The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 13 of the 56 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism
Open accessAbstract
Human ethnocentrism—the tendency to view one's group as centrally important and superior to other groups—creates intergroup bias that fuels prejudice, xenophobia, and intergroup violence. Grounded in the idea that ethnocentrism also facilitates within-group trust, cooperation, and coordination, we conjecture that ethnocentrism may be modulated by brain oxytocin, a peptide shown to promote cooperation among in-group members. In double-blind, placebo-controlled designs, males self-administered oxytocin or placebo and privately performed computer-guided tasks to gauge different manifestations of ethnocentric in-group favoritism as well as out-group derogation. Experiments 1 and 2 used the Implicit Association Test to assess in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. Experiment 3 used the infrahumanization task to assess the extent to which humans ascribe secondary, uniquely human emotions to their in-group and to an out-group. Experiments 4 and 5 confronted participants with the option to save the life of a larger collective by sacrificing one individual, nominated as in-group or as out-group. Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” or “cuddle chemical” and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In five double-blind, placebo-controlled experiments with Dutch males, intranasal oxytocin increased intergroup bias primarily by promoting in-group favoritism, with limited evidence for out-group derogation. The findings challenge the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” and suggest it may support ethnocentrism and intergroup conflict.
Key findings
- Oxytocin increased in-group favoritism across implicit and behavioral measures. In experiment 1 (n = 63, Arab out-group), oxytocin increased in-group favoritism, F(1, 61) = 5.51, P < 0.022, and out-group derogation, F(1, 61) = 4.95, P < 0.030; experiment 2 (n = 70, German out-group) replicated in-group favoritism, F(1, 68) = 4.50, P < 0.038, while out-group derogation fell short, F(1, 68) = 3.46, P < 0.067.
- In experiment 3 (n = 66), oxytocin created intergroup bias on secondary emotions: treatment × target interaction, F(1, 64) = 7.95, P < 0.006, driven by stronger association of secondary emotions with the in-group, F(1, 64) = 4.654, P < 0.035; treatment did not affect out-group secondary-emotion ratings, F(1, 64) = 1.319, P < 0.225.
- In moral choice dilemmas, oxytocin increased willingness to sacrifice out-group over in-group targets. Experiment 4 (n = 71): target × treatment, F(1, 67) = 12.08, P < 0.001; under oxytocin, out-group targets were sacrificed more than in-group targets, F(1, 68) = 17.27, P < 0.001; placebo was nonsignificant, F(1, 68) = 1.17, P < 0.284; oxytocin reduced in-group sacrifice, F(1, 68) = 4.11, P < 0.047, but did not increase out-group sacrifice, F(1, 68) = 1.37, P < 0.247. Experiment 5 (n = 77) replicated this pattern with German names: target × treatment, F(1, 73) = 9.33, P < 0.003; under oxytocin, out-group > in-group sacrifice, F(1, 74) = 9.33, P < 0.003; placebo nonsignificant, F(1, 74) = 0.16, P < 0.694; oxytocin reduced in-group sacrifice, F(1, 74) = 4.95, P < 0.029, with no out-group effect, F(1, 74) = 1.36, P < 0.248.
- Across experiments, oxytocin created intergroup bias mainly through in-group favoritism; out-group derogation received limited support, primarily in experiment 1 and less so in experiment 2.
Methods
- Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled between-subjects designs across five experiments. Indigenous Dutch males self-administered intranasal 24 IU oxytocin or placebo, waited about 40 min, and completed computer-guided tasks in individual cubicles with guaranteed anonymity.
- Experiments 1 and 2 used the Implicit Association Test with Arab or German out-groups; experiment 3 used an infrahumanization task rating primary and secondary emotions for Dutch versus Muslim targets; experiments 4 and 5 used a Moral Choice Dilemma Task with in-group versus out-group target names (Arab or German) and sacrifice versus control choices.
- Analyses used ANOVA models; IAT scores were computed to separate in-group favoritism and out-group derogation, with complementary overall bias analyses. The paper reports 280 male participants (M = 21.31 y) recruited overall, with individual experiment n’s of 63, 70, 66, 71, and 77.
Limitations
- Stated: support for oxytocin-driven out-group derogation was limited and inconsistent; the authors caution that future research should examine oxytocin’s effects on in-group favoritism in the explicit absence of intergroup comparisons.
- Stated: the findings are based on male participants and two specific natural out-groups (Arab immigrants and Germans), so generalization to other populations and out-groups is not established.
- Evident from the text: all participants were young indigenous Dutch males, and the intranasal oxytocin dose/timing followed prior protocols; the paper does not test females, other cultures, or long-term effects.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
26 Own result · 14 Own interpretation · 11 Not checked yet · 10 Own method · 7 No full text of the sources · 4 Partly supported · 3 Sources not found · 2 Supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“In 2005, the Pew Global Project found that 51% of Dutch citizens had unfavorable opinions about Muslims (30), job applicants were more often rejected immediately when their resume listed them with an Arab rather than Dutch name (31), and Moroccan adolescent males were the target of negative stereotyping and more or less subtle derogation by their indigenous Dutch counterparts (32).”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [30] Velasco Gonzalez K, Verkuyten M, Weesie J, Poppe E. Prejudice towards Muslims in the Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. Brit J Soc Psychol. 2008;47:667–685. doi: 10.1348/014466608X284443. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available copy contains the paper’s title and bibliographic metadata, but no passage reporting the 2005 Pew finding. Searches for the 51% figure and unfavorable opinions of Muslims found no supporting passage, so the claim cannot be verified from this copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In 2005, the Pew Global Project found that 51% of Dutch citizens had unfavorable opinions about Muslims (30), job applicants were more often rejected immediately when their resume listed them with an Arab rather than Dutch name (31), and Moroccan adolescent males were the target of negative stereotyping and more or less subtle derogation by their indigenous Dutch counterparts (32).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [32] Kamans E, Gordijn EH, Oldenhuis H, Otten S. What I think you see is what you get: Influence of prejudice on assimilation to negative meta-stereotypes among Dutch Moroccan teenagers. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2009;39:842–851. [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and “META-STEREOTYPES AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON BEHAVIOR” describe negative Dutch stereotypes of Moroccan teenagers, and the Abstract gives examples of subtle discriminatory treatment. The claim singles out adolescent males, but the Participants section shows that the study included both female and male teenagers and does not establish a male-specific finding. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Although images of Germans tend to be seen as less threatening (33), Germans have been shown to be seen by indigenous Dutch as aggressive, arrogant, and cold (33, 34).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [33] Otten S, Stapel DA. Who is this Donald? How social categorization affects aggression-priming effects. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2007;37:1000–1015. [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Pilot Study’s Results and Discussion report Dutch students’ ratings of Germans on aggressiveness and hostility, with Germans rated somewhat more aggressive than the Dutch. The cited paper does not report that Germans were seen as arrogant or cold, so those parts of the claim are unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] Leach CW, Spears R, Branscombe NR, Doosje B. Malicious pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84:932–943. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.932. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with placebo, oxytocin increased in-group favoritism, F(1, 61) = 5.51, P < 0.022, and out-group derogation, F(1, 61) = 4.95, P < 0.030.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Again, oxytocin created intergroup bias: Under oxytocin, males were more likely to sacrifice out-group targets than in-group targets [F(1, 74) = 9.33, P < 0.003]; under placebo, this tendency was not significant [F(1, 74) = 0.16, P < 0.694].”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Oxytocin created intergroup bias: compared with placebo, males given oxytocin associated secondary emotions more with their in-group than with the out-group, F(1, 64) = 4.73, P < 0.034.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although results provided consistent support for the hypothesis that oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism, limited support was found for the hypothesis that oxytocin drives out-group derogation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was not because of out-group derogation, in that treatment did not increase the readiness to sacrifice out-group targets, F(1, 74) = 1.36, P < 0.248.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Under oxytocin, males were more likely to sacrifice out-group targets than in-group targets [F(1, 68) = 17.27, P < 0.001]; under placebo, this tendency was not significant [F(1, 68) = 1.17, P < 0.284].”
plainn = 71- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with placebo, oxytocin increased in-group favoritism, F(1, 68) = 4.50, P < 0.038; the oxytocin-driven increase in out-group derogation just fell short of statistical significance, F(1, 68) = 3.46, P < 0.067.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
- It may state two separate claims as one. 28
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Intergroup bias shows up in a greater tendency to sacrifice out-group rather than in-group members (43) because of in-group favoritism (decreased willingness to sacrifice in-group targets), out-group derogation (increased readiness to sacrifice out-group targets), or both.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [43] Cikara M, Farnsworth RA, Harris LT, Fiske ST. On the wrong side of the trolley track: Neural correlates of relative social valuation. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010;5:404–413. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsq011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Self-report ratings section predicts that ingroup members will be least likely to be sacrificed, and the Behavioral data section reports that sacrificing an extreme-outgroup target was more acceptable than sacrificing an ingroup target. The General discussion considers ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation as possible contributors but says the design cannot separate their effects; the citing sentence likewise leaves open which contributes. (LLM, conf=0.89)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Functioning as both a neurotransmitter and a hormone, oxytocin's targets are widespread and include the hippocampus and the amygdala (10–12).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [10] Baumgartner T, Heinrichs M, Vonlanthen A, Fischbacher U, Fehr E. Oxytocin shapes the neural circuitry of trust and trust adaptation in humans. Neuron. 2008;58:639–650. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (p. 2) says oxytocin binds in the limbic system, including the amygdala, and the Summary (p. 2) reports an oxytocin-associated change in amygdala activation. Our copy does not identify the hippocampus as a target or establish that oxytocin's targets are widespread; a search for “hippocampus” found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Supportedcites [11] Rodrigues SM, Saslow LR, Garcia N, John OP, Keltner D. Oxytocin receptor genetic variation relates to empathy and stress reactivity in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:21437–21441. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909579106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Abstract states that oxytocin functions as both a neurotransmitter and a hormone and that its widespread targets include the amygdala and hippocampus. (LLM, conf=0.95)
- Partly supportedcites [12] Gamer M, Zurowski B, Büchel Ch. Different amygdala subregions mediate valence-related and attentional effects of oxytocin in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:9400–9405. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1000985107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports significant effects of oxytocin on distinct amygdala regions. Our copy does not establish that its targets are widespread or include the hippocampus; the Abstract describes oxytocin as a neuropeptide and hormone but does not identify it as a neurotransmitter. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“There is no doubt that oxytocin is implicated in the development of trust (10, 18), empathy, and prosociality (11), but these tendencies appear limited to individuals belonging to one's in-group (16, 17).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [10] Baumgartner T, Heinrichs M, Vonlanthen A, Fischbacher U, Fehr E. Oxytocin shapes the neural circuitry of trust and trust adaptation in humans. Neuron. 2008;58:639–650. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
This source is cited for trust, not for empathy, prosociality, or the in-group qualification, which have separate citations. The Summary (p. 2) reports that participants given oxytocin did not reduce their trusting behavior after repeated breaches of trust, unlike participants given placebo. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites [18] Kosfeld M, Heinrichs M, Zak PJ, Fischbacher U, Fehr E. Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature. 2005;435:673–676. doi: 10.1038/nature03701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The citation to this paper is attached to trust, not to empathy, prosociality, or the in-group limitation. The LETTERS section reports that intranasal oxytocin caused a substantial increase in trusting behaviour in the study's human subjects. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [11] Rodrigues SM, Saslow LR, Garcia N, John OP, Keltner D. Oxytocin receptor genetic variation relates to empathy and stress reactivity in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:21437–21441. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909579106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The introductory passage in our copy (labeled Abstract) reports that oxytocin administration increases trust, generosity, and the ability to infer others’ affective states in humans. It also reports associations between oxytocin levels and empathy and generosity toward strangers. The in-group limitation is attributed to other citations in the citing sentence, not to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.92)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Indeed, intranasal administration of oxytocin in humans promotes trust and cooperation (11, 16–19), although such effects may be limited to in-group members and do not extend toward out-groups (16, 17).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [11] Rodrigues SM, Saslow LR, Garcia N, John OP, Keltner D. Oxytocin receptor genetic variation relates to empathy and stress reactivity in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:21437–21441. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909579106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports that intranasal oxytocin increases trust and generosity in humans, and the Discussion says it improves prosocial behaviors. The paper does not specifically report increased cooperation, so that part of the claim is not established by this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked yetcites [16] De Dreu CKW, et al. The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science. 2010;328:1408–1411. doi: 10.1126/science.1189047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] Declerck CH, Boone C, Kiyonari T. Oxytocin and cooperation under conditions of uncertainty: The modulating role of incentives and social information. Horm Behav. 2010;57:368–374. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.01.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Partly supportedcites [18] Kosfeld M, Heinrichs M, Zak PJ, Fischbacher U, Fehr E. Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature. 2005;435:673–676. doi: 10.1038/nature03701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and LETTERS sections report that intranasal oxytocin increased trusting behavior in a human trust game. The LETTERS section also says it did not increase trustees’ reciprocal behavior or a general inclination to behave prosocially, so this paper does not establish the broader claim that it promotes cooperation. The in-group qualification is cited to other sources, not this one. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [19] Israel S, et al. The oxytocin receptor (OXTR) contributes to prosocial fund allocations in the dictator game and the social value orientations task. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e5535. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction reports that intranasal oxytocin increased trusting behavior in humans and increased transfers in the Ultimatum Game. It also says there was no effect in the Dictator Game, so the paper does not establish the broader claim that intranasal oxytocin promotes cooperation generally. This paper's own study concerns OXTR genetics, not intranasal administration. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evidence was obtained in experiment 1, and to a lesser extent in experiment 2, where we gauged ethnocentrism through implicit measures that tap into biases operating outside of volitional control (45).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Follow-up analyses showed that this effect of oxytocin on intergroup bias was driven by in-group favoritism: associations between secondary emotions and in-group targets were stronger when participants received oxytocin rather than placebo, F(1, 64) = 4.654, P < 0.035.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Preliminary analyses revealed no effects for the valence factor, all F(1, 64) < 1.02, P > 0.450, or for the order in which blocks were presented, all F(1, 64) < 1, P > 0.782.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Put differently, oxytocin motivated in-group favoritism both when an intergroup comparison was salient (experiments 1 and 2) and when such an intergroup comparison was substantially more implicit (experiments 3–5).”
plaindirectn = 5- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with placebo, participants given oxytocin displayed more in-group positivity (M = −0.832 vs. M = −0.587) and more out-group negativity (M = 0.679 vs. M = 0.397).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with placebo, participants given oxytocin displayed more in-group positivity (M = −0.993 vs. M = −0.846) and more out-group negativity (M = 0.929 vs. M = 0.673).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These effects were replicated in experiment 2 (with Germans as out-group): Both the bias and the bias × treatment effects were significant, F(1, 68) = 323.29, P < 0.0001, and F(1, 68) = 5.08, P < 0.027, respectively.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In experiment 1 (with Arabs as out-group), we found a main effect for bias, F(1, 61) = 155.61, P < 0.001, and a bias × treatment interaction, F(1, 61) = 6.95, P < 0.011.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because it motivates in-group favoritism and, in some cases, out-group derogation.”
plaindirectn = 5- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These hypotheses were tested in five experiments, all using double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled between-subjects designs (Materials and Methods).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Such in-group favoritism signals loyalty and positive commitment to the group, thus rendering the ethnocentric individual a reliable and trustworthy partner.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] Brewer MB. The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? J Soc Issues. 1999;55:429–444. [Google Scholar]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This possibility questions the rather widespread view of oxytocin as a “cuddle chemical” or “love drug” (24).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] Miller G. The prickly side of oxytocin. Science. 2010;328:1343. doi: 10.1126/science.328.5984.1343-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Oxytocin interacts with dopaminergic, reward-processing circuits in the nucleus accumbens shell and in the ventral tegmental area (13) and exerts anxiolytic effects via direct activation of oxytocin receptors expressed in serotonergic neurons of the raphe nuclei (14, 15).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [13] Skuse DH, Gallagher L. Dopaminergic-neuropeptide interactions in the social brain. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009;13:27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Here we conjecture that human ethnocentrism may be motivated by brain oxytocin, a peptide that is produced in the hypothalamus and released into the bloodstream from axon terminals and into the brain from dendrites of hypothalamic neurons (9).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Hatton GI. Emerging concepts of structure-function dynamics in adult brain: The hypothalamo-neurohypophysial system. Prog Neurobiol. 1990;34:437–504. doi: 10.1016/0301-0082(90)90017-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“where we gauged ethnocentrism through implicit measures that tap into biases operating outside of volitional control (45).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [45] Fazio RH, Olson MA. Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:297–327. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings provide evidence for the idea that neurobiological mechanisms in general, and oxytocinergic systems in particular, evolved to sustain and facilitate within-group coordination and cooperation.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Evidence for this possibility would be consistent with work showing that oxytocin in non-human mammals promotes territoriality and aggression toward intruders (25–27) and with studies showing that humans given oxytocin display more schadenfreude when interpersonal competition is lost and more gloating when interpersonal competition is won (28).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Bosch OJ, Meddle SL, Beiderbeck DI, Douglas AJ, Neumann ID. Brain oxytocin correlates with maternal aggression: Link to anxiety. J Neurosci. 2005;25:6807–6815. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1342-05.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [26] Campbell A. Attachment, aggression and affiliation: The role of oxytocin in female social behavior. Biol Psychol. 2008;77:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [27] Pedersen CA. Biological aspects of social bonding and the roots of human violence. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004;1036:106–127. doi: 10.1196/annals.1330.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, rather than making humans prosocial, oxytocin functions to strengthen an evolutionary evolved and rather functional tendency to discriminate between in-group and out-group as well as to give members of one's own group preferential treatment.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Experiments 1 (n = 63) and 2 (n = 70) used the Implicit Association Test (IAT), an established technique to assess implicit social valuation (35–37).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] Greenwald AG, Poehlman TA, Uhlmann EL, Banaji MR. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97:17–41. doi: 10.1037/a0015575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] Beer JS, et al. The Quadruple Process model approach to examining the neural underpinnings of prejudice. Neuroimage. 2008;43:775–783. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.08.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [37] Weisbuch M, Pauker K, Ambady N. The subtle transmission of race bias via televised nonverbal behavior. Science. 2009;326:1711–1714. doi: 10.1126/science.1178358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In-groups are psychologically primary—people live in them and, sometimes, for them (47)—and in-group favoritism has strong adaptive value and facilitates within-group coordination and survival.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [47] Allport GW. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley; 1954. [Google Scholar]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Oxytocin interacts with dopaminergic, reward-processing circuits in the nucleus accumbens shell and in the ventral tegmental area (13) and exerts anxiolytic effects via direct activation of oxytocin receptors expressed in serotonergic neurons of the raphe nuclei (14, 15).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Yoshida M, et al. Evidence that oxytocin exerts anxiolytic effects via oxytocin receptor expressed in serotonergic neurons in mice. J Neurosci. 2009;29:2259–2271. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5593-08.2009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Veenema AH, Blume A, Niederle D, Buwalda B, Neumann ID. Effects of early life stress on adult male aggression and hypothalamic vasopressin and serotonin. Eur J Neurosci. 2006;24:1711–1720. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.05045.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such ethnocentrism has adaptive value to individuals and their groups but, unfortunately, also paves the way for intergroup bias, conflict, and violence.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This finding resonates with work showing that testosterone in humans reduces automatic fear responses but not volitionally controlled, self-reports of anxiety (46).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [46] van Honk J, Peper JS, Schutter DJ. Testosterone reduces unconscious fear but not consciously experienced anxiety: Implications for the disorders of fear and anxiety. Biol Psychiatry. 2005;58:218–225. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Indeed, intranasal administration of oxytocin in humans promotes trust and cooperation (11, 16–19), although such effects may be limited to in-group members and do not extend toward out-groups (16, 17).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] De Dreu CKW, et al. The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science. 2010;328:1408–1411. doi: 10.1126/science.1189047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] Declerck CH, Boone C, Kiyonari T. Oxytocin and cooperation under conditions of uncertainty: The modulating role of incentives and social information. Horm Behav. 2010;57:368–374. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.01.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within each set of three (positive/negative valence × secondary/primary emotion), ratings were averaged (interitem reliabilities 0.75 < α < 0.84).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Evidence for this possibility would be consistent with work showing that oxytocin in non-human mammals promotes territoriality and aggression toward intruders (25–27) and with studies showing that humans given oxytocin display more schadenfreude when interpersonal competition is lost and more gloating when interpersonal competition is won (28).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] Shamay-Tsoory SG, et al. Intranasal administration of oxytocin increases envy and schadenfreude (gloating) Biol Psychiatry. 2009;66:864–870. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Alternatively, it may be that intergroup bias is driven more by in-group favoritism and that out-group derogation plays a relatively minor role.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Current findings on the role of oxytocin fit this positive–negative asymmetry, showing that oxytocin creates intergroup bias primarily because it motivates in-group favoritism and not because it motivates out-group derogation.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Again, support was found for the hypotheses that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because it motivates in-group favoritism.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This notion is further supported by the fact that oxytocin modulated in-group favoritism across different measures and generalizes across the two natural out-groups studied here.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Such out-group derogation signals to in-group members who should be excluded from in-group resources and exchanges, and reduces the probability that in-group resources are inadvertently extended to out-groups (1–6).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] Brewer MB. The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? J Soc Issues. 1999;55:429–444. [Google Scholar]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked yetcites [2] Efferson C, Lalive R, Fehr E. The coevolution of cultural groups and ingroup favoritism. Science. 2008;321:1844–1849. doi: 10.1126/science.1155805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
- Not matchedcites [3] Fiske ST. What we know now about bias and intergroup conflict, the problem of the century. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2002;11:123–128. [Google Scholar]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Yzerbyt V, Demoulin S. Intergroup relations. In: Fiske ST, et al., editors. Handbook of Social Psychology. 5th Ed. Vol. 1. New York: Wiley; 2010. pp. 1024–1083. [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] Neuberg S, Kenrick DT, Schaller M. Evolutionary social psychology. In: Fiske ST, et al., editors. Handbook of Social Psychology. 5th Ed. Vol. 2. New York: Wiley; 2010. pp. 761–797. [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Hammond A, Axelrod RA. The evolution of ethnocentrism. J Conflict Resolut. 2006;50:926–936. [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To avoid any subjective effects (for example, olfactory effects) other than those caused by oxytocin, the placebo contained all of the active ingredients except for the neuropeptide.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Such negative stereotypes and prejudice against Germans may be traced back to a long history of rivalry and intergroup competition between Germany and The Netherlands (34).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] Leach CW, Spears R, Branscombe NR, Doosje B. Malicious pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84:932–943. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.932. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sixty-six participants in experiment 5 also participated in experiment 3, with experimental sessions being counterbalanced in order of appearance and intersected by a series of questionnaires on political values and opinions (order of presentation had no effects).”
plainn = 6- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“complementary findings point to the same conclusion as those reported above, namely that oxytocin promotes ethnocentric valuation of the in-group and devaluation of the out-group.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Experiments were approved by the University of Amsterdam ethics committee and complied with American Psychological Association guidelines.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Informed consent was obtained from all participants before the experiment.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such ethnocentrism has adaptive value to individuals and their groups but, unfortunately, also paves the way for intergroup bias, conflict, and violence.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instructions guaranteed complete anonymity.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants read and signed an informed consent and were instructed to self-administer the medication (placebo or oxytocin, double-blind randomized) under experimenter supervision.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“To conform with prior research showing that effects of oxytocin peak after ∼30–40 min (10, 16, 18), after 38–42 min, the computer switched to the experimental task (lasting 15–20 min).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Baumgartner T, Heinrichs M, Vonlanthen A, Fischbacher U, Fehr E. Oxytocin shapes the neural circuitry of trust and trust adaptation in humans. Neuron. 2008;58:639–650. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [16] De Dreu CKW, et al. The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science. 2010;328:1408–1411. doi: 10.1126/science.1189047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [18] Kosfeld M, Heinrichs M, Zak PJ, Fischbacher U, Fehr E. Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature. 2005;435:673–676. doi: 10.1038/nature03701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In 2005, the Pew Global Project found that 51% of Dutch citizens had unfavorable opinions about Muslims (30), job applicants were more often rejected immediately when their resume listed them with an Arab rather than Dutch name (31), and Moroccan adolescent males were the target of negative stereotyping and more or less subtle derogation by their indigenous Dutch counterparts (32).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] Derous E, Nguyen H-H, Ryan AM. Hiring discrimination against Arab minorities: Interactions between prejudice and job characteristics. Hum Perform. 2009;22:297–320. [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, the only difference between the placebo and treatment was the absence versus presence of the active neuropeptide.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
The findings from indigenous Dutch male participants generalize to humans generally.
“Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism”
“Indigenous Dutch males sat in individual cubicles, and were guaranteed anonymity.”
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?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“OT administration also promotes motivation to sacrifice outgroup targets (De Dreu et al., 2011) and facilitates within-group coordination for successful outgroup attack during economic games (Zhang et al., 2019).”
From A neurobiological association of revenge propensity during intergroup conflict (2020) · cites this paper as De Dreu et al., 2011
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Previous studies(14) showed that unextinguished emotional experiences elicit an ongoing need to be shared)”
From Is there a Publication Bias in Behavioural Intranasal Oxytocin Research on Humans? Opening the File Drawer of One Laboratory (2016) · cites this paper as [14]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Although previous studies have demonstrated the role of OT and mPFC activity in altruistic decisions favoring the ingroup (De Dreu et al., 2010; Mathur et al., 2010; De Dreu et al., 2011), our results suggest that the context of intergroup conflict may shift the key function of the oxytocinergic system from mediating ingroup love (a desire to help the ingroup) to facilitating outgroup hate (an Agg”
From A neurobiological association of revenge propensity during intergroup conflict (2020) · cites this paper as De Dreu et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“For example, intranasal oxytocin has been shown to improve altruism only for people perceived to be part of an individual's group, and not for people perceived to be part of an out-group (De Dreu et al., 2010; De Dreu et al., 2011).”
From Acute intranasal oxytocin improves positive self-perceptions of personality (2012) · cites this paper as De Dreu et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“It has been reported that oxytocin not only motivates in-group favoritism, but also has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence 40 .”
From Ucn3 and CRF-R2 in the medial amygdala regulate complex social dynamics (2016) · cites this paper as [40]
In the citing paper
“to enhance a general ethnocentric bias (De Dreu et al., 2011)”
From Oxytocin promotes altruistic punishment (2017) · cites this paper as De Dreu et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“Oxytocin administration also appears to increase polarized social behaviors in humans, e.g., in-group favoritism (De Dreu et al., 2011)”
From Approaching the biology of human parental attachment: Brain imaging, oxytocin and coordinated assessments of mothers and fathers (2014) · cites this paper as De Dreu et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“ethnocentrism [7]”
From A direct examination of the effect of intranasal administration of oxytocin on approach-avoidance motor responses to emotional stimuli (2013) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“De Dreu et al (2011) reported that in-group favouritism was increased by oxytocin”
From Propranolol reduces implicit negative racial bias (2012) · cites this paper as De Dreu et al (2011)
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(1, 73) = 2.76, P < 0.10”
Reported p < .1 · recomputed p = .101
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(1, 64) = 1.319, P < 0.225”
Reported p < .225 · recomputed p = .255
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.
- Doesn’t add upF(1, 64) = 1.319reported p < .225 · recomputed p = .255
“F(1, 64) = 1.319, p < .225”
- Doesn’t add upF(1, 73) = 2.76reported p < .1 · recomputed p = .101
“F(1, 73) = 2.76, p < .10”
- Not confirmedF(1, 61) = 5.51reported p < .022 · recomputed p = .022
“F(1, 61) = 5.51, p < .022”
- Not confirmedF(1, 68) = 5.08reported p < .027 · recomputed p = .027
“F(1, 68) = 5.08, p < .027”
- Not confirmedF(1, 68) = 3.46reported p < .067 · recomputed p = .067
“F(1, 68) = 3.46, p < .067”
- Not confirmedF(1, 64) = 7.95reported p < .006 · recomputed p = .006
“F(1, 64) = 7.95, p < .006”
- Not confirmedF(1, 67) = 6.78reported p < .011 · recomputed p = .011
“F(1, 67) = 6.78, p < .011”
- Not confirmedF(1, 73) = 9.33reported p < .003 · recomputed p = .003
“F(1, 73) = 9.33, p < .003”
- Not confirmedF(1, 74) = 9.33reported p < .003 · recomputed p = .003
“F(1, 74) = 9.33, p < .003”
- Not confirmedF(1, 74) = 4.95reported p < .029 · recomputed p = .029
“F(1, 74) = 4.95, p < .029”
- ConsistentF(1, 61) = 155.61reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 61) = 155.61, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 61) = 6.95reported p < .011 · recomputed p = .011
“F(1, 61) = 6.95, p < .011”
- ConsistentF(1, 61) = 4.95reported p < .03 · recomputed p = .030
“F(1, 61) = 4.95, p < .030”
- ConsistentF(1, 68) = 323.29reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 68) = 323.29, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 68) = 4.5reported p < .038 · recomputed p = .038
“F(1, 68) = 4.50, p < .038”
- ConsistentF(1, 64) < 1.02reported p > .45 · recomputed p = .316
“F(1, 64) < 1.02, p > .450”
- ConsistentF(1, 64) < 1reported p > .782 · recomputed p = .321
“F(1, 64) < 1, p > .782”
- ConsistentF(1, 64) = 88.44reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 64) = 88.44, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 64) = 135.97reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 64) = 135.97, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 64) = 132.59reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 64) = 132.59, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 64) = 12.92reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 64) = 12.92, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 64) = 340.45reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 64) = 340.45, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 64) = 4.73reported p < .034 · recomputed p = .033
“F(1, 64) = 4.73, p < .034”
- ConsistentF(1, 64) = 4.654reported p < .035 · recomputed p = .035
“F(1, 64) = 4.654, p < .035”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 8.14reported p < .006 · recomputed p = .006
“F(1, 67) = 8.14, p < .006”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 53.4reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 67) = 53.40, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 4.8reported p < .032 · recomputed p = .032
“F(1, 67) = 4.80, p < .032”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) < 1.98reported p > .17 · recomputed p = .164
“F(1, 67) < 1.98, p > .17”
- ConsistentF(1, 67) = 12.08reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 67) = 12.08, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 68) = 17.27reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 68) = 17.27, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 68) = 1.17reported p < .284 · recomputed p = .283
“F(1, 68) = 1.17, p < .284”
- ConsistentF(1, 68) = 4.11reported p < .047 · recomputed p = .047
“F(1, 68) = 4.11, p < .047”
- ConsistentF(1, 68) = 1.37reported p < .247 · recomputed p = .246
“F(1, 68) = 1.37, p < .247”
- ConsistentF(1, 73) = 46.86reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 73) = 46.86, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 73) = 4.43reported p < .039 · recomputed p = .039
“F(1, 73) = 4.43, p < .039”
- ConsistentF(1, 73) < 1.39reported p > .21 · recomputed p = .242
“F(1, 73) < 1.39, p > .21”
- ConsistentF(1, 74) = 0.16reported p < .694 · recomputed p = .690
“F(1, 74) = 0.16, p < .694”
- ConsistentF(1, 74) = 1.36reported p < .248 · recomputed p = .247
“F(1, 74) = 1.36, p < .248”
- ConsistentF(1, 68) = 323.29reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 68) = 323.29, p < .0001”
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.
Citations
Cites
(1954) · Cited by 15,935
Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197 · Cited by 5,815
An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1062872 · Cited by 4,561
Oxytocin increases trust in humans
Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03701 · Cited by 3,690
The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate?
Brewer, M. B. (1999) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00126 · Cited by 3,494
Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.107.3.411 · Cited by 3,308
Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity.
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015575 · Cited by 3,257
The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment
Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027 · Cited by 2,620
(2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-6626 · Cited by 2,234
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109 · Cited by 2,031
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- C Darwin The Descent of Man (Appleton, New York, 1873).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Oxytocin and vasopressin in the human brain: social neuropeptides for translational medicine
Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Domes, G., Kirsch, P., & Heinrichs, M. (2011) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3044 · Cited by 1,688
The origins and nature of compassion focused therapy
Gilbert, P. (2014) · British Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjc.12043 · Cited by 1,593
Social effects of oxytocin in humans: context and person matter
Bartz, J. A., Zaki, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. N. (2011) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.002 · Cited by 1,581
Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis
Balliet, D., Wu, J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0037737 · Cited by 1,126
The Social Salience Hypothesis of Oxytocin
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., & Abu-Akel, A. (2016) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.07.020 · Cited by 904
“Support for this account comes from studies demonstrating a role for OT in regulating parochial altruism (12), ethnocentrism and increase in-ingroup preference (61), in-group conformity (62), as well as”
Metadata
- Authors
- De Dreu, C. K. W., Greer, L. L., Van Kleef, G. A., Shalvi, S., & Handgraaf, M. J. J.
- Affiliations
- Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2011-01-10
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1262-1266
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC3029708
- OpenAlex
- W2155020127
- Cited by
- 870
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 101 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 62 · 2014: 84 · 2013: 65 · 2012: 44
- FWCI
- 27.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Keywords
- oxytocin, ethnocentrism, intergroup bias, in-group favoritism, outgroup derogation, prejudice, xenophobia, infrahumanization, cooperation, Implicit Association Test, collective sacrifice, intergroup conflict, intergroup violence
- MeSH terms
- Choice Behavior, Cooperative Behavior, Double-Blind Method, Emotions, Humans, Male, Oxytocin, Social Behavior, Task Performance and Analysis, Codependency, Psychological, 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 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (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
