GUEST EDITORIAL Beyond‘‘Oxytocin 5 Good’’: Neural Complexities and the Flipside of Social Bonds Sari M. van Anders • James L. Goodson • Marcy A. Kingsbury Published online: 29 May 2013 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013 Everyone loves a love story, so it is no surprise that research on oxytocin (OT) and affiliation has grabbed scientific and pop- ular attention over the past decade. Laypeople and scholars from diverse fields often conceptualize OT and other neuropeptides like vasopressin and prolactin (AVP; PRL) as prosocial, i.e., positively linked to positive social events and states like sexu- ality, pair bonding, trust, commitment, affiliation, etc. However, there are arguably no neurochemicals that exert unitary and beneficent functions throughout the brain and body, such as uniformly promoting prosocial (i.e.,‘‘good’’) behavior. In addi- tion, we cannot expect that peptides such as AVP and OT will exert identical effects across species, given that the brain dis- tributions of relevant receptors are species-specific. In this Guest Editorial, we highlight these complexities as they relate to the sociosexual functions of OT. Critical attention to the assumption that‘‘OT = GOOD’’is based not only on the recognition that neurochemicals have effects beyond those we like or focus on, but also on an increas- ingly large body of literature showing concerning effects of OT administration or correlates (e.g., Bartz et al., 2011; De Dreu, Greer, Van Kleef, Shalvi, & Handgraaf, 2011; see also Miller, 2013). As such, there is reason to pause and rethink some of the basic foundations upon which current OT research is premised, including translational efforts and human experimentation that is ethical and safe. If researchers are interested in an equation that posits OT = GOOD, it is logical and appropriate to design studies that focus on positive outcomes. But it is logically flawed to use this groundwork to conclude that OT = GOOD because studies that only measure positive outcomes (e.g., how good?) will never be able to address alternative outcomes that are unde- sirable or antisocial. Human Sociosexual Bonds in Perspective Evidence is suggestive that OT might increase parameters like trust (e.g., Kosfeld, Heinrichs, Zak, Fischbacher, & Fehr, 2005), but trust cannot be uniformly understood in a positive light. There are a host of situations where distrust would be more appropriate. For example, some individuals contract sexually transmitted infections (STIs) because they trust their partner’s claims of safe sex status (i.e., that a certain activity cannot lead to STIs; that the partner has not engaged in STI-risk behaviors). Or, though some reports suggest that OT levels (or AVP receptor genes) could be used to identify people who are predisposed to monogamy (Walum et al., 2008), monogamy—like trust— cannot be interpreted as an undeniable universal good regardless of context (see, e.g., Conley, Ziegler, Moors, Matsick, & Valentine, 2013). The focus on monogamy as something universally desirable is a specific cultural position. After all, many cultures do not ascribe to monogamy. Another way that studies challenge the presumed equation of OT = GOOD is, in part, by reminding us of social exclusion, the flipside of affiliation and social bonds. A social bond reflects a special orientation to another person, but can also involve the not-so-innocuous orienting away from other people (though it does not necessarily have to do so) (Brewer, 1999). For example, some research suggests that nonapeptides might facilitate ingroup trust, but also outgroup mistrust (De Dreu et al., 2010, 2011). Outgroups rely on categorizing some people into less special S. M. van Anders (&) Departments of Psychology & Women’s Studies, Program in Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences Program, Science, Technology, & Society Program, University of Michigan, 530 Church St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA e-mail: smva@umich.edu J. L. Goodson Á M. A. Kingsbury Center for the Integrative Study of Animal Behavior, Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA 123 Arch Sex Behav (2013) 42:1115–1118 DOI 10.1007/s10508-013-0134-9