IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0267988.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is oxytocin a trust hormone? Salivary oxytocin is associated with caution but not with general trust

Author

Listed:
  • Qiulu Shou
  • Junko Yamada
  • Kuniyuki Nishina
  • Masahiro Matsunaga
  • Toko Kiyonari
  • Haruto Takagishi

Abstract

Studies on the association between trust and oxytocin, a neuropeptide of the central nervous system, have not reached a consensus, thereby challenging the possibility of a direct association between the two. However, previous studies have not examined how oxytocin is correlated with trust, based on its categorization into different factors in the field of social science. For instance, based on Yamagishi’s trust theory, trust can be categorized into two factors: general trust and caution. General trust refers to beliefs about the trustworthiness of others, whereas caution refers to the belief that caution is needed when dealing with high social uncertainty. In this study, to examine the relationship between these two factors and oxytocin, we analyzed data of 197 adults (men = 98, women = 99; mean age = 41.7 years; standard deviation for age = 10.4 years) and examined the relationships between these two factors of trust and endogenous salivary oxytocin levels. We found that oxytocin was positively correlated with caution rather than with general trust thereby suggesting that oxytocin plays a role in regulating caution rather than general trust among the components of trust. The present study demonstrated that salivary oxytocin level can act as a biomarker that partially predicts one’s trust, especially as reflected by caution.

Suggested Citation

  • Qiulu Shou & Junko Yamada & Kuniyuki Nishina & Masahiro Matsunaga & Toko Kiyonari & Haruto Takagishi, 2022. "Is oxytocin a trust hormone? Salivary oxytocin is associated with caution but not with general trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-11, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267988
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267988
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267988
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267988&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0267988?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Kosfeld & Markus Heinrichs & Paul J. Zak & Urs Fischbacher & Ernst Fehr, 2005. "Oxytocin increases trust in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 435(7042), pages 673-676, June.
    2. Carolyn H. Declerck & Christophe Boone & Loren Pauwels & Bodo Vogt & Ernst Fehr, 2020. "A registered replication study on oxytocin and trust," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(6), pages 646-655, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sakura Arai & Motoki Watabe & Kei Kanari & Qiulu Shou & Frank Krueger & Haruto Takagishi, 2023. "Salivary Oxytocin Has Nonlinear Relationships with Trust and Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9, February.
    2. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    3. Kimbrough, E.O. & Vostroknutov, A., 2012. "Rules, rule-following and cooperation," Research Memorandum 053, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    4. Daniel Houser & Daniel Schunk & Joachim Winter, 2006. "Trust Games Measure Trust," MEA discussion paper series 06112, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    5. Tamara Niella & Nicolás Stier-Moses & Mariano Sigman, 2016. "Nudging Cooperation in a Crowd Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, January.
    6. Schniter, E. & Shields, T.W. & Sznycer, D., 2020. "Trust in humans and robots: Economically similar but emotionally different," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    7. Paul J Zak & Angela A Stanton & Sheila Ahmadi, 2007. "Oxytocin Increases Generosity in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(11), pages 1-5, November.
    8. Giovanni Bartolomeo & Stefano Papa, 2016. "Does collective meditation foster trust and trustworthiness in an investment game?," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 63(4), pages 379-392, December.
    9. Sofianos, Andis, 2022. "Self-reported & revealed trust: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    10. Carsten K W De Dreu & Shaul Shalvi & Lindred L Greer & Gerben A Van Kleef & Michel J J Handgraaf, 2012. "Oxytocin Motivates Non-Cooperation in Intergroup Conflict to Protect Vulnerable In-Group Members," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-7, November.
    11. Alexandre Truc & Dorian Jullien, 2023. "A controversy about modeling practices: the case of inequity aversion," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(3), pages 203-227, July.
    12. Lim, Weng Marc, 2018. "Demystifying neuromarketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 205-220.
    13. Roberto Fumagalli, 2016. "Decision sciences and the new case for paternalism: three welfare-related justificatory challenges," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 459-480, August.
    14. Aoyagi, Keitaro & Sawada, Yasuyuki & Shoji, Masahiro, 2022. "Irrigation infrastructure and trust: Evidence from natural and lab-in-the-field experiments in rural communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    15. Erik O. Kimbrough & Alexander Vostroknutov, 2016. "Norms Make Preferences Social," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 608-638, June.
    16. Gruner, Sven & Lehberger, Mira & Hirschauer, Norbert & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2022. "How (un)informative are experiments with students for other social groups? A study of agricultural students and farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(03), January.
    17. repec:zur:iewwpx:450 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Maria Bigoni & Sven-Olof Fridolfsson & Chloé Le Coq & Giancarlo Spagnolo, 2015. "Trust, Leniency, and Deterrence," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 663-689.
    19. Aimone, Jason A. & Houser, Daniel, 2013. "Harnessing the benefits of betrayal aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 1-8.
    20. Lönnqvist, Jan-Erik & Verkasalo, Markku & Walkowitz, Gari & Wichardt, Philipp C., 2015. "Measuring individual risk attitudes in the lab: Task or ask? An empirical comparison," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 254-266.
    21. Coren L Apicella & David Cesarini & Magnus Johannesson & Christopher T Dawes & Paul Lichtenstein & Björn Wallace & Jonathan Beauchamp & Lars Westberg, 2010. "No Association between Oxytocin Receptor (OXTR) Gene Polymorphisms and Experimentally Elicited Social Preferences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(6), pages 1-8, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267988. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.