Gender Impacts the Relationship between Mood Disorder Symptoms and Effortful Avoidance Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We must often decide how much effort to exert or withhold to avoid undesirable outcomes or obtain rewards. In depression and anxiety, levels of avoidance can be excessive and reward-seeking may be reduced. Yet outstanding questions remain about the links between motivated action/inhibition and anxiety and depression levels, and whether they differ between men and women. Here, we examined the relationship between anxiety and depression scores, and performance on effortful active and inhibitory avoidance (Study 1) and reward seeking (Study 2) in humans. Undergraduates and paid online workers ([Formula: see text] = 545, [Formula: see text] = 310; [Formula: see text] = 368, [Formula: see text] = 450, [Formula: see text] = 22.58, [Formula: see text] = 17-62) were assessed on the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) and performed an instructed online avoidance or reward-seeking task. Participants had to make multiple presses on active trials and withhold presses on inhibitory trials to avoid an unpleasant sound (Study 1) or obtain points toward a monetary reward (Study 2). Overall, men deployed more effort than women in both avoidance and reward-seeking, and anxiety scores were negatively associated with active reward-seeking performance based on sensitivity scores. Gender interacted with anxiety scores and inhibitory avoidance performance, such that women with higher anxiety showed worse avoidance performance. Our results illuminate effects of gender in the relationship between anxiety and depression levels and the motivation to actively and effortfully respond to obtain positive and avoid negative outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".