An integrated framework for the role of oxytocin in multistage social decision‐making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in the effects of oxytocin on social behavior has persisted even as an overarching theory describing these effects has remained largely elusive. Some of the earliest studies on the effects of oxytocin on social decision-making indicated that oxytocin might enhance prosocial actions directed toward others. This led to development of the prosocial hypothesis, which stipulates that oxytocin specifically enhances prosocial choices. However, further work indicated that oxytocin administration could elicit antisocial behaviors as well in certain social situations, highlighting the importance of context-dependent effects. At least two prominent hypotheses have been used to explain these seemingly contradictory findings. The social salience hypothesis indicates that the effects of oxytocin can be conceptualized as a general increase in the salience of social stimuli in the environment. Distinctly, the approach/withdrawal hypothesis stipulates that oxytocin enhances approach behaviors and decreases withdrawal behaviors. These phenomenologically motivated hypotheses regarding the effects of oxytocin on social behavior have created controversies in the field. In this review, we present a multistage framework of social decision-making designed to unify these disparate theories in a process common to all social decisions. We conceptualize this process as involving multiple distinct computational steps, including sensory input, sensory perception, valuation, decision formulation, and behavioral output. Iteratively, these steps generate social behaviors, and oxytocin could be acting on any of these steps to exert its effects. In support of this framework, we examine both behavioral and neural evidence across rodents, non-human primates, and humans, determining at what point in our multistage framework oxytocin could be eliciting its socially relevant effects. Finally, we postulate based on our framework that the prosocial, social salience, and approach/withdrawal hypotheses may not be mutually exclusive and could explain the influence of oxytocin on social behavior to different extents depending on context.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".