Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Amphetamine as a social drug: effects of d-amphetamine on social processing and behavior

  • Original Investigation
  • Published:
Psychopharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rationale

Drug users often report using drugs to enhance social situations, and empirical studies support the idea that drugs increase both social behavior and the value of social interactions. One way that drugs may affect social behavior is by altering social processing, for example by decreasing perceptions of negative emotion in others.

Objectives

We examined effects of d-amphetamine on processing of emotional facial expressions and on the social behavior of talking. We predicted amphetamine would enhance attention, identification, and responsivity to positive expressions, and that this in turn would predict increased talkativeness.

Methods

Over three sessions, 36 healthy normal adults received placebo, 10, and 20 mg d-amphetamine under counterbalanced double-blind conditions. At each session, we measured processing of happy, fearful, sad, and angry expressions using an attentional visual probe task, a dynamic emotion identification task, and measures of facial muscle activity. We also measured talking.

Results

Amphetamine decreased the threshold for identifying all emotions, increased negative facial responses to sad expressions, and increased talkativeness. Contrary to our hypotheses, amphetamine did not alter attention to, identification of, or facial responses to positive emotions specifically. Interestingly, the drug decreased the threshold to identify all emotions, and this effect was uniquely related to increased talkativeness, even after controlling for overall sensitivity to amphetamine.

Conclusions

The results suggest that amphetamine may encourage sociability by increasing sensitivity to subtle emotional expressions. These findings suggest novel social mechanisms that may contribute to the rewarding effects of amphetamine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. p values were calculated using the t distribution with degrees of freedom (df) = n − 1, except the binomial eye-gaze data, which uses a z distribution. Df in mixed models are somewhat controversial (Baayen et al. 2008), with a proposed upper bound of the number of trials (over 3,000 in our datasets) minus the number of fixed effects. Our selected df was considerably more conservative; however, p values must be considered estimates.

References

  • Attwood AS, Ohlson C, Benton C, Penton-Voak IS, Munafò MR (2009) Effects of acute alcohol consumption on processing of perceptual cues of emotional expression. J Psychopharmacol (Oxf) 23:23–30. doi:10.1177/0269881108089604

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J Mem Lang 59:390–412. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Haim Y, Lamy D, Pergamin L, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH (2007) Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analytic study. Psychol Bull 133:1–24. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barger PB, Grandey AA (2006) Service with a smile and encounter satisfaction: emotional contagion and appraisal mechanisms. Acad Manage J 49:1229–1238. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.23478695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates DM, Meachler M, Bolker B (2011) lme4: linear mixed-effects model using S4 classes

  • Beck AT, Steer R, Carbin M (1988) Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: twenty-five years of evaluation. Clin Psychol Rev 8:77–100. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(88)90050-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedi G, Hyman D, de Wit H (2010) Is ecstasy an “empathogen”? Effects of ±3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine on prosocial feelings and identification of emotional states in others. Biol Psychiatry 68:1134–1140. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.08.003

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Benton CP, Etchells PJ, Porter G, Clark AP, Penton-Voak IS, Nikolov SG (2007) Turning the other cheek: the viewpoint dependence of facial expression after-effects. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274:2131–2137. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boys A, Marsden J, Strang J (2001) Understanding reasons for drug use amongst young people: a functional perspective. Health Educ Res 16:457. doi:10.1093/her/16.4.457

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce V, Humphreys GW (1994) Recognizing objects and faces. Vis Cogn 1:141–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawe S, Davis P, Lapworth K, McKetin R (2009) Mechanisms underlying aggressive and hostile behavior in amphetamine users. Curr Opin Psychiatr 22:269–273. doi:10.1097/YCO.0b013e32832a1dd4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Wit H, Clark M, Brauer LH (1997) Effects of d-amphetamine in grouped versus isolated humans. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 57:333–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dimberg U, Karlsson B (1997) Facial reactions to different emotionally relevant stimuli. Scand J Psychol 38:297–303. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimberg U, Thunberg M, Elmehed K (2000) Unconscious facial reactions to emotional facial expressions. Psychol Sci 11:86–89. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00221

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams JB (1996) Strutured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis I disorders. Biometrics Research Department, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabbay FH (2003) Variations in affect following amphetamine and placebo: markers of stimulant drug preference. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 11:91–101. doi:10.1037/1064-1297.11.1.91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goeleven E, De Raedt R, Leyman L, Verschuere B (2008) The Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces: a validation study. Cogn Emot 22:1094–1118. doi:10.1080/02699930701626582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths RR, Bigelow G, Liebson I (1975) Effect of ethanol self-administration on choice behavior: money vs. socializing. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 3:443–446. doi:10.1016/0091-3057(75)90054-4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths RR et al (1977) Drug-produced changes in human social behavior: facilitation by d-amphetamine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 7:365–372. doi:10.1016/0091-3057(77)90233-7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins ST, Hughes JR, Bickel WK (1989) Effects of d-amphetamine on choice of social versus monetary reinforcement: a discrete-trial test. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 34:297–301. doi:10.1016/0091-3057(89)90315-8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hysek C, Domes G, Liechti M (2012) MDMA enhances “mind reading” of positive emotions and impairs “mind reading” of negative emotions. Psychopharmacology (Berl): 1–10. doi:10.1007/s00213-012-2645-9

  • Janowsky DS (2003) Depression and dysphoria effects on the interpersonal perception of negative and positive moods and caring relationships: effects of antidepressants, amphetamine, and methylphenidate. Curr Psychiatry Rep 5:451–459. doi:10.1007/s11920-003-0084-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson CE, Uhlenhuth EH (1980) Drug preference and mood in humans: d-amphetamine. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 71:275–279. doi:10.1007/bf00433062

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kano M, Gyoba J, Kamachi M, Mochizuki H, Hongo M, Yanai K (2003) Low doses of alcohol have a selective effect on the recognition of happy facial expressions. Hum Psychopharm Clin Exp 18:131–139. doi:10.1002/hup.440

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kornreich C, Foisy M-L, Philippot P, Dan B, Tecco J, Noël X, Hess U, Pelc I, Verbanck P (2003) Impaired emotional facial expression recognition in alcoholics, opiate dependence subjects, methadone maintained subjects and mixed alcohol-opiate antecedents subjects compared with normal controls. Psychiatry Res 119:251–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LaBar KS, Crupain MJ, Voyvodic JT, McCarthy G (2003) Dynamic perception of facial affect and identity in the human brain. Cereb Cortex 13:1023–1033. doi:10.1093/cercor/13.10.1023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lang PJ, Bradley MM, Cuthbert BN (1999) International affective picture system (IAPS): technical manual and affective ratings. NIMH Center for the study of emotion and attention, University of Florida, Gainesville

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen JT, Norris CJ, Cacioppo JT (2003) Effects of positive and negative affect on electromyographic activity over zygomaticus major and corrugator supercilii. Psychophysiology 40:776–785. doi:10.1111/1469-8986.00078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marrone GF, Pardo JS, Krauss RM, Hart CL (2010) Amphetamine analogs methamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) differentially affect speech. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 208:169–177. doi:10.1007/s00213-009-1715-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh DN, Reichmann-Decker A, Winkielman P, Wilbarger JL (2006) When the social mirror breaks: deficits in automatic, but not voluntary, mimicry of emotional facial expressions in autism. Dev Sci 9:295–302. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00492.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moody EJ, McIntosh DN, Mann LJ, Weisser KR (2007) More than mere mimicry? The influence of emotion on rapid facial reactions to faces. Emotion 7:447–457. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy SE, Downham C, Cowen PJ, Harmer CJ (2008) Direct effects of diazepam on emotional processing in healthy volunteers. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 199:503–513. doi:10.1007/s00213-008-1082-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy SE, Yiend J, Lester KJ, Cowen PJ, Harmer CJ (2009) Short-term serotonergic but not noradrenergic antidepressant administration reduces attentional vigilance to threat in healthy volunteers. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 12:169–179. doi:10.1017/S1461145708009164

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oberman LM, Winkielman P, Ramachandran VS (2007) Face to face: blocking facial mimicry can selectively impair recognition of emotional expressions. Soc Neurosci 2:167–178. doi:10.1080/17470910701391943

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pennebaker JW, Booth RJ, Francis ME (2007) Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2007. LIWC, Austin

    Google Scholar 

  • Platt B, Kamboj S, Morgan CJA, Curran HV (2010) Processing dynamic facial affect in frequent cannabis-users: evidence of deficits in the speed of identifying emotional expressions. Drug Alcohol Depend 112:27–32. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.05.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quintero G (2009) Rx for a party: a qualitative analysis of recreational pharmaceutical use in a collegiate setting. J Am Coll Health 58:64–72. doi:10.3200/jach.58.1.64-72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS (2002) Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnby-Borgström M (2002) Automatic mimicry reactions as related to differences in emotional empathy. Scand J Psychol 43:433–443. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene R, Vagg PR, Jacob GA (1983) Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Consulting Psychologists, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens S, Rist F, Gerlach AL (2009) Influence of alcohol on the processing of emotional facial expressions in individuals with social phobia. Br J Clin Psychol 48:125–140. doi:10.1348/014466508x368856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tamir M, Robinson MD (2007) The happy spotlight: positive mood and selective attention to rewarding information. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 33:1124–1136. doi:10.1177/0146167207301030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thiel KJ, Okun AC, Neisewander JL (2008) Social reward-conditioned place preference: a model revealing an interaction between cocaine and social context rewards in rats. Drug Alcohol Depend 96:202–212. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.02.013

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walter NT, Mutic S, Markett S, Montag C, Klein AM, Reuter M (2011) The influence of alcohol intake and alcohol expectations on the recognition of emotions. Alcohol Alcohol. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agr082

  • Wardle M, Cederbaum K, de Wit H (2011) Quantifying talk: developing reliable measures of verbal productivity. Behav Res Methods 43:168–178. doi:10.3758/s13428-010-0019-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wardle M, de Wit H (2012) Effects of amphetamine on reactivity to emotional stimuli. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 220:143–153. doi:10.1007/s00213-011-2498-7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • White TL, Justice AJH, de Wit H (2002) Differential subjective effects of d-amphetamine by gender, hormone levels and menstrual cycle phase. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 73:729–741. doi:10.1016/s0091-3057(02)00818-3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zacny JP, Bodker BK, de Wit H (1992) Effects of setting on the subjective and behavioral effects of d-amphetamine in humans. Addict Behav 17:27–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. John Cacioppo and his staff at the University of Chicago Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience for their technical assistance; Adam D. I. Kramer for statistical consulting; and Cassandra Esposito, Celina Joos, and Megan Leino for their work on this study. The National Institute on Drug Abuse supported this work through grant R01 DA02812 to Dr. Harriet de Wit. Dr. Wardle is supported by a National Institute on Drug Abuse Training grant, T32 DA007255. The authors declare no potential financial or other conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Ave., MC 3077, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    Margaret C. Wardle & Harriet de Wit

  2. School of Psychology and Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

    Matthew J. Garner

  3. School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, 12a Priory Rd., Bristol, BS8 1TU, UK

    Marcus R. Munafò

Authors
  1. Margaret C. Wardle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew J. Garner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcus R. Munafò
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Harriet de Wit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harriet de Wit.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wardle, M.C., Garner, M.J., Munafò, M.R. et al. Amphetamine as a social drug: effects of d-amphetamine on social processing and behavior. Psychopharmacology 223, 199–210 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-012-2708-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-012-2708-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation