Cited by 155Psychedelics and Drug StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations

Differential effects of MDMA and methylphenidate on social cognition

Open access
Schmid, Yasmin, Hysek, Cédric M, Simmler, Linda D, Crockett, Molly J, Quednow, Boris B, Liechti, Matthias E·2014·Journal of Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Social cognition is important in everyday-life social interactions. The social cognitive effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, 'ecstasy') and methylphenidate (both used for neuroenhancement and as party drugs) are largely unknown. We investigated the acute effects of MDMA (75 mg), methylphenidate (40 mg) and placebo using the Facial Emotion Recognition Task, Multifaceted Empathy Test, Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition, Social Value Orientation Test and the Moral Judgment Task in a cross-over study in 30 healthy subjects. Additionally, subjective, autonomic, pharmacokinetic, endocrine and adverse drug effects were measured. MDMA enhanced emotional empathy for positive emotionally charged situations in the MET and tended to reduce the recognition of sad faces in the Facial Emotion Recognition Task. MDMA had no effects on cognitive empathy in the Multifaceted Empathy Test or social cognitive inferences in the Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition. MDMA produced subjective 'empathogenic' effects, such as drug liking, closeness to others, openness and trust. In contrast, methylphenidate lacked such subjective effects and did not alter emotional processing, empathy or mental perspective-taking. MDMA but not methylphenidate increased the plasma levels of oxytocin and prolactin. None of the drugs influenced moral judgment. Effects on emotion recognition and emotional empathy were evident at a low dose of MDMA and likely contribute to the popularity of the drug.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269881114542454

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • MDMA may help narcissistic patients tolerate vulnerability and interpersonal closeness without triggering defensiveness by decreasing reactivity to perceived criticism and enhancing emotional empathy.

    “By decreasing reactivity to perceived criticism and enhancing emotional empathy (152), MDMA may help narcissistic patients tolerate vulnerability and interpersonal closeness without triggering defensiveness.”
  • MDMA enhances affective empathy for positive emotions while impairing recognition of negative emotions.

    “It enhances affective empathy for positive emotions while impairing recognition of negative emotions, such as sadness or fear, which could potentially help narcissistic individuals tolerate and engage with emotions they would otherwise suppress (152).”
  • In two studies, the MDMA-induced increase in emotional empathy was particularly pronounced in response to positive stimuli and in male participants.

    “In two studies this increase was particularly pronounced in response to positive stimuli and in male participants (10, 51).”
  • Both 125 mg and 75 mg MDMA increased emotional empathy.

    “One hundred twenty-five milligrams as well as 75 mg MDMA increased emotional empathy (10, 51, 52).”
  • MDMA at 75, 100, and 125 mg, GHB at 20 mg/kg, and psilocybin at 0.215 mg/kg did not affect cognitive empathy on the MET.

    “In line with this, MDMA (75, 100, & 125 mg), GHB (20 mg/kg), and psilocybin (0.215 mg/kg) did not affect cognitive empathy on the MET (10, 12, 51–53, 62).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmid, Y., Hysek, C. M., Simmler, L. D., Crockett, M. J., Quednow, B. B., & Liechti, M. E.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital of Basel (CH)
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
  • University Hospital Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Liechti, Matthias E
Venue
Journal of Psychopharmacology
Published
2014-07-22
Volume
28
Issue
9
Pages
847-856
ISSN
  • 0269-8811 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7285
OpenAlex
W2073612520
Cited by
155
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 4
FWCI
18.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • edoc (University of Basel) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
  • edoc (University of Basel)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychedelics and Drug Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Keywords
MDMA, ecstasy, methylphenidate, social cognition, affective empathy, cognitive empathy, facial emotion recognition, social value orientation, moral judgment, oxytocin, prolactin, subjective effects, acute drug effects, cognitive enhancement
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Cognition, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Emotions, Empathy, Epinephrine, Facial Expression, Female, Hallucinogens, Humans, Hydrocortisone, Judgment, Male, Methylphenidate, Oxytocin, Prolactin, Cross-Over Studies, N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine, Recognition, Psychology, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review