Cited by 83Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorAction Observation and SynchronizationFace Recognition and Perception

Does oxytocin affect mind-reading? A replication study

Radke, Sina, de Bruijn, Ellen R.A.·2015·Psychoneuroendocrinology

Abstract

One of the most well-known findings in human oxytocin research is its beneficial effect on "mind-reading", i.e., inferring others' mental states just from the eye region in the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET). Previous studies have partially confirmed these improvements and have further shown that they depend both on baseline social-emotional abilities and on specific item characteristics such as difficulty. Following the original design of Domes et al. (2007), the aim of the current study was to replicate and extend previous findings by thoroughly investigating the impact of oxytocin administration on RMET performance. We tested for potential moderation effects involving item difficulty, valence, intensity, sex of poser as well as individual differences in trait empathy measured with the Empathy Quotient (EQ) for a general score and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) for a multidimensional assessment of cognitive and emotional empathy. Oxytocin did not affect mind-reading, neither in general nor when considering specific item characteristics. An association between oxytocin-induced changes in RMET performance and emotional empathy (the empathic concern scale of the IRI) was evident, with individuals low in emotional empathy showing greater improvement after oxytocin administration compared to placebo. The reproducibility and variability of these and prior findings needs to be addressed in future experiments. As true effects may not replicate across different studies for various reasons, this should not discourage, but encourage further research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.06.006

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Radke, S., & de Bruijn, E. R. A.
Affiliations
Jülich Aachen Research Alliance (DE)
Corresponding author
Radke, Sina
Venue
Psychoneuroendocrinology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-10
Volume
60
Pages
75-81
ISSN
0306-4530 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2136610568
Cited by
82
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
FWCI
20.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychoneuroendocrinology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
oxytocin, theory of mind, Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, replication, item difficulty, affective empathy, empathic concern, trait empathy, Interpersonal Reactivity Index, Empathy Quotient, social cognition, placebo effect
MeSH terms
Adult, Double-Blind Method, Empathy, Eye, Facial Expression, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxytocin, Psychomotor Performance, Social Perception, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

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