Skip to main content

Umbrella menu

  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Video Archive
    • Collections
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Permissions
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Video Archive
    • Collections
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Permissions
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
PreviousNext
Featured ArticleBrief Communications

Oxytocin Modulates Social Distance between Males and Females

Dirk Scheele, Nadine Striepens, Onur Güntürkün, Sandra Deutschländer, Wolfgang Maier, Keith M. Kendrick and René Hurlemann
Journal of Neuroscience 14 November 2012, 32 (46) 16074-16079; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2755-12.2012
Dirk Scheele
1Department of Psychiatry, University of Bonn, 53105 Bonn, Germany,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nadine Striepens
1Department of Psychiatry, University of Bonn, 53105 Bonn, Germany,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Onur Güntürkün
2Department of Biopsychology, Ruhr University, 44780 Bochum, Germany,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sandra Deutschländer
1Department of Psychiatry, University of Bonn, 53105 Bonn, Germany,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wolfgang Maier
1Department of Psychiatry, University of Bonn, 53105 Bonn, Germany, 4German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, 53175 Bonn, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Keith M. Kendrick
3Key Laboratory for Neuroinformation, School of Life Science and Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, 610054 Chengdu, P.R. China, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
René Hurlemann
1Department of Psychiatry, University of Bonn, 53105 Bonn, Germany,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Effects of OXT in the stop-distance paradigm (A) and in the approach-avoidance task (B). Ai, Experimental setup. In the first half of the trials, the female experimenter was the one moving either toward (“far”, i.e., start distance of 2 m) or away (“close”, start distance of 30 cm) from the subject; in the second half, the male volunteer was the one approaching or withdrawing. An additional condition was gaze direction, with the female experimenter avoiding eye contact in half of the trials. Aii, Ideal distances when the experimenter was moving. Aiii, Ideal distances when the subject was moving. Across all conditions, OXT increased the ideal distance that pair-bonded men maintained in relation to the unknown attractive woman. Aiv, Slightly uncomfortable distances are positively correlated with social phobia scores across groups. For the approach-avoidance task, response times and number of error trials are shown. B, Reaction times (ms) of correct trials and number of error trials for the approach of positive, social and nonsocial pictures. In the OXT group, subjects in a relationship pulled the stimuli significantly slower toward themselves and made significantly more errors than singles only with social pictures. Error bars indicate the SEM.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Demographic, neuropsychological, and personality characteristics of the subjects participating in Experiments 1 and 2

    OXT groupPLC group
    Singles (n = 14)Relationship (n = 14)Singles (n = 13)Relationship (n = 16)
    Age (years)23.50 (2.62)26.57 (2.85)25.31 (2.59)25.38 (4.06)
    Years of education17.15 (2.27)19.29 (3.24)17.19 (2.51)17.54 (2.11)
    RAVLT
        Trial 1-5a62.38 (5.27)60.07 (7.19)60.77 (7.03)65.13 (6.40)
        Trial 6: Retentionb14.31 (1.18)13.64 (1.55)13.77 (3.06)13.87 (1.41)
        Trial 7: Delayed recallc14.77 (0.44)13.86 (1.17)13.69 (3.30)13.93 (1.44)
    LPS-4d32.46 (3.13)32.36 (3.27)31.00 (4.49)31.80 (3.93)
    MWT-Ae30.57 (2.34)31.93 (2.02)30.54 (3.41)31.87 (2.72)
    d2f205.14 (40.13)195.55 (28.41)183.69 (38.38)202.13 (29.25)
    TMT-Ag (seconds)26.62 (6.78)26.50 (9.66)21.89 (4.43)25.03 (6.29)
    TMT-Bg (seconds)59.14 (19.51)55.07 (16.81)64.78 (19.25)56.52 (21.64)
    Digit-span, forwardh8.79 (2.19)9.21 (1.85)9.46 (1.85)9.06 (2.38)
    Digit-span, backwardsh8.15 (2.48)9.13 (2.42)9.07 (2.16)9.29 (2.13)
    STAI State, prei40.50 (2.90)41.07 (2.92)40.88 (3.50)40.85 (3.11)
    STAI State, posti40.00 (2.66)41.57 (3.86)41.92 (3.97)40.06 (2.84)
    STAI Traiti43.86 (4.72)42.67 (1.30)42.33 (4.50)43.64 (4.48)
    Positive affect, prej27.00 (5.39)28.14 (5.36)30.54 (6.28)29.94 (5.50)
    Positive affect, postj26.64 (6.13)27.79 (6.41)29.54 (5.32)28.69 (5.49)
    Negative affect, prej11.00 (0.78)11.57 (2.28)12.23 (3.44)10.63 (1.02)
    Negative affect, postj10.86 (1.29)11.29 (1.86)10.63 (1.26)11.15 (1.63)
    SIASk14.29 (7.53)15.43 (8.24)13.00 (6.95)11.94 (5.27)
    SPSl4.57 (3.90)5.33 (5.00)4.38 (3.36)4.07 (3.34)
    BISm2.07 (0.42)2.18 (0.41)2.16 (0.52)2.37 (0.56)
    BASn2.92 (0.43)3.02 (0.32)3.17 (0.49)3.15 (0.45)
    • There were neither main nor interaction effects of treatment and relationship status (all ps > 0.05) for any of the parameters listed in this table. Verbal declarative memory performance was assessed using a German adaption of the RAVLT (Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test) and included the following:

    • ↵alearning performance across five trials (maximum possible score 75),

    • ↵bsusceptibility to interference (maximum possible score 15), and

    • ↵cdelayed recall (maximum possible score 15). Nonverbal reasoning IQ was assessed by the

    • ↵dLPS (Leistungsprüfsystem) subtest 4 (maximum possible score 40). Verbal IQ based on lexical decisions was assessed by the

    • ↵eMWT-A (Mehrfachwahl-Wortschatz-Intelligenz-Test Teil A; maximum possible score 37), visual attention and concentration was assesses using the

    • ↵fd2 (Aufmerksamkeits- und Belastungstest d2), visual attention and task-switching was assessed using the

    • ↵gTMT-A and TMT-B (Trail-making test A and B), working memory performance was assessed using the

    • ↵hdigit-span forward and backward test (maximum possible score 14). Mood and anxiety were assessed before and after the experiment with the

    • ↵iSTAI (State Trait Anxiety Inventory) and the

    • ↵jPANAS (Positive and Negative Affective Schedule). Personality traits were measured with the

    • ↵kSIAS (Social Interaction Anxiety Scale), the

    • ↵lSPS (Social Phobia Scale), the

    • ↵mBIS (Behavioral Inhibition System), and the

    • ↵nBAS (Behavioral Approach System). Given are mean values (SD).

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Demographic, neuropsychological, and personality characteristics of the subjects participating in the independent control experiment

    OXT (n = 15)PLC (n = 14)
    Age (years)26.40 (3.29)25.43 (3.24)
    Years of education18.43 (2.53)17.64 (2.27)
    RAVLT
        Trial 1-5a58.14 (7.93)64.17 (6.25)
        Trial 6: Retentionb12.29 (2.20)13.67 (1.50)
        Trial 7: Delayed recallc12.71 (1.94)13.92 (1.51)
    LPS-4d30.93 (3.27)31.31 (3.79)
    MWT-Ae31.86 (2.35)31.64 (3.03)
    d2f210.91 (25.38)221.55 (24.24)
    TMT-Ag (seconds)24.50 (7.38)23.44 (6.87)
    TMT-Bg (seconds)63.08 (15.93)50.41 (11.87)
    Digit-span, forwardh8.21 (8.54)8.54 (2.03)
    Digit-span, backwardsh7.86 (2.28)7.93 (2.14)
    STAI State, prei43.07 (2.87)41.29 (2.46)
    STAI State, posti41.93 (3.41)39.57 (4.86)
    STAI Traiti43.07 (4.46)41.14 (3.67)
    Positive affect, prej30.80 (4.07)28.36 (5.03)
    Positive affect, postj26.87 (7.49)27.86 (6.06)
    Negative affect, prej10.87 (1.25)11.57 (3.27)
    Negative affect, postj11.00 (1.60)10.71 (0.83)
    SIASk11.57 (3.60)12.25 (5.60)
    SPSl3.50 (3.21)4.29 (3.99)
    BISm2.01 (0.37)2.21 (0.66)
    BASn3.27 (0.18)2.93 (0.47)
    • There were no significant between-group differences for any of the parameters listed in this table (all ps > 0.05). The applied inventories and tests are referenced in Table 1. Given are mean values (SD).

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Ideal and slightly uncomfortable distances (cm) as measured for pair-bonded participants in the physical presence of a female (Experiment 1) and male (control experiment) experimenter

    Female experimenterMale experimenter
    OXT (n = 14)PLC (n = 16)OXT (n = 15)PLC (n = 14)
    Ideal distance
        Experimenter moves
            Far (EC)70.41 (9.41)55.90 (10.01)64.27 (9.66)60.94 (10.46)
            Far (NEC)67.96 (9.93)54.11 (8.66)63.28 (9.80)58.95 (10.00)
            Close (EC)68.40 (7.31)57.56 (10.02)72.16 (7.55)64.54 (10.86)
            Close (NEC)68.16 (7.25)55.82 (8.88)72.34 (7.66)65.20 (10.50)
        Participant moves
            Far (EC)69.43 (12.41)54.52 (11.65)66.13 (10.09)60.33 (11.26)
            Far (NEC)68.86 (12.06)55.56 (11.71)64.96 (9.59)60.45 (11.75)
            Close (EC)78.41 (15.13)61.27 (11.03)71.07 (10.24)64.47 (9.84)
            Close (NEC)79.31 (14.11)60.56 (10.84)71.00 (10.79)65.02 (10.95)
    Uncomfortable distance
        Experimenter moves
            Far (EC)44.40 (5.44)37.47 (4.38)38.82 (4.18)37.75 (5.26)
            Far (NEC)42.78 (5.64)36.75 (5.61)37.84 (4.64)38.05 (5.41)
        Participant moves
            Far (EC)43.01 (10.58)36.18 (6.02)37.94 (5.47)37.02 (6.66)
            Far (NEC)43.74 (10.52)37.92 (6.59)39.26 (5.61)37.85 (6.53)
    • Overall, OXT significantly enlarged social distance (across all conditions) in the physical presence of a female experimenter (p < 0.01), but not of a male experimenter (p = 0.11). Given are mean values (SD). EC, Eye contact; NEC, no eye contact.

Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 32 (46)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 32, Issue 46
14 Nov 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Oxytocin Modulates Social Distance between Males and Females
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Oxytocin Modulates Social Distance between Males and Females
Dirk Scheele, Nadine Striepens, Onur Güntürkün, Sandra Deutschländer, Wolfgang Maier, Keith M. Kendrick, René Hurlemann
Journal of Neuroscience 14 November 2012, 32 (46) 16074-16079; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2755-12.2012

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article

Share
Oxytocin Modulates Social Distance between Males and Females
Dirk Scheele, Nadine Striepens, Onur Güntürkün, Sandra Deutschländer, Wolfgang Maier, Keith M. Kendrick, René Hurlemann
Journal of Neuroscience 14 November 2012, 32 (46) 16074-16079; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2755-12.2012
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Possible Involvement of P2Y2 Metabotropic Receptors in ATP-Induced Transient Receptor Potential Vanilloid Receptor 1-Mediated Thermal Hypersensitivity
  • Heteromodal Cortical Areas Encode Sensory-Motor Features of Word Meaning
  • Pharmacologically Counteracting a Phenotypic Difference in Cerebellar GABAA Receptor Response to Alcohol Prevents Excessive Alcohol Consumption in a High Alcohol-Consuming Rodent Genotype
Show more BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Video Archive
  • Collections

For Authors

  • Information for Authors

About

  • Overview
  • Editorial Board
  • Subscriptions
  • For the Media
  • Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • Feedback
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2018 by the Society for Neuroscience.

JNeurosci   Print ISSN: 0270-6474   Online ISSN: 1529-2401