Effects of oxytocin administration on receiving help.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Receiving help can be a "mixed blessing." Despite the many psychosocial benefits it can carry, it sometimes has negative psychological consequences, such as loss in self-esteem or enhanced guilt. It is, therefore, important to understand the factors that modify responses to receiving help from others. We explored the role of the hormone oxytocin (OT) on affective and social responses to receiving help, given the putative role of OT in social bonding and attunement. To this end, we manipulated whether help was received from a same-sex interaction partner (confederate) versus a control condition, crossed with a double-blind administration of intranasal OT (vs. placebo), and examined subjective and observer-rated participant responses to help. We observed significant interactions between OT and the help manipulation. In the placebo condition, receiving help from the interaction partner compared with the control condition had negative consequences, such that participants reported greater negative affect and came to view themselves and their interaction partners more negatively after interacting together on several tasks. What is important, however, is that OT administration buffered against these negative subjective responses to receiving help. Further, outside observers rated participants who received OT administration as expressing greater happiness and gratitude in response to help, relative to those who received placebo. In sum, in the context of receiving help from a stranger, oxytocin administration fostered more positive affective and social responses. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".