Half Empty or Half Full

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


People are typically biased toward noticing either good or bad events, and a common genetic variation may underlie such tendencies for optimism or pessimism. Scientists at the University of Essex in England investigated serotonin, a neurotransmitter linked with mood, and explored how 97 volunteers preferred different kinds of images. People who carried only long versions of the gene for the serotonin transporter protein—which controls levels of the neurotransmitter in brain cells—tended to pay attention to pleasant pictures (such as images of chocolate) while avoiding negative ones (such as photographs of spiders). Those with a shorter form showed opposite preferences, though not as strongly. The findings, in the February 25 Proceedings of the Royal Society B, help to explain why people may be less prone to anxiety and depression and could lead to therapies that help some look on the bright side.

Charles Q. Choi is a frequent contributor to Scientific American. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, Science, Nature, Wired, and LiveScience, among others. In his spare time, he has traveled to all seven continents.

More by Charles Q. Choi
Scientific American Magazine Vol 300 Issue 5This article was published with the title “Half Empty or Half Full” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 300 No. 5 (), p. 28
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0509-28c

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe