Towards better hypothesis tests in oxytocin research: Evaluating the validity of auxiliary assumptions

Abstract

Various factors have been attributed to the inconsistent reproducibility of human oxytocin research in the cognitive and behavioral sciences. These factors include small sample sizes, a lack of pre-registered studies, and the absence of overarching theoretical frameworks that can account for oxytocin’s effects over a broad range of contexts. While there have been efforts to remedy these issues, there has been very little systematic scrutiny of the role of auxiliary assumptions, which are claims that are not central for testing a hypothesis but nonetheless critical for testing theories. For instance, the hypothesis that oxytocin increases the salience of social cues is predicated on the assumption that intranasally administered oxytocin increases oxytocin levels in the brain. Without robust auxiliary assumptions, it is unclear whether a hypothesis testing failure is due to an incorrect hypothesis or poorly supported auxiliary assumptions. Consequently, poorly supported auxiliary assumptions can be blamed for hypothesis failure, thereby safeguarding theories from falsification. In this article, I will evaluate the body of evidence for key auxiliary assumptions in human behavioral oxytocin research in terms of theory, experimental design, and statistical inference, and highlight assumptions that require stronger evidence. Strong auxiliary assumptions will leave hypotheses vulnerable for falsification, which will improve hypothesis testing and consequently advance our understanding of oxytocin’s role in cognition and behavior.