Effects of Setting on Psychedelic Experiences, Therapies, and Outcomes: A Rapid Scoping Review of the Literature
Tasha L. Golden, Susan Magsamen, Clara C. Sandu, Shuyang Lin, Grace Marie Roebuck, Kathy M. Shi, Frederick S. Barrett
Current topics in behavioral neurosciences January 1, 2022 DOI: 10.1007/7854_2021_298 via OpenAlex
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractA rapid scoping review of 43 studies on the role of setting and aesthetics in psychedelic experiences and therapies found broad consensus that setting matters, but rigorous, prospective tests of specific setting elements are lacking. The field agrees on the importance of setting yet remains without clear understanding of which elements affect outcomes, how they work, for whom, or under what conditions. Further research could improve psychedelic therapies and also inform non-psychedelic interventions.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Rapid scoping review Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 43 |
| Population | Studies on setting and aesthetics in psychedelic experiences and therapies |
| Citations | 89 |
| Key finding | There is consensus on the importance of setting in psychedelic therapies, but consistent, prospective, rigorous tests of specific setting elements and their mechanisms are lacking. |
Abstract
The health and well-being impacts of art and aesthetic experiences have been rigorously studied by a range of disciplines, including cognitive neuroscience, psychiatry, public health, and translational clinical research. These experiences, encompassed in the concepts of set and setting, have long been claimed to be pivotal in determining the acute and enduring effects of psychedelic experiences. Responding to the field's longstanding emphasis on the role and value of setting, a rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify the extent to which effects of setting and aesthetics on psychedelic experiences and therapies have been explicitly studied. It offers an analysis of the strengths and limitations of the extant literature and discusses evidentiary gaps as well as evidentiary opportunities for the field. The 43 included studies indicate apparent consensus regarding the importance of setting in psychedelic therapies, as well as consistent interest in theorizing about these effects. However, this consensus has yet to generate consistent, prospective, rigorous tests of setting and its complexities. As a result, the field continues to lack understanding or agreement regarding the effects of various specific elements of setting, the mechanisms by which they affect outcomes, for whom these effects occur, under what circumstances, given what conditions, and other critical factors. Further studies of setting and aesthetics in the context of psychedelic therapies are likely to not only improve these therapies and their delivery, but also inform considerations of setting and aesthetics for non-psychedelic interventions.