When the Love Hormone Leads to Violence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Does oxytocin influence intimate partner violence (IPV)? Clues from prior research suggest that oxytocin increases prosocial behavior, but this effect is reversed among people with aggressive tendencies or in situations involving defensive aggression. Animal research also indicates that oxytocin plays a central role in defensive maternal aggression (i.e., protecting pups from intruders). Among highly aggressive people, a boost of oxytocin may cause them to use aggression toward close others as a means of maintaining their relationship. Adopting an interactionist approach, we predicted that oxytocin would increase IPV inclinations, but this effect would be limited to people high in trait physical aggression. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, between-subject experiment, participants varying in trait physical aggression received either 24 international unit of oxytocin or a placebo. Following two provocation tasks, participants rated the probability that they would engage in various aggressive behaviors (e.g., slapping, throwing an object that could hurt) toward a romantic partner. Oxytocin increased IPV inclinations, but this effect was limited to participants prone to physical aggression. These data offer the first evidence that IPV inclinations have a biological basis in a combination of oxytocin and trait physical aggressiveness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it