In two placebo-controlled studies, a single dose of MDMA (100 mg) increased participants’ feelings of global trust and marginally raised self-worth 90 minutes after a conversation, whereas methamphetamine (20 mg) produced no change. These results indicate MDMA uniquely enhances generalized social trust beyond lab-specific partners, supporting its potential social‑psychological clinical value.
Background
The empathogen and psychostimulant 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) is thought to boost both subjective well-being and social connection. Although MDMA is considered to enhance social connection to a greater extent than other stimulant drugs, few studies have compared MDMA to other stimulants. In addition, previous studies have focused on social positivity effects (e.g., increased trust) for specific in-lab interaction partners without considering more generalized social positivity effects (e.g., trust in one’s community).
Aims
We tested the effects of MDMA on subjective ratings of well-being and global social connection, including feelings of trust toward one’s community and society. The effects of MDMA were compared to a prototypic stimulant, methamphetamine (MA).
Methods
Across two studies, we examined differences in subjective well-being and global social well-being 90 minutes after a conversation on MDMA (study 1; N = 15; 100 mg) and after a conversation on MA (study 2; N = 20; 20 mg) compared to a placebo.
Results
After MDMA, participants reported significantly higher global trust, t (14) = −2.583, p = 0.022, and marginally higher self-worth, t (14) = −2.000, p = 0.065, compared with after the placebo. Furthermore, MA did not alter scores of subjective well-being and social connection.
Conclusions
Our findings extend previous research by demonstrating that MDMA increases feelings of trust in the social world beyond lab-specific interaction partners. These findings are consistent with user reports of generalized social well-being effects and support the idea that MDMA may have clinical value from a social psychological perspective.
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Bershad, A. K., Mayo, L. M., Van Hedger, K. et al. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2019)
Bershad, A. K., Miller, M. A., Baggot, M. J. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2016)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Goodwin, G. M. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2017)
de la Torre, R., Farré, M., Roset, P. N. et al. · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (2006)
Heifets, B. D., Malenka, R. C. · Cell (2016)
Psychedelic social psychology examines how substances that alter perception, mood and consciousness might influence social connection and subjective well being. Martinez and colleagues frame MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) as an "empathogen" with distinctive prosocial effects compared with other stimulants, and note meta-analytic evidence of moderate to large effects on sociability. Previous experimental work has mainly assessed MDMA's acute effects toward immediate interaction partners, leaving open whether these effects generalise to broader social targets such as one’s community or society. The present research tested whether MDMA or methamphetamine (MA) increase subjective well being and global social well being following a laboratory conversation task. Using two within subject, two-session studies, the investigators compared post‑conversation scores on selected subscales of the Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT) 1.5 hours after drug versus placebo. Study 1 compared 100 mg MDMA with placebo, and Study 2 compared 20 mg MA with placebo. The pre-registered hypotheses were that each drug would increase nine CIT subscales indexing support, trust, respect, belonging, engagement, self worth, meaning, optimism and life satisfaction relative to placebo.
Both studies used a within subject, double blind, two‑session design with counterbalancing. Each participant completed an orientation session, two in‑lab conversation sessions (one drug, one placebo) separated by at least four days, and a 1‑week online follow up. After the drug reached peak effect, participants engaged in a 45‑minute structured conversation with a same sex confederate who was not under the influence. The CIT was administered at orientation and immediately after each conversation session; the primary comparisons were post‑drug versus post‑placebo ratings assessed 1.5 hours after the conversation. Healthy volunteers aged 18–35 were recruited; screening included medical, psychiatric and ECG assessments. Exclusion criteria encompassed medical conditions requiring regular medication, current substance dependence or major psychiatric disorders, pregnancy, abnormal ECG, and other standard safety criteria. Study 1 additionally required participants to have used MDMA previously (between 1 and 40 times) without adverse effects; Study 2 did not require prior MA use. Participants provided informed consent under an Institutional Review Board approved protocol. Drugs were delivered in opaque capsules: Study 1 used 100 mg MDMA (Organix Inc.), Study 2 used 20 mg MA (Desoxyn, Lundbeck), and placebos contained inert filler. The CIT subscales analysed comprised nine three‑item scales (support, trust, respect, belonging, engagement, self worth, meaning, optimism, life satisfaction), each scored 1–5 and averaged per subscale. Cronbach's alpha values were reported in a table according to the extract, but specific alpha coefficients are not clearly reported in the extracted text. Analyses used two sets of two‑tailed dependent means t tests at alpha = 0.05: (1) within subject comparisons of post‑drug versus post‑placebo scores for each study, and (2) comparisons of gain scores from orientation to post‑drug versus orientation to post‑placebo. The authors note that multilevel or residualised change models were pre-registered but could not be estimated due to the modest sample sizes and the counterbalanced design, which also introduced variability in the time between orientation and the post‑drug session. Two participants were excluded from Study 1 (one for deviant conversational behaviour as rated by confederates and one for socialising with a confederate outside the study); no exclusions occurred in Study 2.
Study samples comprised 15 analysed participants in Study 1 (after two exclusions) and 20 in Study 2. Demographic summaries in the extracted text indicate a mean age of 26.7 years in Study 1 (53% male, 87% college or masters level education) and 22.8 years in Study 2 (45% male, 45% college or masters level education). Participants in Study 1 reported higher lifetime drug use than those in Study 2. Primary outcomes from Study 1 (MDMA versus placebo) showed a significant increase in global trust after MDMA compared with after placebo: t(14) = -2.583, p = 0.022. Corresponding gain score comparisons from orientation to post‑MDMA versus orientation to post‑placebo were likewise significant, t(14) = -2.582, p = 0.022. On average, trust increased from orientation to post‑MDMA by M = +0.18 (SD = 0.45) and decreased from orientation to post‑placebo by M = -0.07 (SD = 0.41). Self worth showed a marginal effect: post‑MDMA versus post‑placebo yielded t(14) = -2.000, p = 0.065, and the corresponding gain score comparison was marginal at the same level; mean change from orientation to post‑MDMA was M = +0.20 (SD = 0.57) versus orientation to post‑placebo M = -0.02 (SD = 0.54). No significant differences emerged for life satisfaction, optimism, meaning, belonging, support, respect or engagement in Study 1. Study 2 (MA versus placebo) produced no significant increases in any of the nine CIT subscales (trust, worth, life satisfaction, optimism, meaning, belonging, support, respect, engagement) for post‑MA versus post‑placebo or for gain scores from orientation. The extracted text notes other analyses from these data reported elsewhere: both MDMA and MA increased conversational enjoyment, perceived connection to the partner, and oxytocin levels, but only MDMA produced a significant correlation between oxytocin and perceived partner closeness in those additional reports. Those complementary findings are described in the Discussion but the present paper's primary reported results are the MDMA effect on global trust and marginal effect on self worth, and the null findings for MA.
Martinez and colleagues interpret their findings as evidence that MDMA uniquely increases a sense of global trust — that is, trust extending beyond an immediate interaction partner to broader social targets such as neighbourhoods, society and "most people" as indexed by the CIT. The authors argue these results extend prior work that documented MDMA's prosocial effects toward specific interaction partners and note that the marginal increase in self worth complements the trust finding by indicating enhanced feelings of value and social safety. The investigators situate potential mechanisms in oxytocinergic pathways, reporting that companion analyses found oxytocin increases after both drugs but a significant oxytocin–closeness relationship only after MDMA. They propose that such unique biological and subjective pathways may help explain why MDMA's social positivity may generalise beyond immediate dyads, while acknowledging that these mechanistic accounts remain speculative and require further research. Key limitations acknowledged by the authors include small sample sizes (Study 1 N = 15; Study 2 N = 20), differential recruitment criteria across studies (prior MDMA experience required in Study 1 but not for MA in Study 2) which could affect expectancies and self selection, and the decision to compare each drug separately to placebo rather than directly compare MDMA and MA within a single analytic model. The counterbalanced design, while intended to reduce expectancy effects, prevented estimation of growth trajectories and introduced variability in time between orientation and post‑drug assessments that could not be modelled. The authors also note uncertainty about the duration of the observed effects beyond the 1.5 hour post‑conversation assessment and that residual acute drug effects might have contributed to self reports. In terms of implications, the authors suggest the findings provide preliminary support for considering MDMA as a pharmacological tool to bolster social safety and broader social well being, which could have relevance for interventions targeting loneliness, social anxiety or impairments in social functioning. They emphasise the need for replication with larger samples, consistent inclusion criteria across comparative substances, designs that permit direct drug‑to‑drug comparisons and additional follow up time points to establish whether increases in global social positivity persist beyond the acute phase. The authors characterise their results as foundational evidence that MDMA, but not MA, increased feelings of global trust following a dyadic conversation.
Psychedelic social psychology presents a new frontier of psychological inquiry. Psychedelic substances, or substances that markedly alter perception, mood, and consciousness (including hallucinogenic experiences), offer a unique opportunity to study ways to improve social connection and, consequently, subjective well-being. Specifically, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA; colloquially called "ecstasy") is one psychoactive substance that has been forwarded as a strong candidate for use in building social connection through social psychological interventions. Although MDMA also has receptor actions and behavioral effects that resemble those of psychedelics, MDMA is chemically most similar to stimulant drugs. Accordingly, researchers have used the descriptors "empathogen" and "entactogen" (as opposed to "psychedelic") to highlight MDMA's distinctive effects on selfinsight and social connection. In support of MDMA's role in enhancing social connection, meta-analytic evidence reveals that MDMA has a moderately large effect on feelings of sociability (e.g., feeling loving and friendly; d = 0.86;. Notably, research establishing the effects of MDMA on social connection primarily tests acute social effects during experimental tasks. However, theoretical perspectives suggest that the positive emotional and social experiences induced by MDMA may produce shifts in perspective that can carry forward to other social relationships and promote a global sense of connectedness. Accordingly, further work is needed to determine whether MDMA's social effects generalize to broader interpersonal relationships-especially if MDMA is to be considered a tool for boosting subjective and social wellbeing in the long term. Importantly, much of the existing evidence on the generalizability of MDMA's social effects remains anecdotal. While such accounts have fueled public interest through popular media coverage (e.g., ABC News, as reviewed by, rigorous empirical research is critically needed to test whether MDMA-induced social positivity extends beyond the immediate interaction partner(s) and beyond the context of the MDMA-facilitated social experience. Establishing the broader impact of MDMA on social positivity-spanning interpersonal relationships, social groups, and society at large-could provide a foundation from which to test its potential role in alleviating more enduring social challenges, such as loneliness and social anxiety. MDMA may be uniquely suited to bolster social well-being, as it purportedly enhances social well-being to a greater extent than other psychoactive substances (for a review, see. However, little research to date has compared the social effects of MDMA to other psychoactive substances, and the research that does exist provides mixed results. A handful of studies speak to the unique social benefits of MDMA. For instance, in one study, MDMA, but not methylphenidate (a common treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder), enhanced liking, closeness, openness, and trust in a facial recognition task. In line with other research indicating that MDMA's prosocial effects are mediated by the release of oxytocin (a hormone that enhances social bonding), MDMA increased oxytocin levels in this experiment, but methylphenidate did not. In addition, another study reported that MDMA, but not methamphetamine (MA), increased attentional bias to positive social stimuli (images of faces with positive expressions) and self-related pleasantness of physical touch (soft brushing on the forearm;. Other studies, however, have reported mixed findings vis-àvis the social benefits of MDMA or revealed other psychoactive substances to confer comparable social benefits. For example, one study found that MDMA significantly increased self-reported feelings of closeness to others, but did not significantly increase trust, empathy, and cooperation in computer-based behavioral tasks. Another recent studyexamined the effects of MDMA and MA in dyadic conversations between participants and found that both MDMA and MA increased feelings of social connection and oxytocin levels, but that oxytocin levels were only significantly correlated with increased self-ratings of social connection after MDMA and not MA. These results support the idea that MDMA's positive effects on social outcomes are partially mediated by oxytocin (e.g.,, but also raise questions about the pharmacological specificity of the social effect of MDMA.
In the present research, we adopt a social psychological perspective when interpreting the prospective social and well-being benefits of MDMA. To this end, we aim to address the following question: Do either MDMA or MA increase subjective wellbeing and global social well-being (i.e., greater social positivity toward broad interpersonal relationships) following a lab-based conversation task? The current research elaborates on previously published findings focused on positive social effects (e.g., feeling trusting, connected, and friendly) toward one's conversation partner measured during and immediately after these social interactions. Specifically, the current paper presents pre-registered analyses (; see hypotheses and analyses related to "thriving") examining broad aspects of subjective well-being (e.g., sense of self-worth, meaning, and life satisfaction), as well as more global social well-being outcomes (e.g., feelings of trust and belonging among others, the community, and society). To address these questions, we conducted two studies, each using a two-session within-subjects design examining the effects of a drug on subjective well-being and global social well-being 1.5 hours following a 45-minute conversation. Study 1 compared MDMA (100 mg) with placebo, and Study 2 compared MA (20 mg) with placebo. Specifically, ratings on the following 9 subscales (of 18 total subscales) from the Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT;were compared after conversations on drug and placebo (Study 1: MDMA; Study 2: MA): support, trust, respect, belonging, engagement, self-worth, meaning, optimism, and life satisfaction. The CIT was administered at orientation and 1.5 hours after each conversation session. We hypothesized the following: 1. Participants will report higher subjective and global social well-being (as indexed by support, trust, respect, belonging, engagement, self-worth, meaning, optimism, and life satisfaction) after a conversation under the influence of MDMA, compared with placebo. 2. Participants will report higher subjective and global social well-being (as indexed by support, trust, respect, belonging, engagement, self-worth, meaning, optimism, and life satisfaction) after a conversation under the influence of MA, compared with placebo.
Participants in both studies completed three laboratory visits and a follow-up. They attended an orientation session to explain the study (T 1 ), two in-lab conversation sessions separated by at least 4 days (T 2 and T 3 ), and a 1-week online follow-up (T 4 ). They received a drug or a placebo in the two in-lab sessions (T 2 and T 3 ) under double-blind conditions. After the drug reached its peak effect, participants engaged in a 45-minute conversationwith a same-sex confederate who was not under the influence of a substance. Survey measures on subjective wellbeing and social connection, indicated by nine subscales on the CIT, were obtained at orientation and immediately after each study session.
Participants were recruited through posters and internet advertisements on social media. Healthy male and female volunteers aged 18-35 years were eligible for participation. Extensive screening procedures included a physical exam, psychiatric interview, medical history review, electrocardiogram, and assessment of drug use history. Exclusion criteria included having a medical condition requiring regularly prescribed medication; a current diagnosis of substance dependence, mood, anxiety, or psychotic disorders (per the DSM-5); a history of treatment for alcohol or drug use; abnormal electrocardiogram readings; high blood pressure; or current pregnancy. Participants also completed the Symptom Check List-90-Revised. Additional screening ensured self-reported fluency in English, a body mass index (BMI) between 19 and 30 (considered normal BMI), high school completion, and the consumption of fewer than four alcoholic or caffeinated beverages daily. In Study 1, participants needed to have consumed MDMA between 1 and 40 times with no adverse effects (e.g., very high blood pressure or "bad trips") to ensure participant safety and familiarity with the substance, but no habitual use. Participants provided written informed consent prior to the beginning of each study. The consent form was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Biological Sciences Division at the University of Chicago. Methods were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Participants in Study 1 received 100 mg of MDMA in powdered form (Organix Inc., Woburn, MA, USA), placed in opaque size 00 capsules with lactose filler. Participants in Study 2 received 20 mg of MA (Desoxyn; Lundbeck Inc., Deerfield, IL, USA) in an opaque size 00 capsule with dextrose filler. Placebo capsules contained only lactose or dextrose. The doses were selected based on prior research that produced reliable subjective effects without adverse side effects.
Subjective well-being and social well-being outcomes were assessed using the CIT, which consists of 18 subscales related to various aspects of psychological well-being. For the current project, we selected and administered nine subscales thought most relevant to social and subjective well-being: support (e.g., "There are people I can depend on to help me"), trust (e.g., "I can trust people in my society"), respect (e.g., "I am treated with the same amount of respect as others"), belonging (e.g., "I feel a sense of belonging in my community"), engagement (e.g., "I get fully absorbed in the activities I do"), self-worth (e.g., "What I do in life is valuable and worthwhile"), meaning (e.g., "My life has a clear sense of purpose"), optimism (e.g., "I have a positive outlook on life"), and life satisfaction (e.g., "In most ways my life is close to ideal"). Each subscale comprised three items, with scores ranging from 1 ("Strongly disagree") to 5 ("Strongly agree"). A mean value was computed for each subscale for each participant, and these mean values were used in subsequent analyses. Cronbach's alpha coefficients, as indicators of internal consistency reliability, are provided for each subscale at each time point (orientation, session 1, session 2) in Table.
Orientation. During the orientation session, participants completed personality and baseline questionnaires (including the CIT), were instructed on procedures, and provided informed consent. To reduce expectancy effects, participants were told they might receive a stimulant, a sedative, a placebo, or a hallucinogenic drug. Participants were instructed to fast for at least 8 hours before each session, abstain from use of any drug for at least 2 days before each session (except for cannabis, which required a 7-day abstinence period), and abstain from alcohol for 24 hours before each session. To ensure compliance, participants were informed that drug and alcohol testing would occur at each study session and that noncompliance would disqualify them from completing the study. Conversation task during study sessions. For the structured small-talk conversation, a different set of eight questions was provided every 15 minutes for the dyad to use as prompts (e.g., "What is your favorite holiday? Why?"). Different questions were presented for the two separate study sessions to minimize order effects. Participants could choose to skip any questions they did not wish to discuss. The conversations were audiotaped (data not reported here).
Our analyses involved two sets of two-tailed dependent means t-tests at the 0.05 alpha level (p < 0.05). First, we tested significant mean differences in subjective well-being and social connection outcomes between post-drug and post-placebo session ratings. That is, we compared within-subject post-drug scores on MDMA with post-placebo scores for Study 1, and compared within-subject post-drug scores on MA with post-placebo scores for Study 2. Our second set of t-test analyses involved testing significant differences in gain scores from orientation to postplacebo session and from orientation to post-drug session (MDMA for Study 1; MA for Study 2). As specified in our pre-registration, we also intended to assess growth trajectories with multilevel models or residualized change models. However, given the limited sample sizeand our counter-balanced design of drug administration, multilevel models could not be estimated. Specifically, the counter-balanced design of our study entailed that a variable representing time could not be modeled, as some participants received a placebo for their first conversation session, and some received a drug. Accordingly, this also means that the time difference between the orientation session and the post-drug session for some participants was about 1 week, and for other participants (those who received the placebo for their first session), the time difference was about 1.5-2 weeks. Thus, the time difference between orientation and the post-drug session is a confound that is not represented in our dependent means t-tests, but could be addressed in future studies without a counter-balanced design. Despite the limitation counter-balancing places on testing change over time, we opted to use counter-balancing in the present studies to minimize participant expectancies about drug effects at each study session. Exclusions. Two participants from Study 1 were excluded from analyses. One participant was excluded because both confederates rated them very negatively and felt the participant did not adhere to the intended structure of the conversation. The second participant was excluded for socializing with one of the conversation partners outside of the study sessions (before the followup), raising concerns about potential confounding factors such as a heightened sense of closeness to their study partner. No participants from Study 2 were excluded.
Participants in Study 1 had a mean age of 26.7 years (range: 20-31 years ), with 53% identifying as male and 87% having graduated from college or completed master's level education. Participants in Study 2 had a mean age of 22.8 years (range: 19-30 years old), with 45% identifying as male and 45% having graduated from college or completed a master's. In addition, the majority reported low-to-moderate drug use, with participants in Study 1 reporting higher lifetime drug use compared with participants in Study 2 (see Supplemental Table).
Study 1: MDMA versus placebo. According to a dependent means t-test, participants reported significantly higher trust immediately after the MDMA session relative to after the placebo session, t(14) = -2.583, p = 0.022. Furthermore, we observed a significant increase in trust ratings from orientation to post-MDMA conversation compared with from orientation to postplacebo conversation, t(14) = -2.582, p = 0.022. That is, trust, on average, increased from before to after the MDMA session (M post- MDMA = +0.18, standard deviation (SD) = 0.45), but decreased from before to after the placebo session (M post-placebo = -0.07, SD = 0.41). Self-worth scores were marginally higher after MDMA compared with placebo, t(14) = -2.000, p = 0.065. We also observed a marginally significant difference between gain scores from orientation to post-MDMA conversation and orientation to post-placebo conversation, t(14) = -2.00, p = 0.065, such that participants reported gains in self-worth, on average, from orientation to the post-MDMA session (M post-MDMA = +0.20, SD = 0.57), but they reported slight declines in self-worth, on average, from orientation to the post-placebo session (M post- placebo = -0.02, SD = 0.54). When comparing post-MDMA conversation scores and postplacebo conversation scores, as well as gain scores from orientation to post-MDMA conversation and from orientation to post-placebo conversation, no significant differences emerged for life satisfaction, optimism, meaning, belonging, support, or engagement. See Tablefor means and standard deviations. Study 2: MA versus placebo. Participants did not report higher subjective or social well-being post-MA conversation relative to post-placebo conversation, nor did they report significant increases in these measures from orientation to post-MA conversation. These measures included trust, worth, life satisfaction, optimism, meaning, belonging, support, respect, and engagement. See Tablefor means and standard deviations.
MDMA, but not MA, significantly increased feelings of global trust after a conversation with a stranger, and marginally increased feelings of self-worth (or feeling valuable and worthwhile). These results extend our knowledge of the social effects of MDMA and support previous research indicating that MDMA increases trust. Our results are also consistent with previous reports that MDMA reduces neural responses to social threat (angry faces;, decreases concerns about negative evaluations from others in instances of personal disclosure, and enhances the patient-therapist alliance via increased trust in the context of psychotherapy. Taken together, the present findings suggest that MDMA may be especially helpful for building a sense of social safety. On a more novel basis, our findings elaborate on the more well-documented acute effects of MDMA on trust and social positivity toward one's immediate social interaction partner, including results from the present study published elsewhere. More precisely,reported on data from the current studies focused on connection and enjoyment during each conversation with complementary physiological data on oxytocin (a socially bonding hormone). The researchers found that both MDMA and MA significantly increased conversational enjoyment and sense of connection to their conversation partners. MDMA and MA also increased feelings of feeling stimulated, insightful, sociable, loving, friendly, and a sense of vigor relative to placebo. In addition, MDMA uniquely increased ratings of feeling trusting, appreciated, grateful, anxious, and confused, while MA uniquely increased ratings of feeling understood and decreased ratings of fatigue. Last, while both MDMA and MA increased oxytocin levels in these studies, oxytocin was only significantly correlated to feeling closer to one's conversation partner after MDMA. While other analyses from these studies highlight many shared positive benefits of MDMA and MA on social connection for specific interaction partners, the present analyses indicate only MDMA significantly increased a sense of global trust beyond one's immediate interaction partner that extends to one's "neighborhood," "society," and "most people" (per the language of the CIT) 1.5 hours after a conversation on MDMA. To a lesser extent, MDMA also uniquely improved sense of self-worth, or feeling valuable, worthwhile, and that one is important and contributes to society-feelings that are complementary to trust and a sense of social safety. The particular effects of MDMA on global trust also parallel previous findings from the current studies, indicating that oxytocin is only significantly related to perceived partner connection after MDMA, not MA. The unique relationship between oxytocin and perceived partner connection after MDMA implicates unique pathways driving increased social connection between MDMAand MA-influenced interactions, and in the case of MDMA, these unique effects may more readily enable generalization of social positivity toward the broader social world. Importantly, however, additional research is needed to test these preliminary speculations about drug mechanisms. The present studies provide direct support for the idea that MDMA uniquely increases feelings of global trust compared with MA. The observed effects of MDMA on global trust in the present analyses also complement the previously published finding that only MDMA, and not MA, significantly increased trust for specific, in-lab interaction partners. The fact that MDMA, but not MA, was found to be beneficial for global social well-being further highlights its intervention promise-especially in light of its better safety record compared with MA and other substances. Notably, although MA appears to encourage feelings of social connection in conversation and boosts sociability in the short term, chronic MA use is associated with impaired social functioning, such as increased social isolation and aggressiveness. MA also ranks as the fourth most harmful drug among 20 commonly-used drugs and substances (including alcohol, heroin, cocaine, and cannabis) when considering factors such as mortality, costs to physical health, risk of dependency, and costs to relationships and family; MDMA, by contrast, ranks as the fourth least harmful. Accordingly, when comparing the benefits of different substances, it is critical to weigh their short-lived benefits against the backdrop of their long-term prospects for adjustment (or maladjustment). Importantly, our results also represent a valuable advance within the MDMA experimental literature, given our use of naturalistic social contexts (conversations with strangers) to test its social effects. The call for social and positive psychologists to consider the value of developing and testing biointerventions invites additional psychedelic research from a social psychological perspective to supplement neural and pharmacological findings. In this spirit, we encourage future MDMA researchers to continue using ecologically valid social stimuli and social situations, as well as to leverage social psychological theory and methods when designing and interpreting psychedelic intervention research. Additional research is also needed to replicate the present findings that feelings of social positivity experienced for immediate interaction partners can extend to other social relationships. Finally, ongoing research will be essential to establish whether these feelings of generalized social positivity endure beyond 1.5 hours following an MDMAfacilitated social interaction. If such findings hold, MDMA may be one pharmacological tool to mitigate enduring negative cognitions associated with loneliness and social anxiety. The current project had notable limitations. First, our sample sizes were small (N study 1 = 15; N study 2 = 20). The procedural involvement, time-intensive effort, and ethical considerations render it difficult to administer a drug-assisted subjective and social well-being intervention at scale. Yet, larger sample sizes are needed in the future to increase confidence in these effects. Second, the differential recruitment criteria across our two studies (requiring experience with prior use of MDMA, but not for MA) may have produced different expectancies regarding the drug experience and self-selected different types of participants. Future comparative psychedelic research could maintain consistent inclusion criteria for the psychoactive substances assessed. Third, our study design entailed separately comparing the relative effects of MDMA versus placebo and MA versus placebo, but it would be useful in future studies to use designs that enable direct comparisons between the effects of MDMA and MA. Fourth, our counterbalanced design prevented us from carrying out more sophisticated regression analyses that would enable us to model growth in our outcomes over time, rendering the time between the orientation session and the first drug session a confound that cannot be accounted for in our dependent means t-tests. Although we intentionally chose to counterbalance drug and placebo sessions in the current studies in favor of minimizing participant expectancies, future studies might prioritize study designs enabling more precise estimates of change over time. The fifth limitation also concerns studying changes to outcomes over time. Additional research could examine the duration of subjective and global social well-being effects beyond 1.5 hours following a drug-facilitated interaction. Notably, the self-reported social positivity we observed 1.5 hours after peak drug effects may still reflect residual effects of the administered drug (albeit at decreased concentrations). Future research could test the duration of improvements to global social well-being after the acute influence of MDMA diminishes-for example, using additional follow-up periods, from immediate return to baseline (e.g., 4-6 hours after drug administration) to 1 day following drug administration, and so on (de la. The present research offers novel, foundational evidence that MDMA bolsters trust for the broader social world (beyond specific interaction partners in the lab), including one's neighborhood, society, and "most people." Although demonstrating the generalizability of MDMA-induced social positivity to other social actors is a key first step in assessing the potential utility of MDMA in promoting social well-being in the long term, more research is needed to establish whether and how long these effects endure beyond the acute phase, and how these benefits might be integrated in everyday life. In conclusion, we found that MDMA, but not MA, increased feelings of trust-and to a lesser extent, self-worth-in dyadic conversations. A sense of trust and safety is foundational for experiencing and actively engaging in caring and fulfilling social interactions, from physical intimacy to doctor-patient bonds. More broadly, positive emotions are functionally adaptive and signal safety and permission to play and explore, including in the context of interpersonal relationships. Our studies provide preliminary support that the empathogen MDMA is uniquely consequential for positive social outcomes like a sense of trust and worth-potential building blocks of further psychological and interpersonal flourishing.
Create a free account to open full-text PDFs.
´dric, C., Hysek, M., Schmid, Y. et al. · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (2013)
Molla, H. M., Lee, R., Lyubomirsky, S. et al. · Scientific Reports (2023)
Regan, A., Margolis, S., De Wit, H. et al. · PLOS ONE (2021)
Stewart, L., Ferguson, B., Morgan, C. J. A. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2014)
Wardle, M. C., De Wit, H. · Psychopharmacology (2014)