Baseline mood
Morning QIDS scores did not vary significantly by mixture (F(1,37) = 0.11, p = 0.74, d = 0.11) and group (F
1,37 = 3.07, p = 0.09, d = 0.58). The mixture × group interaction was significant (F
1,37 = 4.55, p = 0.04), but post hoc comparisons revealed no significant effects (all ps > 0.06). Notably, no participant scored >7 on the QIDS. For baseline PA, NA, VAS(+), and VAS(−), there were no significant effects of mixture, group, and the mixture × group interaction (see Table 2).
Table 2
F values for the effects of mixture, group, and mixture × group on baseline mood
Empathic accuracy
One participant thought he recognized one target, and one thought he recognized two targets. We discarded the data pertaining to these participant/target combinations. The two sets of film clips generated similar mean levels of EA (set 1 v. set 2: 0.61 [SEM 0.02] v. 0.62 [SEM 0.02], t(1547) = −0.31, p > 0.75).
The main model revealed no significant effects for group (F(1,40) = 0.08, p = 0.78, d = 0.09), mixture (F(1,1548) = 0.60, p = 0.44, d = 0.04), and mixture × group (F(1,1548) = 0.01, p = 0.90). This suggested that ATD did not significantly alter EA in either group.
As EA was higher for positive clips (mean r = 0.72) than for negative clips (mean r = 0.51) (F(1,1548) = 149.9, p < 0.001, d = 0.62), we examined whether clip valence moderated the effect of ATD on EA. The mixture × valence interaction (F(1,1548) = 0.08, p = 0.78) and the mixture × group × valence interaction (F(1,1548) = 2.88, p = 0.09) were not significant.
As EA was higher for female targets (mean r = 0.64) than for male targets (mean r = 0.51) (F(1,1551) = 29.9, p < 0.001, d = 0.28), we examined whether target gender moderated the effect of ATD on EA. The mixture × target gender interaction (F(1,1548) = 0.02, p = 0.90) and the mixture × group × target gender interaction (F(1,1548) = 1.26, p = 0.26) were not significant. We also considered target expressivity as a moderator of the effect of ATD on EA. Results (not shown) were similar to the results where target gender was included as moderator.
All analyses were repeated for the two FH groups separately, for the two participants genders separately, for the two target genders separately, and for the positive and negative clips separately. The effects of mixture or group × mixture were never significant (all ps > 0.13). This suggests the study was not underpowered. In short, we did not find any effects of ATD on EA.
Tryptophan and oxytocin
Two morning blood samples were not obtained. For tryptophan, the mixture × sample interaction was significant (F(1,118) = 443.41, p < 0.001). Total tryptophan levels decreased from 61.6 μM (SEM 2.1) to 7.1 μM (SEM 2.1) following T−, t(116) = 20.16, p < 0.0014, d = 3.74, and increased from 61.0 μM (SEM 2.1) to 84.1 μM (SEM 2.1) following B, t(116) = −8.67, p < 0.001, d = 1.61. The minimum decrease following T− was 77 % (mean 89 %). As the mixture × group × sample interaction was not significant (F(1,118) = 1.78, p = 0.18), the effect of ATD on total tryptophan levels was similar in the two FH groups.
Nearly two thirds of the oxytocin values were below the detection threshold of 1.5 pM. The number of missing values did not differ significantly between the morning and afternoon (Χ
2 (1, N = 101) = 4.62, p = 0.20). To examine the effects of ATD on oxytocin, the 13 participants with at least one detectable value per test day (5 FH+ men; 3 FH+ women; 2 FH− men; 3 FH− women) were included in the analyses with their undetectable values conservatively recoded to 1.5 pM. The mixture × sample interaction was significant (F(1,39) = 6.00, p = 0.02). Oxytocin levels significantly decreased from morning to afternoon following T− (t(33) = 5.36, p < 0.001, d = 1.87) but not following B (t(33) = 2.17, p = 0.15, d = 0.76). The mixture × group × sample interaction was not significant (F(1,39) = 1.66, p = 0.21).
In sum, ATD was effective in reducing total tryptophan levels and also appeared to reduce oxytocin levels. The two FH groups were not differentially affected.
Oxytocin and EA
As ATD reduced oxytocin levels in the participants with usable data, we explored whether their afternoon oxytocin levels were predictive of EA. This was not found (F(1,38) = 0.70, p = 0.41, d = 0.27). The correlation r between afternoon oxytocin levels and mean EA across film clips was 0.01, p = 0.99.
Mood state
Table 3 summarizes the effects of mixture, group, time, and their interactions on mood.
Table 3
F values for the effects of mixture, group, time, and their interactions on mood
PA
There was a significant main effect for mixture. The mixture × group interaction was also significant. In FH+ participants, PA was lower on the T− day (M = 2.45, SEM = 0.14) than on the B day (M = 2.66, SEM = 0.14 (t(266) = 3.85, p < 0.001, d = 0.47). In FH− participants, PA did not differ between the T− day (M = 2.46, SEM = 0.14) and the B day (M = 2.47, SEM = 0.14) (t(266) = 0.19, p > 0.99, d = 0.02). There was also a significant main effect for time. PA was higher at t0 (M = 2.66, SEM = 0.10) than at t6 (M = 2.51, SEM = 0.10) (t(266) = 2.81, p = 0.03, d = 0.34) and t7 (M = 2.34, SEM = 0.10) (t(266) = 5.79, p < 0.001, d = 0.71). More importantly, however, there were no significant effects of mixture × time and mixture × group × time, indicating that levels of PA did not change differently on the T− day compared to the B day.
NA
There was only a significant main effect for time. NA was significantly higher at t0 (M = 1.11, SEM = 0.02) than at t6 (M = 1.05, SEM = 0.02) (t(266) = 3.22, p = 0.008, d = 0.39).
VAS(+)
The mixture × group interaction was significant. In FH+ participants, VAS (+) was lower on the T− day (M = 42.99, SEM = 2.92) than on the B day (M = 46.41, SEM = 2.92) (t(266) = 2.75, p = 0.03, d = 0.34). There was also a significant main effect for time. VAS(+) was significantly higher at t0 (M = 49.33, SEM = 2.16) than at t5 (M = 45.36, SEM = 2.16) (t(266) = 3.18, p = 0.008, d = 0.39), t6 (M = 44.39, SEM = 2.16) (t(266) = 3.97, p < 0.001, d = 0.49), and t7 (M = 44.31, SEM = 2.16) (t(266) = 4.03, p < 0.001, d = 0.49). However, there were no significant effects of mixture × time and mixture × group × time, indicating that levels of positive mood did not change differently on the T− day compared to the B day.
VAS(−)
There was a significant main effect for time. VAS(−) was significantly lower at t0 (M = 5.76, SEM = 0.90) than at t7 (M = 7.02, SEM = 0.90) (t(266) = −2.66, p = 0.04, d = 0.33). The group × time interaction was also significant. However, post hoc contrasts between morning and afternoon VAS(−) levels were not significant for either FH group (all ps > 0.06).
In sum, mood state varied somewhat over the course of the test days. However, the time pattern did not differ by mixture. In other words, ATD did not influence mood.