MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416292698 · doi:10.1002/brb3.71043

The Relationship Between Psychedelic Use and Positive Adult Development in Emerging Adulthood: An Integrative Review

2025· article· en· W4416292698 on OpenAlexaff
Oliver Robinson, Kevin St. Arnaud, Jacob S. Aday, Chris Ludlow, Greg Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain and Behavior · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSwinburne University of Technology
KeywordsTraitAdult developmentPersonalityErikson's stages of psychosocial developmentPersonality developmentAdolescent development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preliminary evidence suggests that classic psychedelics may exert lasting positive effects on individuals' mood, cognition, and personality, but little is known about how these effects may differ across the lifespan. Emerging adulthood (18-29) is a critical developmental stage in which individuals transition from dependence on community institutions toward full independence. It is a time when psychedelic experimentation is common, and psychedelics could have distinctive psychological impacts during this phase, although the developmental significance of such effects remains largely untested. This integrative review offers a framework to generate hypotheses regarding possible ways that psychedelic use may positively interact with emerging adult development. Here, we review pathways by which classic psychedelics may facilitate emerging adults' positive orthogenetic, veridical-epistemic, eudaimonic, relational, and ethical developmental trajectories through changes in personality trait openness, belief systems, self-insight, and social concern. Finally, we offer future research directions and discuss key challenges for research into studying the developmental impact of classic psychedelic use in emerging adulthood.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain and BehaviorSame topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207