Unlocking the self: Can microdosing psychedelics make one feel more authentic?

Authenticity, defined as the subjective experience of being one's true self, is linked to multiple indicators of wellbeing and is usually conceptualised as both a stable trait and a fluctuating state. The authors distinguish state authenticity (momentary feelings of being genuine and congruent with one's values) from trait authenticity (a more enduring disposition), and note prior qualitative reports that ingesting psychedelics can increase feelings of authenticity. Microdosing—repeatedly taking sub‑perceptual doses of psychedelics such as LSD or psilocybin—is a specific practice that community accounts and qualitative studies suggest may increase authenticity, but quantitative tests of this relationship are lacking. Pop and colleagues set out to make the link between microdosing and state authenticity explicit and to provide a first quantitative test. They hypothesised three related effects: that microdosing days would be associated with higher state authenticity via elevated positive mood (H1), that any effect could persist to a lesser degree on the day after dosing (H2), and that microdosing might support value‑aligned behaviour (more activities and greater satisfaction with them), which in turn would increase state authenticity (H3). To examine these hypotheses they used intensive, prospective self‑report data collected from active microdosers over roughly one month.

The study used an experience‑sampling prospective design with 18 participants who were actively practising microdosing at enrolment. Data collection spanned 28 days and yielded 192 observation days. Recruitment began 20 February 2020 with a first wave of six university students and continued in a second wave from 12 May 2020, adjusted because of the COVID‑19 pandemic; participants were incentivised with a gift card and a personalised report. Ethical approval was obtained and all participants provided written consent. Baseline (day 0) measures included demographics and trait authenticity; from day 1 to day 28 the researchers sampled state authenticity, daily habits and satisfaction with activities. Sampling density varied to reduce burden: daily in week 1, every other day in weeks 2–3, and three days in week 4. Signal‑contingent prompts were sent five times daily between 10:00 and 22:00, and participants could also submit extra entries voluntarily. State authenticity was measured with the Real‑Self Overlap Scale (six pictorial circle‑overlap items) on sampled days. Microdosing status for each sampled day was coded as a categorical variable: microdose that day (MD 0), microdose yesterday (MD 1), or no dose today or yesterday (MD no). Participants followed their own, unscheduled regimens; the investigators interviewed each participant before data collection to clarify substances and practices so that a consistent definition of microdosing was applied. Two activity measures were used: (1) the number of different activities engaged in that day (a summed checklist including meditation, exercise, chores, cooking, hobbies, socialising, work/study, etc.), and (2) mean satisfaction with engaged activities rated 0–6. Affect was measured using a modified differential emotions scale (mDES) covering nine positive and nine negative items, recorded on a 21‑point Likert scale; daily average positive and negative affect scores were computed. Trait authenticity was captured via three scale items corresponding to authentic living, self‑alienation and accepting external influence. Control variables included gender, age, day‑of‑week indicators, a wave indicator (pre/post 5 March 2020), and dummies for observation day to address habituation. Analyses used mixed‑effects regression with observation days (level 1) nested within individuals (level 2) and only the intercept specified as a random effect. The intraclass correlation was reported from a null model to quantify between‑person variance. The investigators estimated a sequence of models adding microdosing indicators, affect variables, and activity measures to examine direct associations and potential mediation pathways.

Descriptive and variance partitioning showed that about 26% of variation in state authenticity was attributable to between‑person differences, leaving most variance within individuals across days. Testing for simple habituation (time since study start) found no significant trend in state authenticity over time. In the primary mixed models, days when participants reported taking a microdose (MD 0) and the day after (MD 1) were both associated with significantly higher state authenticity; the effect on the dosing day was approximately 1.7 times larger than the effect on the following day. Trait authenticity dimensions did not predict day‑level state authenticity in these models. When daily average positive and negative affect were added, the microdosing effects were largely unchanged. Average negative affect was significantly associated with lower state authenticity in models that included microdosing indicators; in models without microdosing indicators the investigators observed positive affect linked to higher state authenticity (unstandardised effect 0.05, SE 0.02) and negative affect linked to lower authenticity (unstandardised effect -0.13, SE 0.05). Testing whether affect changed on microdosing days found only one notable effect: average positive affect was significantly lower on the day after microdosing (-0.70, p < .04). The pattern did not support affect as a mediator of the microdosing–authenticity link. Introducing the activity measures (number of activities and mean satisfaction with them) reduced the microdosing coefficients by about 34%–35%, and both activity count and activity satisfaction were significantly positively associated with state authenticity. Secondary regressions showed the microdosing day predicted higher activity counts (unstandardised effect 0.61, SE 0.22) and greater activity satisfaction (unstandardised effect 0.31, SE 0.12); the day after dosing was positively associated with activity count at trend level (0.39, SE 0.22, p < .10). Supplementary analyses indicated differential engagement in specific activities: on microdosing days participants were more likely to do chores/cooking and hobbies/reading/writing, and reported higher satisfaction with chores/cooking and work/study; on the day after, satisfaction was higher for spending time with family/friends/sex and for health‑related activities (cardio, strength, sauna, meditation, yoga).

Pop and colleagues interpret their findings as the first quantitative evidence linking microdosing practice with higher state authenticity, consistent with prior qualitative reports. They emphasise that the effect was strongest on the dosing day and persisted to a lesser extent the day after. Two candidate mechanisms were considered: mood and a behavioural pathway supporting value‑aligned activity. The results did not support mood (positive affect) as a mediator, since microdosing effects remained after controlling for affect and positive affect was not consistently elevated on dosing days; only average negative affect showed an inverse relation with state authenticity in adjusted models. Instead, the authors find stronger support for a behavioural mechanism: microdosing days featured more activities and higher satisfaction with those activities, and these measures attenuated the microdosing–authenticity association by about one‑third when included in models, consistent with partial mediation. They relate these quantitative patterns to qualitative narratives in which microdosers report increased motivation to undertake chores, healthier habits, and fewer procrastination tendencies, and to literature suggesting microdosing can reduce mind wandering and increase absorption. However, the paper notes that the study could not directly test intermediate steps such as changes in mind wandering, absorption or insight generation, so the proposed causal chain remains to be tested in future work. Key limitations acknowledged by the investigators include the small sample size (18 participants), variability in doses and regimens across participants, and the inability to rule out placebo or expectancy effects; these factors limit causal inference but the authors argue the naturalistic design enhances external validity by reflecting real‑world variability. They also note strengths: intensive longitudinal experience sampling, use of a validated pictorial measure for state authenticity, baseline assessment of trait authenticity, and interviews to ensure a shared definition of microdosing among participants. The authors conclude that future research with larger, more diverse samples and designs capable of distinguishing pharmacological from expectancy effects is warranted to clarify mechanisms and implications for wellbeing.