A meta-analysis of hormone administration effects on cooperative behaviours: oxytocin, vasopressin, and testosterone
Abstract
The hormones oxytocin, vasopressin, and testosterone have been implicated in cooperative behaviours and have attracted increasing research interest for their potential to regulate human cooperation in both healthy and clinical populations. However, the behavioural effects of the administration of these hormones remain to be verified. The current analysis included 41 studies involving 3,269 participants with a narrow age range. We examined the administration effects of these hormones on cooperative behaviour and the regulatory effects of individual characteristics, hormone interventions, and task structure and context. Results revealed a moderate positive effect size of oxytocin intranasal administration, a large negative effect size of vasopressin intranasal administration, and nonsignificant effects of testosterone administration on cooperative behaviours. Participants with mental dysfunctions were less sensitive to oxytocin and vasopressin administration. Oxytocin administration was effective in an in-group situation and for initial choices, corroborating a Tit-for-Tat strategy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Cooperation and social bonding among individuals are facilitated by OXT.
“Cooperation and social bonding among individuals are facilitated by OXT (Patin et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2021).”
From Convergence of oxytocin and dopamine signalling in neuronal circuits: Insights into the neurobiology of social interactions across species (2024) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2021
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 105 · Cited by 31
- Authors
- Yang, X., Wang, W., Wang, X. T., & Wang, Y. W.
- Affiliations
- Fuzhou University (CN)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Xiao Tian
- Wang, Yi Wen
- Venue
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-07
- Volume
- 126
- Pages
- 430-443
- ISSN
- 0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3144545011
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 105
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 0.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC71942002, NSFC31971025, NSFC31771238)
- National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences
- Chinese National Funding of Social Sciences (19ZDA361)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
- Keywords
- oxytocin, vasopressin, testosterone, cooperative behavior, prosocial behavior, mental illness, in-group cooperation, tit-for-tat, task structure
- MeSH terms
- Administration, Intranasal, Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Oxytocin, Testosterone, Vasopressins
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.
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