Fisher, H et al 2005. Romantic love: an fmri study of a neural mechanism for mate choice.

1. Fisher, H et al 2005. Romantic love: an fmristudy of a neural mechanism for mate choice. Background: Through research conducted on mammalian and avian species and mate choices, data suggeststhat the attraction system is associatedwith the dopaminereward system. Proposedthatintense romantic love has that kind effect.

2. Fisher, H et al 2005. Romantic love: an fmristudy of a neural mechanism for mate choice. Aim: To studycourtshipattraction in humans by looking at earlystages of intenseromantic love. Regarded as universal in humans. Specific features areassociatedwith neural activitye.g. emotions and behaviours. Thesecan be easilyobserved and quantified in humans.

3. Fisher, H et al 2005. Romantic love: an fmristudy of a neural mechanism for mate choice. Theory: Neurotransmitterdopamineplays a major role in emotional arousal (also in memory, learning, experiencingpleasure or pain). It has an excitatoryeffect. Thiscan be stimulated by the opposite sex, throughromantic love. The presentation of a rewarding/positive stimuli causesintensenerveimpulsesto the brain – activatesdopamine cells.

4. Fisher, H et al 2005. Romantic love: an fmristudy of a neural mechanism for mate choice. Hypothesis: Romantic love (RL) involvesdopaminergicpathwaysthatmediatereward. Romantic love (RL) involves neural pathwayswithgoaldirectedbehaviour and is a statethatleadsto a range of emotions.

5. Fisher, H et al 2005. Romantic love: an fmristudy of a neural mechanism for mate choice. Participants and sampling: 10 women and 7 men. Snowball sampling – flyers seekingindividualwhowerecurrentlyintensively in love. Range age 18 to 26. Mean = 20,6 and median = 21 Reported duration for being in love. Was 1 to 17 months, mean = 7,4 and median = 7

6. Fisher, H et al 2005. Romantic love: an fmristudy of a neural mechanism for mate choice. Design: Experimental Twoconditions IV the photo of the beloved DV the amount of activation of the dopamine cells. IV photo of the acquaintance DV the amount of activation of the dopamine cells.

7. Fisher, H et al 2005. Romantic love: an fmristudy of a neural mechanism for mate choice. Procedure: Eachparticipantwasorallyinterviewed in a semi-structured format toestablish the duration, intensity and range of the subjects feelings. Passionate love scale (PLS) a 9 pointLikertscaleself-reportquestionnairewhichmeasureseveraltraitscommonlyassociatedwith RL. Firstcondition, photograph of the belovedshown for 30 seconds. Following 40 seconds a count back distraction task. Second condition, photograph of a neutral acquaintance, shown for 30 seconds. Following 40 seconds a count back distraction task. Thiswasrepeatedsixtimes. Prescanninginstructionsweretothinkabout a nonsexual, euphoricrxperiencewith the beloved.

8. Fisher, H et al 2005. Romantic love: an fmristudy of a neural mechanism for mate choice. Results: Therewasgroupactivation regions detected as individualslooked at an image of theirbelovedcomparedto an image of an acquaintance. Right VTA (VentralTegmental Area) wasactivated (the brainsreward system) – a localised region of dopamine cells. Right caudatenucleuswasactivatedwhichplays a role in motivation. Evidence from the human fMRIstudy support the hypothesisthat the reward regions using the neurotransmittersdopamineareactivatedduring feelings of RL.

9. Fisher, H et al 2005. Romantic love: an fmristudy of a neural mechanism for mate choice. Implications: RL may be a primary motivation system – a fundamental human mating drive. Drives areneeded for survival and arefocused on specificrewards. Dopamine play an importantrole. Research conducted by Bartels et al 2005 – less intense love showed same results and same areas butevenother regions. Suggestingseveralother neural mechanisms in mate choice is dynamic. Similaritieswithnonhumanattractionpatterns. For examplehightenedenergy, focused attention, obsessivefollowing, sleeplessness, loss of appetite. Thesearetraitsassociatedwith human earlystage in intenseromantic love. Evolutionarypatterns.

10. Fisher, H et al 2005. Romantic love: an fmristudy of a neural mechanism for mate choice. Questions: fMRIstrenghts and limitations? Evolutionarytheory? It evolved as a mechanismtoenableindividualtorespondtosexuallyselectedcourtshiptraits and motivateindividualsto make a mate choice. Arewe an offer for our drives in a chemicalmanner? Localisation of function? Ethics – whatwould be the effectif a new romantic love drugwereproduced? Method – sampling, controlgroup. Does this research explainwhy or why not somepeople never experienceromantic love? Biologicalreductionism?

11. Buunk A. P & Solano A. C. 2010. Conflictingpreferences of parents and offspring over criteria for a mate: A study in Argentina. Background: Do wechoose a mate freely or do thereexistenvironmentalinfluencesaffectingour mate choice? Evolutionarypsychology has been an alternative for a long timetoanswer the questionbut as saidbeforearetheresomething in the environmentthatplays a keyrole? In all cultures the parentshaveexerted strong influence on the mate choice. In a lot of cultures the marriagesarearrenged by the parents.

12. Buunk A. P & Solano A. C. 2010. Conflictingpreferences of parents and offspring over criteria for a mate: A study in Argentina. Aim: Arethere an alternative explenationto the evolutionaryexplenation. Does environment (parents) affect in mate choice. Argentina is a westernaizedculture in South Americawithorientationtoward US and Europewhich makes the findingeasilycorrespondedtothosecountries. Butwithoutcorrelations.

13. Buunk A. P & Solano A. C. 2010. Conflictingpreferences of parents and offspring over criteria for a mate: A study in Argentina. Theory Children have an interestthatparentsspend as muchinvestments in the mating choice for the sake of futuree.g. children, toworkwell in the in-groupetz. Fathersmayseektoestablishallianceswith the son- or daughter in lawdepending on that persons social status.

14. Buunk A. P & Solano A. C. 2010. Conflictingpreferences of parents and offspring over criteria for a mate: A study in Argentina. Hypothesis/questions: Is the age differencesomethingthatcancontributetoconflictsbetweenparents-offspring? If individuals in a seriousrelationshiphavefaced the conflictsbetweenparents-offspringmore in comparisontoindividualswhere the mating process have not yetseriouslybegun? Individualsorientedtoward a higher social level: aretheymoreorientedtotheirpeerratherthanto the parents? Sex differencesbetweenmale and femaleconflict relation toward the parents?

15. Buunk A. P & Solano A. C. 2010. Conflictingpreferences of parents and offspring over criteria for a mate: A study in Argentina. Method: Participants: 119 women and 123 men. Mean age = 25,57, minimum = 18 years, maximum = 41 years. Mostly students from social sciences, administration, design and law. The participantswererandomlyselected at Palermo University in Buenos Aires. Questionnaire

16. Buunk A. P & Solano A. C. 2010. Conflictingpreferences of parents and offspring over criteria for a mate: A study in Argentina. Results: Unacceptability of mate characteristictochildrenversusparents. Offspring: lacking sense of humor, lackingcreativity, having a bad smelland being fat. Parents: beingdivorced, having different religiousbelief, different ethnicbackground, and being from a lower social class. Parentoffspringconflicts The older the men was the moreconflicts the men experiencedwiththeirparents. Thosewhoweremarriedreportedmoreconflicts over mate characteristicthen the unmarried respondents. Women in favour of parentalcontrol over mate choice…

17. Buunk A. P & Solano A. C. 2010. Conflictingpreferences of parents and offspring over criteria for a mate: A study in Argentina. Results…continue: Perceivedmorediscrepanciesbetweentheirownpreferences and theirparents. Social comparisonorientationhad an impact for conflict in men (not women) as a ground for conflict.

18. Buunk A. P & Solano A. C. 2010. Conflictingpreferences of parents and offspring over criteria for a mate: A study in Argentina. Discussion: Results show thatoffspring and parentshave different opinions on the mate characteristic. The geneticfactorsaremorecorrelatedwith the offspringsuch as lack of humor and traitscorrelatedwith the investment in the in-groupsuch as the same religiousbelief (parents) weregrounds for conflict. Older respondents perceivedmoreconflictsthanyounger respondents. Why do olderpeoplearguingmorewiththeirparentsthanyounger? Should’t it be the opposite. The more the womenwere in favour of parentalcontroltheyexperiencedmoreconflictsthan the men did. The answermight lie in the genetic argument that the family is moreconcerned over the daugther’s mate choice than the son’s mate choice. Theyarereproductivevaluable.

19. Buunk A. P & Solano A. C. 2010. Conflictingpreferences of parents and offspring over criteria for a mate: A study in Argentina. Discussion: The question the studycancontributewith is thatif the choiceswe make might as well be influenced by the environment. In thisstudyif the mate choice might be influenced by ourparents from the start?

20. Buunk A. P & Solano A. C. 2010. Conflictingpreferences of parents and offspring over criteria for a mate: A study in Argentina. Limitations: The studywasbased on how the parentsmightanswer. The studydid not concentrate on traitsequalimortanttobothchildren and parents. Small range of age The difference of a short-term partner and a long-term partner is not clear in thisstudy.

21. Buunk A. P & Solano A. C. 2010. Conflictingpreferences of parents and offspring over criteria for a mate: A study in Argentina. Questions: Whichaspectmighthave the greatestinfluence in the mate-choice: the biologicalor the environmental (social)? Haveyou in your personal lifebeingtrapped in this dilemma? Whatabout the research?

22. Haeffel G. 2008. Nature and nurturearebothtoblame for depression. Background/introduction: Gerald Haeffelat the University of Notre Dame. Investigated depression while taking both genes and environment into consideration.

23. Haeffel G. 2008. Nature and nurturearebothtoblame for depression. Hypothesis/question: genes associated with dopamine interacted with maternal parenting style to predict episodes of depression.

24. Haeffel G. 2008. Nature and nurturearebothtoblame for depression. Method: Haeffel studied 177 male adolescents from a Russian juvenile detention facility. They were given a depression assessment, a questionnaire designed to determine their mothers’ parenting style, and tested for the specific dopamine transporter gene previously implicated in depression. Questionnaires and interviews.

25. Haeffel G. 2008. Nature and nurturearebothtoblame for depression. Results: The results showed that neither cruel mothering patterns, nor the dopamine transporter gene alone predicted depression. A combination of both, however, resulted in a higher risk for depression and suicidal tendencies.

26. Haeffel G. 2008. Nature and nurturearebothtoblame for depression. Discussion: This study is groundbreaking because it is the first to support the theory of a dopamine transporter gene in depression. It also represents a modern understanding of the interaction of nature and nurture. As scientists like Haeffel begin to more frequently use a combination of genetic and environmental experimental designs, we will inevitably gain a much deeper, and more accurate, understanding of human behavior.

27. Haeffel G. 2008. Nature and nurturearebothtoblame for depression. Nature/nurturedebate: The outside environment creates a stimulus and response relationship that defines who we are? Our mental well-being is dependent on the brain's neurons and how they connect and interact with other neurons, but it takes a push from the outside environment to start the process? Can we freely choose important things like mates in an absolutely freedom like state?

28. Pine et al. 2010. Dopamine, time, and impulsivity in humans. Background: Brain processes that affect our will power and us act impulsively. Dopamine disordered neurotransmission is involved in behavioural disorders such as ADHD, gambling and hyperactivity etz. Why can some wait six months to buy the new Iphone while others can’t. What is it with the rewardsystem that changes our behaviour? Decision-making and behavioral change.

29. Pine et al. 2010. Dopamine, time, and impulsivity in humans. Aim/Question: Whereas existing theories of dopamine function highlight mechanisms based on aberrant (avvikande) reward learning or behavioral disinhibition, they do not offer an adequate account of the pathological hypersensitivity to temporal delay that forms a crucial behavioral phenotype seen in these disorders.

30. Pine et al. 2010. Dopamine, time, and impulsivity in humans. Method: Experimental study 14 healthy volunteers under two conditions. Given a small dose of L-dopa and one with placebo. Participants were asked to make a number of choices: E.g. £15smaller but zooner £ 57 larger but later DV = the amount of money (the choice) IV = the amount of dopamine.

31. Pine et al. 2010. Dopamine, time, and impulsivity in humans. Results: The researchers found that the subject were more likely to act impulsively, choosing the smaller but zooner reward. When the level of dopamine were boosted. The sooner option increased by a third although each participant varied on this measure.

32. Pine et al. 2010. Dopamine, time, and impulsivity in humans. Discussion: the finding may explain why we tend to behave more impulsively when influenced by external cues. Sensory inputs like sights, sound, smell and anticipation of rewards, momentarily boost dopamine levels in our brains. But it also explains why disorders whit an increased level of dopamine can lead to extremely impulsive behaviours. They also noticed an increased activity within the amygdala when volunteers made choices.