Buyukbabani, M. B., Earp, B. D., et al.
(2024). AJOB Neuroscience, 15(4), 239–243.
PRÉCIS
In a recent study, Lantian and colleagues (Citation2024) measured public attitudes toward the use of ‘love drugs’ as introduced through the work of Earp, Savulescu, and their collaborators. Use of a “revolutionary pill” (described as “100% reliable”) to bring about love is seen as less morally acceptable than psychological therapy toward the same end, and this is partly explained by perceptions that the pill-induced love is less authentic. However, the “pill” in question bears little resemblance to the real-world uses of love drugs discussed by Earp and Savulescu, such as MDMA-assisted couples therapy. In this partial replication and extension study, we show that more ecologically valid ‘love drugs’ scenarios lead to much higher ratings of moral acceptability and perceived authenticity of the resulting love.
From the Discussion section
In this study, we asked participants to judge an ecologically valid scenario modeled on the realistic prospect of MDMA-assisted couples therapy (IdealCase), as well as an unrealistic scenario based on an individual’s one-sided, stand-alone use of a “100% reliable” pill described as “revolutionary” (LantianS2), replicating Study 2 of Lantian et al. (Citation2024). We found that public attitudes toward the hypothetical use of pharmacology for purposes of relationship enhancement differ dramatically depending on how the case is described (see Lewis et al. Citation2023 on the need for ecologically valid scenarios in experimental bioethics).
In this UK convenience sample, participants viewed the decision to undergo drug-assisted couples therapy as more morally justified (and the character making the decision as more moral) than a decision to take a “revolutionary pill” to increase feelings of love; they felt that they would be more willing to undergo such therapy themselves, and were more in favor of allowing it than banning it; and they viewed the resulting feeling of love as being much more authentic and durable (though no more intense).
Here are some thoughts:
For clinical psychologists, the study by Lantian et al. (2024) and its subsequent replication by Earp and Savulescu offer valuable insights into public perceptions of pharmacological interventions in relationship therapy. The original study found that participants viewed a fictional "revolutionary pill" for rekindling love as less morally acceptable than traditional psychological therapy, primarily due to concerns about the authenticity of drug-induced love. However, the replication study demonstrated that more realistic scenarios, particularly those involving drug-assisted couples therapy, were perceived much more favorably.
These findings have significant implications for clinical practice. The research suggests that public attitudes towards pharmacological interventions in relationship therapy are heavily influenced by how these interventions are framed and presented. When described as an adjunct to professional therapy rather than a standalone treatment, and when the effects are portrayed as dependent on the user's mindset and active engagement, such interventions are viewed as more morally acceptable and potentially effective.
