Acetaminophen influences social and economic trust

Ian D Roberts, Ian Krajbich, Baldwin M Way, Ian D Roberts, Ian Krajbich, Baldwin M Way

Abstract

Acetaminophen has long been assumed to selectively alleviate physical pain, but recent research has started to reveal its broader psychological effects. Building on this work, we find suggestive evidence that acetaminophen affects the basic social process of trust across a national survey and five lab experiments. In a national community sample (MIDUS II), acetaminophen usage was negatively associated with neighborhood trust and feelings of social integration. In a series of lab experiments (N = 767), acetaminophen reduced the influence of self-generated expectations on investments in a trust game. When we manipulated trust game investor expectations, acetaminophen increased investments regardless of expectations. These results provide the first demonstration that an over-the-counter drug can impact trust-related behavior. Overall, the findings paint a complex picture of how situational factors may influence drug effects.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Survey data results for acetaminophen usage and (A) neighborhood trust and (B) social integration. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Experiments 4 and 5 combined: Instructed expected return predicting investment. Trials were binned by the expected return that was presented to participants. Because only one trial had an expected return greater than 0.7, this trial was incorporated into the next highest bin in order to the keep the number of trials within each bin roughly equivalent. Participants’ mean investments within each bin was calculated and then the mean of the participant means was plotted. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

References

    1. Kaufman DW, Kelly JP, Rosenberg L, Anderson TE, Mitchell AA. Recent patterns of medication use in the ambulatory adult population of the United States: The Slone survey. JAMA. 2002;287:337–344. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.3.337.
    1. Fehr, E. & Schmidt, K. M. The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism – Experimental evidence and new theories. In Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism, and Reciprocity (eds Kolm, S.-C. & Ythier, J. M.) 615–691 (Elsevier, 2006).
    1. Knack S, Keefer P. Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. Q. J. Econ. 1997;112:1251–1288. doi: 10.1162/003355300555475.
    1. La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW. Trust in large organizations. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. 1997;87:333–338.
    1. DeWall CN, et al. Acetaminophen reduces social pain: Behavioral and neural evidence. Psychol. Sci. 2010;21:931–937. doi: 10.1177/0956797610374741.
    1. Fung K, Alden LE. Once hurt, twice shy: Social pain contributes to social anxiety. Emotion. 2017;17:231–239. doi: 10.1037/emo0000223.
    1. Mischkowski D, Crocker J, Way BM. From painkiller to empathy killer: Acetaminophen (paracetamol) reduces empathy for pain. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2016;11:1345–1353. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw057.
    1. Durso GRO, Luttrell A, Way BM. Over-the-counter relief from pains and pleasures alike: Acetaminophen blunts evaluation sensitivity to both negative and positive stimuli. Psychol. Sci. 2015;26:750–758. doi: 10.1177/0956797615570366.
    1. Keyes CLM. Social well-being. Soc. Psychol. Q. 1998;61:121–140. doi: 10.2307/2787065.
    1. Berg J, Dickhaut J, McCabe K. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 1995;10:122–142. doi: 10.1006/game.1995.1027.
    1. Bohnet I, Zeckhauser R. Trust, risk and betrayal. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2004;55:467–484. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2003.11.004.
    1. Costa-Gomes MA, Huck S, Weizsäcker G. Beliefs and actions in the trust game: Creating instrumental variables to estimate the causal effect. Games Econ. Behav. 2014;88:298–309. doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2014.10.006.
    1. Schimmack U. The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. Psychol. Methods. 2012;17:551–566. doi: 10.1037/a0029487.
    1. Buchan NR, Croson RTA, Solnick S. Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2008;68:466–476. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2007.10.006.
    1. Xiang T, Lohrenz T, Montague PR. Computational substrates of norms and their violations during social exchange. J. Neurosci. 2013;33:1099–1108. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1642-12.2013.
    1. Chang LJ, Smith A, Dufwenberg M, Sanfey AG. Triangulating the neural, psychological, and economic bases of guilt aversion. Neuron. 2011;70:560–572. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.056.
    1. Keaveney AA, Peters E, Way BM. Acetaminophen increases risk-taking behavior via reduced sensitivity to loss. Psychosom. Med. 2016;78:A27–A28.
    1. Singla NK, et al. Plasma and cerebrospinal fluid pharmacokinetic parameters after single‐dose administration of intravenous, oral, or rectal acetaminophen. Pain Pract. 2012;12:523–532. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2012.00556.x.
    1. DeWall CN, Chester DS, White DS. Can acetaminophen reduce the pain of decision-making? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2015;56:117–120. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.09.006.
    1. Johnson EJ, Häubl G, Keinan A. Aspects of endowment: a query theory of value construction. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2007;33:461. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.461.
    1. Randles, D., Heine, S. J. & Santos, N. The common pain of surrealism and death: Acetaminophen reduces compensatory affirmation following meaning threats. Psychol. Sci. 24, 966–973 (2013).
    1. Lerner JS, Li Y, Valdesolo P, Kassam KS. Emotion and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2015;66:799–823. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043.
    1. Greifeneder R, Bless H, Pham MT. When do people rely on affective and cognitive feelings in judgment? A review. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2011;15:107–141. doi: 10.1177/1088868310367640.
    1. Huntsinger JR, Isbell LM, Clore GL. The affective control of thought: Malleable, not fixed. Psychol. Rev. 2014;121:600–618. doi: 10.1037/a0037669.
    1. Kosfeld M, Heinrichs M, Zak PJ, Fischbacher U, Fehr E. Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature. 2005;435:673–676. doi: 10.1038/nature03701.
    1. Aimone JA, Houser D, Weber B. Neural signatures of betrayal aversion: an fMRI study of trust. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2014;281:20132127. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.2127.
    1. Aimone JA, Houser D. What you don’t know won’t hurt you: a laboratory analysis of betrayal aversion. Exp. Econ. 2012;15:571–588. doi: 10.1007/s10683-012-9314-z.
    1. Bäck M, Hlawaty H, Labat C, Michel J-B, Brink C. The oral cavity and age: A site of chronic inflammation? Plos One. 2007;2:e1351. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001351.
    1. Graham GG, Davies MJ, Day RO, Mohamudally A, Scott KF. The modern pharmacology of paracetamol: therapeutic actions, mechanism of action, metabolism, toxicity and recent pharmacological findings. Inflammopharmacology. 2013;21:201–232. doi: 10.1007/s10787-013-0172-x.
    1. Fouragnan E, et al. Reputational priors magnify striatal responses to violations of trust. J. Neurosci. 2013;33:3602–3611. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3086-12.2013.
    1. Bellucci G, Chernyak SV, Goodyear K, Eickhoff SB, Krueger F. Neural signatures of trust in reciprocity: A coordinate-based meta-analysis. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2017;38:1233–1248. doi: 10.1002/hbm.23451.
    1. Zarolia P, Weisbuch M, McRae K. Influence of indirect information on interpersonal trust despite direct information. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2017;112:39–57. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000074.
    1. Levy I, Snell J, Nelson AJ, Rustichini A, Glimcher PW. Neural representation of subjective value under risk and ambiguity. J. Neurophysiol. 2010;103:1036–1047. doi: 10.1152/jn.00853.2009.
    1. Huettel SA, Stowe CJ, Gordon EM, Warner BT, Platt ML. Neural signatures of economic preferences for risk and ambiguity. Neuron. 2006;49:765–775. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.01.024.
    1. Darley JM, Fazio RH. Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. Am. Psychol. 1980;35:867–881. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.10.867.
    1. Cottrell CA, Neuberg SL, Li NP. What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2007;92:208–231. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.208.
    1. Simpson JA. Psychological foundations of trust. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2007;16:264–268. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00517.x.
    1. Campbell L, Simpson JA, Boldry JG, Rubin H. Trust, variability in relationship evaluations, and relationship processes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2010;99:14–31. doi: 10.1037/a0019714.
    1. Jachimowicz JM, Chafik S, Munrat S, Prabhu JC, Weber EU. Community trust reduces myopic decisions of low-income individuals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2017;114:5401–5406. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1617395114.
    1. Lang, P. J. Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment: computer applications. In Technology in mental health care delivery systems (eds Sidowski, J., Johnson, J. & Williams, T.) 119–l37 (Ablex, 1980).
    1. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2015).
    1. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 2015;67:1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
    1. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. (2015).

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj