Smith · International review of neurobiology 2015 · narrative review · n=?

Psychostimulants and Artistic, Musical, and Literary Creativity.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Narrative and historical review without systematic search methodology or original experimental data

PubMed 26070763 · doi:10.1016/bs.irn.2015.04.001 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

The author conducted a narrative and historical review examining the relationship between psychostimulant use (including nicotine, caffeine, and amphetamines) and artistic, musical, and literary creativity. The paper analyzed historical cultural contexts, drug preferences within artistic movements (such as the Beats and Andy Warhol's circle), and theoretical models of the creative process.

What was found

The abstract reports no quantitative data, effect sizes, or participant numbers. Qualitatively, it reports that creative individuals seek psychostimulants more frequently than the norm, utilizing them particularly during the evaluation and elaboration stages of creative work (such as writing). The proposed cognitive mechanism is that stimulants boost convergent thinking while diminishing divergent thinking. The review also notes that drug-associated venues (such as Parisian and Viennese cafés) and specific substances have historically served as hubs and identifiers for artistic movements.

Why it matters

This review provides a historical and theoretical framework distinguishing how stimulants may assist in executing and refining creative work rather than generating novel ideas.

Limits

The abstract describes a non-systematic narrative review with no empirical data, sample sizes, or statistical testing. Conclusions rely on historical anecdotes and theoretical reasoning, which cannot prove a causal effect of stimulants on creative performance.

Cited by