such as major depressive disorder and reports of positive psychosocial and pro‑social effects in healthy participants, while recognised acute and longer‑term harms appear to be highly context‑dependent and more likely during unsupervised or unregulated use. At the same time, regulatory change has begun: the FDA has granted psilocybin breakthrough therapy status for some depressive indications, and Oregon has decriminalised and legalised supervised psilocybin use in licensed facilities, including for non‑medical well‑being enhancement. Public attitudes toward these legal, supervised models remain understudied, and existing research on enhancement has focused mainly on cognitive ‘‘smart pills’’ rather than psychedelics or well‑being enhancement. Sandbrink and colleagues set out to fill this gap by measuring moral judgments about legally sanctioned, professionally supervised psilocybin use for either psychiatric treatment or for improving well‑being in healthy individuals (‘‘enhancement’’). The study presented nationally representative US adults with brief, scientifically accurate background information and randomly assigned them, in a between‑subjects vignette design, to evaluate the moral status of an individual’s supervised psilocybin use for one of those two purposes. The authors pre‑registered their analysis and aimed to test how moral evaluations vary by purpose and by individual difference factors such as political orientation, age, and moral foundations.
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)
Belouin, S. J., Henningfield, J. E. · Neuropharmacology (2018)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Giribaldi, B., Watts, R. et al. · New England Journal of Medicine (2021)
Corrigan, K., Haran, M., Mccandliss, C. et al. · Irish Journal of Medical Science (2021)
The investigators employed a between‑subjects experimental vignette design administered online. Participants first received concise, scientifically accurate information about psilocybin (its psychedelic properties, non‑addictive profile in controlled settings, and recent policy changes such as Oregon’s law) and were asked to imagine a future in which such laws existed at the federal level. They were then randomly assigned to one of two vignettes describing an individual taking psilocybin under the supervision of a trained professional, with the vignette differing only in the stated purpose: treatment of a psychiatric condition or well‑being enhancement for a healthy person. A nationally representative sample of US adults (recruited via Prolific) was targeted according to age, race and gender. The study initially recruited 805 participants; 10 were excluded for failing attention checks, leaving a final sample of N = 795. The sample’s median age was 44 (range 18–92); 49% identified as men, 48% as women, and 2% other/undeclared. Racial/ethnic composition was reported (74% White, 14% Black/African American, 7% Asian, 5% Hispanic/Latinx, smaller percentages for Native American, Pacific Islander, and other). The authors stated that with this sample they achieved a 5% margin of error per experimental condition at 95% confidence and 80% power to detect a small effect (Cohen’s d = 0.20). Primary outcome measurement was a moral evaluation of the individual’s supervised psilocybin use; comparisons to the scale midpoint were used to assess approval versus disapproval. At the end of the survey participants completed individual difference measures including moral foundations (care, fairness, purity), disgust sensitivity (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = .88), empathic concern (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = .89), and demographic items. Political orientation was measured with a two‑item average (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = .92). Disgust sensitivity and empathic concern were reported as unrelated to attitudes and therefore not discussed further. The study was pre‑registered and the anonymised data and analysis script were made available on the Open Science Framework.
The pre‑registered primary analysis found a small but statistically significant treatment–enhancement distinction: supervised psilocybin use was judged more morally favourable when described as treatment (n = 395, M = 29.5, SD = 21.7) than when described as well‑being enhancement (n = 400, M = 24.1, SD = 24.3). Welch’s t(786) = 3.34, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.24. Both conditions showed substantial moral approval relative to the scale midpoint: treatment yielded a large effect versus midpoint (Cohen’s d = 1.36, p < .001) and enhancement also produced a large effect (Cohen’s d = 0.99, p < .001). Expressed as probabilities of approval over the midpoint, 89% (95% CI [85.2, 92.1]) of participants reported moral approval of supervised psilocybin use for treatment, and 85% (95% CI [81.5, 88.5]) reported approval for enhancement. Political and age differences emerged in exploratory analyses: political liberals reported greater approval than conservatives (B = 4.89, t = 3.98, p < .001), and younger adults expressed greater support than older adults (B = -3.76, t = -2.63, p = .009). When participants’ moral foundations were entered into the model, care values showed a significant positive association with approval (B = 3.63, t = 2.80, p = .005), whereas fairness (B = 2.42, t = 1.64, p = .10) and purity (B = -2.11, t = -1.21, p = .23) were not significant predictors. In that model, age remained a significant predictor (B = -4.15, t = -2.92, p = .004), but political orientation dropped to non‑significance (B = 2.55, t = 1.86, p = .063), suggesting part of the political difference may be mediated by differing emphasis on care values. Reporting support by political group, 91% of liberals and 86% of conservatives favoured treatment uses; for enhancement, 89% of liberals and 78% of conservatives indicated approval. The authors noted that disgust sensitivity and empathic concern were not associated with attitudes toward psilocybin use.
Sandbrink and colleagues interpret their findings as evidence of strong bipartisan moral support among US adults for legally sanctioned, professionally supervised psilocybin use, both for psychiatric treatment and for well‑being enhancement, with a modest preference for treatment. They highlight that the moral foundation of care underlies favourable attitudes, and that age and political orientation account for some variation in support—older adults and more conservative respondents expressed somewhat less approval, although support for treatment remained high across political groups. The authors situate these results in relation to earlier work on pharmacological enhancement and psychedelics: approval in this study exceeded that commonly observed for cognitive ‘‘smart pills,’’ which the authors suggest may reflect differences between enhancement of well‑being (a non‑positional good) and positional goods tied to competitiveness. They also acknowledge contextual influences that could have shaped responses, notably high‑profile policy changes (for example, Oregon’s law) and increased media coverage of psilocybin around the time of data collection (summer 2021). Important limitations and cautions are emphasised. The study examined only legal, supervised use and did not address attitudes toward unsupervised, underground, or recreational use, settings that carry distinct risks; accordingly, its findings should not be generalised to those contexts. The authors warn against policy decisions driven by inflated expectations, noting both that psilocybin is not a panacea—citing a Phase II trial that found no significant difference on primary endpoints between psilocybin and escitalopram—and that concerns exist in the broader field about underreporting of adverse events, flexible analytic practices, inadequate controls, and conflicts of interest. They also flag uncertainty about population‑level public health impacts of wider access (for example, whether perceived acceptability might influence openness to other drugs or unsupervised use). In closing, the authors argue that, given the observed public support for supervised use, policy changes allowing controlled psilocybin in licensed settings may encounter little public backlash if similar information about risks and benefits is provided. Nevertheless, they call for rigorous research standards, transparent reporting, efforts to address knowledge deficits among both the public and some health professionals, and cautious policy deliberation to avoid premature or misleading claims about therapeutic potential.
Psilocybin is a naturally occurring psychedelic found in certain species of mushroom. It has been a highly regulated Schedule 1 drug under the United States Controlled Substances Act since the 1970s. However, a recent wave of research has produced an array of striking findings, considered promising for psychiatric medicine. Thought to be physiologically safer than many currently-prescribed drugs, as well as non-habit forming, psilocybin, in combination with psychotherapy in appropriately prepared and pre-screened individuals, has been found efficacious in treating a variety of psychiatric conditions including major depressive disorder (MDD). Beyond therapeutic efficacy, a variety of positive neuropsychological effects have been observed in not only patients but also healthy participants, including increases in prosocial attitudes, mindfulness, and improved overall psychosocial functioning). Thus, the appropriately controlled and guided use of psilocybin appears to have both "treatment" (i.e., reducing the symptoms of recognized disorders) and "enhancement" (i.e., improving function or well-being in healthy individuals) effects. Psychedelics can lead to acute psychological adverse reactions, such as anxiety or panic, as well as some longer-term harms such as a sense of disconnection from one's community (see below). However, these outcomes seem to be highly context-dependent and more likely to occur during unstructured or unlicensed activities (e.g., recreational use, "underground" therapy by unqualified or unethical practitioners). This emphasizes the importance of adequate screening, mental and emotional preparation, skilled, ethical supervision, and a safe, comfortable environment. While recreational use of psilocybin is federally prohibited, the FDA recently granted psilocybin "breakthrough therapy status" for use in MDD and treatment-resistant depression, facilitating clinical research. The state of Oregon has moreover decriminalized psilocybin and legalized it for supervised consumption in licensed facilities as of January 2023, including for non-medical reasons, such as elevating well-being beyond a healthy baseline, which we here refer to as "well-being enhancement." While these legislative changes may seem consistent with the emerging scientific picture, drug policy discussions should take stock of public moral attitudes as well. Especially considering that the Oregon law might soon be followed by similar legislation elsewhere (e.g., in Colorado), the question arises: How do these legal and regulatory changes align with public attitudes and moral sentiment? There is a burgeoning empirical literature studying public attitudes toward pharmacological treatment vs. enhancement, though these studies have focused primarily on "smart pills" for cognitive enhancement. The public generally seems to be cautiously accepting of such enhancement, though approval drops markedly in scenarios where potential issues such as societal pressure or unfairness arise). There has been much less research on attitudes toward drug use for well-being enhancement, and virtually none on the use of psychedelics such as psilocybin for this purpose. Concerning psychedelics more generally, in several studies, mental health professionals reported supporting further research but also showed reservations: 65% of psychiatrists claimed that psychedelic use increases the risk for subsequent psychiatric disorders, a claim for which there is extremely limited evidence beyond a few anecdotal case reports. This suggests a knowledge deficit, similar to what has been observed in other groups, such as psychologists, mental health service users, and American college students. Given basic information on promising medical findings, however, 51% of a Norwegian sample recently showed openness to psilocybin use for psychiatric treatment; however, neither enhancement nor social acceptance of others using it were explored. Overall, research has revealed both a knowledge gap and reserved attitudes toward psychedelics, which might be a remnant of decades of criminalization and stigmatization during the War on Drugs). However, to our knowledge, no studies to date have specifically explored attitudes toward psychedelic use in legal, supervised settings, which is what the new Oregon law allows for. Given the limitations of current evidence, we ask: (1) How do diverse stakeholders morally judge the legal, supervised use of psychedelics when given basic information about known risks and benefits? (2) How do these judgments differ depending on the purpose of use? We provided minimal, but accurate scientific background to a large sample of US participants. We then asked them, in a between-subjects design, to morally evaluate the use of psilocybin for either treatment or well-being enhancement in a legal, supervised setting (similar to the Oregon model). The pre-registration form and sampling plan are available on AsPredicted:. Anonymized data and an analysis script for this study are available on the Open Science Framework:. We recruited 805 US participants, representative of national demographics according to age, race, and gender, on the crowdsourcing platform Prolific. Ten participants who failed either of our attention checks were excluded from analyses (final N = 795). With this sample size, we obtained a margin of error of 5% in each experimental condition with a confidence level of 95%, as well as 80% power to observe a small difference (Cohen's d = 0.20) in moral approval across conditions. Participants' ages ranged from 18 to 92, with a median age of 44 years. 49% of the sample (n = 390) were men, 48% (n = 385) were women, and 2% (n = 15) other / chose not to disclose. Participants identified as White (n = 591, 74%), Black/African (n = 113, 14%), Asian (n = 56, 7%), Hispanic/Latinx (n = 37, 5%), Native American (n = 12, 2%), Pacific Islander (n = 2, <1%) and (n = 8, 1%) as having other origins. All participants were provided basic information on psilocybin, including its psychedelic properties and the fact that it is the active ingredient of "magic mushrooms." Moreover, they were informed about the recent Oregon law that legalized psilocybin for personal use in supervised settings, and they were asked to imagine a future in which such a law has been passed at the federal level. Then, participants were randomly assigned to one of two vignettes about an individual taking the drug under the supervision of a trained professional (see Fig.). Participants were provided with scientifically accurate background on psilocybin, which stated that psilocybin has been shown to be medically safe and non-addictive if administered in an appropriately controlled setting, both for those with certain mental health disorders and for healthy individuals. Participants were then asked to morally evaluate the supervised use of the drug by the identified individual for either treatment or enhancement, depending on condition assignment.
At the end of the study, participants completed individual difference measures related to morality (i.e., "moral foundations", see, empathy, and disgust, and provided demographic information including age, gender, race/ethnicity, political orientation (two-item average; Cronbach's 𝛼 = .92), religiosity, and spirituality. Disgust sensitivity (Cronbach's 𝛼 = .88) and empathic concern (Cronbach's 𝛼 = .89) were not associated with attitudes toward psilocybin use and will therefore not be discussed further. Our primary pre-registered analysis revealed a treatment-enhancement distinction, such that psilocybin use was judged to be morally better in the treatment condition (n = 395, M = 29.5, SD = 21.7) than in the enhancement condition (n = 400, M = 24.1, SD = 24.3), Welch's t(786) = 3.34, p < .001, Cohen's d = 0.24. This conventionally small effect corresponds to a 56% chance that a randomly selected response in the treatment condition will be higher than a randomly selected response in the enhancement condition. Comparisons to the scale midpoint in both conditions revealed substantial moral approval, rather than disapproval, of psilocybin use in licensed settings whether for treatment, Cohen's d = 1.36, or enhancement, Cohen's d = 0.99, both ps < .001 (see Fig.). Expressed in terms of probability of superiority (i.e., over the midpoint), 85% (95% CI [81.5, 88.5]) of participants reported moral approval of enhancement, while 89% (95% CI [85.2, 92.1]) reported approval of treatment. In exploratory analyses (see Appendix Fig.), we tested whether demographic characteristics were associated with varying attitudes toward psilocybin use. Indeed, political liberals reported greater approval of psilocybin use than conservatives, B = 4.89, t = 3.98, p < .001, and younger adults expressed greater support for psilocybin use than older adults, B = -3.76, t = -2.63, p = .009. Entering participants' moral foundations ratings (i.e., the extent to which concerns about care, fairness, and purity factor into their moral reasoning) as predictors of attitudes toward controlled psilocybin use uncovered a main effect of care values, B = 3.63, t = 2.80, p = .005, while fairness values, B = 2.42, t = 1.64, p = .10, and purity values, B = -2.11, t = -1.21, p = .23, were not significant. In this model, the effect of age remained significant, B = -4.15, t = -2.92, p = .004, whereas the effect of political orientation did not, B = 2.55, t = 1.86, p = .063. This result indicates that political differences in support for psilocybin use may be partly explained by liberals' greater emphasis on care values, whereas age differences were unrelated to moral values. Our results revealed strong bipartisan support for supervised psilocybin use for either treatment (89%) or enhancement (85%) in a nationally representative sample of US Americans, although approval was slightly reduced among older and conservative participants. Overall, support for treatment was very high in both political groups: 91% of liberals and 86% of conservatives reported favorable attitudes toward treatment uses of psilocybin. Participants' approval of controlled psilocybin use for enhancement was slightly weaker, though still very high: 89% of liberals and 78% of conservatives indicated approval. Across conditions, favorable attitudes toward controlled psilocybin use were linked to the moral foundation of care, suggesting that a concern for both patients' and non-patients' wellbeing underlies the tendency to approve of controlled psilocybin use. We note that our study was conducted at a time (Summer 2021) when the state of Oregon had already taken highly publicized steps towards facilitating psilocybin use and psilocybin's efficacy began to see increased media coverage, which might have affected attitudes. Earlier work on pharmacological cognitive enhancement had found less support than we observed here. One possible reason is that the enhancement of well-being, in comparison to cognitive function, constitutes a non-positional rather than positional good (i.e., its value does not depend on how it compares with other people's goods) and has a weaker association with competitiveness and coercion. Nevertheless, the magnitude of observed approval is especially notable given the substantial reservations about the use of psychedelics revealed in past researchas well as the decades of stigmatization and criminalization during the War on Drugs. It is important to point out that the present study did not examine attitudes surrounding unsupervised use of psychedelics, use under the supervision of "underground" practitioners, or other illegal uses, which incur distinctive risks, including the potential for long-lasting harms. Rather, inspired by the Oregon law, the study focused exclusively on attitudes toward legal and supervised use. 1 Our results suggest that, under these circumstances, surveyed members of the US public are generally morally supportive of psilocybin use for both treatment and well-being enhancement. Given such bipartisan positive attitudes, future legislative changes allowing psilocybin use in supervised settings for both purposes, even at the federal level, seem unlikely to trigger major public backlash, assuming similar background information about (known) benefits or risks, which may change over time. Nevertheless, policy changes related to psychedelics must be carefully considered, and the risk of inflated expectations is a concern. Psilocybin is not a silver 1 Although the data on benefits and risks from such use in the context of recent scientific studies may not translate directly to non-medical supervised use, as in the Oregon model, what little data there is on potential benefits and risks in a roughly comparable setting (e.g., a legal "psilocybin truffle retreat" in the Netherlands), suggests that "integration challenges"-such as a feeling of disconnection from one's community-may occur in a minority of participants; however, such "challenges were transient; they occurred immediately after the psilocybin experience (once the main psychedelic effects had worn off) and in the days and weeks following the retreat, and resolved with timewere also correlated with positive after-effects including long-term remission of significant health conditions". bullet for treating mental illness: A recent phase II clinical trial showed no significant difference in primary endpoints of psilocybin vs. escitalopram (first line) treatment of MDD, suggesting psilocybin's efficacy above and beyond current measures might be limited. Still, psilocybin may turn out to have a more tolerable side effect profile than escitalopram or other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and the drugs' subjective effects may be valued differently by different users (i.e., in the context of shared clinical decision-making). That being said, recent research on adverse events reported in clinical trials of a different psychoactive drug-esketamine, a form of ketamine, also used to treat depression-found that substantial percentages of adverse events went unreported in the studies' final publications). Although we are not aware of research suggesting similar underreporting of adverse events in controlled scientific studies of psilocybin (a drug with different chemical properties and hypothesized mechanisms of action), seeing such reports in any area of psychopharmacology raises serious concerns. More broadly, it has been noted that, similar to other areas of medicine, a range of issues including invalid statistical inferences, flexibility regarding the analysis of primary outcome measures, a lack of adequate control groups, and researcher conflicts of interest may be worryingly common in psychedelic science, and that studies in this field need to be held to a much higher standard by reviewers and journal editors, as well as covered more critically by journalists and other science communicators (van Elk and Fried 2023; see also. It is difficult to estimate the public health impacts of wider availability of psilocybin, particularly for use outside of clinical contexts. For example, it is unknown whether wider access to or perceived acceptability of psilocybin might foster openness toward other, potentially more harmful drugs, such as cocaine, opioids, and methamphetamines (cf.. Allowing psychedelic use in supervised settings could also possibly affect the incidence of risky, unsupervised use in other settings, which the current study did not explore. Such concerns should be kept in mind by policymakers. In particular, there is a need to address considerable knowledge deficits observed in both lay populations and among some health experts, not only with regards to psychedelics, but other drugs as well (see, e.g.,. Caution is also required in relation to the apparent hype bubble now surrounding the so-called "psychedelic Renaissance". Given the early stage of the field, both overand understatements of trial results are not uncommon. Current scientific evidence, however, does not allow for rash conclusions beyond the fact that psilocybin has significant medical potential and a good safety profile compared to other drugs, given the right context. It is imperative that claims do not get ahead of the state of the evidence (van Elk and Fried 2023). Nevertheless, our findings do suggest that the safe and supervised use of psychedelics under conditions of legalization has the potential to find wide public acceptance. If the field can overcome scientific inaccuracies, pursue rigorous research, and build trust-then psychedelics such as psilocybin may one day be seen as a mainstream means to treat mental illness and possibly also to promote overall well-being. a main effect of care values, B = 3.63, t = 2.80, p = .005, while fairness values, B = 2.42, t = 1.64, p = .10, and purity values, B = -2.11, t = -1.21, p = .23, were not significant. In this model, the effect of age remained significant, B = -4.15, t = -2.92, p = .004, whereas the effect of political orientation did not, B = 2.55, t = 1.86, p = .063. This result indicates that political differences in support for psilocybin use may be partly explained by liberals' greater emphasis on care values-whereas age differences were unrelated to differences in moral values.
Create a free account to open full-text PDFs.
Davis, A. K., Barrett, F. S., May, D. G. et al. · JAMA Psychiatry (2021)
Davis, A. K., Agin-Liebes, G. I., España, M. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2021)
Van Elk, M., Fried, E. I. · Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology (2023)
Evans, J., Robinson, O., Ketzitzidou-Argyri, E. et al. · PLOS ONE (2023)
Goodwin, G. M., Aaronson, S. T., Alvarez, O. et al. · New England Journal of Medicine (2022)
Griffiths, R. R., Richards, W. A., Mccann, U. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2006)
Johnson, M. W., Richards, W. A., Griffiths, R. R. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2008)
Taillefer De Laportalière, T., Jullien, A., Yrondi, A. et al. · Psychological Medicine (2023)
Lutkajtis, A., Evans, J. · Journal of Psychedelic Studies (2023)
Neil, J. C., Nutt, D. J. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2022)