“How Do I Learn More About this?”: Utilization and Trust of Psychedelic Information Sources Among People Naturalistically Using Psychedelics

Kruger and colleagues situate the study within a rapid resurgence of interest in psychedelics across North America and Europe, driven by expanding clinical research, changing legislation, growth of advocacy groups and industry, and increased media attention. The authors note that this "psychedelic renaissance" is occurring on top of decades of prohibition, leaving a substantial population who use psychedelics naturalistically and who often rely on informal knowledge networks. Because preparation and harm-reduction depend on reliable information, the shifting landscape and the arrival of new institutional stakeholders make it important to understand where people who use psychedelics seek information and which sources they trust. The study therefore aims to characterise information-seeking behaviour and trust in different information sources among people who use psychedelics outside institutional settings. Specifically, the researchers surveyed a convenience sample of psychedelic users about where they seek information (including personal experience, internet sources, peers, and formal scientific outlets), how much they trust a range of sources (rated on a 1–5 scale), and how perceptions vary by age. They hypothesised that most people would rely on personal experience, friends, and online sources rather than official channels, and that academic/scientific sources would be more trusted than government agencies.

The investigators conducted an anonymous, online Qualtrics survey administered between 18 September and 5 November 2022. Recruitment combined in-person outreach at Entheofest (a psychedelic advocacy event in Ann Arbor, MI) with posted advertisements and links distributed via social media (e.g. Reddit, Facebook) and e-mail listservs. Respondents needed to be aged 18 or older; Qualtrics settings were used to prevent duplicate submissions. All procedures received Institutional Review Board approval and participants were not compensated. The survey was one component of a broader project on naturalistic psychedelic use and included items developed with input from advocacy organisers, therapists, and experienced researchers. Survey content covered demographics (age, gender, race, income, education, location), lifetime and recent psychedelic use (a checklist of substances, frequency over the past five years, and dose strength), and information-seeking behaviour. The instrument explicitly included both classic serotonergic psychedelics and non-serotonergic agents commonly labelled as psychedelics (for example ketamine, Salvia divinorum, ibogaine, and MDMA). Participants indicated all sources they used when seeking psychedelic information, with a pre-specified option for "My own experimentation and experiences." For those using social media, an item asked which platforms were used. Trust in 11 information sources was measured on a five-point scale from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Completely). Perceptions of popular media coverage were assessed with statements about whether media overstated, understated, or accurately stated benefits and risks and whether it distinguished between different types of psychedelics. For analysis, proportions from checklist items were compared using Chi-square tests and sorted by frequency. Between-group differences by age were examined with independent-samples t-tests. Trust items were ranked by mean score and paired-sample t-tests compared adjacent sources; effect sizes were calculated for these comparisons. Pearson correlations assessed relationships among variables such as number of internet versus in-person sources and associations with age. The extract reports that Qualtrics prevented duplicate responses and that the median survey completion time was 25 minutes.

A total of 2,151 surveys were started and 1,287 completed (59.83% completion rate). After excluding 66 respondents who reported never taking psychedelics, the final analytic sample comprised N = 1,221. Participants most commonly heard about the survey via social media (57.17%) or e-mail (26.54%); 17.12% reported attending Entheofest. The mean age was 38.62 years (SD = 12.08) and mean education level was 15.49 years (SD = 2.36). The sample was predominantly White (84.60%) and largely U.S.-based (95.99%), with 62.08% resident in Michigan. Gender distribution was 48.16% women, 46.52% men, and smaller proportions identifying as non-binary, transgender, gender fluid, or other. Participants reported extensive psychedelic experience: 91.72% had used psychedelics in the past five years, 80.75% had used at least two different psychedelics, and 67.32% had used psychedelics at least once every six months in the past five years. Most respondents (85.7%) reported moderate or high dosing at least sometimes, while 14.33% reported only microdosing. On average, participants reported using multiple external information sources about psychedelics (median of five sources; mean M = 5.73, SD = 3.22); only 1.56% reported not seeking information at all. Regarding specific information sources, the most frequently endorsed was personal experimentation and experience (about four-fifths of participants). Other commonly used sources were internet websites (61.67%), friends (61.02%), internet discussion forums (57.08%), books (57.00%), and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals (54.55%). Only 4.83% reported seeking information from their primary health or medical care provider. Among social media platforms, Reddit was most commonly used (30.96%), followed by Erowid and Instagram, then Facebook; open-ended responses also cited maps.org, Google search results, YouTube, shroomery.org and documentaries. Patterns of source use were correlated: the number of internet-based sources used correlated positively with the number of in-person sources used, r(1221) = .304, p < .001, indicating participants tended to draw from multiple domains rather than relying exclusively on either online or face-to-face sources. Age differences were observed: younger participants were more likely to rely on personal experimentation, internet forums, social media posts, podcasts and friends, while older participants were more likely to use psychedelic therapists or to report not seeking information. Within social media users, younger participants favoured Reddit, whereas older participants were more likely to use Facebook and Slack. Perceptions of popular media coverage were largely negative: 66.83% of participants perceived that popular media understated the benefits of psychedelics, 57.08% thought media overstated the risks, and 64.20% believed media failed to distinguish between different types of psychedelics. A post-hoc analysis reported that participants who had used a greater number of different psychedelics were more likely to think the popular media overstated benefits, but the extracted text truncates the reported t-statistic and associated details. On trust, peer-reviewed scientific journal articles were rated as the most trusted source, followed by psychedelic nonprofits and researchers based in colleges or universities. Mean trust ratings reported for less trusted sources included people posting in online forums (M = 2.48), popular media (M = 2.35), government agencies (M = 1.72) and pharmaceutical companies (M = 1.67) on the 1–5 scale; no source reached the mean level corresponding to "Completely" trusted. Participants gave moderate trust to psychedelic therapists, industry researchers, and psychedelic start-up companies. Age differences in trust emerged: younger participants expressed higher trust in online posters, industry researchers, clinic-based psychedelic therapists, and start-ups; older participants expressed higher trust in popular media and government agencies.

The researchers interpret these findings as evidence of extensive information-seeking among people who use psychedelics naturalistically, with a diverse mix of sources and a clear tendency to rely on personal experience. Median reported engagement with five external sources and the fact that under 2% reported seeking no information at all support a picture of active information acquisition and exchange. Use of internet resources was high and often combined with in-person sources rather than substituting for them, suggesting multifaceted information practices. Despite heavy reliance on first- and second-hand sources, participants placed the greatest trust in peer-reviewed scientific literature, psychedelic nonprofits and academic researchers, indicating engagement with—and appreciation of—formal science alongside informal knowledge networks. Government agencies and pharmaceutical companies were the least trusted sources, which the authors link to historical prohibition, perceived government misinformation, and contemporary controversies around pharmaceutical industry conduct. Popular media were widely perceived as inaccurate: many participants thought media understated benefits, overstated risks, and failed to distinguish between types of psychedelics. Age-related differences were notable: younger participants tended to prefer and trust online sources (notably Reddit) and industry or therapy-related sources, whereas older participants more often used therapists and expressed more trust in traditional media or government sources. The authors suggest this reflects cohort differences in media habits and exposure to the current "psychedelic renaissance," with a younger generation growing up in a rapidly changing cultural context around psychedelics. The authors acknowledge several limitations. The convenience recruitment strategy and online format restrict generalisability, particularly given the largely White and U.S.-based sample and the sample's mean age being higher than some national estimates of psychedelic use. The extract notes that some survey details were truncated in reporting (for example an incomplete t-statistic) and that findings may not apply to people with limited internet access. Nonetheless, the study is described as well powered, with a completion rate above 50% and a gender balance closer to the general population than some prior psychedelic-user studies. Finally, the researchers propose practical implications: because peer-reviewed science, academic researchers and psychedelic nonprofits were relatively well trusted, educational and harm-reduction efforts delivered through these channels may be effective for disseminating accurate information and promoting safer naturalistic use. The findings are positioned as a foundation for bridging naturalistic and institutional psychedelic spheres and for informing policy, public health, clinical practice and community-based education as the psychedelic landscape continues to evolve.