by Kenia Rodriguez
As a native New Yorker I am used to watching dozens of people walk right past donation tables or street beggars without even a second thought. I’m actually surprised when people do take the time to stop and give a quarter or a nickel. But what it is about these particular individuals that makes them more likely to give money to others?
Dr. Ariel Knafo of the Psychology Department at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and his team have been wondering just that. In a recent study, subjects were to play an online game and in which they would be awarded $12 for their win. The players could either choose to keep the money or give part or all of it to an anonymous other player. Samples of DNA from each subject were also taken prior to the experiment.
The results of the experiment were quite surprising. Those subjects who had variants of a gene called AVPR1a gave, on average, about 50 percent more money than those who did not display the gene variant. The gene AVPR1a codes for the activation of the hormone Vasopressin which is responsible for social bonding. This means that a relationship exists between genetics and human altruism.
But how quick are we to believe that human generosity is owed to genetics? The results of this experiment bring about an interesting clash between the social teachings on morality versus the biological attributes of behavior. If our generosity is genetically based and has therefore served some evolutionary purpose (possibly to encourage cooperation between social groups to improve changes of survival), then why does it appear that generosity is so hard to find?
As people around the world begin emptying out their wallets to buy gifts for others this holiday season, new research is released that may take the pressure off those who are more reluctant to spend all of their savings. Recent Research performed by Dr. Ariel Knafo and his team in the Psychology Department at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem suggests that generosity may be genetically programmed.
An experiment was conducted in which 203 people participated in an online activity in which they were given twelve dollars, and had the options of either keeping the money, or giving it away to another player online who would remain anonymous.
Everyone who participated in the activity provided DNA, and when the samples were analyzed it was discovered that the people who had variants of a gene called AVPR1a gave away approximately 50% more of their money than those without it. AVPR1a works for the receptor that enables the hormone Arginine Vasopressin, which has been associated with social bonding, to act on brain cells.
While this study may show biological evidence that people are genetically programmed to be generous, it ignores many social factors. In a day and age when online security is an issue, particularly when it comes to money, isn’t it likely that people would willingly be more generous with their friends, family, and loved ones than with anonymous players in an online game? Until more studies have been done to provide solid evidence of the effects of this genetic variation, I would avoid using the lack of a certain type of gene as an excuse to skimp on the holiday gifts.
Comment by Sophia Alexandrov — December 23, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
According to research done regarding the link between human behavior and genetic coding, it is perfectly feasible that human generosity is based on genetics. The recent research of Dr Ariel Knafo has provided substantial evidence of a relationship between human behavior and the physical composition of human DNA. Dr. Knafo’s studies similarly revealed a correlation between the presence of AVPR1a and altruism. This positive correlation results from the fact that AVPR1a allows the hormone arginine vasopressin to act on brain cells. Vasopressin has been linked to social bonding which could account for its relationship with generosity. Essentially, it is quite probable that generosity is indeed based on genetics.
However, this scientific evidence doesn’t justify why generosity is important to evolution. Dr George Fieldman, a lecturer in psychology at Buckinghamshire New University, suggests that it is very logical that altruism and generosity are relevant to evolution. He argues that these traits would be important in establishing communities based on the idea that good acts would be reciprocated. In this sense generosity would help develop social networks and to establish cooperation, both of which would promote the survival of humans. This is probably more relevant to early primitive societies, which may explain why generosity does not seem to be so prevalent in this time period.
Comment by Trevor Lewis — February 23, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
While psychologists are constantly investigating the inner workings of the human brain and searching for genetic links to human behavior as the studies cited by the “Do-gooder Gene?” post suggests, behavioral economists have also begun to study the chemistry of the human brain in hopes of eventually applying their findings to larger socioeconomic issues. The growing study of “neuroeconomics” strives to explain the connections between human brain chemistry, interpersonal trust and economic phenomenon, such as a country’s economic growth rate.
Professor Paul J. Zak, a behavioral economist from Claremont University and his colleagues recently conducted a study involving the neurotransmitter oxytocin and its affects on generosity. The results were overwhelming. In a study published in 2007, Zak and his research team asked participants to decide how to divide a set amount of money with a stranger. People receiving the hormone oxytocin offered the stranger 80 percent more money than those receiving a placebo. (http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb08/canoxy.html)
Comment by Brian Butterworth — March 7, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Believe it or not, this gene, AVPR1a, is getting a lot of attention in more current research. This article studies the role of the gene in a unique context of human behavior—dance. According to Melman et al. 2005, dance is as old an art-form as humanity itself, and is universal to all cultures. In this study, multiple groups of people were tested for frequency of the arginine vasopressin receptor AVPR1a, mentioned in earlier posts. The three groups of subjects were 85 current performing dancers, 91 competitive athletes, and 872 non-dancers/non-athletes. This study found highly significant difference in AVPR1a haplotype frequencies between dancers and athletes (using the Cocaphase: likelihood ratio test) with a p-value of 0.000044. Furthermore, when dancers were compared with non-dancers/non-athletes, by the same test, the p value was 0.000024. Previous studies have consistently found the frequency of AVPR1a to be linked to many social vertebrates, including humans. The fact that there is a significant difference between dancers and non-dancers speaks to the ability of dancers to have strong connections to and understandings of social behaviors. Many dancers feel a deep connection to their work and to the emotions that they are portraying through performance. This goes along with what many people were saying above about generosity; the desire to have an extraverted personality, and either give money to strangers, or to create art, are both manifestations of this increased frequency of AVPR1a.
Reference:
Bachner-Melman, R., Dina, C., Zohar, A.H., Constantini, N., et al. (2005). “AVPR1a and SLC6A4 Gene Polymorphisms Are Associated with Creative Dance Performance.” PPLoS Genetics. Volume 1 Issue 3. Pp 0394-0403.
Comment by Aaron Grober — May 5, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
This article brings up the common debate about nature versus nurture. Before reading this article I would have guessed that generosity is something you learn by observing others or are taught about it by your parents. I remember as a child being taught to share and perform other forms of altruistic behavior so now these behaviors are somewhat second nature. I would have originally attributed these behaviors to my upbringing, but perhaps some of it has to do with genetics as well. My parents, fairly generous people, may have not only taught me generosity, but passed down the genes for it as well. While this conclusion is very possible, as a previous comment mentioned, this study does not account for other factors that may affect generous behavior. Some people who want to donate money may be unable to because of their socioeconomic status or other difficult circumstances in their lives. Further, other people may donate money to lift a sense of guilt or because of peer pressure and not because they have any desire to help others. Genetics may play a role in the frequency of generous behavior, but many other factors can have a greater influence.
Comment by Hannah Keohane — March 31, 2013 @ 1:32 pm