Born? Made?

No Gravatar

So, it turns out that at least some of us are turned out to help others. fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) is being used to prove that fact. But, the goal of most of the studies has not been to see if we are generous to a fault, but to determine how (if?) we can help folks who lack empathy or want to improve on their generosity.

It would seem to violate our beliefs of evolution. After all, if it IS the survival of the fittest, why would we help those less fit? One reason could be to nsure that our close relatives can survive or those who co-exist in our specific “circles”.

Dr. Jordan Grafman (now director of brain injury research at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago) of NIH, along with Drs. Jorge Moll, Frank Krueger, Roleand Zahn, Matteo Pardini, and Ricardo de Oliveira-Souza reported on a 19 person study (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). The goal was to determine to which charities these folks would elect to donate. They noticed that when folks donated to what they considered a “worthy” organization, their mid-brains were very active- the same portion of the brain that governs sex and food cravings. They concluded that this behavior indicated that the brain considers their donations a pleasurable response.

On top of that, the subgenual aea (part of the frontal lobes) was also active during the process. This is the region that is sensitive to oxytocin (the maternal bonding hormone). And, when a specified donation was going to have a higher personal cost to the subjects, the anterior prefontal cortex was also active- the portion of the brain that is responsible for complex judgments and decision making.

But, there’s more to this concept of giving and “good feelings”. Dr. William Harbaugh (Oregon) published his study of law graduates (Journal of Public Economics ). These folks made charitable donations to their law schools- but only enough to qualify for each of the “brackets” the school published in their giving reports.  Harbaugh concluded that reporting via category plans only insures that folks donate “just enough” to make the specific category to which they want to be know- which also means development officers should spend more time choosing the proper category plan, which can increase the received donations. It also means the test subjects cared more about prestige than the act of giving. (Of course, this could be true only for lawyers 🙂 – one would hope not.)

Harbaugh continued his research, this time with Dr. U. Mayr (and grad student Dan Burghart), using fMRI scanning. This time,  19 female subjects were provided with $ 100 and were asked to donate funds to a local food bank, using a computer terminal. (Science published these results.) Donations could range from $ 15 to $ 45; money that was not donated remained with the subjects. But Mayr and Harbaugh added a wrinkle to their study- sometimes the computer demanded they give a certain amount (akin to a tax). But, their fMRI data demonstrated a different portion of the brain was activated during this process- the nucleus accumbens (the dopamine center, which is associated with the pleasure response)- but the subjects similarly encountered more brain activation that those who donated less frequently.

Interestingly, this selfless behavior may also be related to heroism. It seems that this behavior is more ‘made’ than ‘born’. Those folks who are more prepared- those that have CPR knowledge, for example- or suffered similar precarious situations (interpersonal violence or endured a natural disaster) are more likely to pitch in to help others. (These results were reported by Dr. E. Staub and J. Vollhardt in the  American Journal of Orthopsychiatry).

The more we feel things in common with those suffering, the higher the inducement to help them.  Whether that’s heroism or charity.

 

Grow My Biz!

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter
Share

12 thoughts on “Born? Made?”

  1. Studies are always interesting but I think your last line sums it up. At least from personal experience and observing the donations made by those in my family I agree – we certainly donate to those causes that have touched our lives.

  2. You are welcome to believe in the theory of evolution. I do too as long as it is within a family. A hummingbird will never be able to mate with an ostrich. There are lots of different hummers, but I don’t think they mate with each other either. I have heard of one bird family that intermated–the Eastern and Western Meadow Lark. They have different marks and calls.

    If there has ever been a successful mating between a human and any other creature, I am not sure I could stomach it, but I would want to know.

    As for showing kindness for others in need, I like to think that the SB made our brains put out happy chemicals when we helped so that we would want to do it again for more happy chemicals. Or maybe, just maybe even thought the fMRI is a powerful machine, it just can’t see why a mother, any mother, in fact any woman responds to a baby’s cry. Survival of the fittest would have someone smother the rug-rat. Helping a baby stop crying probably lights up the fMRI, too. It’s a nature thing, not nurture.

    Damn that was fun. I don’t guess I get enough nerve to tell a genius I think he is wrong often enough. Your move. Take it to email, please.
    Ann Mullen recently posted..Senior Care Advice: How Good Posture Helps You Prevent a Fall

    1. I am not quite sure how we got into evolution, here, Ann… Survival of the fittest is not truly an evolutionary concept.
      But, if I had to choose between evolution and the Right Wing Christian concept of how the world was created, it’s no contest. It’s not a matter of belief; unless one wants to believe we can fly without mechanical assist.
      Survival of the fittest (or at least survival of the strongest and meanest) seems to be the modality of existence in various countries AND US counties,,,
      And, a mother responding to a baby’s cry- that’s one thing. But, how would you explain how (at least 150 years ago) a White mother failed to respond to a Black baby’s cry… or how some folks respond to cries of Muslim babies.

  3. I don’t know if these studies are telling us anything that we didn’t already know… That we all donate for different personal reasons, that charitable giving often times makes us feel good, and that some people donate because it makes them look good.

    1. I agree, somewhat, Suerae…
      But, there were a few interesting facts…
      (1) Folks tend to give at the bottom of each rung. So, if the rungs are 100, 500, 1000, 2000, and 5000- maybe we should raise them by 50% to accumulate more funds for the good.
      (2) Giving gives most of us “pleasure”.
      I thought those were cool new facts.

  4. I think that we tend to give to causes that are close to our hearts. Let me also tell you something: it is all about personal experiences. I decided to pass my first aid training after witnessing a friend having an accident.
    MuMuGB recently posted..Daily Baguette

Comments are closed.