Oxitocin: A double edged hormone?

by Kenta Hasui

Locked. Photograph by SMN

“Be nice.” “Stop being such a jerk!” “I just want to help . . . ”

Many of us have these phrases heard throughout our lives, whether from our parents, teachers, friends, T.V. shows or movies. Being nice has become a given, something obvious that everybody should strive towards. But throughout this past century the discovery of the hormone oxytocin has changed how scientists and psychologists think about terms such as nice, mean, helpful, loving or altruistic.

First discovered in 1909 by scientist Sir Henry Dale, oxytocin is a hormone produced in the hypothalamus and passed through the posterior pituitary gland into the bloodstream. (Lee, Macbeth, Pagani & Young, 2009). Dale noticed that injecting an extract of oxytocin from a human into a pregnant cat contracted the cat’s uterus. He thus named the substance oxytocin, after the Greek words “quick” and “birth.” For years, oxytocin was thought primarily as a hormone for mothers during or right after childbirth.

However, the oxytocin receptors that were found in a pregnant woman’s uterus were also found in other tissues, regardless of the person’s sex. These receptor sites ranged from the heart, brain, and reproductive tract. Thus recent research have focused on the effects of oxytocin on the brain and social behavior. One such study, led by researchers from Concordia University (2011), was a randomized double-blind study on 100 university students gauging the effects of an oxytocin nasal spray . Half of the subjects inhaled oxytocin from a nasal spray while the other half received a placebo. They then completed questionnaires on their personality after 90 minutes, testing for extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism.

The subjects who received the nasal spray had higher ratings of extraversion, positive emotions, warmth, openness to ideas, trust and altruism. The researchers believed that people’s self-perception of these personality traits were important for navigating social situations. Thus the researchers concluded that this positive self-perception could lead to an increase in positive social behaviors.

Other studies have presented similar results for the relationship between oxytocin and trust in humans. Fehr (2005) demonstrated that oxytocin affects how willing a person is to accept risks through  interactions with other people. It does not lead people to take more risks regardless of the situation – they must be social risks  (DeAngelis, 2008). Similarly, a study from the University of Buffalo (2012) concluded that people with certain versions of oxytocin receptor genes were more likely to be generous and sociable (University at Buffalo, 2012).

However, it’s important to keep in mind that oxytocin is not a perfect hormone for niceness. Although oxytocin promotes trust in one’s in-group, it promotes distrust in one’s out-group , or the people seen as different. De Dreu (2010) illustrated that doses of oxytocin made people much more likely to help an ethnic in-group at the expense of the out-group  In one experiment, Dutch students were given moral dilemmas in which a choice must be made about whether to help a person onto an overloaded lifeboat and drown the five on it, or save five people in front of a train by throwing a bystander onto the tracks. The five people who were to be saved had no name, but the sacrificial victim had either a Dutch or a Muslim name. These two nationalities were chosen because of a poll in 2005 illustrating that 51% of Dutch citizens held unfavorable opinions about Muslims. Thus the Dutch were the in group and the Muslims were the out group. Subjects who had who had sniffed a dose of oxytocin were far more likely to sacrifice the Muhammads than the Maartens (De Dreu, 2010). In another experiment, De Dreu asked participants to press a key when shown a pair of words. One word had either a positive or negative connotation, and the other was a common Dutch first name such as Peter, or an out-group name such as Ahmad to represent Muslims.

Facebook helps the friendly get friendlier

by Kristina Muller

My FaceBook Friends By Josh Russell

In this age of technology, the internet is often used to connect with other individuals. This trend is increasingly common among adolescents, largely due to the popularity of social networking sites. Having a profile on Facebook, Twitter, or a similar social network provides users with the opportunity to keep up with the activities of their friends and what is going on in the world. Though a number of concerns have been raised about the effects of constant online activity on adolescents’ lives, many studies have determined that it does not have an adverse effect.

In one recent study, researchers evaluated what types of relationships were being fostered on social networking sites (Reich, Subrahmanyam, & Espinoza, 2012). Previously it had been thought that the combination of online freedom and minimal parental surveillance would put teens at risk for being victimized by online scams or predators. However, after surveying groups of high school students about their internet usage, it was discovered that most teens use social networking sites to connect with those whom they already know from offline, face-to-face interactions. The study evaluated such interactions by having students answer questions online and in person regarding their personal relationships and networking site usage. In fact, the study found that only 1% of the teens’ online exchanges were with unknown individuals or mere acquaintances—a risk behavior—as opposed to “very good friends”. Thus it can be concluded that online social networking is used primarily as a tool for enhancing established relationships, rather than forming new ones.

A second concern associated with the use of social networking sites is that it may lead to antisocial behavior or unwillingness to communicate in real life. However, research by Pavica Sheldon (2008) does not support this claim. After evaluating individuals’ offline personalities and motives for using social networks, Sheldon found that those who are anxious in face-to-face communication have fewer online friends than their more outgoing counterparts. This counteracts the notion that online activity is disruptive to a healthy social life, as those who are willing to carry out online relationships and do so most often are also willing to maintain them in person. Additionally, this does not uphold the formerly held notion that social networks are more of an outlet for those that do not excel in face-to-face interactions.

These studies support the idea that networks such as Facebook, where one can build a list of “friends”, are truly a community with a sound structure (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120125091053.htm). Rather than simply being a collection of individuals, the sites offer a communal location for members to interact, maintain their relationships, and share ideas and information. Most users possess a small number of online friends that they actually know, rather than a larger amount of acquaintances or people that they only have a relationship with through the internet. While some may claim that using social networking sites such as Facebook makes you narcissistic (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120626115241.htm) and allows you to showcase yourself, these studies argue that it really can be seen as a way of boosting self-esteem. Having strong relationships is a significant factor in the way you view yourself, and Facebook is simply a tool for strengthening those bonds.  In the growing debate over the influences of social media, these studies show that the networking sites have a positive influence and serve a valid purpose in social communication.

How the brain reacts to attractiveness

By 105 Student

Composite images, used to evaluate what features raters found attractive

When you see an attractive person walking down the street you may turn your head to look at him or her. When you see everyone else, they may just be blurs as you pass by on the street. What is the reason you look at the attractive person? Why do humans find some people attractive and others not? The answer lies within the brain.

New research being done by psychologist Nancy Etcoff shows that when human beings see an attractive person the reward centers in the brain fire. Not only this, but humans can differentiate between levels of attractiveness by how heavily reward circuits fire in the brain when different pictures of attractive people are shown to them.   Could the reward centers fire so much that one could become addicted to the beauty of one person…perhaps accounting for love? Yes, many other things factor into the development of a relationship, but stimulation of reward centers in the brain surely help the process. As Psychologist John R. Buri has shown, initial attraction to a person is just a powerful wave of neurotransmitters sent our way.  This essentially creates a brain flooding of many different rewards, including Epinephrine, Dopamine, Phenyl ethylamine and Endorphins. Such powerful rewards for such surface level beauty can suggest many things, including an explanation for the commonly held belief that attractive people are more successful in life. This may possibly be because of the physiological response to seeing an attractive face, and with time and repeated exposure, an addiction, or obsession with a certain person. One would be more likely for instance to hire a person they found to be more attractive because they are rewarded chemically in the brain for being around that person.

Does this mean that universally brains can recognize certain features as attractive and that human brains will reward us for seeing beautiful people? Scientist Gad Saad, seems to suggest so in his article discussing the universal beauty metrics he has argued exist in society.  He argues that although there are some different standards of beauty among different cultures, there are universal beauty metrics in our world that exist everywhere, including a universal preference for symmetric faces and clear skin.

Innocent bystanders?

By Caitlin Bull

An Apparently Homeless Young Woman Sits Crying in a Doorway, Ignored by the World. Photo by Arty Smokes

On March 13th, 1964, 28-year-old Kitty Genovese was attacked by a man with a knife as she arrived home from her late night shift as a bar manager in Queens.  For the next half hour, Kitty’s deafening screams of, “I’ve been stabbed!  Please help me!” pierced the air around her apartment complex.  The attacker, Winston Moseley, was startled by signs of activity in nearby apartments and fled the scene twice before he finally killed Kitty during his third attack.  He would later confess that, “It didn’t seem like anyone was going to stop me!”  Moseley was right; of the 38 witnesses that were aware of the murder as it progressed, not a single one called the police until Kitty was already dead.

After the New York Times published an article revealing the apathetic behavior of the 38 witnesses, moral outrage erupted in the city.  Life magazine wondered if people were becoming callous and immoral.  Newspapers blamed the bystanders for the murder, threatening to print their names and addresses.  People refused to believe that the witnesses were not abnormal barbarians.

In response to this hysteria, two Columbia University researches, John Darley and Bibb Latane, delved further into the idea of bystander apathy, or “not helping.”  In a 1973 experiment, recruited participants had to walk from one building to another, where they would give a lecture.  In some scenarios, these students were told that they were in a hurry or that they had a few minutes to spare.  The experimenters positioned a moaning man along the students’ path.  The amount of students who helped along their way was highest in the low hurry situations (63%) and lowest in high hurry (10%).   Ironically, students who believed that they were about to give a talk on being a Good Samaritan went as far as to step over the injured man.  Darley and Latane concluded that ethics might simple become a luxury as our lives become more hectic.

Further studies reveal that the explanation for bystander apathy may have less to do with human callousness and more to do with a tendency to take social cues from those around us.  In a 1969 experiment by Darley and Daniel Batson, subjects were placed in a room to fill out questionnaires.  The room slowly filled with smoke. There were three conditions: one in which the subject was alone, one in which three naïve subjects were in the room, and one in which one naïve subject was placed with two confederates who noticed and ignored the smoke.  The alone subjects calmly reported the smoke 75% of the time.  In the confederate and naïve bystander conditions, only 10% and 38% of subjects reported the smoke, respectively.  In some of the confederate instances, the smoke grew so thick that the subject look concerned, got up, and checked the vent.  However, upon seeing the how calm the confederates remained, they went back to their forms.

More recent studies have demonstrated the effect of social priming on degree of generosity.  In 2002 study titled “Crowded minds: The implicit bystander effect,” researchers  discovered that subjects in a group consistently pledged less money to a charity than those with one other person.   It was easier for the grouped people to give less money because chances were the entire group would follow suit; when only one other person is involved, mob mentality does not exist.

Psychotherapist Mark Tyrrell describes a situation in which he witnessed a boy having an epileptic fit at school.  Though the boy was writhing and foaming, Tyrrell and every other classmate failed to get help. Bystander apathy is prevalent in children. Thornberg (2007) observed that children often run by others who have fallen down during a game, watch as other children harass a mentally handicapped student, or passively witness fights break out. Children experience what researchers refer to as a diffusion of responsibility; because no other student takes the initiative to be the first helper, chances of the other students helping are reduced.  Children also tend to place a lot of importance on social roles.  When interviewers asked children why they did not help others, many said that the teacher is supposed to help.

Scientific studies have shown that group size often reduces an individual’s propensity to act.  Just as in the case with the smoke, individuals will often take cues from those around them rather than apply their own logic to the situation.  When someone is alone, such as in one condition of the smoke case, they are more likely to act because doing so does not involve “breaking rank.” The people who watched Kitty Genovese die were not monsters; they simply told themselves that “Someone else must be dealing with this!”

References

Darley, J. M., & Batson, C.D. (1973) “From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior. JPSP, 27, 100-108.

Garcia, Stephen M.; Weaver, Kim; Moskowitz, Gordon B.; Darley, John M. (2002) Crowded minds: The implicit bystander effect, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 843-853

Latane, B., & Darley, J. (1969) Bystander “Apathy”, American Scientist, 57, 244-268.

Martin, Douglas (1989, March 11). About New York; Kitty Genovese: Would New York Still Turn Away? [Electronic Version]. The New York Times. Retrieved February 24, 2009 from <http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/11/nyregion/about-new-york-kitty-genovese-would-new-york-still-turn-away.html&gt;

Thornberg, Robert (2007) A classmate in distress: schoolchildren as bystanders and their reasons for how they act, Social Psychology of Education, 10, 5-28.

Tryyell, Mark. Bystander apathy – it’s none of my business! [Web Page] Uncommon Knowledge. Retrieved February 24, 2009 from  <http://www.uncommon-knowledge.co.uk/articles/bystander-apathy.html&gt;.

Attached to love

By Cecilia Solis

Hands by .michael.newman.

If you were to ask a girl to describe the perfect man, her answer would most likely be something along the lines of- caring, loving, comforting, supporting, sensitive, and good to his mother.  These are often the top qualities sought out it in man but do we really know where they come from?  Are they adaptive traits that give humans a selective advantage in finding sexual partners? Or does something else help to determine them?

Harry Harlow was one of the first psychologists to suggest the idea that contact comfort has always served the animal kingdom as a motivating agent for affectionate responses. The value and influence of a secure base was further explored by John Bowlby who developed the theory of attachment (Meyers, 2007). The theory of attachment tries to understand the intense distress experienced by infants who are separated from their parents. From an ethological perspective Bowlby concluded that crying and searching were adaptive responses to a separation from the attachment figure associated with protection and care- giving. His colleague Mary Ainsworth was influential in expanding the basic understanding of attachment behaviors through her study of infant-parent separations. Her research showed that there are three different categories of infant-parent attachments: secure, anxious resistant, and anxious avoidant. Not all infant-pair bonds, however, can be classified into these categories. Presently these categories have been modified and expanded by different researchers to describe attachment in terms of romantic partners. Ainsworth demonstrated that these differences were connected to the quality of the parent-infant interactions during the first year of life. But just how much of an effect does the quality of early life attachments affect an individual?

Bowlby for example believed that attachment characterizes human experience from “the cradle to the grave”. His theory that adult relationships could be attachment relationships was not empirically tested until later. Research on adult attachment was conducted by Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver in 1987. Their study explores the association between differences in adult attachment and the way people think about their romantic and filial relationships.

Hazan and Shaver (1987) tested the attachment-theory approach to romantic love through diverse questionnaire studies. The first questionnaire known as the “love quiz” sought to measure the three-attachment styles by translating Ainsworth’s descriptions of infants into terms of adult romantic partners. The quiz asked individuals about their most important relationship, whether it was current or past, about their childhood relationships with their parents and about how they generally felt in relationships. One portion of the questionnaire asked individuals to classify themselves as avoidant, anxious/ambivalent, or secure in their most important romantic relationship by having to choose from fairly simple descriptions of the three attachment styles. The resulting figures from the study were comparable to proportions reported in other studies of infant-mother attachment (62% secure, 23% avoidant, 15% anxious/ ambivalent) displaying a relative pervasiveness of attachment patterns in adulthood similar to those in childhood.

Hazan and Shaver found that adults who were secure in their romantic relationships were likely to report having had affectionate, caring, and accepting relationships with their parents. Other research on adult attachment has shown that secure adults tend to be more satisfied in their relationships than insecure adults. They are also more likely to seek support from their partners and to provide the same support in situations of distress.  It is possible however for a person’s early attachment pattern to change or to show inconsistencies over time. Hazan and Shaver concluded that romantic relationships, like infant-parent relationships are closely-related forms of attachments. R. Chrish Fraley also found a fair degree of overlap in individual’s self-report measures of their current attachment style both with a parent and with a current romantic partner. He found correlations ranging from .20 to .50 (small to moderate) between the two kinds of  attachments. So, although on a different behavioral dimension, our experiences in childhood can influence our attachment styles as adults (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). It might not be such a bad idea thus, to ask potential partners about what kind of relationship they have with their parents.

References:
Fraley, C. (2004). A brief Overview of Attachment Theory and Research. Retrieved february 27, 2009 from  http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~rcfraley/attachment.htm.

Carey, B. (June 29, 2004). Addicted to Mother’s Love: It’s Biology, Stupid. The New York Times. Retrieved February 27, 2009 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06E5D91438F93AA15755C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2.

Hazan, C., Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic Love Conceptualized as an Attachment Process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 52(3), pp. 511-52. Retrieved March 27, 2009 from psycINFO (CSA) database.

Myers, D. (2007). Psychology: Eight Edition in modules. New York: Worth Publishers.

The riddle of personality and sport

by Shannon Fleming

Vassar College Womens Volleyball

Most of us at one point or another have played or participated in a sport, whether it is volleyball, tennis, karate or pole-vaulting.  Have you ever sat back and wondered why you chose that particular sport to play besides the simple fact that you love participating in it?  Recent studies have shown that the complex of multiple personality traits that composes each individual may be a significant factor in which sport you prefer to play.  Traits can be described as people’s characteristic behaviors and conscious motives.  The broadest category of personality traits involves extraversion and introversion. People reflecting traits of extraversion tend to be excitable, outgoing, lively, sociable and impulsive.  They love the lime-light, work well in groups, and tend to dislike being alone for long periods of time.  People reflecting traits of introversion tend to be reserved, reclusive, thoughtful, calm, and rational.  They are more interested in their own mental self, work better alone, and are controlled in social situations, preferring closer, more personal relationship. Although traits of introversion and extroversion are reflective of personality, that doesn’t mean that everyone is classified as one or the other, many people have traits associated with both extraversion and introversion (Myers, 2007).

In a study done by Urska Dobersek and Cart Bartling (2007), athletes from four different sports, three individual sports and one team sport, and non-athletes were given standard personality tests including the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire which measured emotionality and tough-mindedness and the Global 5 survey, which measured extraversion, introversion, emotional stability, orderliness, accommodations and intellect. Each subject’s personality traits were viewed in association with the sport they preferred and conclusions were drawn between personality traits and were linked to the type of sport preferred.  The study showed significant differences in individuals who played team sports, like volleyball, and people who played individual sports, like tennis, track and golf.   Participants on the volleyball team, a team sport, tended to display more traits associated with introversion such as being reliable and thoughtful.  Learning to cooperate with other players and sharing the recognition for a win with other people tend to require being less bold and outgoing, and instead, being calmer, rational, and aware of surroundings.  Participants of individual sports, where the pressure is all on you to perform reflected traits of extraversion such as being outgoing, energetic, spontaneous and to some extent egotistical.

The evolution of a kiss

by Julia Ding

Lips, Eyes, Kiss! by Carlo Nicora

Watching a romantic comedy with my friends, my reflex to say “aww” after every deep and passionate kiss was dangerously unchecked throughout the film. When I realized what I was doing, it made me wonder why exactly humans choose kissing as a means to convey feelings of affection to one another, as opposed to any other act of physical contact (a pat on the head, or perhaps a pinch on the cheek). As it turns out, recent research indicates that underneath a person’s desire to kiss someone are a slew of other motives believed to be developed as evolutionary advantages.

Kissing is believed to have originated from mothers feeding their child by mouth, and over time expanding to signify affection past parent-child relationships (Walter, 2008).  The notion of expressing affection in such a way has been noted throughout nature, with the habit of kissing seen in such animals as chimpanzees, bonobos, and elephants.It then evolved to aid both men and women in choosing a compatible mate. When two people kiss romantically, information is passed between them about each other. With their faces so close together, people are able to gain an impression of the person they are kissing through their sensing of smell, taste, movement, and temperature. From an evolutionary standpoint, analysis of a person’s breath, scent, and the appearance of their teeth can give indications about their general health.  A previous post on the importance of kissing explored the work of Gallup, Hughes, and Harrison (2007)  Studying over 1,000 college students, they found that women are most concerned with kissing as an assessment of possible mates, while men are less selective about kissing, and often kiss with the notion that it is a precursor to sex.  One of the authors noted that women were more likely to screen potential sexual partners on the basis of their kisses (Stein, 2008). All this agrees with the belief that women have more invested in a sexual relationship, with the prospect of producing and caring for children.

All these factors encourage romantic kissing, but there may also be further chemical benefits in sharing an enjoyable kiss. In a new study, psychologist Wendy L. Hill monitored the levels of oxytocin, a hormone that influences bonding, trust, and male and female orgasm, and cortisol, a stress hormone, before and after kissing and other intimate acts such as hand-holding between 15 college male-female couples (Walter, 2008). Although the results showed an increase in oxytocin only in males, cortisol levels dropped for both males and females after kissing, supporting their hypothesis that kissing is a stress reliever.

Love, obsession, and chemistry

by Dan Schwarzman

May 22nd (Don't Say That You Love Me) by Phoney Nickle

What is love, and why does it exist? Chemical similarities have been found linking love to OCD and depression. Anthropologist Helen Fisher PhD of Rutgers University has been doing research on love, which she has divided into three chemically separate states. Fisher says that lust is driven by androgens and estrogen, while romantic love, characterized by intensely emotional mood swings and obsessive craving, is driven by high dopamine and norepinephrine levels, along with low serotonin. The third state, of stable attachment, is driven by the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin.

An evolutionary anthropologist, Fisher explains the evolutionary value of these three states. According to evolutionary theory, adaptations show up in species if they lead to increased survival and reproduction. Fisher says that lust evolved as a mechanism for people to be interested on a basic level in reproduction with others, while romantic love developed to focus one’s mating energy on just one individual. Stable attachment works to tolerate this individual long enough to raise children as a team. The obsessive energy output of being in love might seem illogical in the context of evolutionary theory, especially since love is often not reciprocated, but this ability to forgo short term efficiency in favor of greater long term reproductive success makes sense as an important adaptation for the continuation of the human race.

The boy next door

by Robin Embick

photo by Liz Brooks

We’ve all noticed the cute boy or girl across the street, and can’t quite put our finger on why he or she is so attractive. That unexplainable allure of your co-worker or neighbor may be the result of their proximity, states Cindy Hazan, associate director of human development at Cornell University. Hazan has been studying how people ended up dating their partners, and has come to some interesting conclusions.

It all seems to come down to oxytocin. While oxytocin is famous for lactation and inducing labor, it also has a large role in creating trust and comfort. The presence of people who are familiar stimulates the release of oxytocin, which makes us feel more content and want more contact with them.

However, just because oxytocin stimulates attachment, doesn’t mean it always stimulates good attachments.  Attachment can be stimulated by the rush of adrenaline from an emotional experience. Psychologist Arthur Aron from University of New York at Stony Brook states that people who meet during a emergency, such as a train or airplane crash, are more likely to believe they’ve met the person that they’re meant to be with (even if they don’t stay together) (Kluger, 2008). Hazan says that in stressful situations, people nearby are likely to become companions because of our instinct to seek comfort. For example, on September 11th, 2001, random people were forced to cross the Brooklyn Bridge together, or were trapped in small spaces for several hours, and grasped on to those near them during this crisis and were more likely to have intense friendship afterward (Flora, 2004).

Professors from University of Leipzig, Mitja Back, Boris Egloff, and Stefan Schmukle, tested the theory that random proximity with no pervious acquaintance would cultivate friendships of relationships.  They studied fifty four college freshmen, who meet each other for the first time at an introductory meeting and were randomly assigned seats in several rows of chairs. The journal Psychological Science reported that people meeting each other for the first time and sitting in adjacent seats, as a result of random assignment, were several times more likely to have cultivated more intense friendships one year later. This was true also for people sitting in the same row.  Therefore, friendships and relationships may be more random than we thought.

So that boy (or girl) next door…is he or she really that attractive, or just close by?

References:

Association for Psychological Science (2008, June 4). Are People More Likely To Become Friends Based on Proximity Or Shared Values and Interests?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com¬ /releases/2008/06/080602163842.htm

Kluger, J. (2008, January 17).The Science of Romance: Why We Love. Time [Electronic version].  Retrieved October 9, 2008, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1704672-1,00.html

Flora, C. (Jan/Feb 2004). Cubicle Crush. Psychology Today [Electronic version]. Retieved on October 9, 2008 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20040209-000011.html

Rebel without a hormone

by Eve Andrews

Photo by melisdramatic

A recent study orchestrated by Dr. Graeme Fairchild and Professor Ian Goodyer at the University of Cambridge suggests that the heartbreakingly misunderstood bad boy you had a crush on in high school may have suffered from a deficiency in a crucial stress hormone more so than a case of incurable angst.  Adolescent males who display “antisocial behavior,” such as aggression or other tendencies toward delinquency, have significantly lower levels of cortisol than their better-behaved counterparts.
Cortisol, the hormone in question, assists in the control of strong – especially violent and angry – emotions in a stressful situation.  When an individual is placed under stress, the adrenal gland then secretes cortisol to elicit a response to the initial stress stimulus in the body.  Fairchild and Goodyer’s study utilized teenage boys with a history of “severe antisocial behavior” – recruited from disciplinary institutions and referred by schools – and also boys without such a history. Researchers compared cortisol levels in saliva samples taken in a neutral setting and those taken in a stressful situation.  Among the non-antisocial boys, cortisol levels surged during the stressful situation, whereas among the antisocial ones cortisol levels dropped below the neutral level.

This is not the first study to link cortisol deficiency and hostile behavior.  In 2000, the University of Chicago illustrated a correlation between low levels of cortisol and aggression at a young age.  The significance of these studies, especially in tandem, is that they offer a fairly simple biological explanation for a behavioral disorder.  As scientists have discovered that depression and schizophrenia stem from biological irregularities in the brain, they have been able to formulate treatments for these diseases.  Thus the “cure for the bad boy” becomes a tangible possibility, since all those lunch detentions were never really doing the trick.

References:
•    University of Cambridge (2008, October 5). Antisocial Behavior May Be Caused By Low Stress Hormone Levels. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081001093506.htm
•    University Of Chicago Medical Center (2000, January 20). Low Levels Of Salivary Cortisol Associated With Aggressive Behavior. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000120073039.htm