The Psychedelic Five | XandY Analytics

The Psychedelic Five

Research report · September 2026

Audience segmentation · US adults

The Psychedelic Five

Americans’ views on psychedelics cluster into five distinct personas. Here we show who they are, and how to communicate effectively with each.

Read the findings Which one are you? Take the quiz

Out of every 100 American adults

Scroll ↓

01 · Our approach

How the segments are formed

We surveyed a representative sample of 1,527 U.S. adults. A statistical model reveals how their responses to 9 key questions about psychedelics tend to cluster into 5 distinct groups.

From answers to audiences. Nine questions go into a statistical model that sorts people by the pattern of their answers. Policy and trust questions are held back to test the result. Shares weighted, n = 1,525.

02 · The audiences

Meet the Psychedelic Five

Americans tend to cluster into these five distinct personas. They each have different beliefs, support different policy, trust different sources, and need different types of communication approaches.

The five audiences, by share of US adults

Circles are sized by each audience’s share of the adult population and ordered from the most supportive of psychedelics to the most opposed. Click a circle to jump to its profile.

Shares weighted to the US adult population, n = 1,525. Ordering follows each audience’s average benefit-minus-harm rating across three pairs of belief questions.

Supportive and experienced

Advocates

Advocates have strong positive views, often due to firsthand experience, and support sweeping policy reform. Almost all of them (98%) see more benefit than harm in psychedelics, 93% feel positively toward them, and a large majority support policy reform (90% support therapeutic medical use; 83% support decriminalization). They are knowledgeable and experienced: on average they have heard of 5 of the 8 substances we asked about, and most have tried at least 1.

Read the communication strategy →

Knowledgeable but torn

Conflicted

The Conflicted are experienced but remain cautious of potential harms. In this group, 85% are either “very” or “extremely” familiar with psychedelics, and 82% have tried at least 1. But more Conflicted say the harms outweigh the benefits (39%) than say that benefits outweigh the harms (22%). This is a complicated mix of warm sentiment (78% report positive feelings) with cautious concern about potential risks. Strikingly, the belief that psychedelics are responsible for violent crime is just as common in the Conflicted (50%) as it is in the Opposed (51%). This dampens their support for policy reform involving unsupervised use, with only a slim majority supporting decriminalization (54%) and legalization (59%).

Read the communication strategy →

Unfamiliar but warm

Curious

The Curious are mostly unfamiliar with psychedelics but remain open enough to consider potential benefits and policy reform. Almost nobody (5%) in this group says they are “very” or “extremely” familiar with psychedelics and only 33% have tried any, but they still land on some tentatively positive views. Although only 10% of the Curious say psychedelics are good for society, 54% feel the benefits outweigh the harms (compared to only 29% who say the reverse). This creates some openness to specific types of policy reform. There is clear majority support for allowing scientists to study psychedelics (74%) but far less for legalization (44%).

Read the communication strategy →

Not yet in the conversation

Disconnected

The Disconnected are not so much opposed as they are simply absent and unaware. In this group, 66% say they are either “not at all” or “only a little” familiar with psychedelics. Across the questions about policy reform, it is common for them to select “unsure” on several (average = 4.4 of 9) rather than indicate support or opposition. In the concept association question, the most common response to the question “What’s the first thing that comes to mind…” was some variant of “Nothing at all.” Most don’t see harms or benefits as outweighing the other, likely because they lack enough information to even offer a guess.

Read the communication strategy →

Firmly settled against

Opposed

The Opposed feel confident in their resistance—often based on firm beliefs about harms. Coming in as the largest audience (36% of U.S. adults), they exert considerable influence with their skepticism. 79% say psychedelics are harmful to mental health, 74% think they are addictive, and only 1% say they are good for society. While a few (16%) have tried at least 1 psychedelic substance, 100% of respondents in the Opposed group said the harms outweigh the benefits. These beliefs have stark effects on policy support, as 79% oppose legalization and 66% oppose religious and spiritual use. However, 63% do support allowing scientists to study psychedelics, which presents a rare opening.

Read the communication strategy →

The core beliefs of the Psychedelic Five

Hover any bar for the exact figure.

Feelings: “How positive or negative are your feelings towards psychedelics?” Familiarity: “How familiar are you with the topic of psychedelics?” Tried: reported ever trying any of ayahuasca, DMT, ibogaine, ketamine, LSD, mescaline, MDMA or psilocybin; self-reports in online surveys run high, so compare audiences rather than read these as national usage rates. More benefit than harm: the average of the three benefit-minus-harm pairs is above zero. Belief items (useful as a mental health therapy, good for society, useful for treating addiction, harmful to mental health, responsible for causing violent crime, addictive): “To the best of your knowledge, to what extent are psychedelics…” percent answering very or extremely. Weighted, n = 1,525.

Concept associations

We asked respondents for the first word that comes to mind when they think about psychedelics. Across the Psychedelic Five, the responses took many different forms. Shown: the five most common themes in each audience, as a percent of that audience.

Open-ended answers grouped by keyword (for example, “shrooms” and “magic mushrooms” both count as Mushrooms; “dangerous,” “scary” and “illegal” as Danger or fear). An answer can match more than one theme; 25% of answers match none. Weighted, n = 1,525.

03 · Try it yourself

Which one are you?

These exact 9 questions built the Psychedelic 5. Answer them to find out which group you are most likely to belong to.

Your answers stay on this page. Nothing is sent, stored or tracked.

01In general, how familiar are you with the topic of psychedelics (e.g., LSD, psilocybin mushrooms)?

02In general, how positive or negative are your feelings towards psychedelics?

03–08To the best of your knowledge, to what extent are psychedelics…

	Not at all	Only a little	Moderately	Very	Extremely
Addictive
Harmful to people’s mental health
Useful as a mental health therapy
Useful for treating addiction
Good for society
Responsible for causing violent crime

You are most like

See how to reach this audience

Take the quiz in the interactive version of this report.

04 · Policy

Some policies have broad support. Others create division.

Not all policies create the same balance of support or opposition. Some, like allowing scientific research, have majority support even among the Opposed segment. Others, like decriminalization, create stark divides with Advocates strongly supporting and other segments remaining skeptical.

Use these buttons to switch the chart between the share who support, are unsure about, or oppose each policy.

“How much do you support or oppose the following policies?” Percent who somewhat or strongly support, answer “unsure,” or somewhat or strongly oppose; the three views are switched with the buttons above, and all three are printed in the PDF. Therapy items for PTSD and depression were asked separately, after a sentence noting that some research suggests each could be effective. Weighted, n = 1,525.

05 · Messengers

Who is trusted for information?

We asked everyone to rate how much they trust each of these entities as a source of information about psychedelics. Across the Psychedelic Five, different types of sources rise to the top.

Use these buttons to switch between the share of each audience that trusts a source and how each audience ranks it against its own average source.

AdvocatesConflictedCuriousDisconnectedOpposed

“How much do you trust or distrust the following as a source of information about psychedelics?” Percent view: the share of each audience that somewhat or strongly trusts the source, with the dashed mark showing all US adults; use this to compare reach, and the relative view to compare priority. Relative view: trust in each source minus that person’s average trust across all thirteen sources, averaged within each audience, in points on the five-point trust scale; right of zero means trusted more than that audience’s average source. This removes the fact that some audiences trust everything more than others do. The grey bar spans the five audiences. Weighted, n = 1,525.

Doctors, scientists and psychiatrists are trusted everywhere.

All five audiences trust them above their average source. People who have had psychedelic therapy are the only other source to clear that bar in every audience, and only barely with the Opposed. Relative to their other sources, the Opposed lean on doctors and scientists more than any other audience does.

Lived-experience voices split the audiences.

People who have used psychedelics, experienced guides and Indigenous practitioners sit near the top for Advocates and below average for the Opposed. In the middle they separate the two unfamiliar audiences: the Curious give people who have had psychedelic therapy +0.27 and Indigenous practitioners +0.27, while for the Disconnected every one of them sits within a sixth of a point of their own average. First-person accounts have somewhere to land in one of those audiences and nowhere to land in the other.

Politicians rank last with everyone.

Every audience trusts politicians and elected officials less than any other source on the list.

Institutions split the base from the opposition.

The FDA and law enforcement rank clearly above average only with the Opposed, and well below it with Advocates. Pharmaceutical companies are least unwelcome among the Conflicted.

06 · Strategy

How to reach each audience

Our recommendations, drawn from what each audience believes, supports and trusts. The numbers come from the survey; the strategy is XandY’s interpretation of them.

Mobilize

Advocates

Turn conviction into action.

17% of adults

Why: Advocates are already persuaded. Persuasion dollars spent here buy little; what they can offer is energy, stories and credibility with each other.
Lead with: Give them something to do: share a story, show up for a hearing, recruit a friend. Frame the cause around healing and access, which they already believe in.
Messengers: People with lived experience, Indigenous practitioners and scientists. Four experiential voices sit level at the top: Indigenous practitioners (+0.64), people who have had psychedelic therapy (+0.62), experienced guides (+0.62) and people who have used psychedelics (+0.61), all well above their own average source.
Avoid: Industry and government voices. Advocates rank politicians (-1.45), law enforcement (-1.19) and pharmaceutical companies (-0.91) far below their average source. And keep their favorite messengers inside Advocate channels: experienced guides and Indigenous practitioners rank below average with the Opposed.

Reassure

Conflicted

Resolve the conflict with safety, not enthusiasm.

12% of adults

Why: The Conflicted have seen both sides up close. Telling them psychedelics are wonderful restates half of what they already believe and ignores the other half.
Lead with: Take the risks seriously in the first sentence, then show the guardrails: screening, dosing, trained supervision, tested products, licensed settings. “Done right” is their frame. They are the audience for regulated-market models, and the only one where drug-company patents draw more support (56%) than among Advocates.
Messengers: Doctors (+0.28), experienced guides (+0.26) and scientists (+0.25) are level at the top of their list: people who know what doing it well looks like. They are also the audience least put off by pharmaceutical companies (-0.16, against -0.44 nationally).
Avoid: Pure enthusiasm, and politicians, who rank lowest with them as with everyone.

Convert

Curious

Turn a warm lean into stated support.

22% of adults

Why: This is the biggest movable audience in the country and the shortest distance to travel. 54% already judge the benefits to outweigh the harms on the specifics, and 68% back therapy in a medical setting, but only 11% describe their overall feelings as positive. The gap between what they think item by item and what they feel in general is the opening.
Lead with: Name what they already half believe and give it a label. Concrete clinical cases, real patients, trial results, and what supervised therapy actually looks like. They do not need to be argued out of an objection; they need permission to say out loud what the specifics already tell them.
Messengers: Scientists (+0.54), doctors (+0.49) and psychiatrists (+0.48). They also give people who have had psychedelic therapy (+0.27) and Indigenous practitioners (+0.27) a clearer positive than either other middle audience does, so first-person accounts have more room to land here than anywhere outside the Advocates.
Avoid: Politicians (-1.12) and pharmaceutical companies (-0.42), and any framing that makes support a partisan position. Legalization language costs more than it gains: support falls from 68% for medical therapy to 44% for legal adult use.

Reach

Disconnected

Get on the radar at all.

12% of adults

Why: The Disconnected are not arguing with anyone. They leave 4.4 of nine policy questions unsure and 27% say the word psychedelics brings nothing to mind. The barrier is attention, not opposition, and it is the most expensive barrier to clear.
Lead with: One idea, repeated, in plain words: doctors are testing psychedelics as a treatment for depression and PTSD, in hospitals, under supervision. Nothing about policy, nothing about legalization, no numbers. If they hear one sentence about this topic in a year, make it that one.
Messengers: Doctors (+0.34), scientists (+0.32) and psychiatrists (+0.21), and nobody else. Every experiential voice sits within a sixth of a point of their own average: people who have had psychedelic therapy +0.14, Indigenous practitioners +0.01, experienced guides -0.03. Testimonial has no purchase here.
Avoid: Anything that assumes prior knowledge, and politicians (-0.64). Also avoid reading their silence as agreement: on the specifics only 12% come down on the benefit side, well below the Curious.

Bridge

Opposed

Keep opposition from hardening against research and medicine.

36% of adults

Why: Converting the Opposed is not a realistic goal: 86% feel negative and they give the fewest middle answers of any audience. But 63% back research, and they are more than three times as likely to support therapy in a controlled medical setting (38%) as legal use for anyone over 21 (11%). Medical uses are where their opposition is softest after research.
Lead with: Stay on rigor: clinical trials, medical supervision, safety data, FDA oversight. Talk about studying psychedelics, not using them.
Messengers: Doctors (+0.76) and scientists (+0.69) above all. They are also the only audience that ranks the FDA (+0.29) and law enforcement (+0.25) clearly above its average source.
Avoid: Legalization and recreational framing, and experiential messengers: experienced guides (-0.34) and Indigenous practitioners (-0.22) rank below their average source.

Takeaways for effective communication

Three guidelines that cut across the five strategies above. Whatever audience you are talking to, these hold.

RULE 01

Lead with research, then medicine.

No proposal is less objectionable at its worst: opposition to research peaks at 19%, among the Opposed, and every other proposal peaks higher. It holds majority support in four of the five audiences. After research, medical uses draw the least opposition from the Opposed: about a third oppose therapy for depression or PTSD, against 69% for legalization.

RULE 02

Put clinicians out front.

Doctors, scientists and psychiatrists are trusted above average by all five audiences. Only one other source manages that, people who have had psychedelic therapy, and only barely with the Opposed. For the Disconnected the three clinical voices are the only sources that stand out at all.

RULE 03

Match the messenger to the audience.

Several of Advocates’ most trusted voices, including guides and Indigenous practitioners, rank below average with the Opposed and barely register with the Disconnected. Aim them at the base, at the Curious and at the Conflicted rather than broadcasting them.

07 · About this research

How we did it

1,527US adults surveyed online, November 17 to 19, 2023

±3.1point margin of error for all adults, at 95% confidence

0.82classification certainty (entropy): how cleanly people sort into one audience

0.88average probability that a respondent belongs to their assigned audience

The survey

The XandY Omnibus surveyed 1,527 US adults online from November 17 to 19, 2023. Results are weighted to represent the US adult population; weighting widens the margin of error to ±3.1 points for all adults (design effect 1.49). Estimates within a single audience have wider margins, because each audience is a fraction of the sample; the ± figures on the audience profiles are margins on the size of each audience. 1,525 respondents answered all nine segmentation questions and are described here; nobody was excluded for any other reason. The survey was fielded before the 2024 state ballot measures and federal decisions, so these audiences describe the public as that period began.

The model

A five-class latent class model estimated in R (poLCA) from seven indicators built from nine questions: feelings toward psychedelics, familiarity, three benefit-minus-harm comparisons, the number of eight substances tried, and the number of middle answers on the six belief items. Policy, trust and demographic questions were never used to build the audiences. The number of audiences was chosen by fitting two through seven and taking the point where the fit statistics stop improving materially and the smallest audience is still large enough to brief: adding a sixth buys almost nothing and produces a group of five percent. The solution reproduces its own groupings at an adjusted Rand index of 0.80 across forty split-half refits. A companion technical report sets out every robustness check.

How sure are we

Every respondent is kept. Nobody is excluded for straightlining, for inconsistent answers or for any other response pattern: a segmentation that drops awkward respondents becomes a segmentation of cooperative survey-takers. 14% of adults gave at least one answer that does not add up, such as reporting having tried a substance they said they had never heard of, or giving the identical answer to all nine belief items.

Those answers are not spread evenly, and two audiences carry most of them: 44% of the Conflicted and 43% of the Disconnected, against 9% of Advocates, 6% of the Curious and 1% of the Opposed. Weighted, 72% of the 97 respondents who gave one answer to all nine belief items sit in the Disconnected. Refitting the model without them recovers a recognisably similar grouping (adjusted Rand index 0.69) but not an identical one.

What follows from that: the Disconnected is a real audience, and its absolute figures are the least reliable in this report. Among its members who answered consistently, support for research is 69% rather than 50% and the number of policy questions left unsure is 3.1 rather than 4.4. Read that audience as low-information and low-engagement, which both versions agree on, rather than as the precise percentages. The same caution applies to the line between the Curious and the Disconnected: a refit without the flat answers keeps 38% of the Curious in place and draws that boundary in a different spot, so anyone planning against those two should be ready to treat them as one. The Conflicted carry a similar caveat: among those who answered consistently, 85% are very or extremely familiar, 74% have tried one, and their benefits-minus-harms average is -0.38. Self-reported use in online surveys runs higher than in federal surveys; we use it to compare audiences, not to estimate national usage.

Sources for policy context

FDA complete response letter to Lykos Therapeutics, August 9, 2024: AJMC
Massachusetts Question 4, November 2024, failed 56% to 43%: Axios Boston
New Mexico Medical Psilocybin Act, signed April 7, 2025: Foley & Lardner
FDA rolling review and national priority voucher for COMP360 psilocybin, April 24, 2026: Compass Pathways

Reproducibility

Every number in this report is produced by R scripts that run from the raw survey file: PSY5F_pipeline.R estimates and freezes the model, and PSY5F_public_numbers.R computes the figures shown here. The quiz uses the frozen model and reproduces its assignment for all 1,525 respondents.

Three choices behind the method

The method rests on three decisions. A fuller methods section will follow in a companion technical report.

Compare, don’t just count.

Some people answer every question enthusiastically; others never go past “moderately.” So we compare each person’s answers with each other: how useful psychedelics are as therapy against how harmful they are to mental health, and so on. Rating both sides of a pair equally is real information. Rating everything high is not a pro-psychedelics view.

Let the data draw the lines.

A method called latent class analysis looks for groups of people whose answers follow the same pattern, without being told what the groups should be. We tested eleven candidate designs at three to six groups to choose the questions, then fitted the chosen design at two through seven to choose the number of audiences, taking the point that gives distinct, stable, useful groups from the fewest questions.

Test on questions it never saw.

No policy or trust question went into the model that forms the audiences, so how the audiences differ on them is evidence the groups are meaningful rather than arbitrary. The five audiences account for 39% of the differences in policy support, against 3.4% for party identification. (We did compare candidate designs on these measures when choosing one, so they are held out from the model, not from the choice.) Everyone who answered the nine questions is included.