↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
65 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
reddit
6 Redditors
podcasts
1 podcast
seminars
1 seminar series

Readers on

mendeley
434 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Does Oxytocin Increase Trust in Humans? A Critical Review of Research
Published in
Perspectives on Psychological Science, November 2015
DOI 10.1177/1745691615600138
Pubmed ID
Authors
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.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 65 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 434 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Germany 5 1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 416 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 90 21%
Student > Master 58 13%
Researcher 51 12%
Student > Bachelor 43 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 6%
Other 72 17%
Unknown 95 22%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 147 34%
Neuroscience 41 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 6%
Social Sciences 21 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 5%
Other 56 13%
Unknown 121 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 149. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2026.
All research outputs
#348,176
of 34,344,438 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives on Psychological Science
#178
of 1,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,249
of 441,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives on Psychological Science
#7
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,344,438 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,369 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 79.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.