↓ Skip to main content

Drugs As Instruments: Describing and Testing a Behavioral Approach to the Study of Neuroenhancement

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Drugs As Instruments: Describing and Testing a Behavioral Approach to the Study of Neuroenhancement
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01226
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ralf Brand, Wanja Wolff, Matthias Ziegler

Abstract

Neuroenhancement (NE) is the non-medical use of psychoactive substances to produce a subjective enhancement in psychological functioning and experience. So far empirical investigations of individuals' motivation for NE however have been hampered by the lack of theoretical foundation. This study aimed to apply drug instrumentalization theory to user motivation for NE. We argue that NE should be defined and analyzed from a behavioral perspective rather than in terms of the characteristics of substances used for NE. In the empirical study we explored user behavior by analyzing relationships between drug options (use over-the-counter products, prescription drugs, illicit drugs) and postulated drug instrumentalization goals (e.g., improved cognitive performance, counteracting fatigue, improved social interaction). Questionnaire data from 1438 university students were subjected to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to address the question of whether analysis of drug instrumentalization should be based on the assumption that users are aiming to achieve a certain goal and choose their drug accordingly or whether NE behavior is more strongly rooted in a decision to try or use a certain drug option. We used factor mixture modeling to explore whether users could be separated into qualitatively different groups defined by a shared "goal × drug option" configuration. Our results indicate, first, that individuals' decisions about NE are eventually based on personal attitude to drug options (e.g., willingness to use an over-the-counter product but not to abuse prescription drugs) rather than motivated by desire to achieve a specific goal (e.g., fighting tiredness) for which different drug options might be tried. Second, data analyses suggested two qualitatively different classes of users. Both predominantly used over-the-counter products, but "neuroenhancers" might be characterized by a higher propensity to instrumentalize over-the-counter products for virtually all investigated goals whereas "fatigue-fighters" might be inclined to use over-the-counter products exclusively to fight fatigue. We believe that psychological investigations like these are essential, especially for designing programs to prevent risky behavior.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 48 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 13 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Psychology 7 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 15 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2020.
All research outputs
#13,478,254
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,413
of 29,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,725
of 342,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#230
of 387 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,997 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 387 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.