Trial reportJournal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)2020
Oxytocin and vasopressin modulation of prisoner's dilemma strategies.
Trial report in Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oxytocin, but not vasopressin, decreases willingness to harm others by promoting moral emotions of guilt and shame.Molecular psychiatry · 2024Trial
- Effects of arginine vasopressin on human anxiety and associations with sex, dose, and V1a-receptor genotype.Psychopharmacology · 2024Trial
- Intranasal vasopressin, but not oxytocin, decreases ethanol intake in socially housed mice.Psychopharmacology · 2026Article
- Computer anthropomorphisation in a socio-economic dilemma.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- The Causal Role of Temporoparietal Junction in Mediating Self-Other Mergence during Mentalizing.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Temporal Dynamics of Intranasal Oxytocin in Human Brain Electrophysiology.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe neuropeptides oxytocin and vasopressin have been repeatedly implicated in social decision making by enhancing social salience and, generally, cooperation. The iterated and sequential version of the prisoner's dilemma (PD) game is a social dilemma paradigm eliciting strategies of cooperation versus competition.
aimsWe aimed to characterise the role of PD players' sex, game partner type (computer vs. human) and oxytocin or vasopressin inhalation on the player's strategy preference.
methodsParticipants (153 men; 151 women) were randomised to intranasal 24 IU oxytocin, 20 IU vasopressin or placebo, double-blind, and played the PD. We examined main and interactive effects of sex, drug and partner type on strategy preference.
resultsWe found a pervasive preference for a tit-for-tat strategy (i.e. general sensitivity to the partner's choices) over unconditional cooperation, particularly when against a human rather than a computer partner. Oxytocin doubled this sensitivity in women (i.e. the preference for tit-for-tat over unconditional cooperation strategies) when playing against computers, which suggests a tendency to anthropomorphise them, and doubled women's unconditional cooperation preference when playing against humans. Vasopressin doubled sensitivity to the partner's previous choices (i.e. for tit-for-tat over unconditional cooperation) across sexes and partner types.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that women may be more sensitive to oxytocin's social effects of anthropomorphism of non-humans and of unconditional cooperation with humans, which may be consistent with evolutionary pressures for maternal care, and that vasopressin, irrespective of sex and partner type, may be generally sensitising humans to others' behaviour.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.