Coffee Breakdown: Is There a Link between Caffeine and Hallucinations?

A new study suggests a coffee habit is linked to hearing voices

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Have you ever heard a song when none was playing, clearly seen someone’s face when no one was there or felt the presence of a person, only to turn around to an empty room? If you’ve consumed a lot of caffeine—the equivalent to seven cups of coffee—you are three times more likely to hear voices than if you had kept your caffeine intake to less than a cup of coffee, according to psychologists at the University of Durham in England. Their recent study shows that overingesting the stimulant slightly increases your risk of experiencing other hallucinations as well.

Caffeine heightens the physiological effects of stress, lead author Simon Jones says. When someone feels anxiety, the body releases the hormone cortisol, and when people drink plenty of caffeine-infused tea, coffee or soda, their body produces more of the hormone when they encounter stressful events. Researchers have proposed that cortisol may trigger or exaggerate psychotic experiences by increasing the amount of the neurotransmitter dopamine flowing into the brain’s limbic areas, evolutionarily ancient regions involved in emotion, memory and behavior.

“The prevalence of hallucinations is probably greater than people would expect,” Jones says. Research shows that every year about 5 to 10 percent of people—many of whom do not suffer from mental illness—experience delusions such as hearing voices and seeing things that are not there. According to Jones, “a range of people have frequent hallucinations yet cope well with these experiences.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


More research needs to be done before we can directly attribute hallucinations to caffeine; it is possible that people who already see, hear or feel these illusions may be consuming more caffeine for some other, as yet unknown reason, such as self-medication. Jones and other scientists also plan to look at whether nutritional influences such as sugar and fat might play a role in triggering phantom sights and sounds.

Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Coffee Breakdown."

Susan Cosier is a freelance journalist focused on science and the environment. She is based in Chicago. Follow Cosier on Twitter @susancosier

More by Susan Cosier
SA Mind Vol 20 Issue 4This article was published with the title “Coffee Breakdown: Is There a Link between Caffeine and Hallucinations?” in SA Mind Vol. 20 No. 4 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican072009-63MbnFxFvTL5WpLKC6MMy1

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe