Placing Compassion in a Neurobiological and Evolutionary

Framework Stephanie L. Brown

Center for Medical Humanities, Compassionate Care, and Bioethics

Preventive Medicine SUNY-Stony Brook

& Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Research &

Psychology, University of Michigan

What is compassion?

Compassion motivates us to help others

Connecting compassion to scientific theories of helping n  If compassion

n  can be thought of as part of the motivational basis for helping others…

n  Then n  we may be able to learn more about compassion

through the lens of Selective investment theory (Brown & Brown, 2006, Psychological Inquiry Target Article)

n  A theory about the motivation for helping others

Selective investment theory (SIT) recasts the functional significance of close relationships n  TRADITIONAL VIEW:

n  Connections with others (social bonds) represent a motivational system for helping us stay close to those we need, to get more resources for ourselves to help us survive and reproduce.

n  SIT (what’s in it for someone other than me?):

n  social bonds represent a motivational system for helping us GIVE AWAY away what we need to help others survive and reproduce.

Evolutionary origin of this motivation “to give” is parenting

Compassion may exist in non-humans

What we know about parenting mechanisms might teach us something about human compassion

What do we know? Brain circuits that drive parenting

(Numan, 2006) n  Directed by:

n  Medial preoptic area of the hypothalamus actives neural circuitry that results in releasing motor programs for helping behavior

n  Mediated by: n  Inhibition of competing stress response n  ALSO, Inhibition of competing reward-seeking drives

n  Moderated by n  Maternal experience

Towards a neurobiological framework for understanding compassion and prosocial behavior (Brown & Preston, revise and resubmit, Perspectives in Psychological Science)

CAREGIVING MOTIVATION

(Hypothalamus)

OTHER SOURCES OF MOTIVATION

(OFC--Nucleus Accumbens)

Prosocial Behavior

Stress Regulation and Health (e.g.,

decreased coupling of Amy-PAG, reduced

inflammation)

Relationship Variables MOFC, ACC,

(Relase of OT from PVN)

Cues for Helping (Amygdala, sgACC)

Individual Differences

Self Efficacy (Habenula—DA & Serotonin)

Secure Attachment Style (OT and AVP polymorphisms)

Safety Cues (Vagal Tone)

We have found... n The existence of hormonal correlates of

relationship variables that reduce stress and trigger helping behavior (Carter, 1998; Brown, Fredrickson, et al., 2009)

n Helping behavior under conditions of closeness and compassion accelerates recovery from stress (Brown, Johnson, Fredrickson, et al., in preparation)

n  Hypothesis n  OT is highest when individuals help someone they care

about, but not when individuals help someone who is objectified.

n  Design n  60 Female Participants randomly assigned to help

partner (Batson & Weeks, 1986) under conditions of closeness and perspective-taking (Aron/Batson) or no-closeness/objective perspective, or to a control group with no helping.

Study Example (Brown, Lopez. Seng, Konrath, Carter, Fredrickson, Schultheiss, Smith, in preparation)

Measures n  Stress reactivity and recovery (e.g., heart

rate, blood pressure, RSA) n  Oxytocin (in blood samples) n  Progesterone (in saliva) n  Immune Function (blood samples)

Oxytocin levels as a function of condition

4.84.9

55.15.25.35.45.55.65.7

OT1 OT2

Help/Closeness

Help/NoClosenessNo Help

Transforming Growth Factor –Beta (Tgf-B) over time as a function of condition

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

tgfb (t1) tgfb (t2) tgfb (t3)

Help/Closeness

Help/NoCloseness

Il-8 over time as a function of condition

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

IL-8 (t1) Il-8 (t2) Il-8 (t3)

Help/Closeness

Help/NoCloseness

Implications for Physical Health n  Prosocial behavior should improve physical

health n  Providing support and mortality (Brown et al., 2003) n  Independent replication with morbidity among older adults (W. Brown,

et al., 2005) n  Providing support and mortality among dialysis patients (McClellan,

Stanwyk, & Anson, 1993) n  Volunteering and Mortality (for a review Oman, 2007; Okun & Brown, in

preparation) n  Caretaking and mortality in primates (Allman et al., 1998) n  Caregiving and mortality risk (Brown et al., 2009)

Further Implications for Physical Health

n  The benefits of prosocial behavior for health should be (1) strongest amoung those exposed to chronic stress, and (2) who help others out of compassion n  Prosocial behavior predicts reduced mortality risk

after exposure to a stressful life event (Poulin, Brown, Dillard, & Smith , in press, American Journal of Public Health)

n  Volunteering reduces mortality risk, but only when motives for volunteering are “other-focused” (Konrath et al., 2012, Health Psychology)

n  Economics and Utility: n  reward-seeking drives for the self, which are targeted

in economic models of consumptive behavior, are only part of the story. Could it be important to study the economic implications of human caring capacities

n  Social Poblems: (e.g., ethnic and cultural conflict, corruption on Wall Street and Government, environmental protection) n  This framework suggests tremendous power

in the media and our social systems to turn off (or on) compassion

Broader Implications

Collaborators n  R. M. Brown, Psychology, Pacific

Lutheran University n  Barbara Fredrickson, Psychology, UNC n  Emily Heaphy, Business School, UM n  Michelle Heisler, VA, UM n  Jim House, Survey Research Center,

UM n  William Lopez, Public Health, University

of Michigan n  Sara Konrath, ISR, UM n  Julia Seng, Nursing, UM Supported by NSF grants 0719629; 0820609

n  Kareem Johnson, Psychology, Temple n  Kenneth Langa, General Medicine, UM n  Randolph Nesse, Psychology, UM n  Michael Poulin, Psychology, SUNY n  Oliver Schultheiss, Psychology, UM n  Dylan Smith, Preventive Medicine,

SUNY n  Andrew Flescher, Preventive Medicine,

SUNY