MDMA enhances “mind reading” of positive emotions and impairs “mind reading” of negative emotions
- 2.2k Downloads
3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, ecstasy) increases sociability. The prosocial effects of MDMA may result from the release of the “social hormone” oxytocin and associated alterations in the processing of socioemotional stimuli.
Materials and methods
We investigated the effects of MDMA (125 mg) on the ability to infer the mental states of others from social cues of the eye region in the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test. The study included 48 healthy volunteers (24 men, 24 women) and used a double-blind, placebo-controlled, within-subjects design. A choice reaction time test was used to exclude impairments in psychomotor function. We also measured circulating oxytocin and cortisol levels and subjective drug effects.
MDMA differentially affected mind reading depending on the emotional valence of the stimuli. MDMA enhanced the accuracy of mental state decoding for positive stimuli (e.g., friendly), impaired mind reading for negative stimuli (e.g., hostile), and had no effect on mind reading for neutral stimuli (e.g., reflective). MDMA did not affect psychomotor performance, increased circulating oxytocin and cortisol levels, and produced subjective prosocial effects, including feelings of being more open, talkative, and closer to others.
The shift in the ability to correctly read socioemotional information toward stimuli associated with positive emotional valence, together with the prosocial feelings elicited by MDMA, may enhance social approach behavior and sociability when MDMA is used recreationally and facilitate therapeutic relationships in MDMA-assisted psychotherapeutic settings.
KeywordsEmotion MDMA Oxytocin Cortisol Social cognition Face recognition
We thank R. Brugger, V. Nicola, C. Bläsi, S. Müller, and S. Purschke for their assistance in study management and M. Arends for editorial assistance. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant no. 323230_126231) and University of Basel (grant no. DPH2037).
Conflict of interest
The authors report no biomedical financial interest or potential conflict of interest.
- Bopp G, Bender W, Schütz CG (2005) Validierung der deutschen Version des Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI). Suchtmedizin 7:152–153Google Scholar
- Fahrenberg J, Hampel R, Selg H (1984) Das Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar (FPI). Hogrefe, Göttingen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- Hysek CM, Brugger R, Simmler LD, Bruggisser M, Doncelli M, Grouzmann E, Hoener MC, Liechti ME (2012) Effects of the α2-adrenergic agonist clonidine on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of methylenedioxymethamphetamine in healthy volunteers. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 340:286–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mithoefer MC, Wagner MT, Mithoefer AT, Jerome I, Doblin R (2010) The safety and efficacy of ±3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted psychotherapy in subjects with chronic, treatment-resistant posttraumatic stress disorder: the first randomized controlled pilot study. J Psychopharmacol 25:439–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RC, Lusheme RE (1970) Manual for the Stait Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
- Wittchen HU, Wunderlich U, Gruschwitz S, Zaudig M (1997) SKID-I: Strukturiertes Klinisches Interview für DSM-IV. Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar