CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Placebo Effect

Oxytocin enhances the pain‐relieving effects of social support in romantic couples

Open access
Kreuder, Ann‐Kathrin, Wassermann, Lea, Wollseifer, Michael, Ditzen, Beate, Eckstein, Monika, Stoffel‐Wagner, Birgit, Hennig, Juergen, Hurlemann, René +1 more·2019·Human Brain Mapping
DOI 10.1002/hbm.24368PMC PMC6865468
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Social support plays a vital role in physical and mental well‐being. The neuropeptide hormone oxytocin (OXT) has been implicated in modulating pair‐bonding and affiliative behaviors, but whether OXT contributes to the analgesic effects of a romantic partner's touch remains elusive. In the present randomized placebo‐controlled, between‐group, functional magnetic resonance imaging study involving 194 healthy volunteers (97 heterosexual couples), we tested the effects of intranasal OXT (24 IU) on handholding as a common mode of expressing emotional support in romantic couples. We scanned the subjects while brief electric shocks were administered. The subjects assumed that they received social support from either their romantic partner or an unfamiliar person. Unbeknown to the subject, in the partner and stranger support conditions, the same male experimenter always held the subject's left hand. Partner support was most effective in reducing the unpleasantness of electric shocks, and OXT further attenuated the unpleasantness across conditions. On the neural level, OXT significantly augmented the beneficial effects of partner support, as evidenced by a stronger decrease of neural responses to shocks in the anterior insula (AI), a stronger activity increase in the middle frontal gyrus (MFG), and a strengthened functional coupling between the AI and MFG. Our results support the notion that OXT specifically modulates the beneficial effects of social support in romantic couples by concomitantly reducing pain‐associated activity and increasing activity linked to cognitive control and pain inhibition. We hypothesize that impaired OXT signaling may contribute to the experience of a lack of partner support.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a randomized, placebo-controlled fMRI study of 97 heterosexual couples, intranasal oxytocin (24 IU) enhanced the pain-relieving effects of romantic partner support on electric-shock unpleasantness and strengthened partner-support-related neural responses in the anterior insula and middle frontal gyrus. Oxytocin also increased functional coupling between these regions, suggesting it modulates social support analgesia by reducing pain-related activity while increasing cognitive-control-related activity.

Key findings

  • Partner support was most effective at reducing shock unpleasantness: partner support (42.18 ± 10.89) vs stranger support (49.48 ± 9.70; t[96] = −9.10, p < .01, d = −0.70) and vs no support (52.30 ± 10.58; t[96] = −9.17, p < .01, d = −0.94); stranger support was also better than no support (t[96] = −3.62, p < .01, d = −0.28).
  • Oxytocin attenuated shock unpleasantness irrespective of support condition: partner t(95) = −2.05, p < .05, d = −0.41; stranger t(95) = −2.45, p < .05, d = −0.50; no support t(95) = −1.93, p = .06, d = −0.39; it had no significant effect on no-shock ratings.
  • Under oxytocin, partner support produced a stronger decrease in left anterior insula response to shocks vs no shocks (−30, 24, −8; t[270] = 3.55, pFWE < .05, d = 0.62) and a stronger increase in right middle frontal gyrus response (36, 18, 50; t[270] = 4.03, pFWE < .05, d = −0.63).
  • Oxytocin increased functional coupling between right anterior insula and right middle frontal gyrus under partner vs stranger support (26, 50, 34; t[243] = 4.21, pFWE < .05, d = 0.70) and between right middle frontal gyrus and left amygdala (−30, −4, −14; t[264] = 3.13, pFWE < .05, d = 0.51); in the oxytocin group, romantic love correlated with partner-support analgesia (r[49] = 0.38, p < .05) but not in placebo (r[48] = 0.14, p = .35).

Methods

  • Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, between-group fMRI study with 194 healthy volunteers (97 heterosexual couples); one partner per couple was scanned (65 men, 32 women), assigned to intranasal oxytocin 24 IU (n = 49) or placebo (n = 48); fMRI analysis included 46 oxytocin (32 men) and 46 placebo (30 men) after exclusions for head movement/technical problems.
  • During fMRI, brief electric shocks were delivered to the left lower arm while subjects believed they held their romantic partner’s hand, an unfamiliar experimenter’s hand, or a rubber hand (no support); the same male experimenter actually held the subject’s hand in both partner and stranger conditions. Each of three runs contained 20 shock and 20 no-shock events, with unpleasantness rated on a 0–100 visual analog scale.
  • fMRI data were acquired on a 3 T Siemens Trio and analyzed in SPM12 using whole-brain and ROI analyses (anterior insula, middle frontal gyrus, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, amygdala) with FWE correction p < .05, plus generalized psychophysiological interaction analysis for functional connectivity.

Limitations

  • The authors state that the same experimenter held the subject’s hand in partner and stranger support conditions, so individual handholding preferences (e.g., pressure, caressing) were not modeled; they suggest social support effects might have been even more pronounced in a naturalistic setting.
  • The authors state that the experimenter was blinded to drug condition, but the cover story did not allow blinding of support condition, so unconscious minimal variations in handholding cannot be entirely excluded.
  • The text makes evident additional constraints: the sample was healthy, non-smoking, heterosexual couples, mostly natural-cycling women tested in the luteal phase, and the shock administration was unilateral, which the authors note may have contributed to asymmetric neural effects.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.24368

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

16 of 38 cited sources checked · 9 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Social support lowers pain-related activity in the anterior insula.

    “Recent imaging studies revealed that social support decreases pain-related activity in the anterior insula (AI) (Eisenberger et al., 2011)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Eisenberger et al., 2011 source
  • Interpretationown data

    The placebo-group findings reproduced previously reported pain-relieving effects of romantic partner support.

    “Our findings in the PLC group mirrored the previously reported pain-relieving effects of social support provided by the romantic partner (Coan et al., 2006;Eisenberger et al., 2011;Younger et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Coan et al., 2006 source
    • cites Eisenberger et al., 2011 source
    • cites Younger et al., 2010 source

      The Results (Behavioral; page unavailable) report significantly less pain while participants viewed pictures of their romantic partner than while they viewed acquaintance pictures. The Introduction (page unavailable) also describes earlier pain relief from partner pictures and hand-holding. This supports a pain-relieving effect associated with a romantic partner, but this study tested viewing pictures, not social support provided directly by the partner. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants believed that the hand they held during partner and stranger support conditions belonged to their romantic partner or an unfamiliar experimenter, as instructed.
  • Premisecitation

    Support from a romantic partner has stronger pain-relieving effects than support from friends or strangers.

    “Although social support from friends or even strangers reduces pain (Brown et al., 2003;Roberts et al., 2015), there is accumulating evidence for more pronounced effects of support provided by the romantic partner (Eisenberger et al., 2011;Master et al., 2009;Younger et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Eisenberger et al., 2011 source

      The Results report significantly lower pain ratings while participants viewed romantic-partner pictures than while they viewed stranger pictures. The study did not compare partners with friends, and viewing a stranger’s picture is not the same as receiving support from a stranger. It therefore supports the partner-versus-stranger-picture finding, but not the full comparison of support from partners, friends, and strangers. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Master et al., 2009 source
    • cites Younger et al., 2010 source

      The Introduction reports that viewing a romantic partner’s picture reduced pain more than viewing a stranger’s picture. The paper’s own Behavioral Results also show lower pain ratings with partner pictures than with acquaintance pictures. It does not compare pain relief from support provided by a romantic partner with support provided by friends; its tested intervention was viewing pictures, not receiving support. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    Social interactions may reduce pain unpleasantness by decreasing the salience of noxious stimuli.

    “Accordingly, social interactions may serve as a calm model (Brown et al., 2003) and may reduce the unpleasantness of pain by diminishing the salience of noxious stimuli (Krahe, Springer, Weinman, & Fotopoulou, 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Brown et al., 2003 source
    • cites Krahe, Springer, Weinman, & Fotopoulou, 2013 source
  • Interpretationcitation

    An oxytocin-induced increase in prefrontal cortex activity may reflect enhanced top-down cognitive control.

    “Additionally, an OXT-induced increase in activity in the PFC, where OXT receptors are highly expressed (Boccia, Petrusz, Suzuki, Marson, & Pedersen, 2013), may reflect enhanced top-down cognitive control that has been previously observed in the context of food craving behavior (Striepens et al., 2016) and fear extinction (Eckstein et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Striepens et al., 2016 source
    • cites Eckstein et al., 2015 source
    • Rests on an assumption: Intranasal oxytocin administration increases central oxytocin activity in a way that affects social support and pain processing.
  • May combine two claims. 18
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 24
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Social support reduces pain intensity and unpleasantness and lessens threat during anticipation of pain.

    “Importantly, it is well established that social support has anti-nociceptive effects, evident in reduced pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings (Brown, Sheffield, Leary, & Robinson, 2003;Eisenberger et al., 2011;Master et al., 2009;Roberts, Klatzkin, & Mechlin, 2015;Younger, Aron, Parke, Chatterjee, & Mackey, 2010) and threat associated with pain anticipation (Coan, Schaefer, & Davidson, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Brown, Sheffield, Leary, & Robinson, 2003 source
    • cites Eisenberger et al., 2011 source

      The Results report lower pain ratings while participants viewed partner photographs, and the Methods identify those ratings as pain unpleasantness. The paper does not report a separate reduction in pain-intensity ratings. The anticipation-of-pain clause is cited to Coan et al., not Eisenberger et al., so it is not part of this verdict. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Coan, Schaefer, & Davidson, 2006 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Oxytocin strengthens top-down cognitive control by increasing middle frontal gyrus activity.

    “Additionally, OXT strengthens top-down cognitive control strengthens top-down cognitive control by enhancing activity in the middle frontal gyrus (MFG) (Eckstein et al., 2015;Striepens et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Eckstein et al., 2015 source
    • cites Striepens et al., 2016 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Intranasal oxytocin and oxytocin receptor polymorphisms alter the cortisol response to psychosocial stress when men receive support from a female partner or close female friend.

    “Likewise, polymorphisms of the OXT receptor (Chen et al., 2011) as well as the intranasal administration of OXT (Heinrichs, Baumgartner, Kirschbaum, & Ehlert, 2003) modulate the social buffering of the cortisol response to psychosocial stress in men receiving social support from their female partner or close female friend.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chen et al., 2011 source
    • cites Heinrichs, Baumgartner, Kirschbaum, & Ehlert, 2003 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Oxytocin changes activity in the insular cortex and ventromedial prefrontal cortex and reduces neural responses to stress-related and painful stimuli in the amygdala.

    “Furthermore, it has been shown that OXT not only modulates activity in the insular cortex (Striepens et al., 2012;Wigton et al., 2015) and VMPFC (Aoki et al., 2015;Labuschagne et al., 2012) but also reduces the neural response to stress-associated signals (Maier et al., 2018) and painful stimuli in the amygdala (AMY) (Paloyelis et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Striepens et al., 2012 source
    • cites Aoki et al., 2015 source
    • cites Paloyelis et al., 2016 source

      The Discussion section ‘LEPs and mechanisms mediating the effects of oxytocin on pain’ reports reduced N1 and N2 cortical responses to painful stimuli after intranasal oxytocin. It does not locate those reductions in the amygdala; the cited paper measured laser-evoked EEG responses, not amygdala activity. The other brain regions and stress-associated signals in the citing sentence are attached to other citations. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Oxytocin is released during contact with a partner and helps maintain long-term romantic relationships.

    “The hypothalamic peptide oxytocin (OXT) is released during partner contact (Grewen, Girdler, Amico, & Light, 2005) and contributes to the maintenance of long-term relationships (Ditzen et al., 2009;Kreuder et al., 2017;Scheele et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Grewen, Girdler, Amico, & Light, 2005 source
    • cites Ditzen et al., 2009 source
    • cites Scheele et al., 2013 source

      The Discussion says oxytocin may play a role in maintaining long-term pair bonds and reports that administered oxytocin increased men's positive responses to their partners' faces. This supports a possible contribution, but the citing sentence states maintenance of long-term relationships as an established effect. The partner-contact release claim is attributed to Grewen et al., not to Scheele et al. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the oxytocin group, higher romantic love was positively associated with a stronger partner-support effect on shock unpleasantness relative to no support; this association was absent in the placebo group.

    “Interestingly, an additional correlation analysis revealed a significant positive association between the subjects' level of romantic love and the support effect of the partner compared with no support on the experience of shocks only in the OXT group (r [49] = 0.38, p < .05,cf. Figure 1c), but not in the PLC group (r [48] = 0.14, p = .35).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants believed that the hand they held during partner and stranger support conditions belonged to their romantic partner or an unfamiliar experimenter, as instructed.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the placebo group, women receiving partner support showed more pronounced right ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity compared with stranger support and increased right ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity to stranger support relative to no support.

    “The ROI-based approach revealed that women receiving partner support also showed more pronounced activity in the right VMPFC compared with stranger support (10, 54, -12; t [88] = 3.74, p FWE < .05,d = 0.86) and increased right VMPFC activity to stranger support relative to no support (6, 26, -14; t [88] = 3.62, p FWE < .05,d = 1.00).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants believed that the hand they held during partner and stranger support conditions belonged to their romantic partner or an unfamiliar experimenter, as instructed.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Oxytocin significantly reduced the unpleasantness of shocks under partner and stranger support, but not significantly under no support.

    “Post hoc t-tests revealed that OXT significantly attenuated the unpleasantness of the shock events irrespective of the current support condition (partner: t (95) = -2.05,p < .05,d = -0.41;stranger: t (95) = -2.45,p < .05,d = -0.50;no support: t (95) = -1.93,p = .06,d = -0.39;cf. Figure 1a and Supporting Information Figure S4A)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants believed that the hand they held during partner and stranger support conditions belonged to their romantic partner or an unfamiliar experimenter, as instructed.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Oxytocin did not significantly modulate stranger support in the anterior insula or middle frontal gyrus and had no effect on amygdala or ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity.

    “OXT did not significantly modulate the effect of stranger support in the AI or MFG and had no effect on AMY and VMPFC activity (all ps > .05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The oxytocin effect on middle frontal gyrus-amygdala coupling was specific to partner support, with no significant changes for stranger support.

    “Interestingly, this OXT effect was specific to partner support.We did not observe significant changes for stranger support.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants believed that the hand they held during partner and stranger support conditions belonged to their romantic partner or an unfamiliar experimenter, as instructed.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Stranger support reduced shock unpleasantness compared with no support, though the effect was weaker than partner support.

    “There was a weaker but still significant effect of stranger support compared with no support (t [96] = -3.62,p < .01,d = -0.28).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants believed that the hand they held during partner and stranger support conditions belonged to their romantic partner or an unfamiliar experimenter, as instructed.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Placebo and oxytocin allocation was balanced within female and male subsamples.

    “The administration of PLC and OXT was balanced within the female (OXT n = 16, PLC n = 16) and male (OXT n = 33, PLC n = 32) subsamples.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The analysis focused a priori on the anterior insula, prefrontal regions, and amygdala.

    “Based on our a priori hypothesis, the analysis of treatment effects focused on the AI, prefrontal regions, and the AMY as key neural substrates of pain processing, safety-signaling, and cognitive control.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The same male experimenter held the participant's left hand in both partner and stranger support conditions, keeping cutaneous stimulation constant.

    “Unbeknown to the subject, in the partner and stranger support conditions, the same male experimenter always held the subject's left hand, thereby keeping the type of cutaneous stimulation constant across the whole experiment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants believed that the hand they held during partner and stranger support conditions belonged to their romantic partner or an unfamiliar experimenter, as instructed.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Shock and no-shock events were pseudo-randomized with no more than two consecutive events and inter-stimulus intervals jittered between 4 and 6 seconds.

    “The order of shock and no shock events was pseudo-randomized (a maximum of two shock or no shock events directly followed each other) and always interleaved with an inter-stimulus interval (ISI) that was jittered between 4 and 6 s (mean: 5 s).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study used a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, between-group design.

    “We performed a randomized, double-blind, PLC-controlled, betweengroup design study.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Without social support, intranasal oxytocin can have harmful effects and increase the subjective experience of psychosocial stress.

    “For instance, we have found that in the absence of social support, intranasal OXT may produce detrimental effects and enhance the subjective experience of psychosocial stress (Eckstein et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Eckstein et al., 2014 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Movement parameters were included as confounders in the design matrix.

    “The movement parameters were included as confounders in the design matrix.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The romantic partner entered the MRI room before partner-support runs and briefly talked with the participant to strengthen the cover story.

    “Furthermore, the romantic partner entered the MRI room before the experimental runs with partner support and briefly talked with the participant to strengthen the credibility of the task-dependent cover story.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants believed that the hand they held during partner and stranger support conditions belonged to their romantic partner or an unfamiliar experimenter, as instructed.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Oxytocin's anti-nociceptive effect on shock unpleasantness was unspecific and independent of support condition.

    “In summary, these results suggest an unspecific anti-nociceptive effect of OXT independent of the support condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The order of the three support runs was counterbalanced across sex and treatment groups.

    “The order of the runs was counterbalanced across sex and treatment groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The stronger beneficial effects of partner support may arise from a dual mechanism: reduced anterior insula activity and increased prefrontal cortex activity.

    “Hence, our findings indicate that the stronger beneficial effects of partner support may be caused by a dual mode of action involving a decrease in AI activity, and concomitantly an increase in PFC activity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants believed that the hand they held during partner and stranger support conditions belonged to their romantic partner or an unfamiliar experimenter, as instructed.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    Differences in ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity may be driven by sex effects.

    “Additionally, differences in VMPFC activity may be driven by sex effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The male experimenter wore cotton gloves to control for temperature and skin differences.

    “The male experimenter wore cotton gloves to control for possible temperature and skin differences.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were randomly assigned to intranasal oxytocin 24 IU or placebo.

    “Subjects were randomly assigned to either the intranasal administration of OXT (24 IU; six puffs per nostril each with 2 IU; n = 49; Novartis, Basel, Switzerland) or PLC (containing all ingredients except the peptide; n = 48).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The magnet opening was covered so participants could not see their own hands or the experimenter's hands.

    “The entire opening of the magnet was covered with a blanket so the subjects were unable to see their own hands or the hands of the experimenter.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Brain-to-brain coupling enhances touch-related analgesia and empathic accuracy.

    “and this brain-to-brain coupling enhances touchrelated analgesia and empathic accuracy (Goldstein, Weissman-Fogel, Dumas, & Shamay-Tsoory, 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Goldstein, Weissman-Fogel, Dumas, & Shamay-Tsoory, 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Recent meta-analytic findings show the most robust oxytocin effects on left insular cortex activity.

    “However, the reported left lateral OXT effects on AI activity are in line with recent meta-analytic findings showing the most robust OXT effects on left insular cortex activity (Wigton et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wigton et al., 2015 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The asymmetry of electric shock administration in the fMRI paradigm may have contributed to the asymmetry of the neural effects.

    “The asymmetry of the electric shock administration in the fMRI paradigm may have contributed to the asymmetry of the neural effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Individual handholding preferences of the romantic couples were not modeled.

    “Therefore, individual handholding preferences of the romantic couples (e.g., pressure, caressing) were not modeled.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Unconscious minimal variations in handholding cannot be entirely excluded.

    “Thus, unconscious minimal variations in handholding cannot be entirely excluded.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The same experimenter held the subject's hand in the partner and stranger support conditions to rigorously control potential confounders.

    “First, to rigorously control potential confounders, the same experimenter held the subject's hand in the partner and the stranger support conditions”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Handholding by the partner and by the stranger validly operationalizes romantic partner support and stranger support, respectively.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Oxytocin receptors are highly expressed in the prefrontal cortex.

    “Additionally, an OXT-induced increase in activity in the PFC, where OXT receptors are highly expressed (Boccia, Petrusz, Suzuki, Marson, & Pedersen, 2013)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Boccia, Petrusz, Suzuki, Marson, & Pedersen, 2013 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Oxytocin specifically increases the hedonic value of a romantic partner's touch.

    “for example, by specifically increasing the hedonic value of a romantic partner's touch (Kreuder et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kreuder et al., 2017 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The experimenter was blinded to the drug (oxytocin vs placebo).

    “Second, the experimenter was blinded to the drug (OXT vs. PLC)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The cover story did not allow blinding of the support condition (partner support, stranger support, no support).

    “but our cover story did not allow blinding of the condition (partner support, stranger support, no support).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
36 of 36

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants believed that the hand they held during partner and stranger support conditions belonged to their romantic partner or an unfamiliar experimenter, as instructed.

    “The subjects assumed that they received social support from either their romantic partner or an unfamiliar person.”
    “Unbeknown to the subject, in the partner and stranger support conditions, the same male experimenter always held the subject's left hand”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Intranasal oxytocin at 24 IU reaches the relevant brain systems and modulates social and pain processing within the 45-minute interval before scanning.

    “The fMRI task began 45 min after the nasal spray administration.”
    “we tested the effects of intranasal OXT (24 IU) on handholding as a common mode of expressing emotional support in romantic couples”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Intranasal oxytocin administration increases central oxytocin activity in a way that affects social support and pain processing.

    “after the administration of intranasal OXT”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Electric shocks and unpleasantness ratings validly measure pain experience.

    “unpleasantness of electric shocks”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Handholding by the partner and by the stranger validly operationalizes romantic partner support and stranger support, respectively.

    “Receiving social support from the romantic partner was significantly more effective in reducing the unpleasantness of electric shocks than receiving social support from an unfamiliar person or receiving no support during the experiment across treatment groups (a; b).”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Positive effects of touch from others are likely mediated by increased secretion of oxytocin.

    “positive effects are likely mediated by increased secretion of the neuropeptide oxytocin [6,[16], [17], [18], [19]].”

    From Self-soothing touch and being hugged reduce cortisol responses to stress: A randomized controlled trial on stress, physical touch, and social identity (2021) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Introduction says oxytocin is released during partner contact, and the Abstract reports that administered oxytocin enhanced the pain-relieving effects of perceived partner support. But the study tested intranasal oxytocin, not whether touch increased oxytocin secretion or whether such an increase mediated touch’s benefits. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(95) = -2.05reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .043

    “t (95) = -2.05,p < .05”

  • Consistentt(95) = -2.45reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .016

    “t (95) = -2.45,p < .05”

  • Consistentt(95) = -1.93reported p = .06 · recomputed p = .057

    “t (95) = -1.93,p = .06”

  • Consistentt(95) = 0.2reported p = .84 · recomputed p = .842

    “t (95) = 0.20, p = .84”

  • Consistentt(95) = 0.58reported p = .56 · recomputed p = .563

    “t (95) = 0.58, p = .56”

  • Consistentt(95) = 1.24reported p = .22 · recomputed p = .218

    “t (95) = 1.24, p = .22”

  • Consistentr(46) = 0.13reported p = .38 · recomputed p = .378

    “r (46) = 0.13, p = .38”

  • Consistentr(49) = 0.38reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .006

    “r (49) = 0.38, p < .05”

  • Consistentr(48) = 0.14reported p = .35 · recomputed p = .332

    “r (48) = 0.14, p = .35”

9 of 9

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bierhoff H. W., 1993, Marburger Einstellungs‐Inventar für Liebesstile (MEIL)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kreuder, A., Wassermann, L., Wollseifer, M., Ditzen, B., Eckstein, M., Stoffel‐Wagner, B., Hennig, J., Hurlemann, R., & Scheele, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Bonn (DE)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (DE)
Corresponding author
Scheele, Dirk
ORCID
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-08-28
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
242-251
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
DOI
10.1002/hbm.24368
PMC
PMC6865468
OpenAlex
W2889339269
Cited by
60
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
FWCI
6.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
Keywords
oxytocin, social support, analgesia, romantic partners, hand-holding, anterior insula, middle frontal gyrus, functional connectivity
MeSH terms
Adult, Analgesia, Cerebral Cortex, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Magnetic Resonance Imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review