Skip to main content
Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research logoLink to Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research
. 2011 Mar 1;17(3):RA65–RA75. doi: 10.12659/MSM.881441

The neurobiological link between compassion and love

Tobias Esch 1,2,, George B Stefano 2
PMCID: PMC3524717  PMID: 21358615

Summary

Love and compassion exert pleasant feelings and rewarding effects. Besides their emotional role and capacity to govern behavior, appetitive motivation, and a general ‘positive state’, even ‘spiritual’ at times, the behaviors shown in love and compassion clearly rely on neurobiological mechanisms and underlying molecular principles. These processes and pathways involve the brain’s limbic motivation and reward circuits, that is, a finely tuned and profound autoregulation. This capacity to self-regulate emotions, approach behaviors and even pair bonding, as well as social contact in general, i.e., love, attachment and compassion, can be highly effective in stress reduction, survival and overall health. Yet, molecular biology is the basis of interpersonal neurobiology, however, there is no answer to the question of what comes first or is more important: It is a cybernetic capacity and complex circuit of autoregulation that is clearly ‘amazing’.

Keywords: interpersonal neurobiology, love, compassion, spirituality, autoregulation, stress, motivation, reward, morphine, dopamine, oxytocin

Background

Charles Darwin and other biological scientists that have examined the biological evolution and its basic principles found various mechanisms that steer behavior and biological development. Besides their theory on the natural selection, it was particularly the sexual selection process that gained significance in the latter context over the last century, especially when it comes to the question of what makes us ‘what we are’, i.e., human. However, the capacity to sexually select and evolve is not at all a human accomplishment alone, or sign for uniqueness; yet, we humans, as it seems, are especially smart in fooling ourselves and others – when we are in love or desperately search for it.

Biological behaviorism always tried to elucidate what governs or steers animal and human behavior and appetence processes. Various theories of behavioral control and motivation formation evolved, to the point of the stages of change, or transtheoretical, model of the social biological sciences and sociology. Today, modern neurobiology and its diverse instruments and highly developed experimental techniques help to better understand the biological roots and core mechanisms of interest for behavior research and analysis. In complementing the biological and social approaches, neurobiology, and brain research, came to aid for a deeper knowledge and understanding. Interestingly, it were biologists and basic (neuro-) scientists that found some of the molecular key players involved in the nervous system that steer behavior and autoregulation [1]. Now it is almost a common understanding that the brain is the central organ of behavior regulation. And it is so in love and compassion processes, likewise.

Love is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as an intense feeling of deep affection or fondness for a person or a thing, a sexual passion, or sexual relations, in general. Thus, love is an emotion often associated with consensual sexual activity, or the willing, and even eager, participation of the individuals involved [2]. Medical, or health, implications of love are still speculative and neurobiological research has only started to examine the possible mechanisms underlying this assumption and its consequences for the individual organism and associated ontogenetic health outcomes and benefits [26].

Attachment, commitment, intimacy, passion, grief upon separation, and jealousy are but a few of the emotionally-loaded terms used to describe that which love represents [3,7,8]. In science, however, love appears to be a hypothetical and multi-dimensional construct with many interpretations and implications [3,4]. Love and its various emotional states and behaviors are rarely investigated by scientific means. Emotions and feelings such as attachment, couple and parental bonding, and even love have now come into the focus of neuroscientific research [9]. Thus, knowledge on the neurobiology of love has yet to evolve, and only recently, exciting research has brought to surface detailed information on molecular and physiological “ingredients” of the love phenomenon, as described later on. The concept of love also involves having an emotional bond to someone for whom one yearns [10]. Thus, the psychological sense of love can be interpreted as referring to the satisfaction of a yearning, which may be associated with the obtaining of certain sensory stimulation [10]. Love therefore possesses a close connection not only with reward and pleasure phenomena, but also with appetitive and addictive behaviors [4,6,11,12].

Compassion, in completion, represents a human behavioral quality, which can be considered emotional in nature, which allows us to express empathy and sympathy. Intellectually, it allows us to embrace another human’s suffering with an emotional bond of support. In this regard it is coupled to attachment and a “love” link in all probability utilizing similar physiological and biochemical substrate for its manifestation, i.e., reward processes, since it allows the giver a rewarding experience by extending oneself. However, in this act of altruism or kindness, here too, a stress may be present in that the receiver may not want compassion (sympathy). Thus, like love, a stress associated anticipatory stress response is potentially present [13]. In addition, compassion, and especially empathy, not only secure contact and one’s own stress modulation, but also make a connection between individuals before, or besides, a loving or caring relationship. This quality, that relies on the biological capacity to make contact, support and be supported, and connect, is a core ability of behavior and human neurobiology, and this is not only due to the fact that the down-stream cognitive functions, e.g. ‘theory of mind’, are represented within the brain, but particularly the bottom-up processes, i.e., emotional perspective taking or mirror neuron system activity.

Behavioral Processes

Naturally rewarding activities like love boost a flood of stimulating signaling molecules [4,11,14,15]. However, this stimulation may not be as strong or enduring as that achievable by addictive drugs – natural rewards may not, like some artificial drugs, completely surpass normal physiology and feedback since these are administered at higher doses [11,1619]. Addictive drugs immediately build up high appetence levels that are not released completely or only for a short time after consumption [2022]. This frustrating fact produces even more appetence: One cannot stop the pleasure-seeking activity that now starts to control normal behaviors (i.e., motivational toxicity) [11]. While natural activities are controlled by feedback mechanisms that activate aversive centers (i.e., aversive motivation), no such restrictions bind the responses to artificial stimuli [23,24]. Thus, love and addiction are evolutionarily and behaviorally interconnected, but they are not the same, at least not in relation to artificial drug ingestion. Being “addicted to love”, however, refers to this interconnection.

Love and stress

Love, e.g., when experiencing symptoms such as sweating, heart beat acceleration, increased bowel peristalsis and even diarrhea, can be quite a stressful experience. However, love is certainly known, primarily, for its relation to feelings that we usually like to experience. This intense sensational and emotional state has inspired artists, and therefore, biologists have concluded that art, when it is associated with biological phenomena like love and reproduction, is part of an adaptational process ensuring survival [2529]. Hence, love or lust, and the joy that is imbedded in the love concept, seem to be not only individually rewarding but also behaviorally and biologically advantageous experiences, thereby protecting the species [11,25,30]. Questions like these have recently become a focus of evolutionary psychology, a field of sociobiology [25], again demonstrating the integrative character of love research.

In recent reviews on the role of stress in human attachment, it has been discussed that stressors can trigger a search for pleasure, proximity and closeness, i.e., attachment behaviors, thereby promoting the re-balancing of altered physiological and psychological states [11,31,31]. Forced isolation, anxiety, fear, and other forms of stress are associated with increased levels of stress hormones like cortisol, i.e., enhanced hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activity [3,32,33]. Such conditions or experiences normally tend to encourage social interactions (Figure 1). However, excessive stress (i.e., chronic) that could compromise health and survival, e.g., (hyper)intense grief, may lead to depression or the breakdown of social relationships [33,34]. Within a homeostatic range, stress-related physiological processes, including hormones of the HPA axis, can promote the development of social bonding [35]. In addition, positive social interactions may help to create physiological states that are anxiolytic and stress reducing, i.e., health promoting [3,14,36,37]. Thus, balance is a key concept in social bonding and love, including related neurobiology (see below).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

The neurobiological regulation of stress or suffering via love and compassion. Explanations and references see text. Abbreviations (as used in the figure): CNS – central nervous system; PFC – prefrontal cortex; FC – frontal cortex; ACC – anterior cingulate cortex; TC – temporal cortex; MPFC – medial prefrontal cortex; MO – endogenous morphine; NO – nitric oxide. * Note: Stress induces hypothalamic and pituitary activation, i.e., stress axes/stress response induction (stress hormone release) and a potentially direct – as well as indirect – induction of vasopressin and oxytocin release (bonding hormones), which are then binding, e.g., in the brainstem; the initial stress physiology, that is, a state of arousal/alertness, is thus counteracted by oxytocin, e.g., via morphine and a subsequent nitric oxide release, on the molecular/receptor level; as a result, social bond formation, positive social motivation, attachment and interaction get enhanced, i.e., love and compassion, which – via limbic reward and motivation circuits and the underlying signaling systems – enhance feelings of safety and well-being, and reduce anxiety, stress, tension and constraint; clearly, CNS morphology and function, autoregulation and neurobiology and attachment behaviors are strongly interconnected.

Feelings of security and support lead to the facilitation of trust and belief, including “meaning and spirituality,” thereby inducing positive motivation and behavior [11,38,39]. In species that form heterosexual pairs, rewarding sexual activities are associated with the formation of social attachments and bonds [40]. Sexual behavior, however, can also be physiologically stressful for both sexes [3], as described earlier. Adrenal steroids, vasopressin, oxytocin, dopamine, and endogenous opioids as well as opiates and higher levels/pulses of nitric oxide (NO) are released during pleasurable activities like sexual behaviors (e.g., ‘making love’) [11,14,4146], indicating neurobiological pathways that are linked to stress response and reward mechanisms likewise.

Within the context of varying stimuli evoking NO release, emotional stresses such as fear and anxiety can induce cardiovascular alterations, such as cardiac arrhythmia [43]. Cardiovascular events are initiated at the level of cingulated, amygdalar, and hypothalamic central nervous system (CNS) processes, as well as their projections into higher level cerebral cortex, further altering heart rate under stressful or sexually aroused conditions [47]. Neurons in the insular cortex, the central nucleus of the amygdala, and the lateral hypothalamus, owing to their role in the integration of emotional and ambient sensory input, may be involved in the emotional link to the cardiovascular phenomena [48]. These include changes in cardiac autonomic tone, with a shift from the cardioprotective effects of parasympathetic predominance to massive cardiac sympathetic activation [49]. This autonomic component, carried out with parasympathetic and sympathetic preganglionic cells via subcortical nuclei from which descending central autonomic pathways arise, may, therefore, be a major pathway in how emotional states may affect cardiovascular function and health [41,43].

Furthermore, oxytocin, a major player in love physiology, has also been associated with stress reduction [3]. In humans [5053], oxytocin inhibits sympathoadrenal and stress response activity, including the release of adrenal corticoids (Figure 1). In addition, subjects in love show higher cortisol levels as compared with those not experiencing this state [54]. This condition of love-related hypercortisolemia may represent a non-specific indicator of changes that occur during the early phase of a relationship, thereby reflecting the somewhat stressful condition or a general arousal associated with the initiation of social contact [13,54]. This physiological state of alertness [13], associated with love, may help to overcome neophobia, although this is still a speculative aspect [54]. Such positive stress appears to be important for the formation of social contact and attachment, since a moderate level of stress has been demonstrated to promote this kind of relationship, i.e., social bonding [3,35,5458]. Oxytocin, as it seems, really illustrates the dynamic autoregulation involved in love and deep relationships: It is part of the ‘chill experience’ in the initial phase or the arousal of loving encounters and treatments, but simultaneously reduces stress on the psychological level (e.g., via bond formation) and on the physiological level (e.g., via stress hormone inhibition, opiate-like effects and/or NO release) [24,7,34,44]. Thus, love seems to be a complex phenomenon and, with regard to stress, an ambiguous experience, i.e., double-edged sword.

Motivation and behavior

Motivation concerns aspects of intention or activation [11]. Consequently, it lies at the core of biological, cognitive and social regulation [59]. Motivation is highly valued in health care since it produces behavioral changes or adjustments and can mobilize others to act [59]. A large amount of behavior can be explained by simple processes of approaching pleasant and avoiding painful stimuli [13,60]. Reward and punishment are functionally and anatomically interconnected [11]. A crucial component of CNS reward and motivation circuitries, as they are steering behavior, are nerve cells that originate in the ventral tegmental area (VTA), near the base of the brain [11]. These cells send projections to target regions in the frontal brain, most notably to a structure deep beneath the frontal cortex, i.e., nucleus accumbens (part of the ‘ventral striatum’) [20,21]. The essential neurotransmitter of this connection is dopamine. Clearly, the VTA or the mesolimbic dopamine system represents a rather old, but very effective, part of motivational physiology and behavior [11]. However, in mammals (humans), the neurobiology of behavior, including reward circuit involvement, is far more complex, and it is integrated with several other brain regions that serve to enrich an experience with emotion, as an example. In addition, these brain regions also direct the individual’s response or actual behaviors toward rewarding stimuli, including food, sex and social interaction [61]. For example, the amygdala helps to assess whether an experience is pleasurable or aversive (and whether it should be repeated or avoided) and further helps to forge connections between an experience and other cues, particularly emotional [20,21]. The hippocampus participates in recording memories of an experience, including where, when, and with whom it occurred [61]. The frontal cortex, however, coordinates and processes all information and consequently determines and executes the ultimate behavior [11]. Finally, the VTA-accumbens pathway acts as a measuring tool and regulator of reward: it tells the other brain centers how rewarding an activity is or was [61]. The more rewarding an activity is deemed, the more likely the individual is to remember and repeat it [61].

Limbic functions: Reward and pleasure

The biological mechanism mediating behavior motivated by events commonly associated with pleasure is called ‘reward’ [4,11,12]. It is usually governing normal behavior through pleasurable experiences [23]. Pleasure, however, describes a ‘state or feeling of happiness or satisfaction resulting from an experience that one enjoys’ [62]. Pleasure is a subjective phenomenon, i.e., subjective quality. It is the ‘good feeling’ that comes from satisfying homeostatic needs such as hunger, sex, and bodily comfort [11]. Hence, an intimate association between reward and pleasure exists [23,61]. In neurobiology, pleasure is a competence or function of the reward and motivation circuitries that are imbedded in the CNS. Anatomically, these reward pathways are particularly linked to the brain’s limbic system [11,14,28,32,33,63].

Love has the capacity to influence the autonomic-emotional integration system, i.e., limbic system [14,64]. Here, the autonomic nervous system (ANS) and emotions are wired together. Furthermore, sympathetic activity and stress hormone production are imbedded in underlying autoregulatory circuits [28,33,37]. An association of love with emotions, neurotransmitter and stress hormone production (Figure 1), autonomic responses, behavior, and mood states becomes obvious [14]. The influence of love on vital functions such as breath, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and cardiac output, as a result of the autonomic-emotional integration, can lead to a different consciousness, or altered state of mind, when in love [14,65]. Hence, the activation of the brain’s reward system produces changes ranging from slight mood elevation to intense pleasure and euphoria, and these physiological states usually help to direct behavior towards natural rewards, e.g., love [11,6669].

Neurobiologists have long known that the euphoria induced by drugs of abuse, sex, or other things we enjoy, arises because all these factors ultimately boost the activity of the brain’s reward systems [11]. These are made up of complex circuits of nerve cells that evolved to make us feel flush after eating or sex – things we need to do to survive and pass along our genes [20,21]. Reward pathways are evolutionarily ancient like limbic structures. In fact, these pathways are essentially of limbic origin [11,14]. For example, prefrontal or orbitofrontal cortices, cingulate gyrus, amygdala, hippocampus, and nucleus accumbens participate in the reward physiology [41]. The lateral orbitofrontal cortex, for instance, is activated with pleasant visual, tactile, or olfactory stimuli, with its response depending on pleasantness rather than intensity of stimulation [7073]. Memories of the pleasure of wellness, i.e., “remembered wellness,” are accessible to this system through hippocampal mechanisms [14]. With regard to frequent CNS reward “tracks,” activation of the medial forebrain bundle (MFB), as it courses through the lateral hypothalamus to the ventral tegmentum, has been shown to produce robust rewarding effects [23,74]. Important neurotransmitters here are serotonin and dopamine [11,75]. Electrophysiological and neurochemical techniques revealed that CNS stimulation can activate a descending component of the MFB which is synaptically coupled at the ventral tegmentum to the ascending mesolimbic dopamine system, i.e., nucleus accumbens [11,23,61,7476]. Thus, pleasure induction involves a circuitous reward pathway, first activating a descending MFB component and then, as described, the ascending mesolimbic dopamine pathway.

Psychomotor stimulants, opiates, and natural rewards like food and sex, seem to predominantly activate the reward pathways by their molecular or pharmacological actions in the VTA and nucleus accumbens, as well as amygdala and other related structures, i.e., mesolimbic or frontal/prefrontal areas [11,20,21,76,77]. Ventral tegmental activation, as described, involves dopamine signaling [11]. Other neurotransmitters (e.g., GABA, glutamate, serotonin, the stress hormones noradrenalin and cortisol, as well as acetylcholine, NO, endorphins/opioid peptides, and endocannabinoids) also play a critical role in reward physiology [11,63,78]. In addition, endogenous morphine/opiate production may be of critical importance [11,14,29,42,43,79,80]. Hence, research has only begun to elucidate the specific underlying molecular pathways and neurobiological key players of human motivation or reward circuitry and behavior.

Feeding, maternal behavior, or sexual activity can each be facilitated by opiate activation of the reward system [77]. The origin of the VTA (i.e., the VTA dopamine system) seems to provide an important neurochemical interface where opiates and opioid peptides of exogenous or endogenous origin can activate a CNS mechanism involved in appetitive motivation and reward [14,23]. Obviously, endogenous morphinergic signaling plays a significant role here [11,14]. This is especially true since endogenous morphine biosynthesis, found in humans, vertebrates, mammals, and invertebrates [14,42,43,81], involves elements of dopamine synthesis and its metabolism [11,14,8285], thereby linking two critical signaling systems [86,87]. Specifically, endogenous morphine production has been demonstrated in limbic tissues, e.g., hippocampus and amygdala [42,43,88,89]. It is made by human and invertebrate cells [90,91] and dopamine serves as a major precursor, linking many of these phenomena (love, addiction, eating) into a “common” signaling family [87,92]. It’s presence in human stem cells underscores its importance in evolution as well as its persistence [92,93]. Morphinergic signaling has further been found to release constitutive NO [94], thus linking endogenous morphine and NO to limbic reward and pleasure pathways [11]. Taken together, limbic areas are functionally and molecularly connected to the frontal/prefrontal cortex which integrates emotion, memory, belief, expectation, motivation and reward processing, i.e., affective and motivational responses [41,95]. Also, prefrontal mechanisms may trigger dopamine, NO, and opiate release in the midbrain [96]. After all, the VTA serves as an appetitive motivation system for diverse behaviors, including sex, since it controls both normal and pathological behaviors [14,23,67,76]. Compassion also belongs into this sequence of basic human behaviors since it (stemming from the Latin word for ‘co-suffering’) is a ‘virtue’ – one in which the emotional capacities of empathy and sympathy, e.g., for the suffering of others, are regarded as a cornerstone of greater social interconnectedness and humanism (Figure 1). However, the biological root probably is not humanism for its own sake but that people in need, and their knowledge and competencies, and even genes, are secured and cared for – and preserved. Behaviors and molecules are biologically supplied to ensure these protective activities, for the sake of the species and the individuals involved.

Based on the known functions of the catecholamines, e.g., norepinephrine and dopamine, it is likely that catecholamines are involved in pair bond formation, as shown above [3]. Dopamine agonists, capable of inducing reward and pleasure, release oxytocin, and interactions between oxytocin and dopamine have been reported in rats, also in humans, recently [97,98]. Additionally, high levels of oxytocin receptor activity have been demonstrated in the nucleus accumbens of prairie voles [99], which is “equipped” with intense dopamine signaling (see above). Given the link between dopamine and endogenous morphine via common precursors, we surmise morphine’s involvement here as well [8587,92,100,101]. Also, in the mammalian brainstem, e.g., raphe area, where we find serotoninergic target neurons, a substantial oxytocin and morphine signaling and their mutual influence is evident [14,82,100]. Again, serotoninergic and oxytocinergic signaling (as well as morphinergic) include bonding or pleasurable and rewarding experiences and anxiolysis, i.e., decreased aggressiveness and increased compassion and ‘happiness’. Interactions between oxytocin and catecholamines may therefore provide a mechanism for rewarding or reinforcing pair bonding [3]. Furthermore, catecholamines may be necessary to activate or reward various behaviors, including arousal and selective attention, and may also regulate the effects of oxytocin and vasopressin in the CNS [3,102]. Taken together, it seems plausible that pleasurable sensations produced by sexual activities would provide mechanisms that reinforce behavior, thereby promoting its repetition [43]. In the context of adaptive behavior and its necessity in evolution, it would appear that the pleasure generated by sexual stimulation, orgasm or intercourse would be selected-for evolutionarily [43]. Consequently, pleasure can be seen as an effective and important adaptive mechanism, the function of which is to ensure the procreation and survival of a species [11,43].

The Neurophysiology of Love

Findings related to oxytocin and vasopressin research and connected neurobiological aspects including the role of monoamines and other peptides like endogenous opioids suggest a tight coupling between attachment processes, love phenomena, and reward pathways, i.e., lust, happiness, pleasure, passion, compassion and desire [11,54,70,103,104]. In fact, most regions charted to contain vasopressin and oxytocin receptors in the human brain are activated by both maternal and romantic love [70,105,106]. Interestingly, the same neurohormones are involved in the attachment between mother and child (in both directions, see above) and in the long-term pair bonding between adults, although each neurohormone has distinct binding sites (though overlapping, see below) and may further possess its own gender-specificity [70,107].

Oxytocin and vasopressin receptors have been found, for example, in the olfactory and limbic-hypothalamic systems, as well as in brainstem and spinal cord areas that regulate reproductive and autonomic functions [3]. However, the distributions of these receptors within the CNS vary across development and among mammalian species [108115]. The specific patterns and densities of oxytocin binding sites may also be influenced by steroid hormones, including estrogen, progesterone, androgens, and glucocorticoids (Figure 1). Moreover, developmental hormonal experiences may alter adult gene expression for both oxytocin and vasopressin receptors [3,116]. The capacity of peptides to respond to developmental processes may thus provide a mechanism through which individual ontogenetic experiences can influence adult social behavior. However, oxytocin and vasopressin are capable of binding to each other’s receptors [109], a fact that is further complicating the analyses of pathways through which oxytocin and vasopressin affect social attachment behaviors [3]. In addition, catecholamines, endogenous opioids, and prolactin influence parental behavior as well, either by modulating the rewarding aspects of this behavior [117,118], pacing mother-infant interactions [119], or through their documented abilities to affect the release and actions of other peptides, including oxytocin [3,120]. Finally, release patterns of both neuropeptides vary since oxytocin appears to act faster and with more dramatic pulses, as compared to vasopressin [121].

The early phase of love may represent a rather extreme neurobiological state, even physiologically contradictory to subsequent phases and states. Within the brain, testosterone receptors are distributed, for example, around hypothalamic regions where testosterone eventually is aromatized – i.e., processed – into estrogens, which then appear to determine an actual increase in aggressiveness [122]. However, the specific pathways involved as well as the significance of related estrogen signaling are still speculative. A behavioral correlation between testosterone and serotonin levels has also been demonstrated. In fact, a lack or diminution of CNS serotonin contents apparently increases aggressive behaviors both in animals and humans [122]. Moreover, testosterone further enhances vasopressin levels in the medial amygdala, lateral hypothalamus, and the preoptical medial area, involved in aggressive behaviors [122]. Thus, gonadal or sex hormones are involved in the neurophysiology of love, not surprisingly: Gonadal steroids, including androgens and estrogen, may exert developmental effects on neural systems that have been implicated in social attachment, and they may mediate both genetic and environmental influences on the propensity to love and form attachments [3]. These hormones may further regulate oxytocinergic or vasopressinergic functions, as well as the expression of other peptides and neurotransmitters, which in turn can also modulate oxytocin and vasopressin, i.e., autoregulatory feedback [3]. However, social attachment apparently occurs even in the absence of gonadal steroids, pointing out their questionable role within the framework of love and social attachment. Again, we see the complex interrelations of molecular signaling processes underlying love phenomena and sex-related behaviors.

Dopamine has recently received special attention from psychopharmacologists and neurobiologists due to its obvious role not only in the placebo physiology, but also in mood, affect, and motivation regulation [11,23,76,123]. Clearly, dopamine plays a significant role in love phenomena and related physiology, especially in the beginning, and even some of the peripheral aspects or symptoms associated with love – e.g., increased intestinal peristalsis and diarrhea, as described – may represent consequences of intense dopamine signaling involved in the love physiology. However, with this report we primarily focus upon the neurobiological features of love-related dopamine release, especially within the CNS: Although several distinct dopamine systems (i.e., receptors and their subtypes) exist in the brain, the mesolimbic dopamine system appears to be the most important for motivational processes [23,124]. Hence, the quantitatively most important dopamine receptors in the brain, i.e., D1 and D2, though partially functional antagonists, are both significantly expressed in the nucleus accumbens tissue. In addition, the other dopamine receptors (D3-5) are also linked to the limbic system, with regard to their neurobiological role in the CNS, in particular with reference to their substantial existence in amygdalar and the hippocampal tissues. They all seem to work on the reward and motivation physiology and may have a common regulatory and evolutionary root, since their functions biologically overlap and their molecular ground plan still reveals a high sequence homology. Accordingly, dopamine, interpreted here as a critical part of the biologically important reward process, is a central instrument for the neurobiology of love. This seems to be particularly true with regard to the stimulating and pleasurable aspects of dopamine signaling [11]. It is important to note that, based on new knowledge, there is a potential for endogenous morphine signaling to be part of this process [79,80,86,100,125,126].

Endogenous morphine, both biochemically and immunocytochemically, has been found in various neural tissues, including limbic structures [16,83,88,127134]. These same structures, interestingly, exhibit vasopressinergic or oxytocinergic signaling, i.e., amygdala, nucleus accumbens, periaqueductal grey, raphe nucleus, VTA, hippocampus, etc., which, again, indicates a close relationship of both signaling systems with the limbic reward concept [9,54,135]. Additionally, reports demonstrate the presence of morphine precursors in various mammalian tissues, including brain [14]. Furthermore, an opiate receptor subtype, designated mu3, has been cloned, which is opiate alkaloid selective and opioid peptide insensitive [136], strongly supporting the hypothesis of an endogenous morphinergic signaling system [11,14,42,43,81]. The psychiatric implications of this system have been examined, including brain reward circuitry [79]. Morphine, given its reported effects and those exerted via constitutive NO release [11,42,43,137,138], may thus form the foundation of a common signaling among love and pleasure phenomena, including attachment behaviors and compassion [11,14,70,139].

Common CNS pathways: Love and Other Rewarding Experiences

The profound neurophysiological and neurobiological connection between love and reward has become obvious. Hence, the limbic reward and motivation system is involved in many other biological and physiological phenomena, including medicine and healing [14,82,140,141]. Accordingly, we find common pathways, analogous brain structures and regions repeatedly activated in pleasure-related rewarding activities. The significance of dopamine, morphine and NO in emotional processes is growing and we can now add compassion to this list of limbic associated generated behaviors.

Activations in lateral frontal or prefrontal cortices, as demonstrated for love [70], can also be indicative of more generally positive mental states, i.e., positive affect, as seen in relaxation techniques, listening to music, or meditation [11,14,28,65,142]. Clearly, further research is necessary. In addition, brain activity can exhibit highly fluctuating patterns, i.e., unstable or dynamic, with reference to varying psychological, physiological, and environmental factors. Nonetheless, CNS commonalities seem to exist and these especially concern (pre)frontal and limbic “shares” in the neurobiology of love and compassion.

Recent studies revealed a pathway for ‘limbic touch’ [70] that bypasses somatosensory cortices and directly activates parts of the insula, thereby evoking pleasant feelings related to touch and regulating emotional, hormonal, and affiliative responses to caress-like, skin-to-skin contact between individuals [143]. Limbic touch may thus be an analogue term to ‘interoception’, which is known to be related to anterior cingular (limbic) and insular signaling. The demonstrated CNS activity pattern involved in such phenomena overlaps with what has been described for maternal and romantic love and may thus reflect the sensory-emotive component that is common to and crucial for caring relationships, including compassion [70,144]. However, romantic and maternal love are not all the same: Besides data indicating specific as well as overlapping CNS activity (the latter represents the primary focus of this work), results obtained for romantic love were generally more significant in an attempt to examine these different conditions by modern neuroimaging means [70]. Friendship and love share common CNS features, even in physiology. However, they are not identical: Friendship, in general, seems not to be coupled to love, that is, friendship shows distinct neural and neuroanatomic activity patterns – and vice versa [70]. However, this assumption is due to specific patterns emerging in both states. The neurobiological motivation-reward axis, though, which is a common and general feature, i.e., non-specific, is certainly involved in both phenomena. In compassion we see the same separation of degree of emotion “supplied”. Clearly here a link of sympathy encompasses some form of link but the degree may not be so strong as found in love. Also, feeling with someone, i.e., being compassionate or empathic, may also involve an activation of the mirror neuron systems (Figure 1). Friendship, sympathy or even love, or ‘touch’, are not mandatory for this reaction or state.

Love activates specific regions in the reward system, as described above, and this includes a suppression of activities in neural pathways associated with the critical social assessment of other people and with negative emotions [70]. In particular, love – and other states that involve robust reward signaling – reduces the ability to critically judge [70], i.e., impaired emotional judgment [145], decreases fear [70], and lessens the assessment of social trustworthiness [146]. Additionally, love-pleasure-related activation/deactivation patterns of lateral prefrontal cortices lead to reduced depression and enhanced mood, i.e., ‘happiness’, particularly in the left hemisphere, when activated (lateralization or asymmetry with left-anterior enhancement) [142,147]. Clearly, once one has become closely familiar with a person, the need to assess the social validity of that person is reduced [70]. These findings therefore may help to explain why ‘love makes blind’ [70], and in parallel, endorphin- and endogenous morphine-associated memory effects could play a role. In fact, the neural mechanisms suppressed here might be the same that, when active, are responsible for maintaining an emotional barrier towards less familiar people, corresponding to the avoidance behavior observed both in rats and voles against pups or potential partners, which is reversed by administration of oxytocin [102,103]. Taken together, a push-pull mechanism has been suggested for attachment: Attachment on one hand deactivates areas mediating negative emotions, avoidance behavior, and critical social assessment, and on the other, it triggers mechanisms involved in pleasure, reward, and appetitive motivation [11,70].

Pleasure and reward can activate behavioral patterns, or they may even break-up behavioral ‘torpidity’: Curiosity drives our motivation and actual behaviors towards new goals and ‘fresh encounters’, stimulating a search for ‘new ways’ and solutions, or partners, thereby involving spontaneity, appetence, and appetitive motivation [11,14]. Biologically beneficial and/or pleasurable events that occur on our way, driven by curiosity, involve reward signaling, as described, yet again encouraging and amplifying these new behaviors. Rewarding behaviors henceforth get memorized for the goal of repetition and faster/better recognition later on (i.e., behavioral-cognitive short cut, learning), particularly involving hippocampal mechanisms [11,33]. However, negative events and experiences may cause the opposite neurophysiology to evolve, even including a physiological deactivation of behaviors and motivation patterns (i.e., aversive motivation, apathy), or memory deterioration [33,148]. Hence, stress is a common trigger or cause of negative events, such as diseases, and it has a major yet principally preventable, i.e., reducible, impact upon our life styles [32,33,140,149152]. Since love, compassion and pleasure may enhance positive or healthy behaviors and beneficial motivations by their rewarding capacities, love can be – in fact: it is – a tool in stress reduction, as illustrated. Social support and bonding, as they appear in the face of stress and challenge, may thus help to promote healthy life style modifications, therefore involving ‘positive physiology’ and ‘positive psychology’, i.e., feelings of wellness or well-being, yet integrating stress response and other molecular pathways [11,14,42,43]. For example, oxytocinergic pathways that originate within the hypothalamus and project to the VTA are necessary for maternal behavior, as are mesolimbic dopaminergic projections coming from the VTA [11,102,153], again indicating a connection between attachment behaviors and pleasure pathways. Thus, the association between social bonding and reproduction, as seen, e.g., in mother-infant interactions, may have contributed, in an evolutionary sense, to the selection of neurochemical systems involved in the occurrence of stress reduction, autoregulation and attachment behaviors [3,32,33,37,149,154,155].

Love, Spirituality and the Neurobiological Paradigm – is that the Whole Story?

One may now wish to know how this all relates to spirituality, religiosity and whether there is ‘more’ behind the said phenomena than pure neurobiology. Since this is more or less a philosophical question that was not the primary focus of this work, we won’t dwell extensively upon the various implications of the neurobiological paradigm and its borders. However, we find the model of the Triune Ethics Theory (TET) by Narvaez [157] quite helpful in that it extends our views beyond the ‘box’ that we have investigated with our work until this point: TET examines the neurobiological roots of morality and motivational principles and concludes that both are interconnected and built by a bottom-up process – i.e., TET is a bottom-up theory which fits very well to our hypotheses. Accordingly, TET states that motivation is formed by unconscious emotions that predispose one to behave in certain ways. Furthermore, early motivational experiences influence the personality formation and behavioral and motivational patterns as expressions of the individual (i.e., trait), however, depending on the actual and specific situations the individuals encounter, specific and ‘new’ reactions are still possible (i.e., state). And finally, there, theoretically, exists a description of conditions for an ‘optimal human moral development’, which is neither state nor trait, but more or less ‘human’ or general by its nature, i.e., blueprint. This latter aspect clearly opens our views into the realm of moral or spiritual intelligence or a possible concept that is broader than the survival of the individual, secured by its own neurobiological autoregulation.

Also, happiness and contentment are terms than can be examined biologically or spiritually likewise. For example, chills or goose bumps have a deep evolutionary root since they indicate the need for protection and warmth, particularly in the mother-child relationship [158]. Chills, however, come together with arousal and ‘peak moments’ that, for example, seem to involve dopamine and particularly oxytocin signaling pathways. In any way, the brain’s reward physiology is of significance here and indicative of neurobiological and emotional peak states [156,158]. Yet, the very same peak experiences that appear to occur when people go through higher spiritual or religious ‘mastery moments’, i.e., ‘enlightenment’, may still have an overlap with brain physiology and functioning [11,159]. These states seem to correspond to ‘global binding’ experiences or ‘unification states’ that are definitely spiritual by their nature or by their individual content and that people could experience and frequently report during deep meditation, particularly with a higher level of experience and performance [159]. However, these reports resemble very much the descriptions of people in more ‘worldly’ or biological environments. Interestingly, these reports also include a high level of ‘compassion’ or ‘love’ for the world and other beings and may still have a neurobiological and measurable (i.e., ‘objective’) cause or effect, e.g., a high-amplitude gamma synchrony in the electroencephalogram of deep meditators [159].

The question is: Is spirituality a biological phenomenon that simply enables the individual to cope with stress and the species to survive and adapt through ‘hard times’? This could very well be the case. However, the said relationship could also be the other way round, since the presumably ‘objective’ or third-person effects and measurements depicted in this work could correspond – or not correspond – to the ‘subjective’ first-person perspective (and also to the cognitive or the emotional perspective (Figure 1), which may or may not correspond to each other), and we do not know, in either case, which was there first, i.e., which was the cause and which the effect. And even more, there is some possibility that these events occur simultaneously and have another ‘cause’ outside the overall scientific paradigm (i.e., the ‘zero-person perspective’): Clearly, science has only started to dive into this realm and a truly transdisciplinary approach is the only way we see that could give answers – if any – to some of the questions raised, including the basic assumption that the various phenomena observed have some kind of connection at all and don’t occur simultaneously only by accident.

Why does meditation decrease the perception of stress on one hand and the basolateral grey matter density in the amygdala on the other of otherwise healthy meditators (and this only after eight weeks of meditation training) [160]? Why are similar observations and brain structures (to be involved) found in learning and ontogenesis and in infant development – and why do these processes involve common neurobiological signaling systems [14,42,43,82,156,161]? Why can the administration of dopamine (i.e., the experimental enhancement of endogenous dopamine levels) to otherwise spiritually or, in terms of religiosity, ‘sceptical’ people make them become ‘believers’ – or why there seems to exist a neural foundation of religious belief, as well as a clear biological connection between neural markers and religious convictions, even towards political attitudes, religiosity and stress vulnerability (or resilience) [162166]? To be honest, the natural sciences – including neurobiology – have, to our knowledge, no sufficient explanatory answers as to all of these questions and their derivations or whether the answer possibly lies beyond their paradigms. However, it may not be the goal and the duty of the neurosciences to search such answers outside their own realm and borders, since this would not be ‘scientific’ in a more general sense. And maybe this reveals a core problem of understanding – and misunderstanding – when it comes to such transdisciplinary questions of great relevance for understanding of the nature of the human mind, the body and mankind as a whole.

Conclusions

Love phenomena act via common neurophysiological pathways. More precisely: Besides specific effects that are part of the neurobiological concept underlying love, numerous non-specific constituents and overlapping interrelations of love-pleasure mechanisms exist. These latter capacities that are imbedded in the love concept thus point towards common signaling pathways: We surmise that the shared signaling found in love and related experiences, i.e., compassion, is closely associated with CNS limbic reward and motivation activities, which are connected to pleasure phenomena and the well-being experience that is part of love, attachment and social bonding, as well as settings that more generally involve high levels of social support and closeness, i.e., ‘connectedness’. Within these experiences also exists a domain for the emergence of ‘spirituality’ and its occurrence in religious settings and encounters.

Acknowledgements

We are deeply indebted to Ms. Daniel Benz for her expertise in the preparation of this manuscript.

Footnotes

Source of support: Self financing

References

  • 1.Colon-Urban R, Stefano GB. Behavioral effects of morphine on several species of bryozoans. In: Nielson C, Larwood GP, editors. Bryozoa: Ordovician to recent. Denmark: Olsen and Olsen; 1985. pp. 67–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Crews D. The evolutionary antecedents to love. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 1998;23:751–64. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4530(98)00053-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Carter CS. Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 1998;23:779–818. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4530(98)00055-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Esch T, Stefano GB. The Neurobiology of Love. Neuroendocrinol Lett. 2005;26:175–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Esch T, Stefano GB. Love Promotes Health. Neuroendocrinol Lett. 2005;26:264–67. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Stefano GB, Esch T. Love and stress (Editorial) Neuroendocrinol Lett. 2005;26:173–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hatfield E. Love, Sex and Intimacy. New York: Harper Collins; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sternberg RJ, Barnes MI. The Psychology of Love. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Marazziti D, Cassano GB. The neurobiology of attraction. J Endocrinol Invest. 2003;26:58–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Komisaruk BR, Whipple B. Love as sensory stimulation: physiological consequences of its deprivation and expression. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 1998;23:927–44. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4530(98)00062-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Esch T, Stefano GB. The neurobiology of pleasure, reward processes, addiction and their health implications. Neuroendocrinol Lett. 2004;25:235–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Stefano GB, Benson H, Fricchione GL, Esch T. The Stress Response: Always good and when it is bad. New York: Medical Science International; p. 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Stefano GB, Stefano JM, Esch T. Anticipatory Stress Response: A significant commonality in stress, relaxation, pleasure and love responses. Med Sci Monit. 2008;14(2):RA17–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Esch T, Guarna M, Bianchi E, et al. Commonalities in the central nervous system’s involvement with complementary medical therapies: Limbic morphinergic processes. Med Sci Monit. 2004;10(6):MS6–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Stefano GB, Zhu W, Cadet P, et al. Music alters constitutively expressed opiate and cytokine processes in listeners. Med Sci Monit. 2004;10(6):MS18–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Stefano GB, Goumon Y, Casares F, et al. Endogenous morphine. Trends Neurosci. 2000;9:436–42. doi: 10.1016/s0166-2236(00)01611-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kream RM, Mantione KJ, Sheehan M, Stefano GB. Morphine’s chemical messenger status in animals. Activitas Nervosa Superior Rediviva. 2009;51:153–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Stefano GB, Esch T, Kream RM. Xenobiotic perturbation of endogenous morphine signaling: paradoxical opiate hyperalgesia. Med Sci Monit. 2009;15(5):RA107–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Stefano GB, Kream RM, Esch T. Revisiting tolerance from the endogenous morphine perspective. Med Sci Monit. 2009;15(9):RA189–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Nestler EJ. Molecular basis of long-term plasticity underlying addiction. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2:119–28. doi: 10.1038/35053570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nestler EJ, Malenka RC, Hyman SE. Molecular basis of neuropharmacology. Columbus: McGraw-Hill; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Robinson TE, Berridge KC. Incentive-sensitization and addiction. Addiction. 2001;96:103–14. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.9611038.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bozarth MA. Pleasure systems in the brain. In: Wartburton DM, editor. Pleasure: The politics and the reality. New York: Wiley & Sons; 1994. pp. 5–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Vetulani J. Drug addiction. Part II. Neurobiology of addiction. Pol J Pharmacol. 2001;53:303–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Eibl K. Adaptationen im Lustmodus: Ein uebersehener Evolutionsfaktor. In: Zymner R, Engel M, editors. Anthropologie der iteratur Poetogene Strukturen und aesthetisch-soziale Handlungsfelder. Paderborn, Mentis: 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wilson EO. On art. In: Cooke B, Turner F, editors. Biopoetics Evolutionary explorations in the arts. Lexington: 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bedaux B, Cooke B. Sociobiology and the Arts. Amsterdam. 1999 [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Esch T. [Music medicine: Music in association with harm and healing] Musikphysiol Musikermed. 2003;10:213–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Stefano GB, Fricchione GL. The biology of deception: Emotion and morphine. Med Hypotheses. 1995;49:51–54. doi: 10.1016/0306-9877(95)90301-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pinker S. Wie das Denken im Kopf entsteht. Muenchen. :1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Simpson JA, Rholes WS. Stress and secure base relationships in adulthood. In: Bartholomew K, Perlman D, editors. Advances in personal relationships (Vol 5): Attachment processes in adulthood. London, Kingsley: 1994. pp. 181–204. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Esch T, Stefano GB, Fricchione GL, Benson H. Stress in cardiovascular diseases. Med Sci Monit. 2002;8(5):RA93–101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Esch T, Stefano GB, Fricchione GL, Benson H. The role of stress in neurodegenerative diseases and mental disorders. Neuroendocrinol Lett. 2002;23:199–208. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Reite M, Boccia ML. Physiological aspects of adult attachment. In: Sperling MB, Bermann WH, editors. Attachment in Adults. New York: Guilford Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.DeVries AC, DeVries MB, Taymans SE, Carter CS. The effects of stress on social preferences are sexually dimorphic in prairie voles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93:11980–84. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.21.11980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Esch T. [Health in stress: Change in the stress concept and its significance for prevention, health and life style] Gesundheitswesen. 2002;64:73–81. doi: 10.1055/s-2002-20275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Esch T, Fricchione GL, Stefano GB. The therapeutic use of the relaxation response in stress-related diseases. Med Sci Monit. 2003;9(2):RA23–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Slingsby BT, Stefano GB. Placebo: Harnessing the power within. Mod Asp Immunobiol. 2000;1:144–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Slingsby BT, Stefano GB. The active ingredients in the sugar pill: Trust and belief. Placebo. 2001;2:33–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Carter CS, DeVries AC, Getz LL. Physiological substrates of mammalian monogamy: the prairie vole model. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1995;19:303–14. doi: 10.1016/0149-7634(94)00070-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Stefano GB, Fricchione GL, Slingsby BT, Benson H. The placebo effect and relaxation response: Neural processes and their coupling to constitutive nitric oxide. Brain Res: Brain Res Rev. 2001;35:1–19. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0173(00)00047-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zhu W, Ma Y, Bell A, et al. Presence of morphine in rat amygdala: Evidence for the mu3 opiate receptor subtype via nitric oxide release in limbic structures. Med Sci Monit. 2004;10(12):BR433–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Salamon E, Esch T, Stefano GB. The role of the amygdala in mediating sexual and emotional behavior via coupled nitric oxide release. Acta Pharmacol Sinica. 2005;26:389–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7254.2005.00083.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Carter CS. Oxytocin and sexual behavior. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1992;16:131–44. doi: 10.1016/s0149-7634(05)80176-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Meisel RL, Sachs BD. The physiology of male sexual behavior. In: Knobil E, Neill D, editors. The Physiology of Reproduction. New York: Raven Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pfaff DW, Schwartz-Giblin S, McCarthy MM, Kow LM. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of female reproductive behaviors. In: Knobil E, Neill D, editors. The Physiology of Reproduction. New York: Raven Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Holstege G. Some anatomical observations on the projections from the hypothalamus to brainstem and spinal cord: an HRP and autoradiographic tracing study in the cat. J Comp Neurol. 1987;260:98–126. doi: 10.1002/cne.902600109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Holstege G, Meiners L, Tan K. Projections of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis to the mesencephalon, pons, and medulla oblongata in the cat. Experiment Brain Res. 1985;58:379–91. doi: 10.1007/BF00235319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Hopkins DA. Amygdalotegmental projections in the rat, cat and rhesus monkey. Neurosci Lett. 1975;1:263–70. doi: 10.1016/0304-3940(75)90041-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Carter CS, Altemus M. Integrative functions of lactational hormones in social behavior and stress management. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1997;807:164–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb51918.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Chiodera P, Salvarani C, Bacchi-Modena A, et al. Relationship between plasma profiles of oxytocin and adrenocorticotropic hormone during suckling or breast stimulation in women. Horm Res. 1991;35:119–23. doi: 10.1159/000181886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Uvnas-Moberg K. Physiological and endocrine effects of social contact. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1997;807:146–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb51917.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Uvnas-Moberg K. Oxytocin may mediate the benefits of positive social interaction and emotions. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 1998;23:819–35. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4530(98)00056-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Marazziti D, Canale D. Hormonal changes when falling in love. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2004;29:931–36. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2003.08.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.DeVries AC, DeVries MB, Taymans S, Carter CS. Modulation of pair bonding in female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) by corticosterone. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1995;92:7744–48. doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.17.7744. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hennessy MB. Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal responses to brief social separation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1997;21:11–29. doi: 10.1016/s0149-7634(96)00013-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Levine S, Lyons DM, Schatzberg AF. Psychobiological consequences of social relationships. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1997;807:210–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb51922.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Mendoza SP, Mason WA. Attachment relationships in New World primates. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1997;807:203–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb51921.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55:68–78. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Spencer H. Principles of Psychology. New York: Appleton; 1880. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Nestler EJ, Malenka RC. The addicted brain. Sci Am. 2004;290:78–85. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0304-78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 2nd ed. Berlin: Langenscheidt; 1987. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Rodriguez dF, Navarro M. Role of the limbic system in dependence on drugs. Ann Med. 1998;30:397–405. doi: 10.3109/07853899809029940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Salamon E, Kim M, Beaulieu J, Stefano GB. Sound therapy induced relaxation: down regulating stress processes and pathologies. Med Sci Monit. 2003;9(5):RA96–101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Esch T. Musical healing in mental disorders. In: Stefano GB, Bernstein SR, Kim M, editors. Musical healing. Warsaw: Medical Science International; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Methods of Assessing the Reinforcing Properties of Abused Drugs. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1987. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Bozarth MA. The mesolimbic dopamine system as a model reward system. In: Willner P, Scheel-Krüger J, editors. The Mesolimbic Dopamine System: From Motivation to Action. London: Wiley & Sons; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Rossetti ZL, Hmaidan Y, Gessa GL. Marked inhibition of mesolimbic dopamine release: A common feature of ethanol, morphine, cocaine and amphetamine abstinence in rats. Eur J Pharmacol. 1992;221:227–34. doi: 10.1016/0014-2999(92)90706-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Wise RA, Bozarth MA. Brain reward circuitry: Four circuit elements “wired” in apparent series. Brain Res Bull. 1984;12:203–8. doi: 10.1016/0361-9230(84)90190-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Bartels A, Zeki S. The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. Neuroimage. 2004;21:1155–66. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Francis S, Rolls ET, Bowtell R, et al. The representation of pleasant touch in the brain and its relationship with taste and olfactory areas. Neuroreport. 1999;10:453–59. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199902250-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Rolls ET, O’Doherty J, Kringelbach ML, et al. Representations of pleasant and painful touch in the human orbitofrontal and cingulate cortices. Cereb Cortex. 2003;13:308–17. doi: 10.1093/cercor/13.3.308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Kawabata H, Zeki S. Neural correlates of beauty. J Neurophysiol. 2004;91:1699–705. doi: 10.1152/jn.00696.2003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Olds J. Drives and reinforcements: Behavioral studies of hypothalamic functions. New York: Raven Press; 1977. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Wise RA. Catecholamine theories of reward: A critical review. Brain Res. 1978;152:215–47. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(78)90253-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Bozarth MA. Ventral tegmental reward system. In: Oreland L, Engel J, editors. Brain reward systems and abuse. New York: Raven Press; 1987. pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Esch T, Kim JW, Stefano GB. Neurobiological implications of eating healthy. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2006;27:21–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Weiss F, Koob GF. Drug addiction: Functional neurotoxicity of the brain reward systems. Neurotox Res. 2001;3:145–56. doi: 10.1007/BF03033235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Fricchione GL, Mendoza A, Stefano GB. Morphine and its psychiatric implications. Adv Neuroimmunol. 1994;4:117–32. doi: 10.1016/s0960-5428(05)80006-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Fricchione GL, Stefano GB. Placebo neural systems: Nitric oxide, morphine and the dopamine brain reward and motivation circuitries. Med Sci Monit. 2005;11(6):MS54–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Poeaknapo C, Schmidt J, Brandsch M, et al. Endogenous formation of morphine in human cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101:14091–96. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0405430101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Esch T, Guarna M, Bianchi E, Stefano GB. Meditation and limbic processes. Biofeedback. 2004;32:22–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Zhu W, Ma Y, Cadet P, et al. Presence of reticuline in rat brain: A pathway for morphine biosynthesis. Mol Brain Res. 2003;117:83–90. doi: 10.1016/s0169-328x(03)00323-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Stefano GB, Scharrer B. Endogenous morphine and related opiates, a new class of chemical messengers. Adv Neuroimmunol. 1994;4:57–68. doi: 10.1016/s0960-5428(05)80001-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Kream RM, Stefano GB. De novo biosynthesis of morphine in animal cells: An evidence-based model. Med Sci Monit. 2006;12(10):RA207–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Zhu W, Mantione KJ, Shen L, Stefano GB. In vivo and in vitro L-DOPA exposure increases ganglionic morphine levels. Med Sci Monit. 2005;11(5):MS1–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Stefano GB, Kream RM. Endogenous morphine synthetic pathway preceded and gave rise to catecholamine synthesis in evolution (Review) Int J Mol Med. 2007;20:837–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Bianchi E, Alessandrini C, Guarna M, Tagliamonte A. Endogenous codeine and morphine are stored in specific brain neurons. Brain Res. 1993;627:210–15. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(93)90323-f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Spector S, Munjal I, Schmidt DE. Endogenous morphine and codeine. Possible role as endogenous anticonvulsants. Brain Res. 2001;915:155–60. doi: 10.1016/s0006-8993(01)02837-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Zhu W, Mantione KJ, Shen L, et al. Tyrosine and tyramine increase endogenous ganglionic morphine and dopamine levels in vitro and in vivo: CYP2D6 and tyrosine hydroxylase modulation demonstrates a dopamine coupling. Med Sci Monit. 2005;11(11):BR397–404. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Zhu W, Cadet P, Baggerman G, et al. Human white blood cells synthesize morphine: CYP2D6 modulation. J Immunol. 2005;175:7357–62. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.175.11.7357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Kream RM, Sheehan M, Cadet P, et al. Persistence of evolutionary memory: Primordial six-transmembrane helical domain mu opiate receptors selectively linked to endogenous morphine signaling. Med Sci Monit. 2007;13(12):SC5–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Cadet P, Mantione KJ, Zhu W, et al. A functionally coupled mu3-like opiate receptor/nitric oxide regulatory pathway in human multi-lineage progenitor cells. J Immunol. 2007;179:5839–44. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.179.9.5839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.de la Torre JC, Pappas BA, Prevot V, et al. Hippocampal nitric oxide upregulation precedes memory loss and A beta I-40 accumulation after chronic brain hypoperfusion in rats. Neurol Res. 2003;25:635–41. doi: 10.1179/016164103101201931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.MacDonald AW, III, Cohen JD, Stenger VA, Carter CS. Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control. Science. 2000;288:1835–38. doi: 10.1126/science.288.5472.1835. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Wager TD, Rilling JK, Smith EE, et al. Placebo-induced changes in fMRI in the anticipation and experience of pain. Science. 2004;303:1162–67. doi: 10.1126/science.1093065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Kovacs GL, Sarnyai Z, Szabo G. Oxytocin and addiction: a review. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 1998;23:945–62. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4530(98)00064-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Sarnyai Z, Kovacs GL. Role of oxytocin in the neuroadaptation to drugs of abuse. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 1994;19:85–117. doi: 10.1016/0306-4530(94)90062-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Insel TR, Shapiro LE. Oxytocin receptor distribution reflects social organization in monogamous and polygamous voles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1992;89:5981–85. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.13.5981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Guarna M, Ghelardini C, Galeotti N, et al. Neurotransmitter role of endogenous morphine in CNS. Med Sci Monit. 2005;11:RA190–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Stefano GB, Fricchione GL, Esch T. Relaxation: Molecular and physiological significance. Med Sci Monit. 2006;12(9):HY21–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Pedersen CA. Oxytocin control of maternal behavior. Regulation by sex steroids and offspring stimuli. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1997;807:126–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb51916.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Insel TR, Young LJ. The neurobiology of attachment. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2:129–36. doi: 10.1038/35053579. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Kendrick KM. Oxytocin, motherhood and bonding. Exp Physiol. 2000;85(Spec No:):111S–24S. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-445x.2000.tb00014.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Jenkins JS, Ang VT, Hawthorn J, et al. Vasopressin, oxytocin and neurophysins in the human brain and spinal cord. Brain Res. 1984;291:111–17. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(84)90656-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Loup F, Tribollet E, Dubois-Dauphin M, Dreifuss JJ. Localization of high-affinity binding sites for oxytocin and vasopressin in the human brain. An autoradiographic study. Brain Res. 1991;555:220–32. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(91)90345-v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Curtis JT, Wang Z. The neurochemistry of pair bonding. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2003;12:49–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Johnson AE. The regulation of oxytocin receptor binding in the ventromedial hypothalamic nucleus by gonadal steroids. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1992;652:357–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb34367.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Barberis C, Tribollet E. Vasopressin and oxytocin receptors in the central nervous system. Crit Rev Neurobiol. 1996;10:119–54. doi: 10.1615/critrevneurobiol.v10.i1.60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Patchev VK, Almeida OF. Corticosteroid regulation of gene expression and binding characteristics of vasopressin receptors in the rat brain. Eur J Neurosci. 1995;7:1579–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.1995.tb01153.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Insel TR, Young L, Wang Z. Molecular aspects of monogamy. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1997;807:302–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb51928.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Wang Z, Young LJ, Liu Y, Insel TR. Species differences in vasopressin receptor binding are evident early in development: comparative anatomic studies in prairie and montane voles. J Comp Neurol. 1997;378:535–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Witt DM, Carter CS, Insel TR. Oxytocin receptor-binding in female prairie voles: Endogenous and exogenous oestradiol stimulation. J Neuroendocrinol. 1991;3:155–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2826.1991.tb00258.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Liberzon I, Young EA. Effects of stress and glucocorticoids on CNS oxytocin receptor binding. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 1997;22:411–22. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4530(97)00045-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Schumacher M, Coirini H, Pfaff DW, McEwen BS. Behavioral effects of progesterone associated with rapid modulation of oxytocin receptors. Science. 1990;250:691–94. doi: 10.1126/science.2173139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Ostrowski NL. Oxytocin receptor mRNA expression in rat brain: implications for behavioral integration and reproductive success. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 1998;23:989–1004. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4530(98)00070-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Panksepp J, Nelson E, Bekkedal M. Brain systems for the mediation of social separation-distress and social-reward. Evolutionary antecedents and neuropeptide intermediaries. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1997;807:78–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb51914.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Panksepp J, Nelson E, Siviy S. Brain opioids and mother-infant social motivation. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 1994;397:40–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1994.tb13264.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Bridges RS. Endocrine regulation of parental behavior in rodents. In: Krasnegor NA, Bridges RS, editors. Mammalian Parenting. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Keverne EB, Nevison CM, Martel FL. Early learning and the social bond. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1997;807:329–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb51930.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.de Wied D, Diamant M, Fodor M. Central nervous system effects of the neurohypophyseal hormones and related peptides. Front Neuroendocrinol. 1993;14:251–302. doi: 10.1006/frne.1993.1009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Giammanco M, Tabacchi G, Giammanco S, et al. Testosterone and aggressiveness. Med Sci Monit. 2005;11(4):RA136–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.de la Fuente-Fernandez R, Schulzer M, Stoessl AJ. The placebo effect in neurological disorders. Lancet Neurol. 2002;1:85–91. doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(02)00038-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Zhang L, Lou D, Jiao H, et al. Cocaine-induced intracellular signaling and gene expression are oppositely regulated by the dopamine D1 and D3 receptors. J Neurosci. 2004;24:3344–54. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0060-04.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Sonetti D, Peruzzi E, Stefano GB. Endogenous morphine and ACTH association in neural tissues. Med Sci Monit. 2005;11(5):MS22–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Stefano GB, Fricchione GL, Goumon Y, Esch T. Pain, immunity, opiate and opioid compounds and health. Med Sci Monit. 2005;11(6):MS47–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Cardinale GJ, Donnerer J, Finck AD, et al. Morphine and codeine are endogenous components of human cerebrospinal fluid. Life Sci. 1987;40:301–6. doi: 10.1016/0024-3205(87)90347-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Donnerer J, Oka K, Brossi A, et al. Presence and formation of codeine and morphine in the rat. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1986;83:4566–67. doi: 10.1073/pnas.83.12.4566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Donnerer J, Cardinale G, Coffey J, et al. Chemical characterization and regulation of endogenous morphine and codeine in the rat. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1987;242:583–87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Gintzler AR, Levy A, Spector S. Antibodies as a means of isolating and characterizing biologically active substances: Presence of a non-peptide morphine-like compound in the central nervous system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1976;73:2132–36. doi: 10.1073/pnas.73.6.2132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Kodaira H, Spector S. Transformation of thebaine to oripavine, codeine, and morphine by rat liver, kidney, and brain microsomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1988;85:1267–71. doi: 10.1073/pnas.85.4.1267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Kodaira H, Listek CA, Jardine I, et al. Identification of the convusant opiate thebaine in the mammalian brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1989;86:716–19. doi: 10.1073/pnas.86.2.716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Bianchi E, Guarna M, Tagliamonte A. Immunocytochemical localization of endogenous codeine and morphine. Adv Neuroimmunol. 1994;4:83–92. doi: 10.1016/s0960-5428(05)80003-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Guarna M, Neri C, Petrioli F, Bianchi E. Potassium-induced release of endogenous morphine form rat brain slices. J Neurochem. 1998;70:147–52. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.1998.70010147.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Buijs RM. Vasopressinergic and oxytocinergic pathways, synapses and central release. In: Baertschi AJ, Dreifuss JJ, editors. Neuroendocrinology of Vasopressin, Corticoliberon and Opiomelanocortin. London: Academic Press; 1982. [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Cadet P, Mantione KJ, Stefano GB. Molecular identification and functional expression of mu3, a novel alternatively spliced variant of the human mu opiate receptor gene. J Immunol. 2003;170:5118–23. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.170.10.5118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Kream RM, Stefano GB. Endogenous morphine and nitric oxide coupled regulation of mitochondrial processes. Med Sci Monit. 2009;15(12):RA263–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Stefano GB, Kream RM. Dopamine, Morphine, and Nitric Oxide: An Evolutionary Signaling Triad. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2010;16:e125–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-5949.2009.00114.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Miranda-Paiva CM, Ribeiro-Barbosa ER, Canteras NS, Felicio LF. A role for the periaqueductal grey in opioidergic inhibition of maternal behaviour. Eur J Neurosci. 2003;18:667–74. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02794.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Stefano GB, Esch T, Cadet P, et al. Endocannabinoids as autoregulatory signaling molecules: Coupling to nitric oxide and a possible association with the relaxation response. Med Sci Monit. 2003;9(4):RA63–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Stefano GB. Endocannabinoid immune and vascular signaling. Acta Pharmacol Sinica. 2000;21:1071–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Davidson RJ, Kabat-Zinn J, Schumacher J, et al. Alterations in brain and immune function produced by mindfulness meditation. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:564–70. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000077505.67574.e3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Olausson H, Lamarre Y, Backlund H, et al. Unmyelinated tactile afferents signal touch and project to insular cortex. Nat Neurosci. 2002;5:900–4. doi: 10.1038/nn896. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Harlow CM. Learning to Love: The selected papers of HF Harlow. New York: Praeger; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Adolphs R, Tranel D, Damasio AR. The human amygdala in social judgment. Nature. 1998;393:470–74. doi: 10.1038/30982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Winston JS, Strange BA, O’Doherty J, Dolan RJ. Automatic and intentional brain responses during evaluation of trustworthiness of faces. Nat Neurosci. 2002;5:277–83. doi: 10.1038/nn816. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Menkes DL, Bodnar P, Ballesteros RA, Swenson MR. Right frontal lobe slow frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (SF r-TMS) is an effective treatment for depression: a case-control pilot study of safety and efficacy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999;67:113–15. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.67.1.113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148.Guarna M, Ghelardini C, Galeotti N, et al. Effects of endogenous morphine deprivation on memory retention of passive avoidance learning in mice. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2004;7:311–19. doi: 10.1017/S1461145704004341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149.Esch T, Stefano GB. An overview of stress and its impact in immunological diseases. Mod Asp Immunobiol. 2002;2:187–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Esch T, Stefano GB. Proinflammation: A common denominator or initiator of different pathophysiological disease processes. Med Sci Monit. 2002;8(5):HY1–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Esch T, Stefano GB, Fricchione GL, Benson H. Stress-related diseases: A potential role for nitric oxide. Med Sci Monit. 2002;8(6):RA103–18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152.Willett WC. Balancing life-style and genomics research for disease prevention. Science. 2002;296:695–98. doi: 10.1126/science.1071055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 153.Numan M, Sheehan TP. Neuroanatomical circuitry for mammalian maternal behavior. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1997;807:101–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb51915.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 154.Esch T. [Stress, adaptation, and self-organization: balancing processes facilitate health and survival] Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2003;10:330–41. doi: 10.1159/000075887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 155.Acher R. Molecular evolution of fish neurohypophysial hormones: neutral and selective evolutionary mechanisms. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 1996;102:157–72. doi: 10.1006/gcen.1996.0057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 156.Esch T, Stefano GB. The neurobiology of stress management. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2010;31:19–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 157.Narvaez D. The emotional foundations of high moral intelligence. Wiley Periodicals. 2010 doi: 10.1002/cd.276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 158.Grewe O, Kopiez R, Altenmüller E. Chills as an indicator of individual emotional peaks. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2009;1169:351–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04783.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 159.Lutz A, Greischar LL, Rawlings NB, et al. Long-term meditators self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony during mental practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101:16369–73. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0407401101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 160.Hölzel BK, Carmody J, Evans KC, et al. Stress reduction correlates with structural changes in the amygdala. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010;5:11–17. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsp034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 161.Barr GA, Moriceau S, Shionoya K, et al. Transitions in infant learning are modulated by dopamine in the amygdala. Nat Neurosci. 2009;12:1367–69. doi: 10.1038/nn.2403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 162.Kapogiannis D. Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106:4876–81. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811717106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 163.Krummenacher P, Mohr C, Haker H, Brugger P. Dopamine, paranormal belief, and the detection of meaningful stimuli. J Cogn Neurosci. 2010;22(8):1670–81. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 164.Inzlicht M. Neural markers of religious conviction. Pychol Sci. 2009;20:385–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02305.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 165.Harris S. The neural correlates of religious and nonreligious belief. PLoS One. :2009. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 166.Kay AC. Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97:421–34. doi: 10.1037/a0015997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medical Science Monitor : International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research are provided here courtesy of International Scientific Information, Inc.

RESOURCES