Genetic Susceptibility for Individual Cooperation Preferences: The Role of Monoamine Oxidase A Gene (MAOA) in the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods

Abstract

In the context of social dilemmas, previous research has shown that human cooperation is mainly based on the social norm of conditional cooperation. While in most cases individuals behave according to such a norm, deviant behavior is no exception. Recent research further suggests that heterogeneity in social behavior might be associated with varying genetic predispositions. In this study, we investigated the relationship between individuals' behavior in a public goods experiment and the promoter-region functional repeat polymorphism in the monoamine oxidase A gene (MAOA). In a dynamic setting of increasing information about others' contributions, we analyzed differences in two main components of conditional cooperation, namely the players' own contribution and their beliefs regarding the contribution of other players. We showed that there is a significant association between individuals' behavior in a repeated public goods game and MAOA. Our results suggest that male carriers of the low activity alleles cooperate significantly less than those carrying the high activity alleles given a situation where subjects had to rely on their innate beliefs about others' contributions. With increasing information about the others' cooperativeness, the genetic effect diminishes. Furthermore, significant opposing effects for female subjects carrying two low activity alleles were observed.

Variants of the Monoamine Oxidase A gene (MAOA) predict free-riding behavior in women in a strategic public goods experiment.

“…Cesarini et al, 2009b) and genetic association designs (e.g., Knafo et al, 2008) Taken together, these results corroborate our previous findings (Mertins et al, 2011) using different elicitation procedures. In particular, by investigating behavior in a setting where there is no uncertainty, we ensure that behavioral differences do not stem from differences in expectations.…”

“…6 In particular, our previous findings (Mertins et al, 2011) suggested significant gender differences in the association between MAOA and cooperativeness. Those differences might be due to hormones such as testosterone and estrogen and their receptors, which act on gene regulation and subsequent brain development in a gender-specific manner (Hines, 2011;Kuo et al, 2010).…”

“…Thus, using simple but accurate preference elicitation procedures, which eliminate difficulties resulting from complex decision environments such as repeated play or strategic interaction, may allow for an improved interpretation of previous results. In this study, we shed further light on the previously reported association between voluntary contributions towards a public good and MAOA (Mertins et al 2011) by allowing the same subjects to make additional choices using a different procedure. These findings may help to get a clearer picture of the link between cooperation preferences and this particular gene.…”

Conditional cooperation and confusion in public-goods experiments

“…This division of people into distinct social types has been the accepted basis for new fields of research investigating the cultural, genetic, and neuronal bases of this variation (3)(4)(5)(6)(17)(18)(19)(20). Some studies have suggested these differences can be exploited by policies to make societies behave in a more public spirited way (21)(22)(23)(24)(25).…”

Are genetic markers of interest for economic research?

“…10 The consequences of imputation have received scant attention, and this clearly generates measurement error, which is something that labor economists have a rich set of tools to offer to other researchers. 11 Specifically, Greiner and Rubin (2011) Knafo et al (2008), Mertins et al (2011), andZhong et al (2009) for studies that link specific genetic variants to outcomes measured in the laboratory. 14 Chabris et al (2012) discuss the importance and challenge of replicating results from studies using genetic data since this is needed to verify that the reported associations are not false positives.…”