Cited by 309Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Does Oxytocin Increase Trust in Humans? A Critical Review of Research

Nave, Gideon, Camerer, Colin, McCullough, Michael·2015·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

Behavioral neuroscientists have shown that the neuropeptide oxytocin (OT) plays a key role in social attachment and affiliation in nonhuman mammals. Inspired by this initial research, many social scientists proceeded to examine the associations of OT with trust in humans over the past decade. To conduct this work, they have (a) examined the effects of exogenous OT increase caused by intranasal administration on trusting behavior, (b) correlated individual difference measures of OT plasma levels with measures of trust, and (c) searched for genetic polymorphisms of the OT receptor gene that might be associated with trust. We discuss the different methods used by OT behavioral researchers and review evidence that links OT to trust in humans. Unfortunately, the simplest promising finding associating intranasal OT with higher trust has not replicated well. Moreover, the plasma OT evidence is flawed by how OT is measured in peripheral bodily fluids. Finally, in recent large-sample studies, researchers failed to find consistent associations of specific OT-related genetic polymorphisms and trust. We conclude that the cumulative evidence does not provide robust convergent evidence that human trust is reliably associated with OT (or caused by it). We end with constructive ideas for improving the robustness and rigor of OT research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691615600138

Cites

171 of 171 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Nave and colleagues' analysis of seven studies found that the combined effect size of intranasal oxytocin on trust was small and not reliably different from zero (Cohen's d = 0.077, 95% CI [-0.124; 0.278]).

    “Nave and colleagues [22] computed the effect sizes of seven studies that have investigated the effect of intranasal OT on trust trough the trust game. Their analysis revealed that the combined effect size of intranasal OT on trust was small and not reliably different from zero (Cohen’s d = 0.077, 95%CI: [-0.124;0.278]).”
  • 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).”
  • The seminal highly cited study associating intranasal oxytocin with trust failed several times to replicate.

    “the seminal, highly cited study associating IN-OT with trust (1), that inspired much of the subsequent research, failed several times to replicate (20).”
  • 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.”
  • A concern in previous studies is that post hoc explorations of different modulations by individual differences risk inflating the rate of Type I errors.

    “A concern in previous studies is that post hoc explorations of different modulations by individual differences risk inflating the rate of Type I errors 50 .”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 178 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Barber B., 1983, The logic and limits of trust, 96
  2. Barraza J. A. (2010). The physiology of empathy: Linking Oxytocin to empathic responding (PhD dissertation, Claremont Graduate University). Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/34/14/3414051.html
  3. Lane A., 2015, Is there a publication bias in oxytocin research? Opening the file drawer of one lab

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nave, G., Camerer, C., & McCullough, M.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
Corresponding author
Nave, Gideon
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2015-11
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
772-789
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W2189156543
Cited by
309
References
178
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 2
FWCI
50.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
oxytocin, trust, individual differences, replication, research rigor, social attachment, neuropeptides
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Genetic Markers, Humans, Oxytocin, Polymorphism, Genetic, Biomarkers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review