Oxytocin salvages context-specific hyperaltruistic preference through moral framing

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Zhang et al. addressed the question of whether hyperaltruistic preference is modulated by decision context, and tested how oxytocin (OXT) may modulate this process. Using an adapted version of a previously well-established moral decision-making task, healthy human participants in this study undergo decisions that gain more (or lose less, termed as context) meanwhile inducing more painful shocks to either themselves or another person (recipient). The alternative choice is always less gain (or more loss) meanwhile less pain. Through a series of regression analyses, the authors reported that hyperaltruistic preference can only be found in the gain context but not in the loss context, however, OXT reestablished the hyperaltruistic preference in the loss context similar to that in the gain context.

Strengths:

This is a solid study that directly adapted a previously well-established task and the analytical pipeline to assess hyperaltruistic preference in separate decision contexts. Context-dependent decisions have gained more and more attention in literature in recent years, hence this study is timely. It also links individual traits (via questionnaires) with task performance, to test potential individual differences. The OXT study is done with great methodological rigor, including pre-registration. Both studies have proper power analysis to determine the sample size.

Weaknesses:

Despite the strengths, multiple analytical decisions have to be explained, justified, or clarified. Also, there is scope to enhance the clarity and coherence of the writing - as it stands, readers will have to go back and forth to search for information. Last, it would be helpful to add line numbers in the manuscript during the revision, as this will help all reviewers to locate the parts we are talking about.

(1) Introduction:
The introduction is somewhat unmotivated, with key terms/concepts left unexplained until relatively late in the manuscript. One of the main focuses in this work is "hyperaltruistic", but how is this defined? It seems that the authors take the meaning of "willing to pay more to reduce other's pain than their own pain", but is this what the task is measuring? Did participants ever need to PAY something to reduce the other's pain? Note that some previous studies indeed allow participants to pay something to reduce other's pain. And what makes it "HYPER-altruistic" rather than simply "altruistic"? Plus, in the intro, the authors mentioned that the "boundary conditions" remain unexplored, but this idea is never touched again. What do boundary conditions mean here in this task? How do the results/data help with finding out the boundary conditions? Can this be discussed within wider literature in the Discussion section? Last, what motivated the authors to examine the decision context? It comes somewhat out of the blue that the opening paragraph states that "We set out to [...] decision context", but why? Are there other important factors? Why decision context is more important than studying those others?

(2) Experimental Design:
(2a) The experiment per se is largely solid, as it followed a previously well-established protocol. But I am curious about how the participants got instructed? Did the experimenter ever mention the word "help" or "harm" to the participants? It would be helpful to include the exact instructions in the SI.

(2b) Relatedly, the experimental details were not quite comprehensive in the main text. Indeed, the Methods come after the main text, but to be able to guide readers to understand what was going on, it would be very helpful if the authors could include some necessary experimental details at the beginning of the Results section.

(3) Statistical Analysis
(3a) One of the main analyses uses the harm aversion model (Eq1) and the results section keeps referring to one of the key parameters of it (ie, k). However, it is difficult to understand the text without going to the Methods section below. Hence it would be very helpful to repeat the equation also in the main text. A similar idea goes to the delta_m and delta_s terms - it will be very helpful to give a clear meaning of them, as nearly all analyses rely on knowing what they mean.

(3b) There is one additional parameter gamma (choice consistency) in the model. Did the authors also examine the task-related difference of gamma? This might be important as some studies have shown that the other-oriented choice consistency may differ in different prosocial contexts.

(3c) I am not fully convinced that the authors included two types of models: the harm aversion model and the logistic regression models. Indeed, the models look similar, and the authors have acknowledged that. But I wonder if there is a way to combine them? For example:
Choice ~ delta_V * context * recipient (*Oxt_v._placebo)
The calculation of delta_V follows Equation 1.
Or the conceptual question is, if the authors were interested in the specific and independent contribution of dalta_m and dalta_s to behavior, as their logistic model did, why did the authors examine the harm aversion first, where a parameter k is controlling for the trade-off? One way to find it out is to properly run different models and run model comparisons. In the end, it would be beneficial to only focus on the "winning" model to draw inferences.

(3d) The interpretation of the main OXT results needs to be more cautious. According to the operationalization, "hyperaltruistic" is the reduction of pain of others (higher % of choosing the less painful option) relative to the self. But relative to the placebo (as baseline), OXT did not increase the % of choosing the less painful option for others, rather, it decreased the % of choosing the less painful option for themselves. In other words, the degree of reducing other's pain is the same under OXT and placebo, but the degree of benefiting self-interest is reduced under OXT. I think this needs to be unpacked, and some of the wording needs to be changed. I am not very familiar with the OXT literature, but I believe it is very important to differentiate whether OXT is doing something on self-oriented actions vs other-oriented actions. Relatedly, for results such as that in Figure 5A, it would be helpful to not only look at the difference but also the actual magnitude of the sensitivity to the shocks, for self and others, under OXT and placebo.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors reported two studies where they investigated the context effect of hyperaltruistic tendency in moral decision-making. They replicated the hyperaltruistic moral preference in the gain domain, where participants inflicted electric shocks on themselves or another person in exchange for monetary profits for themselves. In the loss domain, such hyperaltruistic tendency is abolished. Interestingly, oxytocin administration reinstated the hyperaltruistic tendency in the loss domain. The authors also examined the correlation between individual differences in utilitarian psychology and the context effect of hyperaltruistic tendency.

Strengths:

(1) The research question - the boundary condition of hyperaltruistic tendency in moral decision-making and its neural basis - is theoretically important.

(2) Manipulating the brain via pharmacological means offers a causal understanding of the neurobiological basis of the psychological phenomenon in question.

(3) Individual difference analysis reveals interesting moderators of the behavioral tendency.

Weaknesses:

(1) The theoretical hypothesis needs to be better justified. There are studies addressing the neurobiological mechanism of hyperaltruistic tendency, which the authors unfortunately skipped entirely.

(2) There are some important inconsistencies between the preregistration and the actual data collection/analysis, which the authors did not justify.

(3) Some of the exploratory analysis seems underpowered (e.g., large multiple regression models with only about 40 participants).

(4) Inaccurate conceptualization of utilitarian psychology and the questionnaire used to measure it.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors aimed to index individual variation in decision-making when decisions pit the interests of the self (gains in money, potential for electric shock) against the interests of an unknown stranger in another room (potential for unknown shock). In addition, the authors conducted an additional study in which male participants were either administered intranasal oxytocin or placebo before completing the task to identify the role of oxytocin in moderating task responses. Participants' choice data was analyzed using a harm aversion model in which choices were driven by the subjective value difference between the less and more painful options.

Strengths:

Overall I think this is a well-conducted, interesting, and novel set of research studies exploring decision-making that balances outcomes for the self versus a stranger, and the potential role of the hormone oxytocin (OT) in shaping these decisions. The pain component of the paradigm is well designed, as is the decision-making task, and overall the analyses were well suited to evaluating and interpreting the data. Advantages of the task design include the absence of deception, e.g., the use of a real study partner and real stakes, as a trial from the task was selected at random after the study and the choice the participant made was actually executed.

Weaknesses:

The primary weakness of the paper concerns its framing. Although it purports to be measuring "hyper-altruism" it does not provide evidence to support why any of the behavior being measured is extreme enough to warrant the modifier "hyper" (and indeed throughout I believe the writing tends toward hyperbole, using, e.g., verbs like "obliterate" rather than "reduce"). More seriously, I do not believe that the task constitutes altruism, but rather the decision to engage, or not engage, in instrumental aggression.

I found it surprising that a paradigm that entails deciding to hurt or not hurt someone else for personal benefit (whether acquiring a financial gain or avoiding a loss) would be described as measuring "altruism." Deciding to hurt someone for personal benefit is the definition of instrumental aggression. I did not see that in any of the studies was there a possibility of acting to benefit the other participant in any condition. Altruism is not equivalent to refraining from engaging in instrumental aggression. True altruism would be to accept shocks to the self for the other's benefit (e.g., money). The interpretation of this task as assessing instrumental aggression is supported by the fact that only the Instrumental Harm subscale of the OUS was associated with outcomes in the task, but not the Impartial Benevolence subscale. By contrast, the IB subscale is the one more consistently associated with altruism (e.g,. Kahane et al 2018; Amormino at al, 2022) I believe it is important for scientific accuracy for the paper, including the title, to be re-written to reflect what it is testing.

Relatedly: in the introduction I believe it would be important to discuss the non-symmetry of moral obligations related to help/harm--we have obligations not to harm strangers but no obligation to help strangers. This is another reason I do not think the term "hyper altruism" is a good description for this task--given it is typically viewed as morally obligatory not to harm strangers, choosing not to harm them is not "hyper" altruistic (and again, I do not view it as obviously altruism at all).

The framing of the role of OT also felt incomplete. In introducing the potential relevance of OT to behavior in this task, it is important to pull in evidence from non-human animals on origins of OT as a hormone selected for its role in maternal care and defense (including defensive aggression). The non-human animal literature regarding the effects of OT is on the whole much more robust and definitive than the human literature. The evidence is abundant that OT motivates the defensive care of offspring of all kinds. My read of the present OT findings is that they increase participants' willingness to refrain from shocking strangers even when incurring a loss (that is, in a context where the participant is weighing harm to themselves versus harm to the other). It will be important to explain why OT would be relevant to refraining from instrumental aggression, again, drawing on the non-human animal literature.

Another important limitation is the use of only male participants in Study 2. This was not an essential exclusion. It should be clear throughout sections of the manuscript that this study's effects can be generalized only to male participants.