Brain Structure of Kidney Donors May Make Them More Altruistic

That’s the finding of a study published in today’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by Georgetown researchers.

Georgetown College psychology professor Abigail Marsh worked with John VanMeter, director of Center for Functional and Molecular Imaging at Georgetown University Medical Center, to scan the brains of 19 altruistic kidney donors.

More Sensitive to Distress

“The results of brain scans and behavioral testing suggests that these donors have some structural and functional brain differences that may make them more sensitive, on average, to other people’s distress,” Marsh explains.

The Georgetown researchers used functional MRI to record the neural activity of the kidney donors and 20 control subjects who had never donated an organ as they viewed faces with fearful, angry or neutral expressions.

Underlying Neural Basis

In the right amygdala, an emotion-sensitive brain region, altruists displayed greater neural activity while viewing fearful expressions than did control subjects.

When asked to identify the emotional expressions presented in the face images, altruists recognized fearful facial expressions relatively more accurately than the control subjects.

“The brain scans revealed that the right amygdala volume of altruists is larger than that of non-altruists,” Marsh says. “The findings suggest that individual differences in altruism may have an underlying neural basis.”

Opposite From Psychopaths?

These findings dovetail with previous research by the professor showing  structural and functional brain differences that appear to make people with psychopathic traits less sensitive to others’ fear and distress.

These differences include amygdalas that are smaller and less responsive to fearful expressions. People who are unusually altruistic may therefore be the opposite in some ways from people who are psychopathic.

To find kidney donors, the researchers reached out to the Washington Regional Transplant Community (WRTC), a federally designated organ procurement organizations.

A Donor’s Story

Harold Mintz, former northern Virginian who volunteered with WRTC and agreed to participate in the Georgetown study, donated a kidney to an anonymous stranger he later learned was an Ethiopian refugee who had settled in Washington, D.C.

Mintz, who now lives in California and speaks to high school students about his 2000 donation, says a series of events over time led him to supply the kidney, including his father dying of cancer diagnosed too late at the age of 56.

One Valentine’s Day in 1988, Mintz and his wife were shopping separately for presents and Mintz noticed parents in a mall with a sign saying “Please Save Our Daughter’s Life.” He walked past them, then turned around and asked what they needed. It turned out the daughter had leukemia and needed a bone marrow transplant.

The couple decided to forget about the holiday and donated blood to see if either of them were a match. But no match was found and Mintz later noticed the daughter’s obituary in the newspaper.

Stories Taken to Heart

Mintz also was surprised to hear that although the couple’s daughter had just died, they thanked everyone who tried to help and expressed hope that they might help someone else.

“All these stories just kind of stuck inside my head and every time I’d see a story about a medical story of distress, it would just kind of get put away in a file inside my heart,” Mintz says.

Marsh notes that kidney disease is now the eighth-leading cause of death in the U.S., and that living kidney donations are the best hope for restoring people to health who have kidney disease.

“Dr. Marsh’s work is a great example of how fMRI can be used to provide insight into how differences in the brain’s response can lead individuals to perform such magnanimous acts,” VanMeter says.

Study shows moving together builds bonds from the time we learn to walk

Whether they march in unison, row in the same boat or dance to the same song, people who move in time with one another are more likely to bond and work together afterward.

It’s a principle established by previous studies, but now researchers at McMaster have shown that moving in time with others even affects the social behaviour of babies who have barely learned to walk.

“Moving in sync with others is an important part of musical activities,” says Laura Cirelli, lead author of a paper now posted online and scheduled to appear in an upcoming issue of the journal Developmental Science. “These effects show that movement is a fundamental part of music that affects social behavior from a very young age.”

Cirelli and her colleagues in the Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour showed that 14-month-old babies were much more likely to help another person after the experience of bouncing up and down in time to music with that person.

Cirelli and fellow doctoral student Kate Einarson worked under the supervision of Professor Laurel Trainor, a specialist in child development research.

They tested 68 babies in all, to see if bouncing to music with another person makes a baby more likely to assist that person by handing back “accidentally” dropped objects.

Working in pairs, one researcher held a baby in a forward-facing carrier and stood facing the second researcher. When the music started to play, both researchers would gently bounce up and down, one bouncing the baby with them. Some babies were bounced in sync with the researcher across from them, and others were bounced at a different tempo.

When the song was over, the researcher who had been facing the baby then performed several simple tasks, including drawing a picture with a marker. While drawing the picture, she would pretend to drop the marker to see whether the infant would pick it up and hand it back to her – a classic test of altruism in babies.

The babies who had been bounced in time with the researcher were much more likely to toddle over, pick up the object and pass it back to the researcher, compared to infants who had been bounced at a different tempo than the experimenter.

While babies who had been bounced out of sync with the researcher only picked up and handed back 30 per cent of the dropped objects, in-sync babies came to the researcher’s aid 50 per cent of the time. The in-sync babies also responded more quickly.

The findings suggest that when we sing, clap, bounce or dance in time to music with our babies, these shared experiences of synchronous movement help form social bonds between us and our babies.

It’s a significant finding, Cirelli believes, because it shows that moving together to music with others encourages the development of altruistic helping behaviour among those in a social group. It suggests that music is an important part of day care and kindergarten curriculums because it helps to build a co-operative social climate.

Cirelli is now researching whether the experience of synchronous movement with one person leads babies to extend their increased helpfulness to other people or whether infants reserve their altruistic behaviour for their dancing partners.

Altruism/egoism: a question of points of view

Different brain structures are at the basis of these behaviours

Sociality, cooperation and “prosocial” behaviours are the foundation of human society (and of the extraordinary development of our brain) and yet, taken individually, people often show huge variation in terms of altruism/egoism, both among individuals and in the same individual at different moments in time. What causes these differences in behaviour? An answer may be found by observing the activity of the brain, as was done by a group of researchers from SISSA in Trieste (in collaboration with the Human-Computer Interaction Lab, HCI lab, of the University of Udine). The brain circuits that are activated suggest that each of the two behaviour types corresponds to a cognitive analysis that emphasizes different aspects of the same situation.

It depends on how we experience the situation, or rather, on how our brain decides to experience it: when in a situation of need, will we adopt an altruistic behaviour, at the cost of putting our lives at risk, or will we behave selfishly? People make extremely variable decisions in such cases: some have a tendency to be always altruistic or always selfish, and some change their behaviour depending on the situation. What happens in a person’s mind when he/she decides to adopt one style rather than the other? This is the question that Giorgia Silani, a neuroscientist at SISSA, and colleagues addressed in a study just published in NeuroImage: “Even though prosocial behaviours are crucial to human society, and most probably helped to mould our cognitive system, we don’t always behave altruistically,” explains Silani. “We wanted to see what changes occur in our brain between one type of behaviour and the other”.

Silani and colleagues used a brain imaging technique which allows investigators to isolate the most active brain structures during a task. “In our experiments the participants were immersed in a virtual reality scenario in which they had to decide whether to help someone, and potentially put their own lives in danger, or save themselves without considering the other person” explains Silani. One innovative feature of the study is in fact the possibility of creating “ecological” experimental conditions, that is, as close as possible to a real situation.

“Traditionally, studies in this field used “games” in which participants had to allocate monetary gains, but many researchers including ourselves believe that these conditions are too artificial and tell us very little about altruism and egoism in daily life. However, obvious ethical constraints make it impossible to design realistic field experiments. Virtual reality has proved to be a good compromise that preserves the authenticity of the situation without putting anyone in danger”.

Silani and colleagues were able to see that in the brain of the tested subjects significantly different brain circuits are activated during the two types of behaviour (selfish/altruistic). In the first case the most active area was the “salience network” (anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex) whereas the most intensely involved structures in altruistic behaviour were the prefrontal cortex and the temporo-parietal junction.

“The salience network, which serves to increase the “conspicuity” of stimuli for the cognitive system, could make the dangers of the situation more apparent to the subject, leading the individual to behave in a selfish manner. Conversely, the areas that are most active when a subject decides to behave altruistically are the ones that the scientific literature commonly associates with the ability to take another person’s point of view, which would therefore make the subject more empathic and willing to act for the benefit of others”.

“Ours is the first study to measure neurophysiological data during decision-making in life-threatening situations” concludes Silani.  In addition to Silani, who coordinated the study, the SISSA team also includes Marco Zanon, first author, and Giovanni Novembre, whereas HCI Lab investigators are Nicola Zangrando and Luca Chittaro.

Individuals Genetically Predisposed to Anxiousness May Be Less Likely to Volunteer and Help Others

Scientists increasingly are uncovering answers for human behavior through genetic research. Now, a University of Missouri researcher has found that prosocial behavior, such as volunteering and helping others, is related to the same gene that predisposes individuals to anxiety disorders. Helping such individuals cope with their anxiety may increase their prosocial behavior, the researcher said.

“Prosocial behavior is linked closely to strong social skills and is considered a marker of individuals’ health and well-being,” said Gustavo Carlo, Millsap Professor of Diversity in MU’s College of Human Environmental Sciences. “Social people are more likely to be healthier, excel academically, experience career success and develop deeper interpersonal relationships that may help alleviate stress.”

Carlo and his colleagues found that, on average, those individuals who carried the genotype associated with higher social anxiety were less likely to engage in prosocial behavior.

“Previous research has shown that the brain’s serotonin neurotransmitter system plays an important role in regulating emotions,” said study co-author Scott Stoltenberg, an associate professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “Our findings suggest that individual differences in social anxiety levels are influenced by this serotonin system gene and that these differences help to partially explain why some people are more likely than others to behave prosocially.  Studies like this one show that biological factors are critical influences on how people interact with one another.”

Because prosocial behavior is linked to genetically based anxiety, Carlo suggests that helping nervous individuals cope with their social anxiety through targeted efforts, such as encouragement, support, counseling and medication, could help them engage in more prosocial behavior.

“Some forms of anxieties can be very debilitating for individuals,” Carlo said. “When people have severe levels of social anxiety, such as agoraphobia, which is the fear of public places and large crowds, they will avoid social situations altogether and miss the prosocial opportunities.”

Carlo said that it is difficult to distinguish how much of prosocial behavior is based on learned environmental behavior and how much is biologically based.

“The nature-versus-nurture debate is always interesting,” Carlo said. “However, I think that in our contemporary models of human behavior, we are beginning to understand the interplay between biology and the environment.”

Much of Carlo’s previous study on prosocial development has focused on how environmental influences, such as family relationships, influence prosocial behavior. This study brings researchers closer to understanding the effect that individuals’ biological makeup has on their behaviors, Carlo said.