Display options
Cite
Sattler S, Sauer C, Mehlkop G, et al. The rationale for consuming cognitive enhancement drugs in university students and teachers. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e68821doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068821.
Sattler, S., Sauer, C., Mehlkop, G., & Graeff, P. (2013). The rationale for consuming cognitive enhancement drugs in university students and teachers. PloS one, 8(7), e68821. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068821
Sattler, Sebastian, et al. "The rationale for consuming cognitive enhancement drugs in university students and teachers." PloS one vol. 8,7 (2013): e68821. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068821
Sattler S, Sauer C, Mehlkop G, Graeff P. The rationale for consuming cognitive enhancement drugs in university students and teachers. PLoS One. 2013 Jul 17;8(7):e68821. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068821. Print 2013. PMID: 23874778; PMCID: PMC3714277.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

PLoS One. 2013 Jul 17;8(7):e68821. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068821. Print 2013.

The rationale for consuming cognitive enhancement drugs in university students and teachers.

PloS one

Sebastian Sattler, Carsten Sauer, Guido Mehlkop, Peter Graeff

Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany. [email protected]

PMID: 23874778 PMCID: PMC3714277 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068821

Abstract

Cognitive enhancement (CE) is the pharmaceutical augmentation of mental abilities (e.g., learning or memory) without medical necessity. This topic has recently attracted widespread attention in scientific and social circles. However, knowledge regarding the mechanisms that underlie the decision to use CE medication is limited. To analyze these decisions, we used data from two online surveys of randomly sampled university teachers (N = 1,406) and students (N = 3,486). Each respondent evaluated one randomly selected vignette with regard to a hypothetical CE drug. We experimentally varied the characteristics of the drugs among vignettes and distributed them among respondents. In addition, the respondent's internalization of social norms with respect to CE drug use was measured. Our results revealed that students were more willing to enhance cognitive performance via drugs than university teachers, although the overall willingness was low. The probability of side effects and their strength reduced the willingness to use CE drugs among students and university teachers, whereas higher likelihoods and magnitudes of CE increased this propensity. In addition, the internalized norm against CE drug use influenced decision making: Higher internalization decreased the willingness to use such medications. Students' internalized norms more strongly affected CE abstinence compared with those of university teachers. Furthermore, internalized norms negatively interacted with the instrumental incentives for taking CE medication. This internalization limited the influence of and deliberation on instrumental incentives. This study is the first to provide empirical evidence regarding the importance of social norms and their influence on rational decision making with regard to CE. We identified previously undiscovered decision-making patterns concerning CE. Thus, this study provides insight into the motivators and inhibitors of CE drug use. These findings have implications for contending with CE behavior by highlighting the magnitude of potential side effects and by informing the debate regarding the ethics of CE use.

References

  1. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003 Apr;2(4):267-77 - PubMed
  2. Subst Use Misuse. 2013 Feb;48(3):220-32 - PubMed
  3. Sleep. 2009 Aug;32(8):999-1010 - PubMed
  4. Nature. 2008 Apr 10;452(7188):674-5 - PubMed
  5. Behav Brain Sci. 2011 Dec;34(6):328-47 - PubMed
  6. Am J Bioeth. 2011 Jan;11(1):3-13 - PubMed
  7. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008 Mar;162(3):225-31 - PubMed
  8. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2007 Jun;32(6):1272-83 - PubMed
  9. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2012 Jun;162(11-12):262-71 - PubMed
  10. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2007 Oct 31;2:32 - PubMed
  11. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2007 Spring;16(2):129-37 - PubMed
  12. Ethics Behav. 2005;15(1):81-94 - PubMed
  13. Scand J Public Health. 2008 Jul;36(5):532-7 - PubMed
  14. PLoS One. 2010 Dec 14;5(12):e14322 - PubMed
  15. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002 Dec;3(12):975-9 - PubMed
  16. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2011 Mar;44(2):60-6 - PubMed
  17. J Med Ethics. 2006 Feb;32(2):110-3 - PubMed
  18. J Neurosci. 2009 Jun 3;29(22):7271-7 - PubMed
  19. J Neurosci. 2009 Apr 15;29(15):4690-6 - PubMed
  20. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006 Sep 15;84(2):135-43 - PubMed
  21. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2005 Jun;5(2):212-21 - PubMed
  22. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 Jan;15(1):28-36 - PubMed
  23. Sci Eng Ethics. 2009 Sep;15(3):311-41 - PubMed
  24. Prev Sci. 2008 Sep;9(3):191-201 - PubMed
  25. Nature. 2008 Dec 11;456(7223):702-5 - PubMed
  26. J Pediatr Nurs. 1996 Dec;11(6):368-74 - PubMed
  27. Acad Emerg Med. 2010 Jan;17(1):50-4 - PubMed
  28. J Neurosci. 2007 May 16;27(20):5506-14 - PubMed
  29. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2008 Nov;258 Suppl 5:110-4 - PubMed
  30. Can J Psychiatry. 2005 Jul;50(8):457-61 - PubMed
  31. Behav Neurosci. 2006 Jun;120(3):497-517 - PubMed
  32. J Atten Disord. 2009 Nov;13(3):259-70 - PubMed
  33. Pharmacol Res. 2010 Jun;61(6):473-81 - PubMed
  34. J Atten Disord. 2009 Nov;13(3):284-96 - PubMed
  35. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 1997 Jan-Feb;4(5):231-44 - PubMed
  36. Sci Eng Ethics. 2007 Dec;13(4):437-61 - PubMed
  37. J Psychopharmacol. 2010 Nov;24(11):1649-57 - PubMed
  38. Nature. 2007 Dec 20;450(7173):1157-9 - PubMed
  39. Pharmacotherapy. 2006 Oct;26(10):1501-10 - PubMed
  40. Nature. 2008 Oct 23;455(7216):1057-60 - PubMed
  41. Addiction. 2005 Jan;100(1):96-106 - PubMed
  42. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004 May;5(5):421-5 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types