The same hormone could be responsible for love and aggression

http://themunicheye.com/The-same-hormone-could-be-responsible-for-love-and-aggression-3359/

In our day-to-day lives we are called upon to make instantaneous "engage or avoid", snap judgments when encountering new people; these judgments may play significant roles in our future interactions, such as choosing a potential mate, for example, or sidestepping or taking on conflict.

Behavioral and social cognition research, including a recent study published by a team at the University of Bonn in Germany and the University of Electronic Science and Technology in Chengdu, China led by Prof. Keith Kendrick, has shown that the amygdala (a brain region), which is the seat of our emotions, may be a target of the hormone oxytocin.

This region may also be responsible for the differences between males and females in how our brains register and process positive and negative social information.

Oxytocin, known as the "love hormone," is fundamental to mother-infant bonding in mammals, labor progression and all essential functions of child-rearing.

Responses to deadpan faces divide the sexes

Kendrick's team performed an experiment to show how oxytocin affects the processing of social information in male and female brains.

The researchers wanted to explore differences in the ways male and female brains process social information when treated with oxytocin and connect this to behaviors.

There is a network in the brain called the social salience network, which includes specific areas like the amygdala and other regions they connect, which help determine the relevance of social clues. And, according to Kendrick, "The hormone oxytocin makes specific social clues more relevant so you focus on them more."

The scientists showed male and female volunteers, photos of different faces with deadpan expressions placed on the same page as a comment either criticizing or praising people, or a deadpan face with both praise and criticism.

The volunteers then squirted oxytocin or a placebo into their noses and the researchers measured the activation of their amygdala by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

fMRI is a method that measures oxygenation of blood in a particular part of the body. More or less oxygen flowing into a particular part of the brain in response to a stimulus, such as a negative or positive statement, means that there is greater brain activity in response to one stimulus compared with another.

The images showed that amygdala activation in oxytocin-treated volunteers was greater in males (than females) responding to a photo of a face paired with criticism compared with a photo paired with praise, and in females, the reverse was true.

The volunteers also rated the "likeability" of the faces when they were shown the photos alone, decoupled from the comments. The "likeability" scores agreed with the fMRI results. According to Kendrick, "Thus overall oxytocin makes females like the faces more and males like them less."


Accentuate the positive (in females) and accentuate the negative (in males)

The hormone oxytocin may have evolved differently in men and women. Oxytocin and its targets' responses support and underpin fundamental societal functions in females such as raising children, forming alliances to promote childrearing and bonding with healthy males.

In males, no less important, oxytocin may have evolved to point out and organize neural responses to negative social cues for avoidance or engagement of certain individuals.

In both of these sexually distinct roles, oxytocin by its sexually distinct responses and networks of activation may create an optimal environment for child rearing, focusing male and female attention in different ways and producing behaviors based on the sex of the individual.

* Embedded Links *

one has to wonder sometimes where they are going with all that Research!

What a horribly crude and nearly useless experiment.

They utterly failed to control for upbringing or culture in their subjects.

It's already known that a persons reaction to stimulation of ANY kind, depends on who the person has become over time.

All this proves is what they already knew: Oxycontin is a stimulant.

Glad you guys are on board with me here.

As I was reading it, I thought , 'this may be  used, in the future, as some crazy defense for a sexual predator'. (Which, legally is a 'crime of violence')

It just sounds... sleazy lawyer to me, & too cookie cutter to me.

Tsk.. tsk.. Germany & China may need, some American attorneys & a few other things.

I've observed that there are two main things driving most such "study reports:"

1. Capitalism. That is, people in the research profession, get advancement and higher pay for "discovering things," and for getting published. So they are going to do "studies," and not always do them well.

And, journalists and News Media companies make the most money from making every story seem either frightening, or suspicious, or "cute," so they will look in the study details for anything that kinds-sorta seems weird, and then make it appear that THAT is what was proved, whether it was or not.

2. Reporters who TELL us about the studies, almost never have a real science background themselves, they are usually journalists. That means they are trained in how to arrange information into a "news" format and present it, but NOT how to analyze it factually or logically. So it's often the case, that even when a study IS conducted well, the reports about it will be misleading, or even outright contradictory to the real study.

Yep,Government-Funded Research is definitely Capitalism!
Maybe in a Galaxy far far away!
Here it is still Statism!

No, you are entirely wrong. You clearly don't understand what capitalism is, which is all too common these days, in this very capitalist country and world.

It doesn't matter where the funding is coming from. What matters, is that what happens is the direct result of people pursuing that funding. Good old profit motive.

To be "statism," as you accuse, people would have to be yearning to please the State, not to become wealthy.

And since I have repeatedly witnessed you jumping to false conclusions, let me mention as well, that recognizing that it IS capitalism which drives this sort of behavior isn't a condemnation of it. Rather it is an inherent necessity to be a GOOD capitalist, to recognize it's inherent flaws and challenges, in order to regulate it and take effects such as this into account.

Man Oh Man,you really need to do some reading!
The US,and every other semi-free Country in the world is at best a Mixed Economy!
No Capitalism any-where,only a Bunch of Government-Coercion and Cronyism!
You are still proposing Statism,my Man,STATISM!
You apparently see nothing wrong when a Government-Agent picks the Winners and Losers,all in a day's work,hmm?
Long Live Big Brother!
I really get a kick out of it when People call today's socio-Fascism,Capitalism!
Love your Strawmen,though!