Impact of Contextual Factors and Substance Characteristics on Perspectives toward Cognitive Enhancement

Abstract

Enhancing cognitive performance with substances–especially prescription drugs–is a fiercely debated topic among scholars and in the media. The empirical basis for these discussions is limited, given that the actual nature of factors that influence the acceptability of and willingness to use cognitive enhancement substances remains unclear. In an online factorial survey, contextual and substance-specific characteristics of substances that improve academic performance were varied experimentally and presented to respondents. Students in four German universities rated their willingness to use and moral acceptance of different substances for cognitive enhancement. We found that the overall willingness to use performance enhancing substances is low. Most respondents considered the use of these substances as morally unacceptable. Situational influences such as peer pressure, policies concerning substance use, relative performance level of peers, but also characteristics of the substance, such as perceptions of substance safety, shape the willingness and acceptability of using a substance to enhance academic performance. Among the findings is evidence of a contagion effect meaning that the willingness was higher when the respondents have more CE drug users in their social network. We also found deterrence effects from strong side effects of using the substance, as well as from policy regulations and sanctions. Regulations might activate social norms against usage and sanctions can be seen as costly to users. Moreover, enhancement substances seem to be most tempting to low performers to catch up with others compared to high performers. By identifying contextual factors and substance characteristics influencing the willingness and acceptability of cognitive enhancers, policy approaches could consider these insights to better manage the use of such substances.

Attitudes toward pharmacological cognitive enhancement—a review

“…Correspondingly, in survey research by Sattler et al (2013a) amongst 1852 respondents, a lower score on both willingness-to-use a PCE and moral acceptability of PCE substances was reported when judging an imaginary situation where no other students take this PCE substance, compared to situations in which half of the other students or all fellow students were taking the PCE substance. Possibly, they read the “no other student” situation as one where there is inequality in opportunity with them having, and other students not having, access and found this to be morally unacceptable.…”

Evaluating the drivers of and obstacles to the willingness to use cognitive enhancement drugs: the influence of drug characteristics, social environment, and personal characteristics

“…[28,33], see the discussion section for limitations of this approach). We experimentally varied five characteristics (dimensions) of this drug (magnitude, probability of enhancement effect, severity, probability of side effects, and drug price), and three characteristics of the social environment (peer prevalence, social disapproval, and social suggestions; see Table  2).…”

Modelling predictors of UK undergraduates’ attitudes towards smart drugs

“…However, work in ADHD populations, including several randomised control trials, indicates that the psychostimulants are associated with relatively mild side effects such as a dry mouth [20,21]and reduced appetite but also more serious effects of increased in heart rate and blood pressure [21][22][23][24]. Comparative studies have found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that users are less concerned about the safety of smart drugs than non-users [6,25], and perceptions of the severity of possible health risks have been inversely associated with willingness to use smart drugs [26][27][28][29][30][31][32].…”