CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 134Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Is there a Publication Bias in Behavioural Intranasal Oxytocin Research on Humans? Opening the File Drawer of One Laboratory

Open access
Lane, A., Luminet, O., Nave, G., Mikolajczak, M.·2016·Journal of Neuroendocrinology
DOI 10.1111/jne.12384
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The neurohormone oxytocin (OT) has been one the most studied peptides in behavioural sciences over the past two decades. Primarily known for its crucial role in labour and lactation, a rapidly growing literature suggests that intranasal OT (IN‐OT) may also play a role in the emotional and social lives of humans. However, the lack of a convincing theoretical framework explaining the effects of IN‐OT that would also allow the prediction of which moderators exert their effects and when has raised healthy skepticism regarding the robustness of human behavioural IN‐OT research. Poor knowledge of the exact pharmacokinetic properties of OT, as well as crucial statistical and methodological issues and the absence of direct replication efforts, may have lead to a publication bias in the IN‐OT literature, with many unpublished studies with null results remaining buried in laboratory drawers. Is there a file drawer problem in IN‐OT research? If this is the case, it may also be true in our own laboratory. The present study aims to answer this question, document the extent of the problem and discuss its implications for OT research. For eight studies (including 13 dependent variables overall, as assessed through 25 different paradigms) performed in our laboratory between 2009 and 2014 on 453 subjects, the results obtained were too often not those that were expected. Only five publications emerged from our studies and only one of these reported a null finding. After realising that our publication portfolio has become less and less representative of our actual findings and because the nonpublication of our data might contribute to generating a publication bias in IN‐OT research, we decided to retrieve these studies from our drawer and encourage other laboratories to do the same.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper opens one laboratory’s file drawer of eight intranasal oxytocin (IN-OT) studies conducted from 2009–2014 on 453 subjects, covering 13 dependent variables and 25 paradigms. The authors report that only one of 25 tasks showed a significant main IN-OT effect and five showed significant interactions, arguing this is consistent with a publication bias/file-drawer problem in behavioral IN-OT research.

Key findings

  • Across eight studies, only one of 25 tasks showed a statistically significant main IN-OT effect, and only five of 25 tasks showed a significant interaction including treatment condition (OT vs. placebo).
  • Meta-analysis of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral effects (excluding sleep and pain) yielded an aggregate effect not reliably different from zero: Cohen’s d = 0.003 [95% CI: -0.10; 0.10]. Subgroup aggregates were also null: behaviors d = 0.09 [-0.07; 0.25], affects d = -0.003 [-0.20; 0.24], cognitions d = 0.1 [-0.32; 0.13]; theory-based aggregates were null: prosocial d = -0.04 [-0.13; 0.06], social salience d = -0.01 [-0.11; 0.10], social approach d = -0.002 [-0.11; 0.11].
  • Only 13 of 25 task effect sizes reached the lower bound of a small effect (Cohen’s d > 0.2); one reached moderate (d > 0.5); one reached large (d > 0.8) but failed to replicate twice; only one task ruled out zero with a 95% confidence interval, but that result did not replicate well.
  • Only four of the eight studies were submitted for publication, yielding five articles; only one of these reported a null finding. The paper reports a publication rate of 38.5% and estimates that if the lab is representative, approximately 1000 potential studies may remain in drawers from 626 Scopus results.

Methods

  • Eight studies performed in one lab between 2009 and 2014, totaling 453 subjects, 13 dependent variables, and 25 paradigms. All studies used between-subject designs except Study 3 on sleep (within-subject), were single or double blind, and compared IN-OT (Syntocinon spray, 24–40 IU) with saline placebo; tasks generally began 35–85 minutes after administration.
  • The authors meta-analyzed IN-OT effects on cognitive, emotional, or behavioral variables, excluding physiological processes (sleep and pain), using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. They also aggregated effects by variable type and by three major behavioral OT theories: affiliation, social salience, and social approach.

Limitations

  • The authors state that their studies, like most published IN-OT studies, may be underpowered; non-significant effects are not point estimates of zero, and some studies do not rule out a small effect (Cohen’s d = 0.2). They estimate that detecting observed effects with 80% power would require sample sizes between 120 and 468 participants.
  • The authors note methodological and statistical artifacts: small between-subject samples, single-blind designs, uncertain IN-OT pharmacokinetics/dosage/timing, and statistical methods. They report that their published trust-game result became non-significant when dependency among observations was controlled (F(2,57) = 1.24, p = .294).
  • The authors also state that IN-OT effects may be strongly moderated by many factors, but candidate moderators often do not replicate and may represent post-hoc data fits. Evident from the text: the file-drawer analysis comes from a single laboratory, and its representativeness of the broader IN-OT literature is asserted rather than established.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jne.12384

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

30 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

22 of 59 cited sources checked · 11 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingcitation

    The authors' laboratory failed to replicate a promising initial finding relating intranasal oxytocin with increased trust in a non-monetary behavioral task.

    “Our lab has also failed to replicate a promising initial finding relating IN-OT with increased trust in a non monetary behavioral task”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
  • Findingown data

    Of the five articles, only one reports a null finding.

    “Of these five article, only one (27) reports a null-finding.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
  • Premisecitation

    The meta-analysts estimated that the false discovery rate in the intranasal oxytocin literature is over 80%.

    “The meta-analysts estimated (using information on power, pre-study odds and the alpha level) that the false discovery rate in the IN-OT literature is over 80%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [21] source

      The Introduction estimates a positive predictive value of no more than 24% under one set of assumptions, implying a false-discovery proportion of at least 76%, not over 80%. It also gives a 17% positive predictive value—implying 83% false discoveries—but only for a scenario involving ten independent tests and selective reporting. The claim omits that condition and presents the over-80% figure as an estimate for the literature generally. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Intranasal oxytocin pharmacokinetics are not fully understood.

    “IN-OT pharmacokinetics are not fully understood”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
  • Premisecitation

    The only study to date found that intranasal oxytocin does not yield elevated cerebrospinal fluid oxytocin levels 45 minutes after administration.

    “the only study conducted to date (with a very small sample size) found that IN-OT does not yield elevated cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) OT levels 45 minutes after administration”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 46
  • May combine two claims. 44
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3

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

    Premisecitation

    Quintana and colleagues suggest that commonly used intranasal oxytocin doses (24-40 IU) may not be the most adequate, as their results show that the intranasal oxytocin effect on emotional recognition appears with 8 IU but not with 24 IU.

    “Quintana and colleagues (42) suggest that the IN-OT doses commonly used (24 -40 IU) may not be the most adequate as their results show that IN-OT effect on emotional recognition appears with an administration of 8 IU but not with 24 IU.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [42] source

      The Introduction says commonly studied doses lack comprehensive empirical justification, and the Results (Emotional expression evaluation) report lower anger ratings for ambiguous faces after 8 IU than after both placebo and 24 IU. The claim broadens this specific anger-rating finding to emotional recognition generally; the study measured ratings of facial expressions, not recognition accuracy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that most intranasal oxytocin studies are dramatically underpowered and report overestimated effects.

    “A recent meta-analysis of published studies involving IN-OT in humans (21) demonstrated that most studies are dramatically underpowered 1 and report overestimated effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [21] source

      The Introduction reports that human IN-OT studies are considerably underpowered and that their reported effects have a high probability of being overestimated. The citing sentence presents overestimation as established fact, whereas the source states it as a probability. The paper also reanalyzes data from three existing meta-analyses rather than describing itself as a single meta-analysis. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The dosage and timing of intranasal oxytocin tasks are based on three assumptions that have not been directly or reliably tested: that intranasal oxytocin crosses the blood-brain barrier, that 24-40 IU is sufficient for behavioral changes, and that intranasal oxytocin pharmacokinetics mimics vasopressin.

    “The dosage of IN-OT and typical timing of tasks following IN-OT administration is based on three assumptions that to our knowledge have not been directly or reliably (i.e. through several replications) tested: that IN-OT crosses the brain-blood barrier following administration, that 24-40 IU is a sufficient dose to produce behavioral changes, and that IN-OT pharmacokinetics mimics that of vasopres”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] source

      In “Oxytocin penetration of the brain after intranasal administration” (page unavailable), the paper questions whether CSF measurements establish substantial brain penetration and contrasts the timing of oxytocin findings with a vasopressin study. “Peripheral targets for oxytocin” (page unavailable) calls for proper dose-response studies, supporting doubt about an established effective dose. The paper does not state that task timing rests on an untested assumption that intranasal oxytocin’s pharmacokinetics mimic vasopressin’s, or establish the claimed three-assumption account as a whole. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

    Premisecitation

    The absence of a convincing theoretical framework that predicts which moderators exert effects and when has raised skepticism about the robustness of human behavioral intranasal oxytocin research.

    “The lack of a convincing theoretical framework that allows to predict which moderators exert their effects and when, has raised healthy skepticism regarding the robustness of human behavioral IN-OT research (20,21).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [20] source
    • cites [21] source

      The Introduction says that human intranasal oxytocin research investigates a wide range of outcomes beyond what prior animal research can reasonably predict, and urges skepticism about individual findings. It does not specifically identify the absence of a framework predicting which moderators act and when as the reason for that skepticism. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Recent findings have demonstrated that intranasal oxytocin increases oxytocin concentration in cerebrospinal fluid in both humans and animals.

    “Recent findings have demonstrated that IN-OT increases OT concentration in CSF in both human (25) and animal (38,39).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [25] source
    • cites [38] source
    • cites [39] source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Another task reached the lower bound of a large effect size (Cohen's d > 0.8), but this result must be interpreted carefully because it failed to replicate twice.

    “another reaches the lower bound of a large effect size (Cohen's d > 0.8) but this result has to be interpreted carefully as we have failed to replicate it twice (27).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Only one task ruled out the zero effect size with a 95% confidence interval, but that study did not replicate well.

    “only one task rules out the zero effect size with a 95% confidence interval, but once again the results of this particular study did not replicate well (27).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] source

      The Introduction and Discussion report a strong original effect on the Envelope Task followed by two failed replications. The Discussion gives a pooled 95% confidence interval for the replications that includes zero. Our copy does not establish the broader claim that only one task had a 95% confidence interval excluding zero. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The use of too small samples and the vast amount of candidate moderators might inflate the false discovery rate unless direct replication and correction for multiple hypotheses are applied.

    “the use of too small samples (21) and the vast amount of candidate factors that could potentially moderate IN-OT's behavioral effects (19, 20) might inflate the false discovery rate unless direct replication efforts and correction for multiple hypotheses are applied.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [21] source
    • cites [19]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [20] source

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

    Interpretationcitation

    The authors' studies, like most published intranasal oxytocin studies, might be underpowered.

    “our studies, like most published studies on IN-OT, might be underpowered (21).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked

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

    Premisecitation

    OT increases perceived trustworthiness of strangers and makes social clues more salient.

    “As OT increases perceived trustworthiness of strangers (52) and makes the social clues more salient (42)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [52]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [42] source

      Citation (42) attaches to the claim that OT makes social clues more salient, not to the preceding trustworthiness claim. The Discussion (page unavailable) reports an effect on judging anger in emotionally ambiguous faces, but does not establish a general increase in the salience of social cues; it also notes no difference in ratings of angry or happy faces. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Other scholars reported that oxytocin increased generosity.

    “other scholars reported that OT increased generosity (5)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] source

      The Introduction says oxytocin may facilitate prosocial behavior and cites increased trust, but it does not mention generosity. The Results and Discussion report improved face recognition, not giving behavior. A search of our copy for generosity, giving, and altruism found no passage addressing the claimed increase in generosity. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

    Premisecitation

    In rats, low doses of oxytocin decreased locomotor activity and higher doses caused sedation.

    “They showed that low doses of OT led to a decrease of locomotor activity and that higher doses led to clear signs of sedation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] source

      The section “How much oxytocin must enter the brain for a behavioral effect?” discusses dose-dependent effects in rats, but not decreased locomotor activity or sedation. A cited study’s title in the References says nasal oxytocin reduced food intake without affecting locomotor activity; it does not establish what happened at the low and high doses in the claim. Searches for locomotor activity and sedation found no passage reporting those effects. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A study by Heinrichs and colleagues suggested that oxytocin may have anxiolytic properties in humans.

    “As a study by Heinrichs and colleagues suggested that OT may also have anxiolytic proprieties in humans (25)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [25] source

      The Abstract (page unavailable) discusses potential benefits of intranasal oxytocin for conditions including social anxiety, which is consistent with a tentative anxiolytic effect in humans. But the paper reports changes in cerebrospinal fluid and blood oxytocin concentrations, not anxiety outcomes, and our copy does not identify a Heinrichs-led study making this finding. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Only four of the eight studies were submitted for publication, yielding five articles.

    “Only four studies (most often a part of them) of the eight were submitted for publication, yielding five articles”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The laboratory's eight studies included 13 dependent variables assessed through 25 paradigms, performed between 2009 and 2014 on 453 subjects.

    “Through eight studies (including 13 dependent variables overall, assessed through 25 different paradigms) performed in our lab between 2009 and 2014 on 453 subjects”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Only five publications emerged from the laboratory's studies, and only one of these reported a null finding.

    “Only five publications emerged from our studies and only one of these reported a null-finding.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    The sleep study results remained unpublished.

    “These results have remained unpublished”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 4, OT did not enhance pain threshold (F(1,58)=1.18, p>.05), pain tolerance (F(1,58)=1.55, p>.05), or willingness to endure pain (F(1,58)=2.23, p>.05).

    “OT enhanced neither pain threshold compared to baseline (F (1,58) = 1.18, p > .05),nor pain tolerance (F (1,58) = 1.55, p > .05),or willingness to endure pain (F (1,58) = 2.23, p > .05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the inflexible judge task, there was a strong main effect of time for sympathy and willingness to help in both stories: empathy and willingness to help increased from part 1 to part 2, decreased from part 2 to part 3, and continued to decrease in part 4.

    “We found a strong main effect of time for both sympathy and willingness to help in both stories, providing a robust manipulation check: empathy and willingness to help the target increased from the first part of the story (general presentation of the protagonists) to the second part (presentation of the target as a victim), then strongly decreased from the second part to the third part (where the”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the studies reported, relevant potential moderators were taken into account and only provided five interaction effects.

    “In the studies reported in this article, the relevant potential moderators have been taken into account and only provided five interaction effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 1's envelope task, no differences were found between groups regarding sexual practices or fantasies before or after product administration, suggesting that oxytocin does not decrease inhibition.

    “No differences were found between groups regarding sexual practices or fantasies neither before (p>.25) nor after product administration (p>.20), which suggest that OT does not decrease people inhibition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 8, there were no differences between groups for positive words recalled, positive and attractive words recalled, or negative words recalled (all ps>.05).

    “We found no differences at all between the groups (Positive words: F(1,43) = .000;Positive and attractive words: F(1,53) = .088);Negative words: F(1,53) = .239;all ps > .05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the compassion task, the OT and PL groups did not differ (F(1,59)=2.141, p>.05), with a nonsignificant trend in the opposite direction.

    “However, there was no effect of group, indicating OT did not enhance compassion (there was a trend in the opposite direction, though the effect was not significant (F (1,59) = 2.141, p > .05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 4, OT did not modulate sensitivity toward baby or infant cry; mean annoyance ratings did not differ between groups (F(1,58)=1.17, p>.05).

    “The one-way ANOVA conducted on mean annoyance ratings showed no differences between the two groups (F (1,58) = 1.17, p > .05).OT did not modulate sensitivity toward baby or infant's cry.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 7, there were no differences between groups for mood (F(1,60)=1.166, p>.05) or evaluations (F(1,60)=.162, p>.05).

    “No differences between groups were found, neither for mood (F(1,60) = 1.166, p > .05),nor for evaluations (F(1,60) = .162,p > .05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 7 behavioral compassion, there were no differences between groups for gazes, duration of gazes, interactions, or duration of interactions (all ps>.05), and no interaction with cost.

    “No differences between groups were found (Gazes: F(1,60) = .123;Duration of the gazes: F(1,60) = .06;Interactions: F(1,60) = 168; Duration of the interactions: F(1,60) = .065;all ps > .05).No interaction effect with the cost was found either.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 8, there were no differences between groups for positive affect (F(1,43)=1.353) or negative affect (F(1,43)=.200, all ps>.05).

    “No differences between groups were found (Positive Affects: F(1,43) = 1.353;Negative Affects: F(1,43) = .200,all ps > .05) .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the sleep study, the product had no main effect on sleep latency (F(1,94)=.27, p>.05), sleep duration (F(1,93)=2.82, p=.097), or REM sleep proportion (F(1,93)=2.53, p=.115).

    “The analyses showed no main effect of the product on either sleep latency (F(1,94) = .27,p > .05),sleep duration (F(1,93) = 2.82, p = .097)or REM sleep proportion (F(1,93) = 2.53, p = .115).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 5, there was no significant effect of OT on conformity to antisocial behaviors (F(1,58)=3.315, p=.078); OT participants did not choose significantly more difficult questions than PL participants.

    “We did not find a significant effect (F(1,58) = 3.315, p = .078),whereby participants in the OT condition did not chose significantly more difficult questions than participants in the PL condition, suggesting that OT does not alter conformism to antisocial behaviors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the visual perspective task, there was no main effect of condition on accuracy and no significant interaction.

    “There was no main effect of condition (F(1,94) = 1.46, p > .05)and no significant interaction effect (F(1,94) = .55,p > .05).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingnone given

    These jealousy results remained unpublished.

    “These results have remained unpublished.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the painting evaluation task, there was no main effect of condition, indicating no general mimetic desire effect.

    “No main effect of the condition was found (F(1,90) = .690,p > .05)indicating that we did not find a general mimetic desire effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 1, there was no significant effect of oxytocin on willingness to help and no interaction between group and story part.

    “Participants willingness to help (F(1,59) = .802,p > .05)and no interaction between group and story part either.These results have remained unpublished.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the visual perspective task, there was no main effect of condition on reaction times and no significant interaction.

    “There was no main effect of condition (F(1,94) = .004,p > .1)and no significant interaction (F(1,94) = .007,p > .1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the jealousy study, there was no significant effect of oxytocin on the amount of target words, suggesting oxytocin did not alter jealousy.

    “We did not obtain a significant result (F(1,43) = 2.847 ; p = .098)suggesting that OT would not increase or decrease jealousy.These results have remained unpublished.”
    • Also stated in: § Additional information · hedged
      “We did not obtain a significant result (F(1,43) = 2.847 ; p = .098)suggesting that OT would not alter jealousy as the amount of target word is equivalent between conditions.These results have remained unpublished.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the authors' review of eight intranasal oxytocin studies, only one of 25 tasks had a significant main effect of treatment, and only five of 25 tasks had a significant interaction involving treatment condition.

    “We found a statistically significant main effect of IN-OT for only one out of 25 tasks and a significant interaction effect including the treatment condition (OT vs. PL) for only 5 out of 25 tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingnone given

    These visual perspective results remained unpublished.

    “These results have remained unpublished.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingnone given

    The collaborator submitted the mimetic desire paper twice without success.

    “Our collaborator submitted this paper for publication twice, without success.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning

    The collaborator decided not to resubmit the paper after the authors failed to replicate their trust effects and began to doubt oxytocin effects.

    “She decided not to resubmit this paper when we discovered that we could not replicate our effects on trust for the second time (see Study 7) and started to doubt about OT effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    It has recently been demonstrated that intranasal oxytocin modulates amygdala responses in monkeys in a manner equivalent to humans.

    “it has recently been demonstrated that IN-OT modulates amygdala responses in monkeys in a manner equivalent to humans (40).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [40] source

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

    Premisecitation

    The literature using peripheral oxytocin measurements relies on assay methods considered bio-analytically invalid by many researchers.

    “the literature using peripheral OT measurements also relies on OT assay methods that are considered by many researchers as bio-analytically invalid”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites (29)(30)(31)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Four potential sources of artifacts in intranasal oxytocin research are small sample between-subject designs, single blind designs, intranasal oxytocin pharmacokinetics and dosage, and statistical methods.

    “We see four potential sources of generating artifacts in IN-OT research: 1) small sample between subject-designs that might not be internally valid, 2) single blind designs 3) IN-OT pharmacokinetics and dosage and 4) statistical methods.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premiseown data

    In animals, intranasal oxytocin produces significant elevation of cerebrospinal fluid oxytocin after 30 minutes, but in humans this elevation takes place 75 minutes after intranasal oxytocin, which is inconsistent with most tasks starting 40-45 minutes after intranasal oxytocin.

    “if IN-OT produces a significant elevation of OT concentration in the CSF after 30 minutes in animals, this significant elevation takes place 75 minutes after IN-OT in human, which is not consistent with the literature where most tasks start 40-45 minutes after IN-OT.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    All studies followed a between-subject design except Study 3, and were either single or double blind.

    “All studies followed a between-subject design (except for Study 3 on sleep) and were either single or double blind”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The majority of intranasal oxytocin studies do not yield a main treatment effect.

    “the majority of IN-OT studies do not yield a main IN-OT treatment effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19] source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Taken together, those results suggest that intranasal oxytocin reaches the central nervous system and produces observable affective, behavioral, or cognitive modifications.

    “Taken together, those results suggest that IN-OT reaches, directly or indirectly (41), the central nervous system and would so produces observable affective, behavioral or cognitive modifications.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [41] source

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

    Interpretationcitation

    If either of the two last hypotheses is true, there should exist many unpublished studies with null results in laboratories' drawers.

    “If either of the two last hypotheses is true, there should exist many unpublished studies with null results lying in laboratories' drawers (32).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [32] source

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

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 1, sixty healthy young adult males were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal placebo or oxytocin.

    “Sixty healthy young adult males (age= 21.2 years; SD = 2.4) took part in the study and were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal placebo (PL; n = 30) or OT (n=30; 32 IU Syntocinon Spray -4 puffs in each nostril -Novartis, Basel, Switzerland).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The authors' findings do not rule out the possibility that intranasal oxytocin effects are moderated by various factors, a proposition difficult to rule out given the infinitely large set of potential moderators.

    “our findings do not rule out the possibility that the effects of IN-OT are moderated by various factors -a proposition that will be difficult to rule out, given the infinitely large set of factors that could potentially moderate IN-OT's behavioral influences (genes, personality or environmental factors).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    As long as the editorial process does not sufficiently promote non-significant results and failed replications, it is difficult to obtain a complete overview of the intranasal oxytocin research field.

    “as far as the editorial process does not sufficiently promote non-significant results and failed replications, it is difficult to obtain a complete overview of IN-OT research field.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Even if intranasal oxytocin reaches the brain, the three assumptions on which the intranasal oxytocin literature is based cannot be assured to be reliable.

    “Even if IN-OT reaches the brain, we cannot assure that the three assumptions on which IN-OT's literature is based are reliable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Such sample sizes are much greater than the norm in both the intranasal oxytocin field and the authors' laboratory.

    “Such sample sizes are much greater than the norm in both the IN-OT field and our lab.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Candidate moderators do not seem to replicate from one study to another and often represent post-hoc data fits rather than a-priori hypotheses.

    “candidate moderators do not seem to replicate from one study to another 9 and appear most often to represent post-hoc data fits rather than a-priori hypotheses 10 .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    A second proposition is that intranasal oxytocin effects exist but are strongly moderated by various factors, making them appear large in some circumstances but not others.

    “A second proposition is that IN-OT effects do exist, but that they are strongly moderated by various factors, making them appear large in some circumstances but not others.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    More and more findings suggest that intranasal oxytocin influences behaviors by interacting with several moderators.

    “Through the literature, more and more findings suggest that IN-OT influences behaviors by interacting with several moderators (for a review see (19)).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19] source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Some non-replicable findings might have biased the development of existing theories.

    “some non-replicable findings might have biased the development of existing theories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Bayliss et al. showed that people evaluate stimuli gazed by another person more positively.

    “Bayliss et al. (49) have shown that people evaluate stimuli gazed by another person more positively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [49]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If the lab is representative of IN-OT research, then approximately 1000 potential studies have remained in labs' drawers, based on 626 Scopus search results for oxytocin and human limited to Psychology.

    “If our lab is a representative sample of IN-OT research, then for 626 search results found in Scopus by entering”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The lab is a representative sample of IN-OT research.

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

    Premisecitation

    Mimetic desire is modulated by facial expression and by the trustworthiness of the gazing person.

    “For example mimetic desire is modulated by the facial expression (50) and the trustworthiness of the gazing person (51).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [50]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [51]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 7, participants were randomly assigned to receive PL or OT.

    “Sixty-one healthy young adult males (Mage= 21.28 years; SD = 2.46) took part in the study and were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal placebo (PL; n = 29) or OT (n=32; 32 IU Syntocinon Spray -4 puffs in each nostril -Fuerte Farmaceutica, Funchal, Portugal).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 6, participants were randomly assigned to receive PL or OT.

    “Ninety-five healthy young adult males (Mage= 22.53 years; SD = 2.89) took part in the study and were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal placebo (PL; n = 47) or OT (n=48; 32 IU Syntocinon Spray -4 puffs in each nostril -Novartis, Basel, Switzerland).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    People with secure attachment are the least jealous.

    “because people with secure attachment are the least jealous (63)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [63]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Four multivariate outliers were excluded from analysis, two in each group.

    “Four multivariate outliers (>2.5 SD) were excluded from analysis (2 in each groups).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    In Study 7, participants completed questionnaires to ensure both groups were equal on individual differences relevant to the study.

    “participants were invited to complete demographic, mood (29), personality (39), social desirability (38), empathy (18), emotional disposition (12) and psychological disorders (12, 13) questionnaires, in order to ensure that both groups were equal regarding individual differences relevant to the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    OT has been described as a prosocial hormone that promotes altruistic behaviors and reinforces group cohesion.

    “As OT has been described as a prosocial hormone that notably promotes altruistic behaviors (58) and reinforces group cohesion (43)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [58]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [43] source

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

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 5, participants were randomly assigned to receive PL or OT.

    “Sixty-one healthy young adult males (Mage= 23.16 years; SD = 2.87) took part in the study and were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal placebo (PL; n = 30) or OT (n=31; 40 IU Syntocinon Spray -5 puffs in each nostril -Novartis, Basel, Switzerland).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Previous studies showed that unextinguished emotional experiences create an ongoing need to share them.

    “Previous studies(14) showed that unextinguished emotional experiences elicit an ongoing need to be shared)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] source

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

    Study design and conductown data

    In the jealousy study, female participants were randomly assigned to oxytocin or placebo.

    “Females were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal placebo (PL; n = 22) or OT (n=22; 24 IU Syntocinon Spray -3 puffs in each nostril -Fuerte Farmaceutica, Funchal, Portugal).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Within-subject designs have limitations, including reduced statistical power.

    “Note that within-subject designs also suffer from limitations such as reduced statistical power (e.g.: see Uri Simonsohn's post http://datacolada.org/2015/06/22/39-power-naps-whendo-within-subject-comparisons-help-vs-hurt-yes-hurt-power/)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    High interrater agreement was found for identifying target words in the jealousy task.

    “High interrater agreement was found to spot words falling within these categories (reported as target words).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Romantic jealousy is associated with approach motivation.

    “As romantic jealousy is associated with approach motivation(64)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [64]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    In Study 6, participants completed questionnaires to ensure both groups were equal on individual differences relevant to the study.

    “participants were invited to complete demographic, alexithymia (19), mood (29), the big-five factor of personality (39), social desirability (38), empathy (18), self-monitoring (53) and psychological disorders (13) questionnaires, in order to ensure that both groups were equal regarding individual differences relevant to the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    The items used in the antisocial peer pressure task have been validated.

    “the items have been validated in (46)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [46] source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    OT is supposed to foster secure attachment.

    “Because OT is supposed to foster secure attachment (62)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [62]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 4, participants were randomly assigned to receive PL or OT.

    “Sixty healthy young adult males (Mage= 21.35 years; SD = 2.15) took part in the study and were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal placebo (PL; n = 30) or OT (n=30; 32 IU Syntocinon Spray -4 puffs in each nostril -Novartis, Basel, Switzerland).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    After exposure to violent lyrics, people tend to produce more words linked with aggressiveness.

    “As it has been demonstrated that after being exposed to violent lyrics people are more tend to produce words linked with aggressiveness (68)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [68]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    In Study 5, participants completed questionnaires to ensure both groups were equal on individual differences relevant to the study.

    “participants completed demographic, alexithymia (19), mood (29), the big-five factor of personality (39), social desirability (38) and psychological disorders (13) questionnaires in order to ensure that both groups were equal regarding individual differences relevant to the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    REM sleep can occur rapidly in some individuals, so the first REM episode is not always about 70 minutes after falling asleep.

    “Even if the first REM episode occurs about 70 minutes after falling asleep (33), some subjects may present a REM EEG and occulomotor pattern a way farster.The REM sleep can actually occur pretty rapidly in some individuals according to the MD (sleep specialist) who co-supervised this study.Furthermore, the MSLT has specialy been built for this puporse (see32)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [33] source
    • cites [32] source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The effect of oxytocin on trust could be conflated with an effect on generosity.

    “one could not rule out the possibility that the effect of OT on trust was conflated with an effect of OT on generosity”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    In Study 4, participants completed questionnaires to ensure both groups were equal on individual differences relevant to the study.

    “participants were invited to complete demographic, alexithymia (19), social desirability (38), the big-five factor of personality (39), fear of pain (40) and emotional disposition (12) questionnaires, in order to ensure that both groups were equal regarding individual differences relevant to the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    In the sleep study, twelve healthy young adult males were randomly assigned to oxytocin or placebo, and no participant was excluded based on sleep diary or actimeter measures.

    “Twelve healthy young adult males (between 20 and 35 year old) took part in the within-subject design study and were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal placebo (PL; n = 6) or OT (n= 6; 32 IU Syntocinon Spray -4 puffs in each nostril -Novartis, Basel, Switzerland) before the first testing session.”
    • Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
      “No participant had to be excluded based on these measures.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    All hypotheses in the reviewed studies were derived from three major behavioral theories of oxytocin: affiliation, social salience, and social approach.

    “All of our hypotheses were derived from the three major behavioral IN-OT theories (i.e., OT as a hormone of affiliation (16); OT as a hormone of social salience(15)and OT as a hormone of social approach (17)).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [16] source
    • cites [15] source
    • cites [17] source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Jealousy is magnified in a social rejection context.

    “As jealousy is magnified in a social rejection context (64)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [64]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

83 of 83

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The eight studies presented provide a complete overview of the research performed in the authors' laboratory since 2009.

    “we instead present a complete overview of the research performed in our lab since we started studying IN-OT in 2009.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Conducting tasks in a fixed order determined by the importance attributed to each paradigm eliminates the potential of spillover effects from other tasks.

    “the tasks were conducted in a fixed order determined by the importance we attributed to each paradigm: the most important target variable was tested in the first task in order to eliminate the potential of spillover effects from other tasks 3 .”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The standard intranasal oxytocin doses used in research are between 24 and 40 IU.

    “the standard doses used in OT research (between 24 and 40 IU)”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The lab is a representative sample of IN-OT research.

    “If our lab is a representative sample of IN-OT research”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The degree of openness of the envelope measures participants' trust toward the experimenter.

    “of envelope's opening (opened, sealed or sealed plus taped) was considered as participants' degree of trust toward the experimenter.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Sharing emotions with a stranger requires trust toward that individual.

    “As sharing emotions with a stranger requires trust toward this individual”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Existing jealousy-inducing procedures in the literature relied on fictitious scenarios or memory of past jealousy.

    “Because the jealousy-inducing procedures existing in the literature relied all on fictitious scenarios or memory of past jealousy experienced, we created the following paradigm.”
7 of 7

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?

  • There has recently been some doubt regarding the effects of intranasal oxytocin on social-emotional functioning in general and criticism directed at the lack of compelling theoretical framework to explain the contradictory findings reported thus far.

    “There has also recently been some doubt regarding the effects of intranasal oxytocin on social-emotional functioning in general and criticism directed at the lack of compelling theoretical framework to explain the contradictory findings reported thus far (Lane et al., 2016;Leng and Ludwig, 2016).”

    From Meta-analysis of the effects of intranasal oxytocin on interpretation and expression of emotions (2017) · cites this paper as Lane et al., 2016

  • Small sample sizes may inflate the issue of spurious findings in oxytocin research.

    “which would provide more robust outcomes as small samples sizes may inflate the issue of spurious findings in oxytocin research (Lane et al., 2016;Leng and Ludwig, 2016).”

    From Low dose intranasal oxytocin delivered with Breath Powered device dampens amygdala response to emotional stimuli: A peripheral effect-controlled within-subjects randomized dose-response fMRI trial (2016) · cites this paper as Lane et al., 2016

  • The mounting popularity of studying oxytocin in the social sciences is associated with waves of criticism because papers often suffered from small sample size, low statistical power, inflated effect sizes, inconsistent experimental procedures, and publication bias.

    “However, the mounting popularity of studying OT in the social sciences is currently associated with waves of criticism, because papers often have suffered from small sample size, low statistical power, inflated effect sizes, inconsistent experimental procedures , and publication bias 18,19 .”

    From A registered replication study on oxytocin and trust (2020) · cites this paper as [19]

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1,58) = 3.315, p = .078

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .078 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .074. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .078 · recomputed p = .074

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: F(1,90) = 4.7, p < .03

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .03 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .033. The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p < .03 · recomputed p = .033

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(2,57) = 1.24, p = .294

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .294 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .297. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .294 · recomputed p = .297

3 of 3

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(2, 57) = 1.24reported p = .294 · recomputed p = .297

    “F(2,57) = 1.24, p = .294”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 58) = 3.315reported p = .078 · recomputed p = .074

    “F(1,58) = 3.315, p = .078”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 90) = 4.7reported p < .03 · recomputed p = .033

    “F(1,90) = 4.7, p < .03”

  • ConsistentF(1, 58) = 4.61reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .036

    “F(1,58) = 4.61, p = .04”

  • ConsistentF(1, 1051) = 5.76reported p < .018 · recomputed p = .017

    “F(1, 1051) = 5.76, p < .018”

  • ConsistentF(2, 1051) = 3.29reported p = .038 · recomputed p = .038

    “F(2, 1051) = 3.29, p = .038”

  • ConsistentF(1, 55) = 0.629reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .431

    “F(1,55) = 0.629, p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 2.141reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .149

    “F (1,59) = 2.141, p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 0.57reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .453

    “F (1,59) = 0.57, p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 2.796reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .100

    “F(1,59) = 2.796, p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 94) = 0.27reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .605

    “F(1,94) = .27,p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 93) = 2.82reported p = .097 · recomputed p = .096

    “F(1,93) = 2.82, p = .097”

  • ConsistentF(1, 93) = 2.53reported p = .115 · recomputed p = .115

    “F(1,93) = 2.53, p = .115”

  • ConsistentF(1, 58) = 1.18reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .282

    “F (1,58) = 1.18, p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 58) = 1.55reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .218

    “F (1,58) = 1.55, p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 58) = 2.23reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .141

    “F (1,58) = 2.23, p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 58) = 0.55reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .461

    “F (1,58) = .55,p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 58) = 1.17reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .284

    “F (1,58) = 1.17, p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 58) = 3.302reported p = .074 · recomputed p = .074

    “F(1,58) = 3.302, p = .074”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 1.103reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .298

    “F(1,59) = 1.103, p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 93) = 0.229reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .633

    “F(1,93) = .229,p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 60) = 1.166reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .285

    “F(1,60) = 1.166, p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 60) = 0.162reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .689

    “F(1,60) = .162,p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 60) = 0.295reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .589

    “F(1,60) = .295,p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 0.802reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .374

    “F(1,59) = .802,p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 90) = 0.69reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .408

    “F(1,90) = .690,p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 94) = 1.46reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .230

    “F(1,94) = 1.46, p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 94) = 0.55reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .460

    “F(1,94) = .55,p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 94) = 0.004reported p > .1 · recomputed p = .950

    “F(1,94) = .004,p > .1”

  • ConsistentF(1, 94) = 0.007reported p > .1 · recomputed p = .933

    “F(1,94) = .007,p > .1”

30 of 30

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.

  • Cognition effect estimate is not centered in its confidence interval

    Minor

    The reported cognition confidence interval has a midpoint of −0.095, whereas its reported effect estimate is +0.1. The gap is too large to be explained by rounding of a conventional symmetric confidence interval.

    Reported 0.1 · recomputed -0.095

  • Degrees of freedom do not match the 59 participants analyzed

    Minor

    After two exclusions, the antisocial-conformity analysis included 59 participants in two treatment groups. A two-group ANOVA would have 59 − 2 = 57 denominator degrees of freedom, not 58.

    Reported 58 · recomputed 57

  • Jealousy word-recall tests have more degrees of freedom than participants

    Minor

    The study assigned 22 women to each treatment group, for 44 women total. The reported denominator degrees of freedom of 53 for two word-recall outcomes cannot arise from an analysis of those participants.

3 of 3

Cited works that were retracted

Works this paper cites that were later retracted, from the retraction notices publishers deposit. Major when the notice came out before this paper was published.

  • Cites a retracted work: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2002.02087.x

    Major

    The cited work was retracted on 2009-02-16 (notice 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06687.x), before this paper was published (2016-04). Its authors could have known.

    Cited work 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2002.02087.x · retracted 2009-02-16 · notice 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06687.x · this paper published 2016-04

1 of 1

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Borenstein M, 2005, Comprehensive meta‐analysis, version 2, 104

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lane, A., Luminet, O., Nave, G., & Mikolajczak, M.
Affiliations
  • Fund for Scientific Research (BE)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • UCLouvain (BE)
Corresponding author
Lane, A.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Neuroendocrinology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-04
Volume
28
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0953-8194 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2826
DOI
10.1111/jne.12384
OpenAlex
W2300073160
Cited by
134
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 10
FWCI
32.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroendocrinology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
publication bias, file drawer problem, intranasal oxytocin, negative results, unpublished research, research reproducibility, direct replication, social behavior
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Brain, Humans, Laboratories, Oxytocin, Publication Bias, Behavioral Research

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

Cited sources are checked by 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