Testosterone reduces generosity through cortical and subcortical mechanisms

Abstract

Recent evidence has linked testosterone, a major sex hormone, to selfishness in economic decision-making. Here, we aimed to investigate the neural mechanisms through which testosterone reduces generosity by combining functional MRI with pharmacological manipulation among healthy young males in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, between-subject design. After testosterone or placebo gel administration, participants performed a social discounting task in which they chose between selfish options (benefiting only the participant) and generous options (providing also some benefit to another person at a particular social distance). At the behavioral level, testosterone reduced generosity compared to the placebo. At the neural level (n = 60), the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) encoded the other-regarding value of the generous option during generous choices, and this effect was attenuated by testosterone, suggesting that testosterone reduced the consideration of other’s welfare as underpinned by TPJ activity. Moreover, TPJ activity more strongly reflected individual differences in generosity in the placebo than the testosterone group. Furthermore, testosterone weakened the relation between the other-regarding value of generous decisions and connectivity between the TPJ and a region extending from the insula into the striatum. Together, these findings suggest that a network encompassing both cortical and subcortical components underpins the effects of testosterone on social preferences.

Can you change my generosity towards future others? The impact of observability on intertemporal pro‐social decisions

“…Second, the findings have important implications for the literature on changes in social preferences over time (Liberman & Trope, 1998). Consistent with the findings on social distance (Jones & Rachlin, 2006; Ou et al, 2021), an individual's willingness to donate decreases as the delay in the beneficiary's receipt of the donation increases. By integrating intertemporal and social decision theories, we further elucidate the complex interplay between different dimensions of psychological distance.…”

“…To further quantify the individual differences in intertemporal pro‐social discounting, we calculated the AUC for each subject. AUC was calculated by normalizing the amount subjects were willing to give up as a percentage of the maximum value , normalizing as a percentage of the maximum value , connecting the indifferent points using a straight line, and summing the area of the trapezoid so formed (Ou et al, 2021). AUC can vary from (no discounting) to 0 (complete discounting).…”

Indoor Air Pollution and Decision-Making Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review

“…This hypothesis is supported by findings, for example, that nerve cells in the PAG link negative emotions with the autonomic (e.g., sympathetic nervous system; the fight-or-flight response), endocrine (e.g., adrenal hormones; glucocorticoids), and immune (e.g., cytokines; interleukin 1β) systems to facilitate responses to personal threats [57,58]. Of interest, increases in testosterone levels, a steroid sex hormone produced in Leydig cells (of the testes) appear to reduce social generosity in economic decision paradigms through cortical (e.g., the insula) and subcortical (e.g., the striatum) mechanisms [59]. Thus, the brain along with the rest of the bilateral body plan are brought together to perform specific computation analysis to discern the best course of action.…”

Testosterone eliminates strategic prosocial behavior through impacting choice consistency in healthy males

“…Research in the past decade has demonstrated that testosterone is implicated in a wide spectrum of socially dominant behaviors 8,9 . Exogenous testosterone alleviates subordination to the dominance of others 10-12 and reduces the physiological stress response to being evaluated by others 13 .…”

“…These contingencies were not instructed but had to be learned through trial and error. While charitable donation tasks 16 and neuroeconomic games 8,9 classically measure participants’ overall prosociality using deliberated decisions, such as deciding how much money to share with another person, the RL task allowed us to furthermore characterize the hidden individual steps in the process of learning about the consequences actions have for oneself and others (see 25,26 for similar recent approaches). To compare self-and other-oriented decision-making, participants completed the task for themselves and for an NGO of their choice (within-subject condition).…”