OT promotes closer interpersonal distance among highly empathic individuals

May combine two claims.

No significant effects were found for treatment or empathy (both Fs<1).

“No significant effects were found for treatment or empathy (both Fs < 1);”

May combine two claims.

OT decreased the mean distance from self to other in the high empathy group (PL=26.11, OT=23.29) and had an opposite effect in the low empathy group, increasing preferred distance (PL=26.98, OT=30.20).

“This interaction indicated that although OT decreased the mean distance from self to other in the high empathy group (with placebo (PL) ¼ 26.11, with OT ¼ 23.29), it had an opposite effect in the low empathy group, increasing the preferred distance between self and other (with PL ¼ 26.98, with OT ¼ 30.20; Figure 3).”

May combine two claims.

Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons revealed that all comparisons were highly significant (P<0.001), except authority vs stranger (P<0.05) and friend vs ball (P=0.07).

“Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons revealed that all comparisons were highly significant (P 0.001), with the exception of authority vs stranger (P < 0.05), and friend vs ball, which only reached significance (P ¼ 0.07).”

May combine two claims.

A third-order interaction in the CID experiment revealed that in the high empathy group, in addition to significant differences between friend on one hand and stranger and authority figures on the other, OT further differentiated between the approaching ball and these two figures.

“A third-order interaction revealed that in the high empathy group, in addition to significant differences between friend on the one hand and the stranger and authority figures on the other, OT further differentiated between the approaching ball and these two figures.”

May combine two claims.

A validation study conducted in the authors' lab (n=30 men) did not confirm that a ball entering a room is considered more social or interpersonal than a stranger or authority figure; it showed the ball was considered the least social or interpersonal protagonist, followed by the authority figure, the stranger, and the friend.

“However, a validation study conducted in our lab (n ¼ 30 men) did not confirm this interpretation, and indeed showed that the ball was considered the least social or interpersonal protagonist, followed by the authority figure, the stranger and the friend.”

May combine two claims.

In separate ANOVAs for chairs and tables in Experiment 2, the treatment × empathy interaction was significant only for the chairs condition (F(1,37)=4.06, P=0.05) and not for the tables (P>0.4).

“we ran separate ANOVAs for the chairs and tables conditions, revealing that the treatment  empathy interaction was significant only for the chairs condition [F(1,37) ¼ 4.06, P ¼ 0.05], and not for the tables (P > 0.4).”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 2, separate t-tests for each empathy group showed the difference approached significance (P=0.079) only in the high empathy group, not in the low empathy group (P=0.28).

“Separate t-tests for each empathy group revealed that this difference approached significance (P ¼ 0.079) only in the high empathy group, but not in the low empathy group (P ¼ 0.28; Figure 4).”

May combine two claims.

Separate ANOVAs revealed that the treatment x condition interaction was significant for the high empathy group [F(3,57)=4.92, P=0.005], but not for the low empathy group (P=0.18).

“Separate ANOVAs for the high and low empathy groups revealed that the treatment  condition interaction was significant for the high empathy group [F(3,57) ¼ 4.92, P ¼ 0.005], but not for the low empathy group (P ¼ 0.18).”

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

In Experiment 2, analysis of averaged preferred angles showed no significant effects or interactions (all Fs < 1, except the third-order interaction condition × treatment × empathy, F(1,37)=2.13, P=1.5).

“There were no significant effects or interactions [all Fs < 1, except for the third-order interaction, condition  treatment  empathy, in which F(1,37) ¼ 2.13, P ¼ 1.5].”

May combine two claims.

With OT in the high empathy group, the same differences appeared (friend=8.49, authority=30.55, stranger=39.73; P<0.001 for both pairs), along with significant differences between ball (14.42) and stranger (P=0.005) and ball and authority (P<0.05).

“With OT, the same differences appeared (friend ¼ 8.49, authority ¼ 30.55, stranger ¼ 39.73; P < 0.001 for both pairs), along with significant differences between ball (14.42) and stranger (P ¼ 0.005) and ball and authority (P < 0.05, Table 1).”

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

In Experiment 2 choosing rooms, there was a significant effect of condition (chairs vs tables) on preferred distance, with mean distance for chairs 79.28 and for tables 261.46, F(1,37)=31,287, P<0.001.

“A significant effect was found for condition [mean distance chairs ¼ 79.28, mean distance tables ¼ 261.46;F(1,37) ¼ 31,287, P < 0.001]”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 2 choosing rooms, there was no main effect of treatment and no significant second-order interactions (all Fs < 1).

“There was no main effect for treatment and no significant second-order interactions [all Fs < 1].”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 2, the treatment × empathy interaction showed that high empathy participants chose closer chair distances following OT (PL=80.58, OT=78.07), while low empathy participants showed the opposite (PL=78.33, OT=80.14).

“this interaction revealed that although those in the high empathy group chose closer chair distances following OT administration (with PL ¼ 80.58, with OT ¼ 78.07), the opposite was true for those in the low empathy group (with PL ¼ 78.33, with OT ¼ 80.14).”

May combine two claims.

In an exploratory investigation, all four IRI subscales were highly positively correlated in the authors' group, and the above effects do not seem to be specifically driven by one of the factors.

“Note that in an exploratory investigation, all four subscales were highly positively correlated in our group, and the above effects do not seem to be specifically driven by one of the factors.”

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

Unpublished results from the authors' lab, using the same paradigms without OT, show similar behavioral results in female participants.

“Unpublished results from our lab, using the same paradigms without OT, show similar behavioral results in female participants.”

May combine two claims.

Amygdala lesions dramatically reduce the need for interpersonal distance, and amygdala activity in healthy individuals is correlated with feeling uncomfortable at a close interpersonal distance.

“Research has shown that lesions to the amygdala dramatically reduce the need for interpersonal distance, and that amygdala activity in healthy individuals is correlated with feeling uncomfortable at a close interpersonal distance (Kennedy et al., 2009).”

• cites Kennedy et al., 2009 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

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

OT plays an essential role in the regulation of social behavior and social cognition in animals and humans, often facilitating pro-social and approach behaviors.

“OT has been suggested as playing an essential role in the regulation of social behavior and social cognition in animals and in humans (see Meyer-Lindenberg et al., 2011;Van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2012 for reviews), often facilitating pro-social and approach behaviors (Kemp and Guastella, 2011;Striepens et al., 2011).”

• cites Meyer-Lindenberg et al., 2011 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2012Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Kemp and Guastella, 2011 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

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

Levels of social anxiety are correlated with preferred interpersonal distance, such that individuals with greater social anxiety traits prefer to stay further away from others.

“Recent research has shown that levels of social anxiety are correlated with preferred interpersonal distance, such that individuals with greater social anxiety traits prefer to stay further away from others (Scheele et al., 2012;Perry et al., 2013).”

• cites Scheele et al., 2012 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Perry et al., 2013 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

OT does not always promote approach behaviors; its effects depend on context and individual differences.

“Yet OT does not always promote approach behaviors, and has been shown to be dependent both on context and on individual differences.For example, in some contexts OT has been shown to promote risk aversion (Declerck et al., 2010), envy (Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2009) and lack of cooperation with perceived out-group members (De Dreu et al., 2010).”

• cites Declerck et al., 2010 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2009 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites De Dreu et al., 2010 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Neither the experimenter nor the participant knew whether the participant had received OT or placebo.

“Neither the experimenter nor the participant knew whether the participant had received the OT or the placebo.”

May combine two claims.

Neuroimaging studies reveal differential activation in amygdala regions following OT administration during social compared with non-social tasks, and enhanced EEG mu/alpha and beta suppression in response to biological vs non-biological motion following OT administration.

“Some of these studies reveal differential activation in amygdala regions following OT administration while participating in social compared with non-social tasks (Kirsch et al., 2005;Domes et al., 2007), and others reveal enhanced Electroencephalography mu/alpha and beta suppression in response to biological vs non-biological motion following OT administration (Perry et al., 2010).”

• cites Kirsch et al., 2005 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Domes et al., 2007 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Perry et al., 2010 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

Individual differences in empathy affect the way people recognize facial expressions and react emotionally to social cues.

“Remarkably, individual differences in empathy have been shown to affect the way people recognize facial expressions (Besel and Yuille, 2010) and react emotionally to social cues (Eisenberg and Miller, 1987), suggesting that empathic abilities may shape the way we process social cues.”

• cites Besel and Yuille, 2010Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Eisenberg and Miller, 1987 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Participants were randomly administered either OT or placebo.

“During each appointment, each participant was randomly administered either a solution of 24 international units in 250 ml of intranasal (IN) OT (Sigma) or a sterile saline solution for the placebo treatment (the same salt solution in which the hormone was dissolved but without the hormone itself).”

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

The order of the experiments was counterbalanced among the participants.

“The order of the experiments was counterbalanced among the participants.”

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

The CID paradigm is a widely used validated paradigm, previously tested on different sex and age groups, and modulated using different protagonists.

“This is a widely used validated paradigm (Little, 1965;Duke and Kiebach, 1974), which has been previously tested on different sex and age groups (e.g.Duke et al., 1974;Tennis and Dabbs, 1975), and modulated using different protagonists (Nechamkin et al., 2003).”

• cites Little, 1965 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Duke and Kiebach, 1974Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Duke et al., 1974Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

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

Scheele et al. (2012) reported that OT increased preferred interpersonal distance between the self and an attractive woman, but only among men in a monogamous relationship and in the physical presence of female but not male experimenters; OT had no effect on single men and no effect in promoting closer interpersonal distance.

“In a recent study, Scheele et al. (2012) reported that administration of OT increased the preferred interpersonal distance between the self and an attractive woman, but only among men in a monogamous relationship and in the physical presence of female but not male experimenters.OT had no effect on single men participants and no effect in promoting 'closer' interpersonal distance.”

• cites Scheele et al., 2012 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

The second experiment's paradigm is original, previously tested in the lab (in preparation) and shown to significantly predict CID scores.

“This is an original paradigm, previously tested in our lab (in preparation) and shown to significantly predict CID scores (see Results).”

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

The social salience hypothesis suggests that OT alters the perceptual salience and/or the processing of social cues.

“The social salience hypothesis, a recent leading hypotheses about the mechanism underlying the social effects of OT, has attempted to explain these conflicting reports by suggesting that OT alters the perceptual salience and/or the processing of social cues (Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2009;Bartz et al., 2011).”

• cites Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2009 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Bartz et al., 2011Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

Participants with high empathy traits preferred closer interpersonal distances following OT administration, whereas an opposite trend was revealed among participants with low empathy traits.

“Participants with high empathy traits preferred closer interpersonal distances following OT administration, whereas an opposite trend was revealed among participants with low empathy traits.”

May combine two claims.

OT did not affect one's general distance preferences, but only those with social implications.

“In other words, OT did not affect one's general distance preferences, but only those with social implications.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: In the choosing rooms task, the distance between chairs is an interpersonal/social distance, whereas the distance between table and plant is not.

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

Perceived threat from others is considered one of the most salient factors mediating the equilibrium between interpersonal distance and social interaction.

“Perceived threat from others is considered to be one of the most salient factors in mediating the equilibrium between interpersonal distance and social interaction (Lloyd, 2009).”

• cites Lloyd, 2009 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

The two tasks (CID and choosing rooms) are correlated but seem to measure slightly different constructs.

“As mentioned in the Introduction and validated in the Results section, these two tasks are correlated but seem to measure slightly different constructs.”

May combine two claims.

In the choosing rooms experiment, the treatment × empathy interaction was relevant only in an interpersonal context (choosing distances between chairs) and had no effect on choices of distances of the plant and table.

“In the choosing rooms experiment, as predicted, a third-order interaction revealed that the interaction of treatment  empathy was relevant only in an interpersonal context in which participants had to choose between distances between the chairs, with no effect on choices of distances of the plant and table.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: In the choosing rooms task, the distance between chairs is an interpersonal/social distance, whereas the distance between table and plant is not.

May combine two claims.

The same results were replicated in two different interpersonal distance experiments, and the authors believe they reveal a true effect.

“Nevertheless, as the same results were replicated in two different interpersonal distance experiments, we believe that they reveal a true effect.”

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

Previous research has shown modest effects of OT on people suffering from social deficits, such as autism spectrum disorders, schizophrenia, or social anxiety disorder.

“Previous research has shown modest effects of OT on people suffering from social deficits, such as autism spectrum disorders (Hollander et al., 2007), schizophrenia (Pedersen et al., 2011) or social anxiety disorder (Guastella et al., 2009).”

• cites Hollander et al., 2007 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Pedersen et al., 2011 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites Guastella et al., 2009 sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

The current findings substantially support the social salience hypothesis, highlighting that individual difference moderators play a crucial role in determining what type of effect OT will have on social cognition and behavior.

“the current findings substantially support the social salience hypothesis, highlighting the notion that individual difference moderators play a crucial role in determining what type of effect OT will have on social cognition and behavior.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

The use of computerized experiments rather than a real-life setting ensures all participants see the exact same stimuli and perform the same procedures again a week later, but loses ecological validity.

“While ensuring all participants see the exact same stimuli and perform the same procedures again a week later, we lose ecological validity.”

May combine two claims.

Despite differing demands, the common denominator between the two tasks is interpersonal distance, and the findings of the effect of OT on interpersonal distance preferences in the two tasks were strikingly similar.

“Despite the differing demands, the common denominator between these tasks is interpersonal distance, and indeed the findings of the effect of OT on interpersonal distance preferences in the two tasks were strikingly similar.”

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

Significant results emerged only in third-order interactions (in the high empathy group in interaction with different conditions), making the results harder to interpret, especially considering the complexity of the design and the number of participants.

“Significant results emerged again only in third-order interactions, i.e. in the high empathy group in interaction with the different conditions, making the results harder to interpret, especially when considering the complexity of the design and the number of participants in the study.”

May combine two claims.

The authors' results suggest that at least in some cases OT does not have a general effect on improving social behavior, but may actually strengthen patients' initial social biases.

“as our results suggest that at least in some cases OT does not have a general effect on improving social behavior, but may actually strengthen patients' initial social biases.”