Effects of Oxytocin on Agency in Anxiously Attached Individuals, a Replication and Extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".