Oxytocin Modulates the Cognitive Appraisal of the Own and Others Close Intimate Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Close and intimate relationships are important promoters of health. Oxytocin and its association with social cognition have been investigated in a large number of studies, especially highlighting the neuropeptide’s involvement in attachment behavior and intimate relationships. However, mixed findings on exogenous oxytocin application have led to the focus on moderators and mediators, suggesting that the effects are depended on specific factors – namely context and salience. The objective of the current study was to assess the effect of intranasal oxytocin on social appraisal of own and others’ close intimate relationship characteristics. Different characteristics of relationships, including trust or closeness, between romantic couples (unknown and own) were assessed using the Couple Appraisal Task. In a randomized controlled double-blind cross-over within subject design, N= 71 healthy men and women were investigated after receiving first intranasal oxytocin and two weeks later placebo, or vice versa. We found an oxytocin-induced increase in the positive appraisal of one’s own overall relationship characteristics but not in the evaluation of the relationship of others. The present study – one of the first of its kind administrating oxytocin in a repeated measures cross-over design – adds further evidence to the mediating role of oxytocin in social cognition, specifically with regard to romantic relationship characteristics.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".