Showing posts with label love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label love. Show all posts

Friday, May 2, 2014

The Neurological Basis of Love

The Neurological Basis of Love

What is the neurological basis of love? What neurological mechanism of action is involved with romantic affections?
           The standard treatment of emotion in most physiological psychology text books begins with a treatment of the negative emotions of fear and aggression. Carlson’s classic text similarly does not disappoint. Even in a staggering 35 page chapter on the physiological basis of emotion, there is very little if any treatment of any other human emotions.
            Yet love is one of the most ubiquitous subjects in our culture, art, music, literature and philosophy.  Historically, however, love was not always considered an emotional event (state?). Take for example the often (quite heated) debates among the theologians and philosophers of the Middle Ages concerning whether love is a volitional or intellectual faculty (clearly Thomas Aquinas was right, because Thomas Aquinas is always right, but I digressJ ).This all began to change moving from the Romantic period and into Modernity.

So how far have we come in our “scientific” (more on this use-mention distinction as applied to the science of psychology in a later entry) of the understanding of love? This entry will look at only the briefest sampling to answer that question.
            A Bartels and S. Zeki’s 2000 study, “The neural basis of romantic love” is a good starting point for our discussion. Their study included 17 participants, 75% of which were female with a mean age of 24.5 years.  Participants were asked to view images of their significant other as well as images of others who were similar to their significant other in terms of race, build, hair color, etc. The rationale assumed here is that participants would have greater activation at the sight of their partner, even when faced with images of a similarly appearing individual due to emotional attachment. Participants were also asked to complete a PLS (Passionate Love Scale; 1-9 likert scale) after viewing the images. GSR (Galvanic Skin Response) and an fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) were used to measure participant’s responses to stimuli (images of partner or stranger).
            Interestingly, there was no activation (or deactivation) in the occipital lobe or the fusiform gyrus when viewing images of either their partner or a stranger! The researchers did however find activity in the middle insula as well as the anterior cingulate cortex bilaterally. Further activations were seen (as would be expected) in the head of the caudate nucleus and the putamen (both more salient on the left).
            The article continued with a large chunk describing the inter-relatedness of the activations described above. Space doesn’t allow for a complete duplication of their finding here, but one example follows. Researchers found that the insula was activated upon viewing their partner. Indeed, prior research has shown that insula activity is related to a wide variety of emotional functions. In the final analysis, the researchers conclude that a neurological analysis of love or affection is extremely complex insofar as romantic love itself is a complex endeavor and this is further complicated by the extreme inter-connectedness of the human brain.
            The present research seems to correlate with other studies indicating that love is not emotive, but rather motivational, and evolutionarily driven. While we have certainly come a long way from the static constructs of the faculty psychology of Thomas Aquinas, we still have difficulty pin pointing the precise mechanisms of romantic affection. One thing is clear: emotions play a part in romantic affection (love), but they are only a piece of the puzzle. 

As always references and recommended readings follow. The Langeslag article is particularly worthwhile for the German inclined.



References and Recommended Reading

            Acevedo, B. P. (2008). The neural basis of long-term romantic love. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 69(12), 7846.

            Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. Neuroreport: For
Rapid Communication Of Neuroscience Research, 11(17), 3829-3834. doi:10.1097/00001756-200011270-00046.

            Carlson, Neil R. (2012). Physiology of Behavior. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.

            Fisher, H., Aron A., and Brown L.L. (2005). Romantic love: an fMRI study of a neural mechanism for mate choice. The Journal of Comparative Neurology. 493(1), 58-62.

            Langeslag, S. E. (2006). Liefde is een motivatie, geen emotie: Een neurobiologische benadering. Psycholoog, 41(5), 260-265.






Prepared by Phillip J. Kuna for John G. Kuna, PsyD and Associates Counseling
 (570)961-3361












Tuesday, April 22, 2014

The Empathy-Altruism Debate: An Empirical Approach

The Empathy-Altruism Debate: An Empirical Approach
           
Taking a break from the biological perspective of our previous two blogs, this entry looks at a universally occurring social psychological phenomenon—namely, the possibility of  to committing a purely self-less act? Is the person who returns a large sum of found money doing it out of selflessness, to alleviate guilt, fear of being caught, or some other variable? What about the interpersonal acts of supposed altruism? Providing a monetary donation to a mendicant because they need help and you are altruistic, or because it may impress the date on your arm?
C. Daniel Batson is arguably the authority on pro-social behavior and motivational factors, specifically the topic at hand: the altruism-empathy debate. The altruism-empathy debate describes the phenomenon whereby individuals help another due to feelings of empathy for them, regardless of the gain/cost analysis. In this model, empathy is the motivational factor and not simply the need to alleviate a negative state of guilt, shame, etc.
Summary
            In this early (1981) study, Batson et al. performed two experiments in order to test their hypothesis—contrary to the consensus of the past few decades of literature—that empathy does indeed stem from altruistic and not egoistic motivation. The researchers note from the outset the inherent difficulties with this task. Since altruism and egotism are motivational factors that can’t be directly observed, the experiment must be constructed and participants manipulated in such a way that the behavior can be measured. After a brief hiatus, providing the reader with operational definitions, Batson gets to the guts of the experiment.
            The experiment contained a rigged lottery held to determine that the confederate (Elaine) be required to work a 10-trial task where participants are told she would receive random electrical shocks. Participants were informed that the purpose of the study was to gauge task performance under adverse conditions. Participants monitored Elaine’s progress on CCTV, and also had access to a galvanic skin response (GSR) monitor. During the course of the experiment, the assistant inquired about Elaine’s well-being. At this time Elaine disclosed that she had previously fallen on an electrical fence, that this experience was traumatic at the time and somewhat troubling now considering the nature of the experiment. Elaine insisted she would continue. The assistant would then ask the observer/participant if they would be willing to take Elaine’s place, so as to alleviate her suffering from the electrical shocks. The researchers found that almost all participants willingly traded places with Elaine when they knew (via questionnaires) that Elaine’s interests were similar to their own. Batson et al. presumed that empathy was elicited due to their commonly shared values and interests. Conversely, the participants that declined to aid Elaine, and instead left the situation after knowing that they did not share common values with her. Again, the researches presumed the low levels of empathy are attributable to their lack of commonality. 
Analysis               
                Most of the concerns I had while reading the article were addressed in the final, general discussion section: the fact that all the participants in both studies were all female, who were watching a same-sex confederate.  Prior research has already shown females score higher on empathy than males. Further, only two experiments were conducted. Again, the researchers note the necessity of further research. My only other caveat would be the necessity to explore other motivational factors besides simply altruism vs. egotism. What about morality? Religious beliefs? Social responsibility? Negative state relief? Race? Other under-lying biases?
Conclusion and further questions
                The notion of a pure sense altruism has been a philosopher’s playground for centuries. In fact, Batson himself notes the antiquity of the question in a later article (Batson, 1991). My already alluded to question for further research regards the possible plurality of motivational factors. I’m honestly not sure how to set up an experiment that would be simple enough to engage in, yet complex enough measure several motivational factors for altruistic behavior. In this vein, I found Van Lange’s (2008) research on the subject an interesting starting point inasmuch as he explored the activation of altruism in terms of egalitarianism (justice) and selflessness. Finally, and perhaps somewhat excitingly to those who enjoy research as much as I do, there is a vast bibliography on this topic. Batson’s references are the tip of the iceberg, but a good place to start researching the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Further suggestions for reading are listed below. Finally, whether your motivations stem from an enlightened and pure selflessness, being altruistic to others in need is always a good thing. J

References


Batson, C., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation?. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 40(2), 290-302. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.290

Batson, C., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M., & Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 55(1), 52-77. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.52

Batson, C., Oleson, K. C., Weeks, J. L., Healy, S. P., Reeves, P. J., Jennings, P., & Brown, T. (1989). Religious prosocial motivation: Is it altruistic or egoistic?. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 57(5), 873-884. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.873

Batson, C., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107-122. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0202_1

Van Lange, P. M. (2008). Does empathy trigger only altruistic motivation? How about selflessness or justice?. Emotion, 8(6), 766-774. doi:10.1037/a0013967

Prepared by +Phillip Kuna
For John G. Kuna, PsyD and Associates
(570)961-3361