IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v1y2017i11d10.1038_s41562-017-0226-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The dopaminergic reward system underpins gender differences in social preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Soutschek

    (University of Zurich)

  • Christopher J. Burke

    (University of Zurich)

  • Anjali Raja Beharelle

    (University of Zurich)

  • Robert Schreiber

    (University of Zurich)

  • Susanna C. Weber

    (University of Zurich)

  • Iliana I. Karipidis

    (University of Zurich
    University of Zurich
    University of Zurich, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich)

  • Jolien ten Velden

    (University of Zurich
    Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics)

  • Bernd Weber

    (University Hospital Bonn
    University of Bonn)

  • Helene Haker

    (University of Zurich and ETH Zurich)

  • Tobias Kalenscher

    (Heinrich Heine University)

  • Philippe N. Tobler

    (University of Zurich
    University of Zurich, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Soutschek & Christopher J. Burke & Anjali Raja Beharelle & Robert Schreiber & Susanna C. Weber & Iliana I. Karipidis & Jolien ten Velden & Bernd Weber & Helene Haker & Tobias Kalenscher & Ph, 2017. "The dopaminergic reward system underpins gender differences in social preferences," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(11), pages 819-827, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:1:y:2017:i:11:d:10.1038_s41562-017-0226-y
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-017-0226-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0226-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-017-0226-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Soutschek & Marius Moisa & Christian C Ruff & Philippe N Tobler, 2020. "The right temporoparietal junction enables delay of gratification by allowing decision makers to focus on future events," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(8), pages 1-20, August.
    2. repec:dav:journl:y:2019:v:8:i:10:p:282 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Zhang Jingchao & Koji Kotani & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2021. "Are societies becoming proself? A topographical difference under fast urbanization in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(9), pages 12976-12993, September.
    4. David W. Martin, 2019. "Gender Concerns When Noah the Economist Ranks Biodiversity Protection Policies," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-13, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:1:y:2017:i:11:d:10.1038_s41562-017-0226-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.