The set-up of this experiment seems a bit too simplistic to me. I wonder, especially, if one inhalation of oxytocin is enough to really made a notable difference, or if certain levels of the hormone need to be sustained in the brain for a while for it to make a significant difference.
From what I understand, the experimental group was only slightly more generous than the control group (5%?), a margin that can easily be explained by the participants' personalities, for example, or the mood they were in that day.
I have to agree with Shahrzad -- do you know if there've been other experiments dealing with the effect of oxytocin on social generosity that support the results of Zak's experiment?
Also, at the end of the article, Zak is quoted saying that “as we become aware of these unconscious processes, we have better control over them.” Is simple awareness of the process enough to control it? How does this work?
Good questions. The amount of oxytocin used was 40 IU. The IU is a measure established for every pharmacological substance based on the amount required for effectiveness. The oxytocin was not administered through a normal "sniff," but rather through a mass inhaler. The oxytocin was administered one hour before the studies took place, in order for it to have the proper amount of time to take effect.
I agree with Shahrzad in terms of the tin y margin of change in the experimental group. Did Zak test the existing levels of oxytocin prior to the inhalations? Did he attempt varying levels of oxytocin or did he just try it out with one specific dose? If so why?
If oxytocin can not effectively be used in large spaces, such as a Casino as is the example in the article, could it be secretly and effectively used in different forms that could reach large quantities of people? For example in water.
I wonder if the results might be different if a larger amount of money was used instead, thus giving more incentive to keep or want a larger portion. For example, if $100 was used, would most people still be willing to settle for 30% of it.
The set-up of this experiment seems a bit too simplistic to me. I wonder, especially, if one inhalation of oxytocin is enough to really made a notable difference, or if certain levels of the hormone need to be sustained in the brain for a while for it to make a significant difference.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, the experimental group was only slightly more generous than the control group (5%?), a margin that can easily be explained by the participants' personalities, for example, or the mood they were in that day.
I have to agree with Shahrzad -- do you know if there've been other experiments dealing with the effect of oxytocin on social generosity that support the results of Zak's experiment?
ReplyDeleteAlso, at the end of the article, Zak is quoted saying that “as we become aware of these unconscious processes, we have better control over them.” Is simple awareness of the process enough to control it? How does this work?
Good questions. The amount of oxytocin used was 40 IU. The IU is a measure established for every pharmacological substance based on the amount required for effectiveness. The oxytocin was not administered through a normal "sniff," but rather through a mass inhaler. The oxytocin was administered one hour before the studies took place, in order for it to have the proper amount of time to take effect.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shahrzad in terms of the tin y margin of change in the experimental group. Did Zak test the existing levels of oxytocin prior to the inhalations? Did he attempt varying levels of oxytocin or did he just try it out with one specific dose? If so why?
ReplyDeleteIf oxytocin can not effectively be used in large spaces, such as a Casino as is the example in the article, could it be secretly and effectively used in different forms that could reach large quantities of people? For example in water.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the results might be different if a larger amount of money was used instead, thus giving more incentive to keep or want a larger portion. For example, if $100 was used, would most people still be willing to settle for 30% of it.
ReplyDelete