A quantitative exploration of the relationships between regular yoga practice, microdosing psychedelics, wellbeing and personality variables

Yoga is described as a set of physical and mental practices associated with improved physical and psychological health, with prior studies linking greater yoga practice to higher psychological wellbeing and reduced depressive and anxiety symptoms. Microdosing — the intake of approximately one‑tenth of a recreational psychedelic dose intended to avoid overt intoxication — has been reported in observational and limited experimental work to relate to improved mood, reduced depressive and stress symptoms, and changes in traits such as openness and absorption. Classic psychedelics implicated in microdosing research include psilocybin, LSD, DMT and mescaline, which act predominantly via serotonin 5‑HT2A receptors. Adler and colleagues set out to compare the relationships between regular yoga practice, microdosing, and psychological outcomes within a single cross‑sectional sample. Specifically, the study examined differences between people who microdose, practise yoga, both microdose and practise yoga, or do neither, on measures of wellbeing (Ryff Scales), mood (DASS‑21), and personality variables of openness, neuroticism (M5‑50), and absorption (Tellegen Absorption Scale). The authors hypothesised that people who engage in yoga or microdosing would show higher wellbeing, openness and absorption than controls; no directional hypothesis was made for differences between yoga and microdosing since this was the first direct comparison reported by the authors.

The investigators used a quasi‑experimental online survey administered via Qualtrics between June and August 2018. The intended independent variable was activity with planned groups of microdosing, yoga, and neither; during recruitment a fourth group emerged of participants who reported both microdosing and practising yoga (MY). Dependent measures included the Ryff Scales of Psychological Wellbeing (six subscales, although the environmental mastery subscale was not administered due to an error), the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale‑21 (DASS‑21), the openness and neuroticism subscales of the M5‑50, and the Tellegen Absorption Scale. Recruitment for the yoga and microdosing samples was via advertisements on websites, social media and mailing lists of organisations related to psychedelics and yoga; control participants were recruited via Turk Prime Panels. Eligibility criteria excluded people under 18, those with a current diagnosed mental disorder, a history of psychosis, or a current substance use disorder as screened with the ASSIST; people scoring 27 or above on any drug in ASSIST were excluded. The survey was piloted with six acquaintances for face validity and clarity. Participants provided anonymous consent by checking an online box before completing demographic items, history of yoga and microdosing behaviour, the ASSIST, and the psychometric measures. Data were exported to SPSS and screened for assumptions of univariate and multivariate parametric analyses. The planned analyses comprised Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) for the Ryff subscales and for the three DASS‑21 subscales, followed by univariate ANOVAs for personality (M5‑50 subscales and Tellegen Absorption). Post‑hoc comparisons used Games‑Howell or Tukey procedures as appropriate, with an alpha of .05 and Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons. The authors report that incomplete survey cases and multivariate outliers were excluded rather than imputed.

From 488 recorded responses, exclusions were made for high ASSIST scores (n = 59), incomplete data (n = 72), and multivariate outliers (n = 18), leaving a final analytic sample of 339 participants. The extracted text does not clearly report the final sample sizes for each condition in the Results section (these appear to have been presented in tables not included in the extraction). Significant demographic differences between groups were identified: chi‑square tests showed differences in gender, education and employment, with yoga participants more likely to be female, have higher education and be self‑employed. Age also differed by group, with yoga and control participants older than the MY and microdose participants. Microdosing practice details reported by participants indicated variability and uncertainty in dosing: 50.6% had been microdosing for six months or less, 8.9% for two years or longer; 48.1% reported always carefully weighing dose, 29% eyeballed their dose, 19.1% sometimes measured, and 3.8% did not know what a microdose was. The most common reported schedule included microdosing every third day for 24.1% of microdosers. Yoga participants tended to be long‑term practitioners (35.9% >10 years) and regularly practised components such as meditation, pranayama and drishti. On wellbeing (Ryff subscales), a MANOVA was significant F(15, 999) = 7.989, p < .001, partial ɳ² = .107. Subsequent ANOVAs indicated significant group differences for personal growth (F(3, 335) = 23.77, p < .001, ɳ² = .176) and self‑acceptance (F(3, 335) = 8.780, p < .001, ɳ² = .073). Pairwise comparisons showed the control group had significantly lower personal growth than the yoga, microdose and MY groups (effects sizes d ≈ .62–.76). Self‑acceptance was significantly higher in the yoga group than in the microdose and control groups (d ≈ .43–.44). Overall psychological wellbeing scores were significantly lower in the control group than in the yoga and MY groups; the microdose group also scored higher than the control group (microdose M = 30.76, SD = 4.4; control M = 29.39, SD = 3.9). A MANOVA on mood (DASS‑21 depression, anxiety, stress) was significant F(9, 1011) = 13.98, p < .001, partial ɳ² = .11. Univariate tests showed group differences for depression (F(3, 335) = 11.47, p < .001, partial ɳ² = .097), anxiety (F(3, 335) = 9.18, p < .001, partial ɳ² = .076), and stress (F(3, 335) = 5.74, p < .001, partial ɳ² = .049). Post‑hoc contrasts indicated the yoga group reported higher anxiety than the microdose and control groups (d = .53 and .42 respectively), but lower stress than the microdose and MY groups (d = .58 and .38). The microdose group reported higher depression than the yoga group (d = .40). Personality analyses showed a significant main effect for openness (F(3, 335) = 23.165, p < .001, ɳ² = .17). Post‑hoc tests revealed the control group had significantly lower openness than the microdose, yoga and MY groups (effect sizes d ≈ .64–.81). No significant group differences were observed for neuroticism (F(3, 335) = 1.99, p = .115). Absorption differed by group (Welch's F(3, 335) = 10.45, p < .001, ɳ² = .11), with the control group having lower absorption than the microdose, yoga and MY groups (d ≈ .43–.57). The MY group had the highest absorption scores and showed lower depression than the microdose‑only group and lower anxiety than the yoga‑only group according to the reported pairwise comparisons.

Adler and colleagues interpret their findings as indicating that both yoga and self‑reported microdosing are associated with higher wellbeing, openness and absorption compared with controls, although the pattern differs between activities. Yoga practitioners showed higher overall wellbeing and particularly higher personal growth and self‑acceptance, whereas the microdose group scored higher than controls on the personal growth component. Both yoga and microdosing groups were higher in absorption and openness than controls. The combined microdosing‑and‑yoga group (MY) appeared to show a complementary pattern: lower depression than the microdose‑only group, lower anxiety than the yoga‑only group, and the highest absorption scores. The authors note this synergy resonates with prior findings that combining high‑dose psilocybin with meditation increased wellbeing more than psilocybin alone, and they invoke the potential importance of context or “set and setting” in explaining microdosing effects. The investigators emphasise the study's cross‑sectional design as a major limitation that prevents causal inference; they explicitly state they cannot conclude that yoga or microdosing caused increases in wellbeing, openness or absorption, or decreases in depression or anxiety. Other acknowledged limitations include demographic differences between groups (age, gender, education, employment) that could confound results, reliance on self‑report measures, and uncertainty about the identity and precise dosages of substances used in illicit, unregulated contexts (less than half of microdosers reported carefully weighing doses). The exclusion of participants with high ASSIST scores is noted as potentially removing a group that might have different responses to these practices. Methodological cautions also include violations of some statistical assumptions (Box's M significant) though the authors state MANOVA robustness mitigates this concern. For future research the authors recommend longitudinal designs or randomised controlled trials to address causality and dosing uncertainty, and suggest exploring additional psychological constructs such as attention, mindfulness and sense of agency. They also propose further investigation of combined interventions (yoga plus microdosing) and whether adjuncts might enhance any complementary effects. The discussion concludes with the authors positioning their results as exploratory evidence that may motivate more rigorous controlled research under known dosing and regulatory conditions.