Exploring Irish students’ attitudes towards nootropic supplements

Abstract

Abstract The vast majority of research on cognitive enhancement has focused on pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE), with relatively little exploration of public attitudes towards non-pharmacological cognitive enhancing substances. Limited research has investigated how the lay public ethically evaluates nootropic supplements (i.e. legal and purportedly natural over-the-counter products), or how such attitudes may differ from attitudes towards other cognitive enhancers. This experimental between-subjects study used a contrastive vignette technique to explore Irish students’ attitudes towards caffeine tablets, nootropic supplements and PCE. One-hundred-and-thirteen Irish university students participated in the study (46 male, 64 female), ranging from 18 to 25 years of age (M = 21.9). Quantitative analyses examined differences in mean attitudes between cognitive enhancement conditions and genders. Results suggest that the three forms of cognitive enhancement provoked similar moderate responses in relation to safety and authenticity, however, students were more concerned about implicit coercion in relation to PCE and reported heightened fairness concerns in relation to nootropic supplements. Nootropic supplements may have distinct ethical implications which are not simply equivalent to those that accompany PCE or caffeine tablets, raising questions surrounding the effects of novel cognitive enhancing products; financial barriers to legal non-pharmacological cognitive enhancement; and the permissibility of cognitive enhancement advertising.