Dopamine-System Genes and Cultural Acquisition: The Norm Sensitivity Hypothesis

Abstract

Previous research in cultural psychology shows that cultures vary in the social orientation of independence and interdependence. To date, however, little is known about how people may acquire such global patterns of cultural behavior or cultural norms. Nor is it clear what genetic mechanisms may underlie the acquisition of cultural norms. Here, we draw on recent evidence for certain genetic variability in the susceptibility to environmental influences and propose a norm sensitivity hypothesis, which holds that people acquire culture, and rules of cultural behaviors, through reinforcement-mediated social learning processes. One corollary of the hypothesis is that the degree of cultural acquisition should be influenced by polymorphic variants of genes involved in dopaminergic neural pathways, which have been widely implicated in reinforcement learning. We reviewed initial evidence for this prediction and discussed challenges and directions for future research.

Introduction

The last two decades of research in cultural psychology shows that cultures vary in social orientations of the self as independent or interdependent [1–3]. Western cultures, especially European American cultures, value the independence of the self from others. In contrast, Eastern cultures, particularly Asian cultures, value the interdependence of the self with others. The social orientation dimension of independence versus interdependence has systematic influences on cognition [4–6], emotion [7–9], and motivation [10–12]. So far, however, it remains unclear what mechanisms might underlie the acquisition of the culture-typical social orientations of independence and interdependence, particularly, both explicit and implicit rules governing these orientations [13], although some initial evidence suggests that culture-typical behavioral characteristics emerge after 6 or 7 years of age and begin to be more pronounced over the course of adolescence [14–16].

Here, we explore a novel perspective on the acquisition of explicit and implicit rules of social behavior, or cultural norms, by drawing on recent advancements in social genomics – a new field of research investigating ways in which genetic and epigenetic processes are dynamically linked to socio-cultural processes to constitute various phenotypes including health and other psycho-social outcomes [3, 17–19]. Evidence suggests that individuals are genetically variable in terms of their sensitivity to environmental influences [17, 18, 20]. Extending this work, we propose a norm sensitivity hypothesis [21], which holds that people are genetically variable in their sensitivity to global patterns of cultural behaviors or social norms. Here, we will review initial evidence for it and discuss challenges and directions of research in this area.

Mutual Influences between Culture and Genes

Recent research in population genetics suggests that over the past 10,000 years of human history, numerous polymorphic genetic changes have been positively selected, even though this time period is much briefer than might be expected, and the rate of positive selection appears to have accelerated [22–24]. This seems likely to be related to the massive increase in human population and exposure to new environments (including domesticated animals and plants) and resulting diversity in both infectious diseases and available nutrition. This is consistent with ideas in evolutionary biology and biological anthropology that genetic evolution and cultural evolution have proceeded in tandem, e.g. theories of dual inheritance [25] or gene-culture co-evolution [25–28]. Initial empirical support for this theory has focused on effects of herding and milk production on emergence of genetic mutations that support the digestion of lactose – the milk sugar [29], leading to rapid incorporation of these mutations and supporting the growth of dairying culture.

One intriguing recent proposal is that some genetic variants may lend themselves to plasticity of behavior [18]; that is, carriers of certain alleles could be differentially susceptible to environmental influences depending on certain genetic variants [18, 30, 31]. Such individuals might be more susceptible to early childhood adversity or maltreatment. Indeed, early life traumas increase the risk of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder later in life, but particularly in carriers of specific alleles in the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTLPR) [30], a glucocorticocoid receptor chaperone gene (FKBP5) [32], and the beta2 adrenergic receptor gene (ADRB2) [33].

Extending this literature, Kim and colleagues argued that culture is one element of one’s eco-social environment that encourages certain behaviors and inhibits others. It would seem to follow that genetic alleles that increase behavioral plasticity might also amplify cultural differences in behavior [17]. For example, it is normative to seek emotional or social support at times of distress in European American cultural contexts, but not in Korean cultural contexts; Kim and colleagues found cultural differences tended to be larger for carriers of one allele (G) of the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) polymorphism rs53576, previously linked to increased socioemotional sensitivity [34].

So far work has focused on isolated behavioral traits such as social support [35] and emotion suppression [36], leaving open the question of whether genetic polymorphisms might modulate each individual’s readiness or preparedness to acquire global phenotypic traits such as norms and behavioral patterns of independence and interdependence. Although social learning has long been argued to be central in maintaining long-lasting cultural traditions [37, 38] (See also the Tomasello article in this Special Issue), rarely has this line of reasoning considered genetic factors that foster social learning.

The Norm Sensitivity Hypothesis

Reinforcement-Mediated Social Learning and Dopaminergic (DA) System Genes

The norm sensitivity hypothesis suggests that acquisition of global behavioral patterns and norms of culture, such as independence and interdependence, is influenced by learning processes such as reinforcement-mediated social learning. This type of learning is based on a set of mechanisms that enable the organism to select behavioral options that maximize anticipated rewards [39]. These mechanisms include discerning behavioral patterns, selection of one’s behaviors, and tracking reinforcements accorded on the behaviors [40, 41]. Major components of reinforcement-mediated social learning (e.g., social rule learning and reinforcement tracking) involve dopamine-mediated brain substrates (e.g., frontal cortex and striatal reward processing area [42, 43]. By highlighting the role of rewards in social learning, we hypothesize that cultural and social learning is not merely cognitive, but also inherently motivational. We may therefore anticipate that cultural acquisition would be facilitated by gene variants that increase the efficiency of central dopaminergic pathways.

To illustrate, children in any society must infer the rules governing their “street” by trial and error. The emerging cognitive representation of others’ response patterns constitutes the perceived norm for the community. Individuals respond to such norms by formulating their own responses, which may in turn be reinforced either positively (i.e., complimented and praised) or negatively (i.e., punished and ignored). This social mechanism is universal, although cultures vary in terms of how tight or loose in application of social norms [44]. The individuals must track reinforcement history to assess validity of inferred social norms. Resulting behaviors tend to be consistent with group norms, some aspects of which are culture-specific (e.g., independent vs. interdependence) and others more universal (e.g., within-group cooperation and altruistic behavior); although culture-unique socio-ecological conditions such as mobility and strength of within-group ties are likely to influence the extent of such behaviors [45].

Our theoretical framework, illustrated in Figure 1, explains contemporary cultural variations in terms of large-scale ecological considerations. Anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa approximately 200,000 years ago [46], spread out of Africa approximately 50,000 years ago, and started farming and herding approximately 10,000 years ago. One factor that initially differentiated Eastern vs. Western regions of the Eurasian continent is the type of crops available and successfully domesticated (e.g., wheat vs. rice) [47]. This differentiation might have set a strong constraint on divergent paths of cultural evolution in the two broadly demarcated regions of the continent.

Figure 1.

The norm sensitivity hypothesis is based on an observation that since initiation of sedentary forms of living, people have organized their groups by certain patterns and norms of social behavior that are afforded and constrained by the forms of subsistence (e.g., farming different crops such as rice and wheat and herding different animals). Acquisition of these cultural patterns and norms is hypothesized to have been facilitated by certain polymorphic variants of dopaminergic (DA) system genes, including those of the dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4), that increase the dopamine signaling efficiency.

As a result of sedentary forms of living afforded by newly-emerged subsistence systems, human groups became increasingly large and started to incorporate non-kin members. We may assume social norms were utilized to breed much-needed within-group cooperation [48, 49]. Dopaminergic system genes may therefore have played an instrumental role in facilitating the norm-based system of cooperation – the system we call culture. Given that human groups expanded in size over the last 10,000 years since the inception of sedentary living, the evolution of norm sensitivity must have been critical over this recent evolutionary past [50, 51]. While complex traits influencing social learning are likely to be highly polygenic, involving variations in multiple genes within the dopaminergic as well as other systems, it is plausible that individual mutations directly influencing dopaminergic functioning could have effects on norm sensitivity.

Evidence for the Norm Sensitivity Hypothesis

Dopamine D4 Receptor Gene (DRD4)

One candidate in the context of gene-culture co-evolution is the dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4). Exon 3 of DRD4 has a variable number tandem repeat (VNTR) polymorphism (2–11 repeats), with 2, 4, and 7 repeat alleles (2R, 4R, and 7R) the most frequent. Receptors coded by 7R alleles show less in vitro dopamine functioning and poorer response to agonists than 4R alleles [52, 53], whereas the 2R allele is intermediate. Physiologically, diminished dopamine inhibitory feedback in 7R and 2R alleles carriers [24] is thought to lead to relatively higher physiological dopamine signaling capacity relative to 4R carriers [54].

Haplotype linkage disequilibrium (LD) patterns suggest the DRD4 7R allele was likely derived from the ancestal 4R allele 40,000–50,000 years ago, when humans started to expand their territory [24] . The 2R allele is more recent, supposedly appearing ~10,000 years ago, when humans started herding and farming. Herding and farming, as well as the kind of crops farmed, all have systematic influences on cultural patterns of behavior [47, 55, 56]. Moreover, the 7R and 2R alleles may be under selection pressures associated with migration [57, 58]. The 7R allelic frequency increases as a function of migratory distance humans spread over the globe (see Figure 2), suggesting DRD4 variants linked to altered dopamine signaling capacity could have co-evolved with cultural forms of human adaptation. Specifically, the population-level frequency of 7R and 2R alleles of DRD4 might have increased over the last 10,000–50,000 years as different groups underwent a series of challenges to survive in “frontier-like” social and ecological conditions fraught with a variety of life-threats [59]. A recent simulation suggests that such social and ecological conditions conduce to the emergence of strong social norms for cooperation and coordination within an ingroup [60].

Figure 2.

Migratory distance out of Africa as a function of the prevalence of the 7R/2R allele of DRD4. Taken from Matthews & Butler, 2011, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 145, 382–389.

DRD4 and Environmental Sensitivity

Previous work reported associations between the 7R allele of DRD4 and certain behavioral traits including novelty seeking [61], heavy drinking [61], and financial risk taking [62] although these associations are not always replicable [63]. Other evidence indicates that 7R allele carriers are sometimes relatively better socialized, with superior attention control [31] and greater prosocial orientations [20, 64]. The seemingly conflicting pattern above could reflect environmental sensitivity of the DRD4 7R/2R alleles [18, 20]. That is, under adverse environmental conditions (e.g., neighborhoods dominated by gangs), the 7R/2R alleles may be associated with more negative outcomes (e.g., impulsive, antisocial behaviors). The norm sensitivity hypothesis suggests that the behaviors that are considered less desirable or even explicitly anti-social may be rewarded and thus fostered in such conditions. In contrast, under desirable environmental conditions, these alleles may be associated with more advantageous outcomes because such environments enforce norms fostering desirable behaviors. In support of this analysis, developmental work shows that children with these alleles are influenced more by the quality of caregiving [65–68]. Consistent with the norm sensitivity hypothesis, children with the 7R/2R alleles of DRD4 might more readily infer informal behavioral norms from their caregivers.

DRD4 x Culture Interaction

Culture is an environment that is constituted by beliefs, values, and human behaviors derived from them [69]. On the basis of the norm sensitivity hypothesis, we may anticipate that higher dopamine signaling variants of DRD4 (7R and 2R) will also moderate cultural differences in global behavioral patterns of independence and interdependence. In our recent work [21], 194 European Americans and 204 Asians completed several scales assessing independence (e.g., independent self-construal, self-efficacy) or interdependence (e.g., interdependent self-construal, holistic cognitive style). As summarized in Figure 3, the predicted DRD4 x culture interaction was significant. Overall, Asians tended to be more interdependent or less independent than European Americans. Importantly, whereas this cultural difference was sizable for the 7/2R allele carriers of DRD4, it was negligible for the 7/2R allele non-carriers. Within each cultural group, the 7/2R allele carriers showed a greater extent of the social orientations typical for their cultures. This finding resonates with an earlier study showing that when the prevalent norms are made salient through induction of accountability, individuals from individualistic and collectivistic societies behave in diametrically opposite ways in a social negotiation task. Whereas individualists become more competitive, collectivists become more cooperative [70].

Figure 3.

Composite measure of independent versus interdependent orientation (independent factor score – interdependent factor score) as a function of culture and DRD4 VNTR polymorphisms. Taken from Kitayama et al., 2014, Psychological Science, 25, 1169–1177.

If carriers of high dopaminergic signaling variants of DRD4 acquire and internalize social norms, they may show more pronounced effects of priming of such norms. Consistent with this hypothesis, a recent study demonstrates that priming of religious ideas increases pro-social behaviors only among the carriers of these gene variants [20]. Consistent with the norm sensitivity hypothesis, this result might show that carriers of the high dopamine signaling variant of DRD4 acquire religious ideas (which encourage altruism) more deeply. Also consistent is a recent review indicating that these gene variants are associated with greater altruism – a behavior that is positively sanctioned in all societies [64].

Challenges and Future Directions

There are important challenges and directions for future work. Future work should examine the function of genes within biological pathways and their interactions. In the context of dopamine, for example, this would include at a minimum dopamine receptors (DRD1 through DRD5), those involved in dopamine synthesis (TH, DDC, VMAT), update (DAT), and clearance (COMT, MAOA, and MAOB). These genes are assumed to work in highly interactive fashion [71, 72] to influence social cognition and behavior [73]. One important research agenda is to combine information from multiple genes for phenotypic traits including norm sensitivity [71, 74, 75].

As compared to complex personality traits such as extraversion and neuroticism and disease categories such as anxiety disorder and schizophrenia, the dimension of norm sensitivity is relatively unitary. Thus, it can be seen as a component process that participates in more complex behaviors such as group cooperation and competition as well as psychological states such as personality and mental illnesses. It may be seen as an endophenotype, or intermediate trait, that links the operation of genes to actual behaviors [76]. Nevertheless, as should be clear from our discussion, the norm sensitivity itself could be divided into various component processes (e.g., norm induction, reward sensitivity, and reward tracking), each of which could be influenced by different genes implicated in dopamine signaling. These processes may also be influenced by myriad background mutations that might produce certain perturbations and biases in genetic signaling [77]. A challenge for future work is the inherently polygenic nature of psychological parameters of social behavior, including norm sensitivity.

It is equally important to assess norm sensitivity directly. One promising approach may be to use economic games and test the degrees to which participants learn response patterns of other participants (rule induction) as well as changing their own behaviors accordingly (reinforcement tracking) [71]. Initial evidence shows that certain dopaminergic system genes are systematically related to relevant parameters (rule induction and reward tracking) estimated from such a behavioral experiment [71].

There may be other mechanisms of gene x culture interaction. As noted above, oxytocin (associated with enhanced sensitivity to certain socially relevant cues [78]) is likely to moderate certain cultural differences [35, 79]. For another example, serotonin innervates cortico-limbic systems of emotion processing. Serotonergic genetic variants may then amplify culture-typical emotional response patterns [80, 81] as well as other processes that are linked to them [82, 83].

To conclude, although at its infancy, the social genomic analysis of cultural acquisition suggests some new avenues of research [3, 17, 19]. We argue that some people may be genetically more sensitive to cultural norms than others. The norms sensitivity hypothesis sheds light on a genetic source of within-culture individual differences by examining biologically based reinforcement-mediated social learning mechanisms that are likely influenced by dopaminergic system genes.

Figure 4.

Dopaminergic (DA) pathway genes. Adapted from Set et al., 2014, Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 111, 9615–9620.