Cited by 301Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 7 of the 25 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Oxytocin Modulates Social Distance between Males and Females

Open access

Abstract

In humans, interpersonal romantic attraction and the subsequent development of monogamous pair-bonds is substantially predicted by influential impressions formed during first encounters. The prosocial neuropeptide oxytocin (OXT) has been identified as a key facilitator of both interpersonal attraction and the formation of parental attachment. However, whether OXT contributes to the maintenance of monogamous bonds after they have been formed is unclear. In this randomized placebo-controlled trial, we provide the first behavioral evidence that the intranasal administration of OXT stimulates men in a monogamous relationship, but not single ones, to keep a much greater distance (∼10–15 cm) between themselves and an attractive woman during a first encounter. This avoidance of close personal proximity occurred in the physical presence of female but not male experimenters and was independent of gaze direction and whether the female experimenter or the subject was moving. We further confirmed this unexpected finding using a photograph-based approach/avoidance task that showed again that OXT only stimulated men in a monogamous relationship to approach pictures of attractive women more slowly. Importantly, these changes cannot be attributed to OXT altering the attitude of monogamous men toward attractive women or their judgments of and arousal by pictures of them. Together, our results suggest that where OXT release is stimulated during a monogamous relationship, it may additionally promote its maintenance by making men avoid signaling romantic interest to other women through close-approach behavior during social encounters. In this way, OXT may help to promote fidelity within monogamous human relationships.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, intranasal oxytocin selectively increased the physical distance that pair-bonded men kept from an attractive female experimenter and slowed their approach to pictures of attractive women, without affecting single men. The authors interpret this as evidence that oxytocin may promote fidelity by reducing close-approach behavior toward other women in monogamous men.

Key findings

  • In the stop-distance paradigm, oxytocin increased personal space in pair-bonded men but not single men: repeated-measures ANOVA showed a treatment × relationship-status interaction, \(F(1,53)=4.73\), \(p=0.03\); post hoc tests were significant for pair-bonded men, \(t(28)=-4.07\), \(p<0.01\), but not singles, \(t(25)=-0.72\), \(p=0.48\). The abstract reports a roughly 10–15 cm greater distance.
  • The effect was specific to a female experimenter: in the male-experimenter control, main and interaction effects seen with the female experimenter were absent (all \(ps \ge 0.09\)); overall oxytocin enlarged social distance with the female experimenter (\(p<0.01\)) but not the male experimenter (\(p=0.11\)).
  • In the approach/avoidance task, oxytocin selectively slowed approach to positive social pictures in pair-bonded men: treatment × relationship-status interaction, \(F(1,53)=4.40\), \(p=0.04\); post hoc pair-bonded \(t(28)=-2.17\), \(p=0.04\), singles \(t(25)=0.81\), \(p=0.42\). Pair-bonded men also made more errors only for positive social pictures, \(U=64\), \(z=-2.09\), \(p=0.04\).
  • Oxytocin did not alter impressions or arousal: all subjects rated the female experimenter as highly likeable (\(8.46 \pm 0.66\)) and trustworthy (\(8.37 \pm 0.72\)), and valence/arousal ratings were comparable across groups (all \(ps \ge 0.08\)).

Methods

  • Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled parallel-group design. A total of 86 healthy heterosexual male adults participated. Experiments 1 and 2 included 57 men (mean age \(25.1 \pm 3.3\) years), either single (\(n=27\)) or in a stable monogamous relationship (\(n=30\)); they received intranasal oxytocin (24 IU) or placebo 45 min before testing. An independent control experiment included 29 pair-bonded men (\(25.9 \pm 3.2\) years; oxytocin \(n=14\), placebo \(n=15\)) with a male experimenter.
  • Experiment 1 used an adapted stop-distance paradigm with an attractive female experimenter, varying who moved, starting position, and eye contact; ideal and slightly uncomfortable chin-to-chin distances were measured with a digital laser measurer.
  • Experiment 2 used an approach/avoidance task with IAPS pictures; participants pulled a joystick toward positive pictures or pushed away from negative pictures, with reaction times and errors recorded. Analyses used repeated-measures/mixed-model ANOVA, post hoc unpaired \(t\) tests, and Mann–Whitney tests.

Limitations

  • The paper states that future studies are needed to elucidate the exact neurochemical cascade underlying the oxytocin effect and to analyze which aspects of a pair-bond interact with oxytocin to promote fidelity.
  • The paper notes that an apparent oxytocin effect in single men was likely caused by outliers, given the three times larger variance in oxytocin-treated singles (\(SD=29.03\)) compared with pair-bonded men (\(SD=9.41\)) and the absence of overall interactions with starting position or eye contact.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was restricted to healthy heterosexual men, so generalizability to women, non-heterosexual individuals, clinical populations, or other relationship arrangements is unknown; the tasks were laboratory-based first encounters and picture judgments, not direct measures of real-world fidelity.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.2755-12.2012

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

22 Own result · 13 Own method · 10 Own interpretation · 6 No full text of the sources · 5 Supported · 3 Not checked yet · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 27 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 21
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 23
35 of 35
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Approach behavior is important for displaying potential romantic interest.

    “although approach behavior is clearly important for displaying potential romantic interest.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants classified as in a stable monogamous relationship are actually in a stable monogamous relationship.

    “who were either single (n ϭ 27) or in a stable monogamous relationship (n ϭ 30)”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The positive social pictures selected from the International Affective Picture System are perceived as attractive women or erotic stimuli by the participants.

    “positive (attractive women or beautiful landscapes) and negative (mutilations or dirt) pictures selected from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS)”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Self-check

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

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

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Scheele, D., Striepens, N., Güntürkün, O., Deutschländer, S., Maier, W., Kendrick, K. M., & Hurlemann, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Bonn (DE)
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
  • University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (CN)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2012-11-14
Volume
32
Issue
46
Pages
16074-16079
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2079180428
Cited by
301
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 3
FWCI
10.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DZNE Pub (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (HU1302/2-2)
  • Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Keywords
oxytocin, social distance, monogamous relationships, romantic attraction, pair bonding, fidelity, intranasal administration, approach-avoidance behavior, first encounters, gender differences, neuropeptides, parental attachment
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Avoidance Learning, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Motion, Oxytocin, Pair Bond, Personality, Photic Stimulation, Social Desirability, Psychological Distance, Social Environment, Cohort Studies, Young Adult

About these checks

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

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (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