Study on oxytocin and monogamy

I only read the abstract, but I notice it's mono-biased. Basically, it presupposes that humans are monogamous and attempts to explain why.

They measured perceived attractiveness of partner vs non-partner women, both familiar and unfamiliar, under the influence of oxytocin. They did not measure attractiveness between multiple bonded partners, or between a legitimate partner and an infidelitous partner.

I couldn't access the full article through my university, but I'd be interested to see the numbers on the partners vs familiar vs unfamiliar women. They found that men are more attracted to their partners than to other familiar women, but the abstract didn't provide the margins or comparisons with unfamiliar women.

In my opinion, the findings are more indicative about what hormones are responsible for pair-bonding in males than they are about explaining fidelity or demonstrating a biological basis for sexual monogamy.
 
Yeah, it was a whole crock of shite.
 
I was left with so many questions. I see some connections between this article and the work of Helen Fisher, but the authors did not establish if this "oxytocin" response could be felt for more than one familiar face. Additionally, the article implied that those with a diminshed oxytocin response actually feel less attached to their partners. Hmmm. I know my experiences are anecdotal and could be so-called outliers in a data set, but if anything, my poly partners are more attached. There are simply so many possible confounds here, it makes me question how it was taken on as a research question. I'd also like to see the research on women too. I've seen studies on maternal rats showing their elevated oxytocin rates correlated to bonding with their young...but applying these concepts to poly/mono seems a stretch. Still, I find this sort of science fascinating and I hope there is more of it in the years to come.
 
Yeah, it was a whole crock of shite.

No it wasn't.

It just used different assumptions.

It's likely that had they tested poly men that they would have seen the same response for their multiple partners.

The research is valid in confirming that we have, and which compounds mediate, pair bonding in out nature. It affirms that men's brains can be programmed to diminish the attractiveness and appeal of other women under the influence of oxytocin.
 
I can't access the study from my phone but I remember from discussing it previously that how they picked the people for the study was flawed amongst other things. Brb.
 
http://m.jneurosci.org/content/32/46/16074

Here is another one.

My point isn't to attack your POV, I'm trying to explain that oxytocin has many well recorded 'bond' effects between people. It appears to support bonding between mother and child, romantic couples, and in reverse, reduce bonding between strangers.

If it works for self reported monogamous men, it's likely in effect with poly fidelitous men too. It's not like mothers kill their firstborn when the oxytocin helps her bond with her second child, after all.
 
I don't feel attacked. As I said, I can't access this article on my phone but the one I'm talking about was about the distance men kept from a woman after a dose of oxytocin.
 
It's likely that had they tested poly men that they would have seen the same response for their multiple partners.

In science, that's known as a "hypothesis" and not a "finding." When you do a study on a specific group of people, it's bad science to generalize outside the test group.

Honestly, we have no idea what they would find if they studied the brains of poly men, or men who have a history of cheating. It could very well be that poly men have fewer oxytocin receptors, and so their attraction to other women is less diminished under its influence. It could be that men who habitually cheat have almost no oxytocin receptors, and so they're as attracted to other women as they are to their partner(s).

Actually, I would find THAT study to be fascinating. It would go towards settling the "hard wired or not" question of poly inclination.

The research is valid in confirming that we have, and which compounds mediate, pair bonding in out nature. It affirms that men's brains can be programmed to diminish the attractiveness and appeal of other women under the influence of oxytocin.

I don't think anyone needed a study to confirm "that" we have pair bonding, but this study didn't do that anyway. It assumed that these men were pair bonded, because the men said "this is my pair bonded partner."

At most, the study confirmed that oxytocin is involved in pair bonding. That's hardly worth a publication, it's been known for decades.

All it showed is your final point, that attractiveness of non-partners diminishes under the influence of oxytocin in men who identify as monogamous. And sure, that's a valid finding, and it may be interesting to the people who are interested in that kind of thing...

but

It says nothing about monogamy.

The hypothalamic peptide oxytocin (OXT) has been implicated in mediating pair bonds in various species, but as yet, we know little about neurobiological factors that might act to promote fidelity, especially in men. Here we provide evidence for a mechanism by which OXT may contribute to romantic bonds in men by enhancing their partner's attractiveness and reward value compared with other women.

And we still know little.

This type of study is the reason why people in the hard sciences have so little respect for psychology and sociology as a "science." If you want to be taken seriously, you have to start with demonstrable assertions. If your whole study is based on a false assumption, then you haven't proven anything.
 
Last edited:
"This type of study is the reason why people in the hard sciences have so little respect for psychology and sociology as a "science." If you want to be taken seriously, you have to start with demonstrable assertions. If your whole study is based on a false assumption, then you haven't proven anything."

Ouch. This hurt my little neuroscientist feelings.
 
Awww, but you wouldn't be involved in such pseudo-research, isn't that right? :) [just nod and say yes]

So what inspired researchers to initiate this study? Did someone ask, "I wish we could develop a pill that would get men to be monogamous?" Just curious.

In any case, the study definitely failed to mention the possibility that a man (or woman) could pair-bond with more than one partner. (Of course I, too, am just working off the abstract ...)

Regarding the second study, it sounds like the research reaches farther but still works from a group of monogamous men. To determine whether oxytocin promotes pair-bonding only with one partner, we'd need to conduct a study using both monogamous and non-monogamous men (and women?).

I guess the second study does show that oxytocin discourages men from looking for new partners. But it doesn't say whether they could already have multiple (long-term) partners (prior to the influx of extra oxytocin). Sounds like my impression of the first study: The question on everyone's mind seems to be, "Can a pill be invented that would get men to stay monogamous?"

As it stands, a lot of non-monogamous men are out there. Would they even want, or be willing, to take an oxytocin-boosting pill to "cure" that? It's almost like asking, what if a medicine were invented that would cure men of homosexuality? I suppose it would be a powerful tool in the hands of the Church ...
 
I'm nodding. LOL. I'm on the academic end. Just educating the next generation of malfeasant pseudoscientists...;-)
 
Poly isn't mainstream. It's not even on the radar of the scientists because they won't get funding for that kind of research.

There is a politics game to play that has to cater to the mainstream political fabric or it won't get funded.

I understand you want to promote your own POV, but that has to be congruent with the mainstream to get traction.

Ie, Poly can reduce the welfare state, or national security, or federal income, or save the children, until you can convince people it is as normal as GLBT or interracial marriage.

However, I'm not sure how you can do that. Maybe a second sexual revolution has to occur:
1) Unlimited birth control (good luck with that!)
2) Sex isn't cheating. Love isn't cheating. Breaking your commitments and promises is cheating.
3) Don't promise to be faithful in marriage.
 
Meh, not that engaged in what scientists are working on. Just keeping an eye on it. And yes, it's all about funding, unfortunately, and no, poly isn't mainstream; I'm well aware.

I'll note that I didn't keep my marital vows, in that I eventually proposed to change the rules. Going back to the day of the wedding, I made the vows it didn't occur to me that I'd ever want to abandon (let alone that I'd ever want to leave the church). Between 1995 and 2005 I found my world tipped upside down and shaken out. Still cleaning up that mess.

Nothing is simple, much less anything about poly. But I did find my own stash of unlimited birth control: a vasectomy.

But, that's me. I'm not about to engage on a quest to get the whole world to take up my cross. Participating on a poly board seems to be an adequate substitute for that, AFAIAC.

But yeah, someday they'll do more poly-inclusive research, I'm happy to believe and say. Probably not while I'm alive, but.
 
... and @ Dana ... you're welcome, carry on. ;)
 
The distance study didn't account for people who do not socialise in a typical way. It would be interesting yo see the results for poly people in closed relationships. And as Kevin said, what was their aim?
 
The distance study didn't account for people who do not socialise in a typical way. It would be interesting yo see the results for poly people in closed relationships. And as Kevin said, what was their aim?

Their aim was to get published. The great thing about science is that it is public, reviewed, iterative, and available for others to criticize and adopt.
 
The aim of a study is what it is trying to find out and why. If people are conducting studies like this because they believe monogamy is the right and best thing to do and they want to devise ways of promoting and enforcing monogamy, it invalidates the credibility of their research. Ie turns it into a crock of shite.
 
Back
Top