Identifies distinct motivation-based subtypes in psilocybin microdosers, suggesting tailored assessments may enhance outcomes.
Recent years have witnessed a rise in microdosing psilocybin. Individuals who engage in this practice report diverse motivations for use which suggests heterogeneity among microdosers. However, research to date has taken a monolithic approach to the examination of microdosers which may overlook potentially important differences. To address this limitation, we aimed to identify and elucidate motivation-based subtypes using a large naturalistic sample of psilocybin microdosers. We used latent class analysis to identify motivation-based subtypes among 4,415 adults who reported microdosing psilocybin. We compared subtypes cross-sectionally using ANOVA and chi-square tests to examine current mental health status, psychosocial functioning, and microdosing practices. Three distinct subtypes of psilocybin microdosers emerged from the data: Mental Health Focused (n = 2059), Well-Being Focused (n = 1136), and Creativity and Learning Focused (n = 1220). We identified medium-to-large between group differences in depression, anxiety, and stress across the subtypes, medium sized differences in affect and satisfaction with life, and small-to-medium differences in self-reported mental health diagnoses and use of psychiatric medication (all p < .001). Microdosing quantities and frequency were equivalent across subtypes. The results of this study highlight heterogeneity in the population of psilocybin microdosers. As such, we suggest that psychological outcomes may differ depending on individuals' motivational profile. Acknowledging these distinct subtypes may result in more accurate assessment of change in key outcome variables, potentially revealing larger effect sizes, that may be obscured when analysing microdosers as a homogenous group. The findings from the present research can be used to design future studies that consider the real-world heterogeneity among psilocybin microdosers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ethan Klukas (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: