Investigating the biological mechanisms behind trust and conflict
Citizen Science Belleville tests the replicability of experiments which can improve health, relationships, and/or well-being for future generations. For our first project, we selected an experiment which could help improve relationships for our children, our grandchildren, and people all around the world.
In selecting this result to test, we considered several criteria:
- How important is the claimed experimental result?
- Does replicability need to be tested?
- Are we able to test replicability?
The result we selected is that a hormone called “oxytocin” facilitates trust in government by Democrats but not by Republicans.
In 2012, The Huffington Post and Psychology Today cited this result as indicating a way for Republicans to win presidential elections by chemically manipulating Democrats. The Moral Molecule, released that same year, claimed that “oxytocin generates the empathy that drives moral behavior” (p 64) and cited the result as evidence that “one of the factors that can short-circuit oxytocin is deeply entrenched abstraction [of Republican ideology]” (p 188). One reason a result can be important is the potential to misuse it, and it is not difficult to imagine this result being abused if replicability is not tested.
Just to be clear: The oxytocin study by itself could not possibly yield evidence that Republican ideology damages people. Just as society needs both male and female, it is possible that society needs people who think differently — some who think in ways that use oxytocin and others who think in ways that don’t.
Aside from its potential to be misused, the result we chose to test is important for its potential to help people understand and address political polarization. A study of bias in judging scholarship applications found that the average person will reject the most qualified candidate over 70 percent of the time if aware that the candidate affiliates with the opposing political party. Another found that over 22 percent of consistent conservatives and consistent liberals threaten to be unhappy if an immediate family member were to marry a member of the political opposition. Political polarization is serious.
However, as these examples begin to suggest, political polarization is just the tip of an iceberg. The original study claimed to identify a biological mechanism, and we doubt that any biological mechanism would be limited to politics. The relevant individual difference may be some personality factor which just happened to correlate with political affiliations in the original sample.
Advancing scientific understanding of trust should help reduce divorce, conflict within families, conflicts in workplaces, and depression/ suicide that results from feeling like one does not fit in. Economic analysis suggest that every 15 percent increase in average trust levels yields a one percent increase in per capita income. In short, the result is part of science which promises to improve relationships in general, and that would impact health and well-being too.
Many scientists have confirmed that people have different kinds of brains which correlate with different political predispositions — Predisposed reviews evidence which spans genetics, neurobiology, and psychology — but we will not know how to use evidence of difference to improve relationships until we understand the mechanisms underlying those differences. That’s what’s so important about the oxytocin experiment.
Oxytocin happens to be triggered by certain engineered social environments, including choirs, heart-wrenching movies, wedding ceremonies, and Facebook. If the oxytocin result is replicable, then relational health will be impacted by decisions about those environments (e.g. what kind of wedding to have, how to incorporate music into schools and workplaces, etc.). Practical application of this area of science would be as close as identifying relevant environments and people.
It is tempting to suppose that professional scientists would handle any science that is important enough to be handled, but professional scientists tend to prioritize testing of their own theories. That has produced what is now known as the “Replication Crisis.” Before 2012, only 1.6 percent of all published psychology experiments were replication attempts. Citizen Science Belleville conducts replication studies to help more professional scientists be able to focus on their own priorities.
In the five years since scientists began citing the oxytocin result, no other independent professional scientist has tested it. Professionals are unlikely to test it because it is interdisciplinary and because professionals prefer to steer clear of the ethical issues involved in administering an FDA-regulated drug that impacts trust. The team who designed and conducted the original experiment split up, so this science is stalled at the replication stage.
The final question is whether Citizen Science Belleville can help fill the gap. We use a new peer-review format called “registered reports.” In this format, we develop a detailed plan for how to conduct the replication, then professional scientists review the plan to confirm that it is adequate. If the reviewers determine that the plan is adequate and a journal commits to publish the results, then we enact the plan.
We have drafted the plan, tested it on ourselves, and are drafting a submission to an independent board to review the ethics. Short of waiting for us to actually conduct the replication study, the best way to judge our potential to conduct it is to review our plan.
We will also need to raise funds for supplies. We plan to do that through crowdfunding — small donations collected through the internet. No money changes hands unless the full budget is reached. If you can help spread the word about the opportunity to donate and/or participate in this experiment, then please stay in touch by liking our Facebook page.
