Changes in mood, oxytocin, and cortisol following group and individual singing: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group singing elevates mood, increases social bonding, and regulates stress. However, the question remains as to how much of the singer’s mood-boost is derived from social aspects of group singing and how much can be achieved through singing alone. In the current study, we adopted a sociobiological approach to investigate the underpinnings of the mood-boosting effect of singing. Using a within-subjects design, self-report mood, salivary oxytocin, and salivary cortisol were assessed before and after group and individual singing conditions. This study uncovered several important findings: group singing elevated mood, whereas individual singing did not. Importantly, although both group and individual singing led to decreases in cortisol, only group singing led to increases in oxytocin. Further analysis revealed that oxytocin, but not cortisol, significantly correlated with mood. These findings suggest that the mood-boosting effect of singing is likely due to social aspects and is influenced by changes in oxytocin.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".