4.5 Article

Does oxytocin affect mind-reading? A replication study

期刊

PSYCHONEUROENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 60, 期 -, 页码 75-81

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.06.006

关键词

Oxytocin; Mind-reading; Empathy; Replication; Social cognition; RMET

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) [451-07-022, 016-135-367]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the most well-known findings in human oxytocin research is its beneficial effect on mind-reading, i.e., inferring others' mental states just from the eye region in the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET). Previous studies have partially confirmed these improvements and have further shown that they depend both on baseline social-emotional abilities and on specific item characteristics such as difficulty. Following the original design of Domes et al. (2007), the aim of the current study was to replicate and extend previous findings by thoroughly investigating the impact of oxytocin administration on RMET performance. We tested for potential moderation effects involving item difficulty, valence, intensity, sex of poser as well as individual differences in trait empathy measured with the Empathy Quotient (EQ) for a general score and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) for a multidimensional assessment of cognitive and emotional empathy. Oxytocin did not affect mind-reading, neither in general nor when considering specific item characteristics. An association between oxytocin-induced changes in RMET performance and emotional empathy (the empathic concern scale of the IRI) was evident, with individuals low in emotional empathy showing greater improvement after oxytocin administration compared to placebo. The reproducibility and variability of these and prior findings needs to be addressed in future experiments. As true effects may not replicate across different studies for various reasons, this should not discourage, but encourage further research. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据