Combining oxytocin administration and positive emotion inductions: Examining social perception and analytical performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intranasal administration of the hypothalamic neuropeptide oxytocin (OT) has, in some studies, been associated with positive effects on social perception and cognition. Similarly, positive emotion inductions can improve a range of perceptual and performance-based behaviors. In this exploratory study, we examined how OT administration and positive emotion inductions interact in their associations with social and analytical performance. Participants (N=124) were randomly assigned to receive an intranasal spray of OT (40IU) or placebo and then viewed one of three videos designed to engender one of the following emotion states: social warmth, pride, or an affectively neutral state. Following the emotion induction, participants completed social perception and analytical tasks. There were no significant main effects of OT condition on social perception tasks, failing to replicate prior research, or on analytical performance. Further, OT condition and positive emotion inductions did not interact with each other in their associations with social perception performance. However, OT condition and positive emotion manipulations did significantly interact in their associations with analytical performance. Specifically, combining positive emotion inductions with OT administration was associated with worse analytical performance, with the pride induction no longer benefiting performance and the warmth induction resulting in worse performance. In sum, we found little evidence for main or interactive effects of OT on social perception but preliminary evidence that OT administration may impair analytical performance when paired with positive emotion inductions.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".