MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410192477 · doi:10.1093/scan/nsaf049

Effects of Oxytocin on Agency in Anxiously Attached Individuals, a Replication and Extension

2025· article· en· W4410192477 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer A. Bartz, Willis Klein, Amy J P Gregory

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyOxytocinAgency (philosophy)Prosocial behaviorSocial psychologyClosenessInterpersonal communicationDevelopmental psychologyAnxietyPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oxytocin can promote prosocial behaviour but also result in anti-social effects in anxiously attached individuals. Such individuals desire interpersonal closeness but are preoccupied with abandonment; they also lack agency (self-efficacy, empowerment), possibly because of thwarted attachment needs. By augmenting affiliative strivings, oxytocin may threaten anxiously attached individuals' already fragile sense of agency. Indeed, prior work shows that oxytocin increases communion, especially for avoidant individuals, but decreases agency for anxious individuals. Here, we replicated the oxytocin-avoidance-communion effect (P < .001), with some additional nuance, and the oxytocin--anxiety-agency effect (P = .014) in a larger (N = 77; within-subject), gender diverse sample. We also investigated bodily agency using the rubber hand illusion paradigm. Anxious individuals also evidenced less bodily agency-experiencing greater 'loss of own hand'-although this was not potentiated by oxytocin. These findings may explain some of oxytocin's divergent social effects and highlight the tension that can arise between meeting needs for communion/security and agency in interpersonally vulnerable individuals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Cognitive and Affective NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorFrench-language works237,207