Coping style moderates the effect of intranasal oxytocin on the mood response to interpersonal stress.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent evidence suggests self-administration of intranasal oxytocin may facilitate social interaction by attenuating the stress response to interpersonal conflict. Currently, no published research has documented whether intraindividual factors moderate the effect of intranasal oxytocin on the emotional response to stress. The aim of the present study was to determine whether coping style moderates the effect of intranasal oxytocin on mood in response to an interpersonal stressor in healthy men and women. In a double-blind placebo-controlled experiment, 100 undergraduate students (50 women) participated in the Yale Interpersonal Stressor (YIPS: Stroud, Tanofsky-Kraff, Wilfley, & Salovey, 2000), a live social rejection paradigm. Prior to the YIPS, participants were randomly assigned to self-administer either intranasal oxytocin (24 IU) or a placebo. Coping was measured using the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations. Multiple regression analyses predicting stress-related changes in anxiety revealed a significant Drug × Emotion-oriented coping × Sex interaction [pr2 = .06, b = 6.074, t(91) = -2.526, p = .014]. Follow-up analyses using simple slopes revealed self-administration of intranasal oxytocin reduced anxiety in response to the YIPS relative to the placebo in women high in emotion-oriented coping [b = 4.487, t(91) = 2.09, p < .05], but not in women low in emotion-oriented coping, or men. The results suggest that intraindividual factors modulate the effect of intranasal oxytocin on the affective response to stress. Intranasal oxytocin appears to be particularly beneficial to women who endorse high levels of emotion-oriented coping, who may be vulnerable to the negative impact of stress.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".