ArticlePsychoneuroendocrinology2020
Cooperative responses in rats playing a 2 × 2 game: Effects of opponent strategy, payoff, and oxytocin.
Article in Psychoneuroendocrinology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring rodent prosociality: A conceptual framework.Translational neuroscience · 2025Review
- In search of prosociality in rodents: A scoping review.PloS one · 2024Article
- Competitive and cooperative games for probing the neural basis of social decision-making in animals.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2023Review
- Oxytocin promotes social proximity and decreases vigilance in groups of African lions.iScience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The present study tested cooperation in rats playing a 2 × 2 game (2 players, 2 responses) in an operant chamber, where players choose to cooperate or defect without knowledge of their partner's choice. We evaluated cooperative responses in rats (Subjects) playing different games [iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (IPD), Stag Hunt] with a Stooge partner utilizing different response strategies [Tit-for-tat (TFT), Win-stay, Lose-shift (WSLS), Random], and we determined the effects of oxytocin (OT). IPD trial outcomes and payoffs included mutual cooperation (reward, R, 3 sugar pellets each), mutual defection (punishment, P, 1 pellet each), or unilateral defection (temptation, T, 5 pellets) and cooperation (sucker, S, 0 pellets). Stag Hunt was similar, except that T = 2 pellets. We hypothesized that Subjects would make more cooperative responses when playing Stag Hunt vs IPD, when playing IPD with a Stooge using TFT vs WSLS or Random, and when treated with OT. At baseline, Subjects' overall likelihood of cooperation was unaffected by the game (IPD vs SH) or by the Stooges' response strategy (TFT, WSLS, Random). Cooperative responses earned Subjects more pellets, except when playing with a Stooge using a random strategy. Trial outcomes (R, T, S or P) also varied by game and strategy, although the mutual defection (P) was the most common. Systemic pretreatment with OT increased Subjects' cooperative responses, resulting in fewer P and more R outcomes. In particular, IPD-Random Subjects were more cooperative, even at the expense of earning fewer pellets. These results demonstrate that OT increases cooperative behavior in rats playing 2 × 2 games.
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.