Cited by 155Psychedelics and Drug StudiesNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Powerful substances in tiny amounts: An interview study of psychedelic microdosing

Open access
Johnstad, Petter Grahl·2018·Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

Abstract

AIMS: This article presents a qualitative interview study of people who microdose with psychedelic drugs, which means that the user takes about one tenth of an ordinary recreational dose. DESIGN: = 21) were recruited at several Internet fora for individual interviews via private messaging. Every participant was male, and the median respondent was in his 30s with a stable job and relationship and extensive entheogen experience. RESULTS: Respondents tended to experiment with microdosing in phases, reporting mostly positive consequences from this form of drug use. Reported effects included improved mood, cognition, and creativity, which often served to counteract symptoms especially from conditions of anxiety and depression. There were also reports of various challenges with psychedelic microdosing, and some did not find the practice worth continuing. CONCLUSION: The study obtained evidence of a group of users taking small doses of psychedelics not for the purpose of intoxication but to enhance everyday functioning. While the study's findings are not generalisable, they may inform subsequent investigations with research questions and hypotheses.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1455072517753339

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Rätsch C., 2005, The encyclopedia of psychoactive plants
  2. Tollersrud E, 2017, Morgenbladet
  3. Waldman A., 2017, A really good day: How microdosing made a mega difference in my mood, my marriage, and my life

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 155

Metadata

Authors
Johnstad, P. G.
Affiliations
University of Bergen (NO)
Corresponding author
Johnstad, Petter Grahl
Venue
Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs
Published
2018-02
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
39-51
ISSN
  • 1455-0725 (ISSN-L)
  • 1458-6126
OpenAlex
W2789213216
Cited by
155
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 4
FWCI
24.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychedelics and Drug Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Keywords
psychedelic microdosing, psychedelics, entheogens, recreational drug use, mood improvement, cognitive enhancement, creativity, anxiety, depression, user experience

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