Trust in a Bottle

flosofl writes "The BBC has a report on oxytocin and its ability to skew our trust levels. 'The participants in the study played a game, in which they were split into "investors" and "trustees." The investors were then given credits and told they could chose whether to hand over zero, four, eight or 12 credits to their assigned trustee.' Some of the investors were given oxytocin via nasal spray. The results were surprising: 'Of 29 investors who were given oxytocin, 13 (45%) displayed "maximal trust" by choosing to invest highly, compared to six (21%) of the 29 investors who were given the dummy spray.' When the trustee was a computer, there was no difference between the two test groups."

Comments

"Control" group?

[drsmack1]

When the trustee was a computer, there was no difference between the two test groups."

Except they were *way* cooler....

Too Small of a Test

[rhino_badlands]

For this to really be worked out you need to do multiple test on a much larger scale. The people in the one group could have just been suckers.

Re:Too Small of a Test

[Joe Random]

For this to really be worked out you need to do multiple test on a much larger scale.

Trust me, 29 people is more than enough to obtain statistically-significant results. Now where's my Oxytocin....

Re:Too Small of a Test

[NoData]

What mean? Mean of what?
29 people is plenty of subjects for a reliable statistical test. The t distribution is about equivalent to the normal distribution at about 30 samples. 30 samples is about the usual rule of thumb for adequate power for a cell in a behavioral experiment. But, you know, it really depends on the effect size of whatever you're studying.

Anyway, the right test to do here, just from the tiny snippet of info we're given about the study is a chi square test. According to TFA, a subject could invest 0, 4, 8, or 12 credits. If we assume that we would expect a uniform distribution of investment across these levels (and I don't know if that's a fair distrubtion to assume, perhaps normal is better--you'd expect more people to invest middle amounts than extremes, perhaps), then we expect 7.25 people to fall in each of the 4 cells. For just the oxytocin condition, they report 13 people invested 12 credits. Let's assume that the remaining 16 subjects were evenly distributed among the 0, 4. and 8 investment levels. That means 5 1/3 people in each of those cells. With those data, the chi square test gives you a p value of .11 (Chi sqaure score of 6.08), which means a less than 11% chance of getting these results just by chance. That's not exactly meeting the 5% standard alpha level for significance, but then again, I've made some horrible simplifying assumptions that stack the deck against significance. Besides my made up data, I'm sure there's a repeated measures component to this study...I doubt each subject had to only make ONE investment decision in the whole experiment. The repeated measures would lend a lot more power.

**NEW** From RONCO!

[drsmack1]

Oxytocin scented heavy duty condoms; sold at truck stops everywhere!

Re:**NEW** From RONCO!

[nEoN nOoDlE]

If you are already taking out the condom, you obviously don't need the oxytocin.

Effects of virtual trustee?

[Sv-Manowar]

Its interesting that when a computer was the trustee, there was no measured effect from the oxytocin. If this effect is replicated for all non-human interaction, then the use of this on a larger scale would seem to be limited. However, there are interesting repercussions for the use of this kind of thing in business negotiations, where there can be control over the environment and a degree of trust could have a vital swing in decisions made

Being able to 'over-ride the fear of being betrayed', as it is put in the article could be a powerful factor in swaying decisions, and I would hope that by the time of any mass-market availability or application that ways and means of testing would be available for those environments that require 100% impartiality.

I'm interested to find out...

[gnovos]

I'm curious how this affects the "trust level" of people who were previously burned, especially by the person you are expected to trust. Is it just automatic, or do you still have some ability to balance it... If not, this could turn out to be the holy grail for all kinds of good and evil purposes.

Re:Such Hogwash

[Anonymous Coward]

That's oxycontin -- we're talking about oxytocin.

Different thing altogether.

Although with a jar of both I imagine you could have a heck of a party.

At the end of which, (wait for it), you'll probably need some OxyClean.

Re:If memory serves me correctly...

[ultramk]

It's released a lot of times... usually during intimacy.

it's released:
- during sex
- when a mother holds her baby
- when nursing
- when two people are holding each other

I had a professor who called it "the Cuddle Drug". It's been thought to play a major part of the "bonding" process, parent/child as well as romantic relationships.

And no, it's not Oxycontin, which is a completely different thing.

m-

Horny geeks, take note.

[Jerk City Troll]

This hormone is produced when female nipples are stimulated. Maybe you guys can get her to trust you.

Re:Number of participants

[tktk]

I used to be in a graduate psychology program.

If it was a social psych. experiment, 29 participants would have been considered enough. I have no idea why.

I was in developmental psych. and was expected to get a minimum of 200 participants for my own study. Likewise, people in the cogntive psych. program had to get 100 or more participants.

Re:Number of participants

[Skippy_kangaroo]

Not necessarily.

The standard deviation of a binomial distribution is sqrt(n.p.(1-p)) where n is the number of subjects and p is the probability of maximal trust.

Thus, out of a sample of 29 people and with p=0.21 the standard deviation is 2.2.

Thus, 13 is 3.2 standard deviations away from 6. There is only a 0.07% chance that these are from the same distribution.

Thus, they can conclusively conclude that this spray had a statistically significant effect on trust.

You can make it more complicated if you wish but the basic fact remains that you can get statistically significant results from small samples. In this case there is only a 0.07% chance that they are wrong.

Re:Number of participants

[yali]

The experimenters reported p=.029 (one-tailed) with their results. If you accept the one-tailed test, it is "statistically significant" by conventional standards.

And N=58 (29 people per group) is pretty typical for single studies in the behavioral sciences. Ultimately, the grandparent is right -- this needs to be replicated. But that's true of single studies in any scientific field, no matter the sample size or p-value. This is an exciting enough discovery that you can bet lots of scientists are going to try to replicate it.

Re:It's a BS experiment.

[XorNand]

Wow... I guess you've never been in the position of having to sell a product or service. It's a very core principle of professional salesmanship: if the prospect doesn't trust you, he will never open his wallet. 90% of the sales process is working to build rapport and trust with that person. People don't decide to buy or not to buy based on reading the stacks of whitepapers and literature thrown at them. They don't call your previous customers to ask how your track record looks. It all boils down to how they personally feel about the guy trying to influence them, aka "trust".

Corporate uses

[John Seminal]

First, real trust has nothing to do with gambling or business. You don't have to trust in situations like that, you just have to make decisions based on previous knowledge

You are missing on how this will be abused. Marketing firms will do anything to get you to buy. They made TV so you get 12 minutes of a show you want, then 3 minutes of louder and brighter commercials. That stopped working too well, so the marketing firms started paying television show producers to place thier products in shows.

Marketing firms hire psychologists and doctors to find ways to get people attention, put the consumer in a more relaxed and willing mood to buy their product.

Look at all the commercials on television that are for weight loss. They show beautiful women and guys with rock hard abs, they praise the product like it changed their life. Then in the smallest possible letters the following is written: "atypical results". To anyone who has not scored over 700+ on the SAT verbal, that probably has little meaning, if you can even see it!!

So how will this new scent that increases trust be used. Don't be suprised if you walk by an advertising poster in a local shopping mall, and get a wiff of something that makes you really believe whatever the poster says. Je'n sait pas, mais je crois!!

But the greatest harm this will do is to make us less trusting of each other. We will become more callous and apathetic. Nuerotransmitters are not available in unlimited qualities. Once used, it takes a time until more is available. Also, since this scent works on a phisiological level, we will no longer be as trusting, the threashold for trust on a phisiological level will be increased. This is just like the tolerance for capsiacin, or hot peppers. The first time someone has a jalepenjo, it will taste much hotter than the 500th habanero someone eats, even though the habanero is 100X hotter a pepper. The first burn is always the worst, the body adjusts the threshold for a nueron to fire.

So, what will we have. More companies trying to push their product down our throat. They will blur the line between advertising and getting a physiological response. And as a society, we will increasingly become less trusting, more apathetic, and more miserable.

Re:Corporate uses

[darkonc]

Yes, I fully agree with the above... Personally, I think that a law should be passed to make the use of this new chemical and it's relatives illegal except for medically important purposes (i.e. for medical research or with a prescription).

Re:Corporate uses

[BlueFashoo]

You're thinking of oxycontin, a.k.a., hillbilly heroin, and Rush's drug of choice. What they use here is oxitocin, a neurotransmitter associated with bonding, orgasms, and the milk let down response.

Re:Corporate uses

[Syre]

I wonder if the random use of oxytocin will be made impossible through insurance considerations.

It's used to induce labor and terminate pregnancy (see the prescribing information).

If a store started spraying it into the air and women started going into labor and having premature babies, the lawsuits and legal settlements would be astronomical.

Re:It's a BS experiment.

[AntiFreeze]

theres no pill on earth which will make a person stupid

Dude, have you ever heard of Ecstacy?

I doubt it affects it.

[jd]

It is entirely plausible that people who are naturally charismatic are somehow making use of this mechanism. However, such people are often excused of wrongdoing by followers - including those followers who are burned, strongly suggesting that personal injury and self-preservation are NOT factors.

Since the effect seems to be producable by a spray, it is entirely possible that the human body releases low levels of this stuff naturally. If that is indeed the case, it might be interesting to see what the levels are around "in person" celebrities - stage performers, those politicians who mingle with the crowd, etc. My guess would be that people who make it in such environments differ at this kind of chemical level from those who prefer to be kept at a distance (it's hard to see how chemical traces could get through a movie screen, for example).

My guess would also be that cult settings include (by accident or design) an exceptionally high concentration of this chemical. If you think about the "stereotypical" settings for such things, you are generally looking at highly charismatic people (see above theory), and very probably a high usage of all kinds of evaporating oils, incence, perfumes, etc. In such a setting, the adding of something that lowered mental resistance would seem to be more of a question of what form it took, rather than whether it was being done.

Despite the First and Seventh Amendments, I would think that it would be a very good idea to ban the willful use of any chemical that impairs reasoning or ability to trust, especially in any religious or political situation where abuse has the potential to be monsterous.

I would also suggest that the law on such matters as criminal insanity be adjusted to allow for this finding, as it would seem possible that a person's ability to tell right from wrong, or make rational judgements as to who to believe on certain matters, would be impaired only in the presence of the person they were around at the time, making it impossible for an independent psychologist to accurately assess the state of mind under laboratory conditions.

It would seem a grave miscarriage of justice to allow serious abusers of human chemical imperetives to be utterly free and lawfully able to continue that abuse, no matter what the consequences. Likewise, it would also seem to be a grave miscarriage of justice if victims of that abuse could be imprisoned or executed because the law had failed to recognize the reality and implications of that abuse.

This is not to sat that all criminals are really innocent victims, but rather that some unknown percentage may well be, especially where cults and charismatics are concerned. I think that the authorities should be taking this seriously. At least, more seriously and more rapidly than said cults and charismatics are.