Is generosity a question of heart or the amygdala?
PARIS : Why do we help others? This question, as old as human society itself, is now being re-examined by an international research team.
Their findings, published in the journal PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) point to a specific area of the brain.
The basolateral amygdala, nestled in the heart of the limbic system, could well play a decisive role in our social behavior.
Led by Professor Tobias Kalenscher of Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, in collaboration with researchers from the universities of Lausanne, Utrecht and Cape Town, this study was based on the observation of a group of patients with Urbach-Wiethe disease.
This rare genetic condition specifically damages the basolateral amygdala, without affecting other parts of the brain.
The scientists wanted to determine how a specific difference in this region of the brain influenced prosocial behaviour.
In order to observe these mechanisms at work, the researchers went to Namaqualand, an isolated region of South Africa home to a community with an unusual concentration of cases of Urbach-Wiethe syndrome.
Although this rare disease has only about 150 recorded cases worldwide, a significant number of sufferers live in this specific area.
On site, scientists conducted several experiments following a protocol based on a tool well known to behavioural economists: 'the dictator game.'
In this game, participants receive a sum of money and must freely decide how much they wish to offer to another person, whether a relative, neighbour or stranger.
The results speak for themselves. Patients with Urbach-Wiethe syndrome showed a level of generosity towards their loved ones that is comparable to that of other people.
However, their attitude changed radically when it came to more distant people. Their generosity dropped significantly, as if their brain was unable to adjust their behaviour according to the nature of the emotional bond.
'Individuals with BLA damage were just as generous toward people they were close to as healthy control participants.
'However, as soon as it came to individuals with whom they had less of an emotional connection, they were notably more selfish,' explained Luca M Lüpken, doctoral student at Heinrich Heine University and co-author of the study, in a press release.
The amygdala is not directly responsible for generosity, but plays an essential regulatory role by adjusting a person's behaviour according to the degree of social proximity.
In other words, it does not orient an individual's morality per se, but influences a person's choice of who they decide to behave altruistically towards.
When it does not function properly, this modulation mechanism can lead to self-centred behaviour. Alterations in this area of the brain could also provide insights into certain disorders, such as autism or psychopathy, in which social decisions frequently deviate from established norms.
For Professor Tobias Kalenscher, these discoveries resonate far beyond the laboratory.
'Social decisions are not only shaped by our upbringing or culture. They are in fact also strongly anchored in the mechanisms of our brain,' he asserted.
This new understanding of the drivers of altruism could pave the way for targeted interventions capable of restoring a form of social equilibrium among individuals in difficulty.
By refining an individual's knowledge of the link between neuronal structure and behaviour, science could not only discover new therapeutic levers, but also fuel broader reflection on the conditions for a supportive and inclusive society.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
17-07-2025
- The Star
Alpha males are rare among our fellow primates: scientists
During the research, it showed that for most primates, including lemurs, the females dominated the males. — Pixabay New research has contradicted the commonly held idea that males dominate females among primates, revealing far more nuanced power dynamics in the relationships of our close relatives. 'For a long time we have had a completely binary view of this issue. We thought that a species was either dominated by males or females – and that this was a fixed trait,' said Elise Huchard, a primatologist at the University of Montpellier in France. 'Recently, this idea has been challenged by studies showing that the truth is much more complicated,' said the lead author of a new study published in the journal PNAS. The French-German team of researchers combed through scientific literature for interactions between male and female primates that revealed their hierarchical relationships. These included aggression, threats and signs of dominant or submissive behaviour, such as when one primate spontaneously moved out of the way of another. Over five years, the team gathered data from 253 populations across 121 primate species, including a range of monkeys, lemurs, tarsiers and lorises. They found that confrontations between members of the opposite sex were much more frequent than had been previously thought. On average, more than half of these interactions within a group involved a male and a female. Males clearly dominating females – which was defined as winning more than 90% of these confrontations – was only observed in 17% of the populations. Among this minority were baboons and chimpanzees, which are the closest living relatives to humans. Clear female domination was recorded in 13% of the primate populations, including lemurs and bonobos. This meant that for 70% of the primates, either males or females could be at the top of the pecking order. Male baboons guard ovulating females so that other males can't get close. Battle of the sexes When male domination was particularly pronounced, it was usually in a species where males have a clear physical advantage, such as bigger bodies or teeth. It was also more common among ground-bound species, in which females are less able to run and hide compared to their relatives living in the trees. Females, meanwhile, tended to dominate over societies when they exerted control over reproduction. For example, the genitals of female baboons swell when they are ovulating. Males jealously guard females during these few days of their menstrual cycle, making sure that other competitors cannot mate with them. However in bonobos, this sexual swelling is less obvious. 'Males never know when they are ovulating or not. As a result, (the female bonobos) can mate with whoever they want, whenever they want, much more easily,' Huchard said. Female dominance is also more common when females compete with each other, and when males provide more care for the young. In these species, females are often solitary or only live in male-female pairs. This means that monogamy is closely linked to female dominance. Can these results be extrapolated to our own species? There are a great many differences between humans and our fellow primates, Huchard emphasised. But we would broadly fall into the middle category in which neither males nor females always have strict dominance over the other. 'These results corroborate quite well with what we know about male-female relationships among hunter-gatherers, which were more egalitarian than in the agricultural societies that emerged later' in human history, Huchard said. – AFP
Malay Mail
08-07-2025
- Malay Mail
Forget the battle of the sexes: New research shows primates have more complex power dynamics than we thought
PARIS, July 9 — New research on Monday contradicted the commonly held idea that males dominate females among primates, revealing far more nuanced power dynamics in the relationships of our close relatives. 'For a long time we have had a completely binary view of this issue: we thought that a species was either dominated by males or females — and that this was a fixed trait,' Elise Huchard, a primatologist at the University of Montpellier in France, told AFP. 'Recently, this idea has been challenged by studies showing that the truth is much more complicated,' said the lead author of a new study published in the journal PNAS. The French-German team of researchers combed through scientific literature for interactions between male and female primates that revealed their hierarchical relationships. These included aggression, threats and signs of dominant or submissive behaviour, such as when one primate spontaneously moved out of the way of another. Over five years, the team gathered data from 253 populations across 121 primate species, including a range of monkeys, lemurs, tarsiers and lorises. They found that confrontations between members of the opposite sex were much more frequent than had been previously thought. On average, more than half of these interactions within a group involved a male and a female. Males clearly dominating females, which was defined as winning more than 90 per cent of these confrontations, was only observed in 17 per cent of the populations. Among this minority were baboons and chimpanzees, which are the closest living relatives to humans. Clear female domination was recorded in 13 per cent of the primate populations, including lemurs and bonobos. This meant that for 70 per cent of the primates, either males or females could be at the top of the pecking order. Battle of the sexes When male domination was particularly pronounced, it was usually in a species where males have a clear physical advantage, such as bigger bodies or teeth. It was also more common among ground-bound species, in which females are less able to run and hide compared to their relatives living in the trees. Females, meanwhile, tended to dominate over societies when they exerted control over reproduction. For example, the genitals of female baboons swell when they are ovulating. Males jealously guard females during these few days of their menstrual cycle, making sure that other competitors cannot mate with them. However in bonobos, this sexual swelling is less obvious. 'Males never know when they are ovulating or not. As a result, (the female bonobos) can mate with whoever they want, whenever they want, much more easily,' Huchard said. Female dominance is also more common when females compete with each other, and when males provide more care for the young. In these species, females are often solitary or only live in male-female pairs. This means that monogamy is closely linked to female dominance. Can these results be extrapolated to our own species? There are a great many differences between humans and our fellow primates, Huchard emphasised. But we would broadly fall into the middle category in which neither males nor females always have strict dominance over the other. 'These results corroborate quite well with what we know about male-female relationships among hunter-gatherers, which were more egalitarian than in the agricultural societies that emerged later' in human history, Huchard said. — AFP
Daily Express
21-06-2025
- Daily Express
How screen use can create a vicious cycle for some children and teens
Published on: Saturday, June 21, 2025 Published on: Sat, Jun 21, 2025 By: ETX Daily Up, FMT Text Size: Children's screen time and socioemotional problems fuel each other over time, an Australian study finds. (Envato Elements pic) PARIS: It has long been known that screens are harmful to children. Excessive exposure has been linked to cognitive development delays, as well as learning, language and memory disorders. In adolescents, excessive screen use may cause manic symptoms, such as mood disorders and sleep disturbances. But a new Australian meta-analysis highlights a lesser-known problem: excessive screen use can exacerbate socioemotional problems in children, such as anxiety, depression, hyperactivity and aggression – in turn driving them to screens to cope with these issues. This vicious circle mainly affects children aged six to 10 and seems to be more prevalent in boys than in girls. Conducted by researchers at the University of Queensland, the findings, published in the journal Psychological Bulletin, examined around 100 studies involving more than 292,000 children from around the world. Most of the cases included in this study were conducted in the United States (41 studies), Canada (13), Australia (11), Germany, and the Netherlands (7 each). The researchers found that video games are associated with higher risks of developing behavioral disorders compared to other screen-based content, including those intended for educational or recreational purposes. 'As a kid I loved video games – they give you a challenge and powerful feedback when you're doing a good job. For this reason, games are particularly tempting for children having problems and especially hard to get children away from,' said study senior author Michael Noetel, quoted in a news release. While it's true that some video games have an educational dimension – some of them have even been recognised as a vehicle for mental well-being among teenagers – excessive use can be counterproductive. Advertisement 'Parents and policymakers have long debated whether screens cause problems, or whether children with problems were simply drawn to screens,' the news release notes. 'Our review shows it's both,' Noetel revealed. 'If we only address one side of the equation – cutting down on screen time but overlooking anxiety or aggression that leads kids to screens – we risk leaving children stuck in a cycle.' However, the researcher tempers this by pointing out that the emotional and behavioral disorders mentioned can also be explained by other factors, such as exposure to alcohol and/or drugs. The '3-6-9-12 rule' In France, some health professionals now recommend keeping children under six away from screens entirely, which is three years longer than the current official recommendations. To help parents limit their children's screen time, French pediatrician Serge Tisseron has invented the '3-6-9-12 rule', designed according to children's age and stage of cognitive development. The rules are as follows: no screens before the age of 3; no personal consoles before age 6; no internet before age 9; and no internet without supervision before age 12. Other initiatives have recently emerged to encourage children and teens to 'detox' from digital devices, such as the challenge of spending 10 days without using any screens at all, in favour of activities that promote relaxation and creativity.
