Cited by 140Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 57 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

A registered replication study on oxytocin and trust

Open access

Abstract

In an influential paper, Kosfeld et al. (2005) showed that intranasal administration of oxytocin (OT) increases the transfers made by investors in the trust game-suggesting that OT increases trust in strangers. Subsequent studies investigating the role of OT in the trust game found inconclusive effects on the trusting behaviour of investors but these studies deviated from the Kosfeld et al. study in an important way-they did not implement minimal social contact (MSC) between the investors and the trustees in the trust game. Here, we performed a large double-blind and placebo-controlled replication study of the effects of OT on trusting behaviour that yields a power of more than 95% and implements an MSC condition as well as a no-social-contact (NoC) condition. We find no effect of OT on trusting behaviour in the MSC condition. Exploratory post hoc analyses suggest that OT may increase trust in individuals with a low disposition to trust in the NoC condition, but this finding requires confirmation in future research. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 19 October 2018. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11980368.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This registered replication protocol proposes a large, double-blind, placebo-controlled 2×2 experiment (oxytocin vs. placebo × minimal social contact vs. no contact) to test whether intranasal oxytocin increases trust in the trust game, and whether minimal social contact moderates that effect. No results are reported; the paper presents the rationale, design, hypotheses, and a priori power analysis.

Key findings

  • The paper reports no empirical results; it states three a priori hypotheses: H1, OT has a positive influence on trust in the minimal social contact (MSC) condition (β1 + β3 > 0), replicating Kosfeld et al.; H2, the OT effect on trust is larger in MSC than in no contact (NoC) (β3 > 0); H3, under placebo, trust is higher in MSC than NoC (β2 > 0).
  • Planned sample of n = 704 (352 in Antwerp, 352 in Magdeburg) is stated to provide statistical power of more than 95% for all main hypotheses, and 99.65% based on the Kosfeld et al. effect size d = 0.514; a Simonsohn "small telescopes" robustness check indicates n = 488 already yields an adequate replication.
  • The authors cite prior evidence that intranasal OT significantly increased coordination on a mutually beneficial strategy only when participants first introduced themselves to the group (N = 254 study), while without prior contact OT significantly reduced coordination.
  • The paper notes that of six studies in Nave et al.'s meta-analysis (besides Kosfeld et al.), four used fictional partners, one had no human contact, and one was likely confounded by a preceding dictator game.

Methods

  • Design: 2×2 between-subjects factorial (OT/placebo × minimal social contact/no contact), double-blind, with randomization stratified on social value orientation (SVO) measured two weeks prior; participants self-administer 24 IU OT or placebo and wait 50 minutes before the trust game.
  • Sample: 704 male students aged 18–25 recruited at two sites; exclusion criteria include psychiatric disorders, nasal surgery or severe NOSE scores, VAS nasal obstruction ≥ 8, non-compliance with spray administration, and failure to solve trust game payoff examples.
  • Trust game and analysis: investors receive a 12 euro endowment and can send 0, 4, 8, or 12 euros to a trustee (tripled by the experimenter); each participant plays twice (once as investor, once as trustee). Main analysis is OLS regression with generalized trust and risk attitude as covariates, with Bayesian hypothesis testing (Bayes Factor R package, JZS/Cauchy prior r = 0.354) if results are non-significant.

Limitations

  • Stated by the paper: the design "does not allow us to make broad conclusions about the general effects of OT on social cognition, empathy or behavior in other experimental paradigms."
  • Stated by the paper: the original Kosfeld et al. effect may be overstated due to publication bias and other reasons, which motivated the "small telescopes" robustness check.
  • Evident from the text: this is a preregistration/protocol with no data or outcomes reported, so no effect of OT on trust is yet established; the male-only sample (chosen to replicate Kosfeld et al. and avoid sex-specific variation) limits generalizability to females.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41562-020-0878-x

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

37 Not checked yet · 19 Own method · 8 No basis given · 6 Own interpretation · 2 Own result · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 56 references — free account

Show all 19 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 37
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 29
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3
54 of 54
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    OT's effect on trust does not differ between participants from Magdeburg and Antwerp.

    “We pool the data obtained in Magdeburg and Antwerp because there is no a priori reason to expect that OT would affect individuals from these two locations differently.”
1 of 1

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 68 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Barraza, J. A. The physiology of empathy: linking oxytocin to empathic responding. Diss. Abstr. Int. Sect. B Sci. Eng. 71, 4537 (2011).
  2. Teixeira, R. U. F., Zappelini, C. E. M., Oliveira, L. G., Basile, L. C. G. & Costa, E. A. Correlation between the peak nasal inspiratory flow and the visual analogue scale (VAS) before and after using a nasal decongestant. Int. Arch. Otorhinolary. 15, 156–162 (2011).
  3. Jeffreys, H. The Theory of Probability (Oxford Univ. Press, 1961).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–140 of 140

Metadata

Authors
Declerck, C. H., Boone, C., Pauwels, L., Vogt, B., & Fehr, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Antwerp (BE)
  • Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg (DE)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Fehr, Ernst
Venue
Nature Human Behaviour
Published
2020-06-08
Volume
4
Issue
6
Pages
646-655
ISSN
2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3033625555
Cited by
137
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 7
FWCI
23.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
Universität Zürich
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Keywords
oxytocin, trust, trust game, intranasal administration, social contact, disposition to trust
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Adolescent, Adult, Double-Blind Method, Games, Experimental, Humans, Male, Oxytocin, Reproducibility of Results, Trust, 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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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