Thinking and doing: the effects of dopamine and oxytocin genes and executive function on mothering behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal and human studies suggest that initial expression of maternal behaviour depends on oxytocin and dopamine systems. However, the mechanism by which these systems affect parenting behaviours and the timing of these effects are not well understood. This article explores the role of mothers' executive function in mediating the relation between oxytocin and dopamine gene variants and maternal responsiveness at 48 months post-partum. Participants (n = 157) were mothers recruited in the Maternal Adversity, Vulnerability and Neurodevelopment Study, which assesses longitudinally two cohorts of mothers and children in Canada. We examined single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to the dopamine and oxytocin systems (DRD1 rs686, DRD1 rs265976, OXTR rs237885 and OXTR rs2254298), assessed mothers' decision-making at 48 months using the Cambridge Neurological Automated Testing Battery (CANTAB) and evaluated maternal responsiveness from videotaped interactions during the Etch-A-Sketch co-operation task. Mediation analyses showed that OXTR rs2254298 A-carriers had an indirect effect on positive parenting which was mediated by mothers' performance on decision-making task (estimate = 0.115, P < 0.005), while OXTR rs2254298 A-carriers had both direct and indirect effects on physically controlling parenting, also mediated through enhanced performance on decision-making (estimate = -0.059, P < 0.005). Dopamine SNPs were not associated with any measure of executive function or parenting (all P > 0.05). While oxytocin has previously been associated with only the early onset of maternal behaviour, we show that an OXTR polymorphism is involved in maternal behaviour at 48 months post-partum through mothers' executive function. This research highlights the importance of the oxytocin system to maternal parenting beyond infancy.
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 | 0.001 | 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".