Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Mind
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]
Did you ever wonder why some guys are less cut out for commitment, while others stick around?
Well, in a type of rodent called a vole, one thing that controls mate bonding is a brain chemical called vasopressin. A gene that influences vasopressin determines how doggedly males will latch on to a lucky female. Scientists can even make promiscuous voles turn monogamous—just by manipulating the gene.
This week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences researchers report a link between variation in the human gene and male fidelity.
Nearly two thousand Swedes filled out a standardized test measuring the strength of their romantic partnership.
Men with a particular variant of the gene scored lower than others on the bonding scale, and fewer of them were married. What's more, if a guy had two copies of that variant he was twice as likely to report marital problems.
Ladies, don't fret just yet. It’s just a correlation that they’ve found. Stronger evidence of a causal relationship between DNA and vasopressin in humans is needed.
But in the meantime, hopeful single guys out there may want to hold off on posting their genetic code on Facebook.
- Rachel Dvoskin
60-Second Psych is a weekly podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentIn my longtime circle of friends, we've talked about this at length, repeatedly over the years. Every female has cheated on their significant other, while only about a third of the males have. What was more interesting to me is that the women all said it took them a while to admit it, most until after they were married, when "it didn't matter anymore". While the guys were fairly open about it from the outset. We figured this is because it is in general a lot greater challenge for a male to find a willing partner than a woman. Women are constantly offered sex, while men must work like hell to get it. When a male has a sure thing, as uninspired as it may be, he'd rather stick with it than risk losing it, because finding another mate is a monsterous hassle that we'd rather avoid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery girlfriend I've ever had has admitted to cheating on a former boyfriend at some point.
All this does little to instill faith in the stereotype that men are pigs and women just want to make a good home and bake brownies like a good June Cleaver.
amazin-- so were not concluding females are less likley to be faithful and all men are dogs ??? do people say things to get even-- do immature boys try to impress their friends and themselves-- some things we cant understand until we have lived through them, often after remorse has time to teach us true values---we make mistakes, not repeating them is the true sing of growth. please send a few does of the good stuff -thinking of starting over
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLucky female? Doggedly latch onto? I am not sure lucky is a word that has any scientific relevance and I am positive that some females would consider a male doggedy latching onto them a very undesirable outcome!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere it is this article cited in the PNAS "Proceedings"? What is there, of the year of 2006, is this: Mammalian monogamy is not controlled by a single gene
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSabine Fink, Laurent Excoffier, and Gerald Heckel*
+Author Affiliations
Computational and Molecular Population Genetics Laboratory, Zoological Institute, University of Bern, Baltzerstrasse 6, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
Edited by Gordon H. Orians, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, and approved May 26, 2006 (received for review March 23, 2006)
Abstract
Complex social behavior in Microtus voles and other mammals has been postulated to be under the direct genetic control of a single locus: the arginine vasopressin 1a receptor (avpr1a) gene. Using a phylogenetic approach, we show that a repetitive element in the promoter region of avpr1a, which reportedly causes social monogamy, is actually widespread in nonmonogamous Microtus and other rodents. There was no evidence for intraspecific polymorphism in regard to the presence or absence of the repetitive element. Among 25 rodent species studied, the element was absent in only two closely related nonmonogamous species, indicating that this absence is certainly the result of an evolutionarily recent loss. Our analyses further demonstrate that the repetitive structures upstream of the avpr1a gene in humans and primates, which have been associated with social bonding, are evolutionarily distinct from those in rodents. Our evolutionary approach reveals that monogamy in rodents is not controlled by a single polymorphism in the promoter region of the avpr1a gene. We thus resolve the contradiction between the claims for an evolutionarily conserved genetic programming of social behavior in mammals and the vast evidence for highly complex and flexible mating systems.
...sorry, the point I was attempting to make in a roundabout way was,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA. It's hard to put a lot of stock in survey data regarding peoples personal sexual history.
B. Statements such as "Did you ever wonder why some guys are less cut out for commitment, while others stick around?" "Ladies, don't fret just yet." "in the meantime, hopeful single guys out there..." incorrectly assume the problem comes from men. Sounds like Rachel's been watching too much tv.
The research cited is already available in the PNAS PROCEEDINGS& :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe research cited is already available in the PNAS PROCEEDINGS& :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe notion that behavior is driven by a single gene is preposterous. This is akin to claiming that a single brick is responsible for the quality of a library. The editors of Scientific American should not support claptrap pseudoscience
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy 'lucky female'? If she doesn't like him she'll have to tolerate a psycho for the rest of her life!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince this is just a suggested correlation that means that there could be more factors that trigger fidelity or not. quite interesting but im not so sure that it is completely relevant
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because a gene is there does not mean that we are destined to follow what some may think it does. People are not controlled by genes but by there actions they have seen and what they have done in their life. Genes have a huge impact on our lives, but does not control our lives. Just because everyone in our family is fat we are destined to be fat, or because everyone in our family is dumb we are bound to be dumb, and so on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my experiece when the guys latch onto the girl, its the girl that gets creeped out, and over a course of time she cheats on him because their relationship doesnt exist after he sticks to her like a leech
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisso are they suggesting that the vasopressin is needed for these men to become more committed? that does not sound like a good idea!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery interesting! There has to be more factors that could trigger fidelity. We can not just blame all our problems on genetics. Yes, genetics may play a role, but I really doubt that all of men's problem in fidelity is linked to a gene.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery Interesting! I can not believe that all of men's problems in fidelity is linked to one gene. There has to be other factors that cause this problem to happen. Yes, some men made be hard wired to be less committed, but really the man has to make a choice. To be committed or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that it is unlucky for us, women, to depend on only one male gene for their fidelity. I do not think it is possible that only one gene can control such personality, but environment itself, i think, plays a great role. If a man is attached and respects his mother or female members of his family, he is prone to be more loyal and respectful than a man who grew up in a environment where women are not respected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou'll have to exuse Rob Dory, He's kind of gay.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this