On the relation between oral contraceptive use and self-control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In two studies we examined the relation between oral contraceptive (OC) use and self-reported levels of self-control in undergraduate women using OCs (Study 1: OC group N = 399, Study 2: OC group N = 288) and naturally cycling women not using any form of hormonal contraceptives (Study 1: Non-OC group N = 964, Study 2: Non-OC group N = 997). We assessed the self-overriding aspect of self-control using the Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS) and strategies for self-regulation using the Regulatory Mode Scale (RMS), which separately measures the tendency to assess one's progress towards a goal (assessment), and the tendency to engage in activities that move one towards an end goal (locomotion). In Study 1, we found no significant differences between OC and non-OC groups in their levels of self-overriding or self-regulatory assessment. However, we found that those in the OC group reported significantly greater levels of self-regulatory locomotion compared to those in the non-OC group, even after controlling for depression symptoms and the semester of data collection. The findings from Study 2 replicated the findings from Study 1 in a different sample of participants, with the exception that OC use was also related to higher levels of assessment in Study 2. These results indicate that OC use is related to increases in self-regulatory actions in service of goal pursuit and perhaps the tendency to evaluate progress towards goals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".