Selbermach Samstag 301 (01.08.2020)

Welche Themen interessieren euch, welche Studien fandet ihr besonders interessant in der Woche, welche Neuigkeiten gibt es, die interessant für eine Diskussion wären und was beschäftigt euch gerade?

Welche interessanten Artikel gibt es auf euren Blogs? (Schamlose Eigenwerbung ist gerne gesehen!)

Welche Artikel fandet ihr in anderen Blogs besonders lesenswert?

Welches Thema sollte noch im Blog diskutiert werden?

Für das Flüchtlingsthema oder für Israel etc gibt es andere Blogs

Ich erinnere auch noch mal an Alles Evolution auf Twitter und auf Facebook.

Es wäre nett, wenn ihr Artikel auf den sozialen Netzwerken verbreiten würdet.

Wer mal einen Gastartikel schreiben möchte, auch gerne einen feministischen oder sonst zu hier geäußerten Ansichten kritischen, der ist dazu herzlich eingeladen

Geschlechterunterschiede im prosozialen Verhalten und verschiedene biologische Belohnungssysteme

Eine interessante Studie zu Geschlechterunterschieden in Bezug auf Dopaminausschüttungen:

Women are known to have stronger prosocial preferences than men, but it remains an open question as to how these behavioural differences arise from differences in brain functioning. Here, we provide a neurobiological account for the hypothesized gender difference. In a pharmacological study and an independent neuroimaging study, we tested the hypothesis that the neural reward system encodes the value of sharing money with others more strongly in women than in men. In the pharmacological study, we reduced receptor type-specific actions of dopamine, a neurotransmitter related to reward processing, which resulted in more selfish decisions in women and more prosocial decisions in men. Converging findings from an independent neuroimaging study revealed gender-related activity in neural reward circuits during prosocial decisions. Thus, the neural reward system appears to be more sensitive to prosocial rewards in women than in men, providing a neurobiological account for why women often behave more prosocially than men.

Quelle: The dopaminergic reward system underpins gender differences in social preferences

Zum prosozialen Verhalten gerade bei Frauen als Mittel innerhalb der intrasexuellen Konkurrenz hatte ich schon einmal etwas unter dem Stichwort prosoziale Dominanz:

Mädchen gehen eher indirekt vor. Sie suchen bei anderen Mädchen Anerkennung, die sie entweder erhalten oder die ihnen verweigert wird. Aggression äußert sich kaum brachial, sondern vor allem als sogenannte Beziehungsaggression, die im Wesentlichen auf soziale Ausgrenzung abzielt. Zwei reden beispielsweise abfällig über eine dritte oder ein Mädchen droht einem anderen Mädchen an, es nicht mehr mitspielen zu lassen oder es nicht zum Geburtstag einzuladen, um so seinen Willen durchzusetzen. Typisch für Mädchen mit Ranganspruch ist ferner, daß sie sich um das seelische Wohlbefinden der anderen kümmern, sie also im Fall von Kummer zu trösten suchen. Dieses Sich-kümmern kann schnell einmal die Form ungefragter Ratschläge annehmen. Die Psychologie spricht hier von “prosozialer Dominanz”, wobei es sich um eine Mischung aus Besorgtheit einerseits und Bevormundung andererseits handelt. Schon kleine Mädchen im Kindergarten erklären anderen gern, was gut für sie ist und was sie machen dürfen und was nicht.

Wer viel für die Gruppe gibt, der ist insofern wichtiger für die Gruppe und kann auch eher mitentscheiden. Das dürfte bei Männern und Frauen der Fall sein, bei Männern dürfte es aber ein anderer Punkt interessanter sein, nämlich Spenden/soziale Maßnahmen als „Costly Signal“ der eigenen Stärke, welches sowohl für die intrasexuelle Konkurrenz interessant ist als auch für die intersexuelle Selektion (sprich: Frauen finden Männer, die solche zusätzlichen Ausgaben problemlos leisten können interessanter als Männer, die das nicht können).

Aber zurück zur Studie:

A large body of evidence suggests that women are often more prosocial (for example, generous, altruistic and inequality averse) than men, at least when other factors such as reputation and strategic considerations are excluded1–3 .
This dissociation could result from cultural expectations and gender stereotypes, because in Western societies women are more strongly expected to be prosocial4–6 and sensitive to variations in social context than men1
It remains an open question, however, whether and how on a neurobiological level the social preferences of women and men arise from differences in brain functioning. The assumption of gender differences in social preferences predicts that the neural reward system’s sensitivity to prosocial and selfish rewards should differ between women and men. Specifically, the hypothesis would be that the neural reward system is more sensitive to prosocial than selfish rewards in women and more sensitive to selfish than prosocial rewards in men. The goal of the current study was to test in two independent experiments for the hypothesized gender differences on both a pharmacological and a haemodynamic level. In particular, we examined the functions of the neurotransmitter dopamine using a dopamine receptor antagonist, and the role of the striatum (a brain region strongly innervated by dopamine neurons) during
social decision-making in women and men using neuroimaging.

Zu Vorteilen der Gleichheit hatte ich hier etwas geschrieben:

The evolutionary emergence of the egalitarian syndrome is one of the most intriguing unsolved puzzles related to the origins of modern humans. Standard explanations and models for cooperation and altruism—reciprocity, kin and group selection, and punishment— are not directly applicable to the emergence of egalitarian behavior in hierarchically organized groups that characterized the social life of our ancestors. Here I study an evolutionary model of groupliving individuals competing for resources and reproductive success. In the model, the differences in fighting abilities lead to the emergence of hierarchies where stronger individuals take away resources from weaker individuals and, as a result, have higher reproductive success. First, I show that the logic of within-group competition implies under rather general conditions that each individual benefits if the transfer of the resource from a weaker group member to a stronger one is prevented. This effect is especially strong in small groups. Then I demonstrate that this effect can result in the evolution of a particular, genetically controlled psychology causing individuals to interfere in a bully–victim conflict on the side of the victim. A necessary condition is a high efficiency of coalitions in conflicts against the bullies. The egalitarian drive leads to a dramatic reduction in within-group inequality. Simultaneously it creates the conditions for the emergence of inequity aversion, empathy, compassion, and egalitarian moral values via the internalization of behavioral rules imposed by natural selection. It also promotes widespread cooperation via coalition formation.

Und insbesondere zur Intrasexuellen Konkurrenz unter Frauen:

Second, high status and very attractive women need less help and protection from other women and are less motivated to invest in other women (who represent potential competition). Thus, a woman who tries to distinguish or promote herself threatens other women and will encounter hostility. According to Benenson, a common way women deal with the threat represented by a remarkably powerful or beautiful woman is by insisting on standards of equality, uniformity, and sharing for all the women in the group and making these attributes the normative requirements of proper femininity.

Aber zurück zur Studie: Dort soll es um die Frage gehen, ob die Belohnungssysteme im Gehirn unterschiedlich ausgestaltet sind:

Zum Versuchsaufbau:

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. In two consecutive sessions, female and male participants either received the selective D2/D3 antagonist amisulpride in session 1 and placebo in session 2, or vice versa (Fig. 1a). In both sessions, participants performed an interpersonal decision task and a non-social intertemporal control task (in counterbalanced order).
In the interpersonal decision task (Fig. 1b), participants made choices between a selfish reward only for themselves (7.5–15.5 Swiss francs (CHF)) and a prosocial reward that was equally shared between themselves and a person at varying social distances (CHF7.5 both for the participant and for other). The social distance of the other person ranged from very close to being a stranger. In the intertemporal decision task (Fig. 1c), participants chose between smallersooner (SS) rewards (for example, CHF80 today) and larger-later (LL) rewards (for example, CHF100 in 90 days). Both the interpersonal and intertemporal decision task measure how the subjective value of a reward option is discounted as a function of (social or temporal) distance. These tasks thus allowed a comparison of the gender-specific effects of the pharmacological intervention on social relative to individual decision-making, while keeping the choice structure of the used tasks constant.

Also ein Dopaminblocker und ein Placebo und dann verschiedene Tests wie diese sich jeweils auswirken. Zu den Ergebnissen:

 

Interessanterweise scheint also bei Frauen, die den Blocker bekommen die Zahl an prosozialen Aktionen abzunehmen, bei Männern hingegen zuzunehmen.

Pharmacologically blocking dopaminergic transmission reduced prosociality in women and selfishness in men. This finding is compatible with the notion that dopamine encodes value and promotes reward seeking7,8,34. According to a recent theoretical account on gender differences in social preferences2 , sharing tends to be more preferable than acting selfishly for women, whereas, for men, maximizing self-reward tends to carry more value. It is important to note that dopaminergic signals may encode the subjective value of both prosocial and selfish reward options in both genders, rather than encoding selectively the value of the prosocial reward option in women and the value of the selfish reward option in men. However, due to the different biases of women and men for prosocial and selfish rewards, respectively, dopaminergic signals may more strongly encode shared (relative to selfish) rewards in women and selfish (relative to shared) rewards in men. Dopamine receptor blockade would then reduce the impact of these aspects on the decision process, in line with our finding of increased selfish choices in women and prosocial choices in men.
The gender-related effects of dopamine receptor blockade are mirrored by the finding that, compared to males, females show enhanced striatal activations during prosocial relative to selfish decisions. Our results are consistent with previous single-gender findings of enhanced striatal activation during costly sharing in women11 and of enhanced selfishness after increasing dopaminergic neurotransmission in men16. The present findings inform and qualify these previous studies by showing the necessity of considering gender differences in the neuroscience of social decision-making and provide a link between dopamine and gender differences in prosocial preferences. Our results are also consistent with the view that gender differences in the brain are functional, rather than morphological, in nature35,36.

Es scheint also als würden die Belohnungssysteme auf verschiedene Sachen ansprechen, was noch mehr für Geschlechterunterschiede sprechen würde