Social Neuroscience: Cooperation, Ostracism, and Testosterone

[00:00:02]this is lecture 9 in neuro 3272 social neuroscience and our topic this week is social interactions I'll just admit that this particular lecture is sort of a hodgepodge of different topics that didn't really fit in with other weeks so I just kind of put them all together in this one lecture in this lecture we're going to examine four topics first is that we're going to examine daydreaming and talk about how daydreaming may mean mainly be about social interactions the second thing we'll talk about is cooperation and fairness then we'll go into some research on exclusion and rejection and finally I'll talk a little bit more about testosterone which we talked about in the first or second week of the semester but we haven't spoken about much since so this first topic is daydreaming about social interactions the reason why neuroscientists have been interested in this this topic has to do with this observation that's been known for quite a long time in neuroscience when people are sitting at rest and they are in an fMRI scanner so they're not really sitting but they're lying down in the scanner at rest or maybe they're in a pet study and they're not being asked to do anything else researchers have still observed activated brain regions that is the brain is still busy there are still parts of the brain that are active while they're just resting there with their eyes closed some of these researchers have called this the default activity of the human brain as this seems to be what's going on when you're not doing any other tasks you know you're not being asked to keep track of how much you've eaten well you're not being asked to solve a problem you're not talking to anybody you're just lying there with your eyes closed so when those are those other activities are now going on what's left over and what neuroscientists have decided to do is call that the default activity the main brain areas that are more active then then during this time of default activity is the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex and the medial parietal cortex specifically also known as the precuneus you might recognize these as areas that are more active when we're thinking about people so what some neuroscientists have argued like iacoboni at all in 2004 was that maybe what's going on in default activities that were just thinking about our social relations that is when we're just sitting there with nothing else to do when our eyes are closed we're daydreaming about people or daydreaming about our social relations so iacoboni at all hypothesize that the areas that would become more involved when watching social interactions would also be the same ones that you would see in a default Network so they wanted to just basically simulate daydreaming by showing participants social interactions and if they're just watching these social interactions it'd be similar to daydreaming about their own social interactions and they would see these areas of the default Network being more activated so what they did in 2004 and this fMRI scanning scanner is they had 13 participants which I'll have to say is a pretty small sample size but these 13 participants viewed 36 filmed clips video clips of a person alone and in these clips were about 12 seconds long and this would be followed then by 8 seconds of another video that showed interactions between two or more people these 8 seconds of 2 people interacting could be communal sharing which is that the two people are interacting in such a ways that they're doing something together for example it might show a couple looking together at their family photos or it might be what they called authority ranking where there's two people interacting but one person has higher authority than the other so it might be a librarian telling a student to keep it quiet but either way in those final 8 seconds are always watching people interacting with each other here's what they found in that study remember those areas that seem to be more active is just part of a default Network when your eyes are closed should be dorsal medial prefrontal cortex and the pre cuneus you can see here that when you look at segments 1 2 & 3 that's during the time when the participants are just watching those first 12 seconds of a target person alone and then you can see segments 4 & 5 those are the data points that happen when the participant is watching them interacting with somebody else so they see two people interacting that's when you see the biggest increase in pre cuneus is when you go to segments 4 & 5 there's some increase in the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex but it's not you can see not as it's not in segment 5 as high as it was but what iacoboni at all found was that when you look at these two interaction sites and clips in segments 4 & 5 you're definitely getting more DM PLM PFC and you're getting more pre cuneus then then you did for instance when the person is just by themselves so they wanted to argue then that that sustaining effective social relations may entail unreflective daydreaming and conscious meditation on the potential implications of past social events imagining solutions to social relationship problems and explicitly or implicitly planning for future invention eventualities so they're basically saying that what you're doing when you close your eyes is you start to daydream about your social relations and how to work them out some problems that might be on your mind and maybe just reflecting a little bit about your relationship with that person and that kind of raises an interesting question what else would we be daydreaming about that is if you think about the content of your daydreams when you just lose attention and start you know daydreaming about something else that's not there in the room that you're supposed to be paying attention to it's hard to imagine that you're daydreaming about anything that isn't social that is we tend to daydream about people we don't tend to daydream about pencils rolling across the table or a tree just moving in the breeze we usually are daydreaming about people or our relationships with people and that raises then another interesting question our only humans doing this are only humans daydream about other people that is to other animals show some sort of default brain network activity when they're not being asked to do a task and is that activity similar to what we're doing with humans and if they are does that mean that there are daydreaming about other beings in their life while reeling it all in 2007 looked at this and these next two studies in fact looked at non-human primates we can see that in the reeling at all study they're comparing chimps and humans at rest with a PET scanner now remember that pet works by giving the participant an ejection of a radioactive isotope and then asking the person to perform the task and after they performed the test then they're put into the scanner so in this study the task was just to sit there with their eyes closed on the Left we can see the brain areas that were more active during this task for the humans most of these areas probably look really small in this in this particular slide but basically these are the areas that we typically find active in the default Network then we also have chimpanzees in the study what are they going to ask that Japan seems to do well they just had the chimpanzee chimpanzee sit there and rest quietly didn't necessarily have their eyes closed and then after some time had passed they anesthetized the chimp and while the chimp was out cold then they could inject the radioactive isotope and the the interestingly chimps also did this what the researchers did is they had the chimps rest quietly and after some time had passed they wouldnt emphasize the chimp so that the chimp was now out cold and they could put it into the pet scanner in this case it didn't really matter because they were out that they were out cold because by then the radioactive isotope that had been given them to before the experiment had been gun had begun had already been taken up by the glucose into the brain and this will allow them to see what areas were more activated while the chimpanzee was just at rest so on the right here are the areas that were activated while the chimp was at rest what we can see here are homologues those are those are chip brains on the right they look similar to human brains and the areas that are similar between them are basically things that look like medial prefrontal cortex and medial parietal activity so again dorsal medial prefrontal cortex and the pre cuneus areas are activated for both humans and chimpanzees although the chimps had more ventral medial prefrontal cortex activity whereas the humans had more dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex it's also important to remember that the chimps don't have a language area and so that left language activity isn't there in the chimps that you do see in the humans so for humans if they're thinking about their relationships with people they're probably often thinking about conversations and so therefore you would expect to see more left language activity which you do in humans in the default Network when they're just resting don't see that in the chimpanzees but still it suggests that maybe chimpanzees when they're at rest in their default network that they are perhaps thinking about their relationships with the other chimps in their colony another study published in 2009 looked at the default Network in monkeys these aren't chimpanzees they're monkeys and we can see their default mode brain activity and a PET scanner as well it's pretty hard to do these kinds of studies in an fMRI because you would have to keep your primate very very still during the fMRI scans but in a PET scan again it works because you can go ahead and have the animal perform the task after it's received the injection and then after it's done that you can go ahead and put it to sleep so that you can put it into the scanner here you can see that we have three different monkeys monkey a monkey be a monkey see and they're all showing the activity at rest so this is their default activity compared to when they're actually given some other tasks to do for example when they were given a spatial task and this is just the difference then between what happens when they're doing a spatial task and what you see when their eyes are closed at rest and what we do is we what we see here are lots of areas that are active now I don't know my monkey brains very well but I can go ahead and tell you how Watanabe here in 2017 who wrote a chapter about all this research said he says besides em PFC ACC PCC bruh cuneus there are core areas of the default system the LPF COC that were more active when the monkey was performing a like a short short-term memory task a working memory task in both chimpanzee pet and monkey fMRI studies rest related activity increases were also reported in the LPS see some human neuroimaging studies also indicated an increase of LPS LPS activity in relation to certain mental operations such as mind wandering thus the LP FC appears to Co work with the default system in relation to certain mental operations both in humans and nonhumans what we have here strongly suggests then that other non-human primates have a default system that works very similarly to the human default system and that that default system might be primarily involved with processing information about their conspecifics their daydreaming about others here's a study that was published in 2014 by senpai oh and his colleagues and what they wanted to look at was what happened in terms of activity in the default Network and how that was related to personality so all the people here are at rest and what they wanted to see is if the default activity that they observed while they're at rest was related to the participants scores on the big five personality test you might know that from other courses that the big five is a way of thinking about personality in five major dimensions so here's a figure that shows you how these different factors of the big five were correlated with default brain activity agreeableness is in red conscientiousness is blue openness is in yellow extraversion in green and neuroticism in pink the two things to focus on here are agreeableness in red and extraversion in green and you can see that these are both areas that are positively correlated with activity in the mid line of the default mode network whereas conscientiousness and openness which are not considered to be very social aspects of personality I mean conching at conscientiousness is when you're just trying to do your best to do everything well and you want to be responsible whereas openness refers to being open to new experiences yet you're willing to try out things so those two dimensions conscientiousness and openness don't really have much to do with social stuff and therefore they are actually were not found to be involved very much in the default mode Network they were correlated more with activity in the parietal cortex in areas that would have more to do with non self processing so this study just provides some converging evidence for the idea that the default mode network reflects social activity or social thinking son ends the first part of this lecture and when I want to do next now is talk about cooperation and fairness I talked about this at the last lecture about how humans are highly cooperative even among our non relatives and that there are two different sorts of cooperation we can talk about one is called direct reciprocity this is where a person dispenses favors and the favours are returned by the recipient in times of future need so I do something for you and you did something back for me in indirect reciprocity the individual dispenses favors but the favors are returned via a third party for example I could help out your child and so is therefore in the future you helped me out so it's not that the child is helping mean back it's that you helped me because I helped your child that's indirect reciprocity thus we have two different ways we could characterize cooperation regardless of these two different ways for reciprocity to work this means then that individuals have to interact with these potential partners and in an ideal world you would do this repeatedly over a longer period of time because if I'm gonna do something for you now I need to think about whether or not you're going to do something for me again in the future that is do you have a good reputation can I trust you if I found for instance in my last couple of interactions with you that you didn't actually reciprocate in the end or maybe that you're just a complete stranger and we have no history of rest press of reciprocity I'm going to be less likely to help you now that means that you must also be able to recognize your conspecifics you have to be able to recognize these people or these chimps if you happen to be a chimp and you need to recognize whether or not this person or this chimp belongs to my group and if it's someone that I know I need to keep track of their past and I need to be able to discriminate against people or chimps who didn't reciprocate in the past I must also inhibit any temptation I have to accept but not reciprocate because it would be harmful in the long run that is you yourself should be able to recognize that if you can't just take take take all the time that you're gonna need to give back so if you just keep taking people's favors and never reciprocate in the long term you're gonna is can be harmful to your relationship with that individual all right so all this is coming down to say is that history interactions over time with our potential cooperative partners gives us a reputation about trust you know that we can use for trust whether or not I can go ahead and count on you to reciprocate in the future all right so how can we study all this in with humans in the laboratory well Jim willing whom we actually saw in the video about Alan Alda you might remember that there was a postdoc who was in the video when Alan Alda was in the fMRI scanner and he was one of the researchers there standing there testing Alan Alda well his name is Jim Ruling he's at Emory University in Atlanta Georgia and he has for a long time been using what's called the prisoner's dilemma game to study cooperation in humans the way the prisoner dilemma works is that you can see here that if your player a what you have to decide on the first round is whether or not you're going to cooperate or defect and then your partner will have to subsequently choose then that they're going to cooperate or defect but you don't know what the other person is doing so player a doesn't know what player B is going to do and player B is making a decision without knowing what player a did now if you choose that you want to cooperate and your partner cooperates you can see that you'll both end up getting $2 if however you decide I'm going to defect that's my choice and the other person cooperates you end up getting $3 if you cooperate but your partner defects you get nothing as player a but your partner will get $3 and if you both defect you both say sorry I'm not going to cooperate here I'm going to defect you'll both get $1 all right so you can see there are different outcomes here depending on what the combination is between player a and player B sometimes when they do these studies they actually just do it as a one-shot thing where you only do this one to see what happens but you can also do this over multiple iterations multiple trials so in a 2002 paper they reported two studies involving at least 20 rounds and that meant that player a would work with player B over 20 rounds and they would do this with a suppose that other human or they would do it with a computer so in this mm and paper 2002 paper which was when the first times I think reeling at all reported a prisoner Schlemmer study they wanted their participants to play the prisoner's dilemma while they were in a scanner so as I said in this paper there were two studies each involving at least twenty rounds and they were doing this either with a human or computer and what you see in this particular figure are just the different outcomes that could be observed the main thing I want you to notice is that when it's a human which is basically panels a B D and E the four on the left you can see that people who cooperate will tend to keep cooperating as long as the other person cooperates so CC means that I cooperated and my partner cooperated so that we both got two dollars and then on the next round I cooperate again and my partner cooperates and so on and continues that way and you can see that there's other versions of this in terms of how much the proportions change over the twenty rounds whether or not you get a double defection at the beginning and so on so there's just these different combinations and you can see across the different situations with the computer interestingly they get pretty much the same sorts of patterns that is people aren't a whole lot different acting with the computer and maybe it takes them a little bit longer to kind of establish a rhythm with a computer but eventually everything works out I think what really goes on though in this study is that they're always interacting with the computer there's not really a partner there at all so it's it's interesting that Cee Cee and F are just basically telling them the truth you're playing with a computer whereas a B D and E are situations where you believe you're cooperating with with a human partner so in some ways this is very similar to the way Ellen aldo viewed that he was doing his particular study although that was a different kind of game all right what reeling at all wanted to do was look at what happens on each trial when the real participant here in the scanner is deciding whether or not to cooperate okay so they're going to decide when they want to pick cooperation or defection and what ruling it all want to know is what brain areas seem to be active when making this decision so these are the four main areas that they focused on and one finding you can see here is the ventral striatum was associated with reward participants would often report that when they cooperated and their partner cooperated that this was really quite satisfying and so if they just happen to have a cc in the last trial that is they cooperated and the partner cooperated you saw a lot of ventral striatum activity it's reinforcing to have double cooperation and you'll remember that ventral striatum is a basic kind of bein brain responses associated with all sorts of rewards so that just kind of shows us that cooperation is a rewarding outcome the other area of the brain that was kind of key here involved and involved in deciding whether to cooperate or not was the rostral ACC and what reeling and all speculative is that perhaps this was involved because there's a lot of emotional conflict happening that is that an each try you're trying to side do I do it this time go ahead and de facto do I cooperate and so the more you're kind of having this sort of conflict and making this decision you're more likely to get rostral ACC but the other part about this is that we want to kind of focus then on how you start to develop an impression about your partner thinking about whether or not they're actually a cheater so this next study was published six years later by reeling at his colleagues the again used the prisoner's dilemma game but this time they focused on what happens when there was a partner who didn't reciprocate so in this study the researchers are sorry yeah so in this study that there's a person who doesn't cooperate is going to be somebody who's a cheater and they wanted to identify the parts of the brain that might be involved in detecting cheaters they hypothesized for anatomically defined regions of interest here one was the hippocampus because they thought that people when they're trying to figure out when that someone's trustworthy they're gonna need to recall what a trustworthy face looks like and their partner's reputation is gonna be compared to a recall of trustworthy faces so the hippocampus might be involved and just recalling the past history and what they also know about other trustworthy people the amygdala would be involved in identifying trust because we already knew from other research that the amygdala seems to become more active when you see a face it doesn't look at trustworthy the ventral striatum because of the previous study which involved finding that when you have a double cooperation it's rewarding and so perhaps you start to associate more ventral striatum with a partner who's been cooperating with you and finally the anterior insula they thought this would be involved because it appears to be activated when there are negative consequences in social and interactions so for example if instead of getting a reward I got a defection on the last trial I might see more anterior insula and this would feed into my decision about what I think about my partner who is this cheater in the first paper in that sorry in the first study in that paper the participants first met to same-sex Confederates and they were told that they would be playing to 20 round games with each of them again this was all just done by a computer and actually the partners choices are administered by a computer that played what they called a forgiving tit-for-tat strategy what this means is they programmed it so that the partner would always defect in round one but then would always reciprocate the partners cooperation from the previous round so if a partner cooperated in the next round then the computer was going to cooperate but if it recipt but if the person on the next round actually defected then it's going to reciprocate defection but about 67 percent of the time if the partner decided to defect the computer would also defect so that is it's trying to cooperate most of the time but about two-thirds of the time if the partner if the real person decided to go ahead and defect they were also the computer was also going to defect so it's just so a way to kind of make this look believable and it also allows you then to play around with a computer algorithm where you're basically getting a cheater who doesn't always cooperate with you so in this experiment you can see some of the behavioral responses so whether or not they choose CC that they are going to do double cooperation or double defection and you can see what happens across the 20 trials there right at the beginning you remember that the very first round that the computer defected so you don't get a CC but after that you can see that the partner I sorry the real participant goes ahead and cooperates again on most for most of the participants and then as you continue on here you get more and more cooperation we see down the lower left our ratings of emotion based on these different patterns that they would observe across the different participants so if you got a lot of CC double cooperations between the dissipate and it's computer partner they reported feeling more happy having more camaraderie and more trust if instead they tended to have trials where they were cooperating but their partner who was the computer defected they reported feeling more anger irritation or disappointment now when they had trials where the participant defected but the partner cooperated they felt happy because remember that's when you get three dollars but they also felt some guilt and they also reported higher levels of relief and finally when there was a double defection going on that is but basically this is like the case where you start to go almost every single trial to fact effect effect and then your partner reciprocates by defecting as well you got low levels of all of the emotions so there wasn't really much of an emotional response when it just went to a doubled effect kind of pattern but what about the brain regions of interest well reeling it all found that unreciprocated cooperation was associated with more bilateral anterior insula left hippocampus and left amygdala what that means is that you know I've cooperated but my partner has defected so it wasn't reciprocated so even though the last time I cooperated and my partner has decided to screw me over this is the areas that I would get more of this unreciprocated cooperation more bilateral anterior insula left hippocampus and left amygdala but if I cooperated last time and now my partner cooperated this is reciprocated cooperation and it was associated with more activity in the ventral striatum so that was rewarding and you we already saw that in the previous experiment but what about cheating that is how what seems to be involved in when you have a partner you start to realize as a cheater that you're detecting them as a cheater and what ruling at all concluded from their analyses across these trials is that they think it's probably the amygdala the anterior insula the left ofc and the hippocampus that together those regions all help the human start to detect whether or not they're working with a cheater so as I continue to work with this person over in multiple trials I'm going to start to develop a sense of that person's reputation and it's going to involve the amygdala anterior insula left of FC in the hippocampus alright don't talk a little bit more about this cooperation research now from a different focus so this is also from Jim Rawlings lab and it was published in 2015 and again reeling and his colleagues are using the prisoner dilemma to study cooperation I think this is an interesting paper though because what they wanted to look at here was one that particular neuropeptides that is oxytocin and vasopressin affected how much people would cooperate and whether these neuro peptides would modulator be moderated by the sex of the human this is a very large imaging study that had 153 men and 151 women you don't often see studies with that large of a sample size in fact I think it involves collecting or putting together data from different studies and so they had taken some other things have been published before and analyzed a different aspect of their data here and put it all together in a very large study so this this is a quite a significant study having a big sample size and they gave their participants here intranasal oxytocin or intranasal vasopressin now the study had 30 rounds where the participant is player 1 and the partner is player 2 you can see again that the participants are given a choice to cooperate or defect when they make their choice their choice is displayed and then a few seconds passes and then player 2 gets to choose and then that outcome is displayed so in the end the participants participant learns whether or not their partner reciprocate okay so that's how it's going to work through this there were three between-subjects experimental conditions so about a third of the participants in the study were given intranasal oxytocin that is they received a little spray of their nose and what we know from other research research suggests that having some oxytocin sprayed into your nasal passages can promote more pro-social behavior more positive behavior we'll be talking more about the effects of oxytocin and vasopressin in a couple weeks but for now just keep in mind that oxytocin has generally been shown to support more pro-social behavior vasopressin is a neuropeptide that has been found to enhance the recognition of social information and so this means like you're going to have greater memory for social stimuli perhaps when you have international vasopressin so about a third of the participants got that and then we have a third condition that was just a placebo and the placebo pretty much had the same sorts of contents as the oxytocin or the intranasal vasopressin it just didn't have the active ingredient of OT or AVP alright so again you have a third getting the placebo a third getting the oxytocin the third getting the vasopressin here are some imaging results from that study and this particular set of figures only contrast the difference between the placebo condition and the oxy khoka oxytocin condition the vasopressin condition didn't turn out to be significant unless they used a more sort of liberal criteria for their p-values so I'm going to just consider those results for a reason press and not to be significant with oxytocin however you can see that an active area that showed an interaction between gender of the participant and whether or not the participant got a placebo or the oxytocin was in the caudate orbit even both in the left and on the right so it's bilateral if you look on a graph in the lower left you can see that men when they're given the oxytocin are showing an increase in the caudate when they're deciding if they're going to cooperate so the oxytocin seems to be enhancing this effect whereas in women having the oxytocin actually reduces the activity in the right caudate or Petain Minh compared to the placebo so they are having less activity how realing and his colleagues interpreted this was given the role of caudate nucleus and registering social prediction errors that guide decisions about reciprocity in these kinds of games the current findings indicates that ot oxytocin enhances the reward from reciprocated cooperation and/or facilitates learning that another person can be trusted to reciprocate cooperation among males whereas having oxytocin given to female's seems to have the opposite effects so that's an interesting sort of non-intuitive finding like why would oxytocin have these completely opposite effects on men and women and they think it's largely doing this for the men by enhancing that sort of reward that they get when they have just had a double cooperation so it's all interesting and like I said this is a highly powered study in the sense that they got lots and lots of participants in each condition the part where this starts to fall down a little bit to me is when you look at the behavioral findings I found these figures not very convincing in support of the author's conclusions what you'll see is that we have all three conditions here the placebo the oxytocin and the AVP the vasopressin conditions right and we have her both human and computer and so the top one just tells you the number of trials in which they had reciprocated cooperations or yeah when they had reciprocated corporations of CC outcomes and you can see here that both men and women have a certain number of these outcomes right so there's no difference between men and women in terms of the number of outcomes and there's no difference between each of these three different kinds of nasal sprays so the nasal spray has no effect on the number of times that a participant does a double cooperation there's only one condition that showed any kind of nasal spray effect on behavior and that's the one that you see that's got an asterisk down on the lower left when they're when you're interacting with the human and that was for vasopressin which reduced woman's probability of cooperating after they had had a double cooperation so if they had given a woman some days of pressin after a double cooperation they were less likely to cooperate but you might remember that the previous slide showed no effects of a depressant on brain activity more importantly the other thing is that even though there were effects on oxytocin on the brain that differed for men and for women there were no effects here of oxytocin on behavior and men and women behaved the same way i think this tells us then that they haven't really figured out what the mechanism is that's affecting this behavioral outcome either that or perhaps the prisoner's dilemma isn't a very sensitive way of studying cooperation because if it's affecting the brain the way they think it is it's not really affecting the behavior the way we see here this tells me that perhaps this behavioral test itself isn't the best way to measure cooperation so I'm just going to leave that here for now and just leave you with that sort of unsatisfying conclusion about this work by reeling at all it makes me wonder what all of this research shows if we're not really seeing a direct link between brain activity and behavior before I finished talking about cooperation I'm going to tell you about one more interesting study this was actually published in that prestigious journal science back in 2008 it had 55 individuals in the study who had borderline personality disorder borderline personality disorders described in the DSM and this would include somebody who has who reports feelings of emptiness and boredom shows impulsive or unpredictable behavior has a poor sense of identity instability of mood a tendency to self mutilate has unstable and intense relationships and exhibits poor control over anger and aggression and finally has an intolerance of being alone somebody who has borderline personality disorder is a very difficult person to have in your life either as a loved one or a friend because of so that they have a lot of unpredictability about them they tend to have a lot of unstable and intense relationships while the researchers here actually found 55 people who met this diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder and they also recruited what they called healthy control participants by healthy here I mean people who didn't have borderline personality disorder the researchers hypothesis was the people with borderline personality disorder would not be able to maintain a norm of cooperation if they were put into a paradigm in which they could cooperate these participants with borderline personality disorder were not going to do a very good job of cooperating so that was the main hypothesis in terms of behavior but they also wanted to look at brain regions so I'll go ahead and show you a little bit more about this so in this study what happens is that you have an investor a participant who's given twenty dollars in the round and they can decide any amount of money up to twenty dollars to give to a trustee another participant if the investor gives the trustee the entire twenty dollars you can see here in this figure that it says that they'll get three times the investment back so the bank will triple the money that's put forward and the trustee then gets to decide how much of that tripling of the money is given back to the original investor so the investor could give twenty dollars it'll be tripled to sixty dollars and the trustee could just split the money 50/50 and give thirty back to the investor and keep $30 for themselves right if instead let's say the investor puts sixty sorry puts in twenty dollars and that means you get sixty dollars tripled and the healthy investor kept most of it kept fifty-five dollars and only gave five dollars back to the healthy investor you can imagine then that the investor isn't going to want to continue this very long they're not going to continue to keep them giving money if the trustee keeps pocketing the difference right and what you see over on the left is the typical kind of setup so when you're not dealing with people with borderline disorder both investors are from the healthy control group the healthy si both the investor and the trustee are from the healthy control group you can see that investors tend to give a lot of their money to be invested that is and there's not much of a difference as they play multiple rounds like ten rounds of this the first five rounds you can see they're giving about half the money up to be invested and you can see in the later rounds they're still pretty high right so there's not much of a difference and so that kind of tells us that something works out pretty well between the investor and the trustee on the right you can see what they did is they kept the healthy control group as investors only and in this condition you can see that the trustee though is somebody with borderline personality disorder and so that means they're gonna just play this out for ten rounds they're gonna let the investor doesn't know that the trustee has borderline personality disorder they just go ahead and put some money out and it gets tripled and then the trustee gets to decide what to do with it you can see though what happens in the first five trials they're kind of showing about the same amount of investment as happen in the case where you had a healthy investor in a healthy trustee but in the last five rounds they're those investors are investing a lot less money given the fact that they have a borderline personality disorder trustee so something's happening here they're not really trusting their trustee very much here to give money back to them and so they start investing less and less money so that's the behavioral information now let's look to see what happened while the brain was being scanned what you can see here is focus on the anterior insula okay what you can see over on the left is the 38 participants who had a healthy trustee all right I sorry they were healthy trustees and they didn't have borderline disorder and you can see how their anterior insula reacted when different amounts of money were given to them for investment notice that if someone gave them only zero dollars that would mean that this person didn't trust them very much right so if the investor only gives you zero dollars this can be triple to zero dollars and that kind of tells you then that that person doesn't trust me if they're only giving me zero dollars but maybe it was four dollars you can see then the anterior insula reacts differently compared to when it's sixteen dollars and twenty dollars so what we're seeing is basically the anterior insula goes up the less they seem to be trusted by their investor right so if their investor gives them the whole twenty dollars or $16.98 basically know that my investor trusts me and I don't have to have any anterior insula lighting up to kind of tell me that there's something wrong here but if they give me only zero or four dollars that just shows me they don't trust me very much and I get a lot more activation there look over on the right though the people who had borderline personality disorder when they were trustees they're all over the place it doesn't show a consistent relationship between the amount of money it's being invested in whether or not their anterior insula goes up that is they don't seem to respond any differently if their investor gets them zero dollars than they do if they give them twelve dollars sixteen dollars or twenty dollars those are all relatively the same amounts of activation so it's as if they not really detecting the fact that that the investor trusts number doesn't trust them they just respond regardless of how much trust they're getting so when they're offered a low investment a sign of distrust from the investor healthy trustees show more in selectivity but borderline personality disorder trustees showed no such activity this suggests that what the authors concluded is that you have to have your anterior insula healthy and detecting when someone is trying to cheat you or not or it doesn't trust you and if someone's not trusting you then you should reciprocate right you should not give them very much money back and things would work out correctly there you have some sort of feedback mechanism but if you're not really detecting when someone doesn't trust you or they're trying to cheat you out of their money that they can invest in you and you don't respond accordingly it's going to just mess up the relationship until you see that we didn't get the same amount of investments going on with those borderline trustees and that again what king Casa said all want to conclude is that has to do with the fact that their interior insula didn't seem to give them the right feedback now we don't know if it's just that the anterior insula is you know somehow damaged or if it's just because other inputs didn't go into the anterior insula but this is a sign that somehow the borderline personality disorder is not responding to these offers differently okay that was the second topic and I want to move on to our third topic which is on exclusion and rejection I know that this is actually a topic that a lot of people taking this class would have been exposed to before maybe in their first or second year I want to go ahead though and talk a little bit more about it today because some of that research has some social neuroscience connected to it the question is here what happened so when were rejected or ostracized so the focus here is on this and the research on ostracism was really kicked off down in Sydney but at the University of New South Wales and then later at Macquarie by the guy who's in this picture at Kip Williams he has since left Sydney and has moved to the u.s.

[00:45:00]and I think he's still working at Purdue University I'm going to start out here by showing you a video clip about Kip Williams research [Music] psychological research confirms that from birth human beings have an intense need to belong to connect with others in enduring close relationships clearly children's attachment to their caregivers promotes their survival and well-being when adults are asked what is necessary for their happiness the most common answer is satisfying close relationships with family friends and romantic partners people spend much time thinking about actual and hoped for relationships when people are ignored excluded or rejected negative emotions can be overwhelming dr. Kipling Williams and his colleagues at the University of New South Wales have been studying the phenomenon of ostracism it affects both those who use and receive this interpersonal strategy ostracism is the act of excluding and ignoring an individual or group by an individual or a group and it has a lot of names sometimes it's called shunning exile banishment those would be cases where you're physically removed from other people but sometimes you're in the presence of other people in which case you might call it the silent treatment getting the cold shoulder in England and in Australia they call it being sent to Coventry the Amish community call it my doom where they ostracize somebody from there from within their group when they violated some norm ostracism threatens for fundamental human needs the need to belong human beings need to feel connected to others obviously ostracism undermines this feeling of belonging sense of control people need to feel in control of their lives even in conflict people can exercise some control as long as they can argue their point of view when ostracized they lose that sense of control self esteem human beings need to value and respect them ostracism produces a feeling that an individual has done something wrong or that there is something about a person that is different or bad sense of meaningful existence people need to feel that their existence has purpose ostracism takes away that sense of purpose and gives a person a look at what life would be like if they didn't exist ostracism is a metaphor for death this is what life would be like if you didn't exist and so you feel yourself as though you're invisible and not there and totally meaningless I was at a park one day with my dog and I was just minding my own business and suddenly a frisbee knocked against my back and I looked up and I saw two guys that were playing with the frisbee and I tossed it back to them and to my surprise they tossed it back to me and I felt kind of good for a moment and thought well this is fun and I got up and and went and joined them and we were tossing the frisbee amongst ourselves for about three or four tosses and then suddenly they'd stop tossing it to me and I'm standing there and they're tossing it to each other and each other and they're having fun and I'm feeling particularly awkward and strange then not knowing what to do and I felt bad and and finally I sort of backtrack to my dog and licked my wounds but I thought to myself gee that's in a really powerful and effective way to produce this feeling of ostracism that I could possibly do in the laboratory in Williams experiment one subject and two Confederates are instructed to wait quietly in a small room for the experimenter to return it was a from the Reid experiment or teaching that people learn or something like that but it was so bizarre because the people weren't actually shocking anybody like the people they were like behind some kind of blast singer and they were just acting like there's a shot but they were shocked but the people one of the Confederates discovers a ball and begins tossing it well I was hey it was bizarre it was like and they would keep on increasing the strength of the shock and um it was like the increase of taking the shock and I thought they were hurting this person eventually the Confederates stopped throwing to the subject in this reenactment the subject clearly shows signs of stress as the ball tossing goes on without her I don't know I thought it was really weird is bizarre I can't it can you imagine shocking someone yeah [Laughter] I thought fine so I guess we're supposed to talk questions so this first ones about divorce and why we think the divorce rate survived in a similar experiment to Confederates on one subject seemingly comprised a discussion group the reaction of the subject is easily observable as she discovers she's being left out of the conversation it's kind of different maybe it's harder in it to meet people now that yes she but playing basketball oh yeah I'm over I don't live there but other than Corbett no I got no friends and Parmelee and stuff so sometimes I go hang out there courts over there too I look apartment oh yeah food's terrible really got a carpet yeah it's really bad he's gotten Echolls it burns cigarette burns and the thorns out oh no they're not they're not all that great I can't wait to move off campus next year that'll be nice have your own place no one that kind of tell you what to do and you know yeah I gotta find some people in a place where I can feel it you know my roommate early is kind of a little bit weird I get bright you felt you know you felt that little thing that this is your interests and things you like and stuff like that and you figure they find someone who would kind of be normal uh-huh based on you know what you do it but this first is really where he's just I don't even understand them yeah my my roommate he's there he's just just get the music blaring and I put on my car tie one choir in a third experiment Williams and his colleagues extended the ball tossing paradigm to cyberspace in this environment the subject tosses a virtual ball to two other people located elsewhere on the Internet when an individual stops receiving the ball he or she begins to feel excluded and isolated exactly as one would in a face to face situation cardiovascular measurements taken during the cyber ostracism experiment show that the subject experiences physiological arousal and stress response these short-term effects are similar to those of people who've been ostracized over a long period of time you sir and wounded 23 others so if people who've been ostracized over a long period of time and have major implications for both psychological and physical health there's several ways to respond in the middle stage to try to regain a sense of belonging and control and self-esteem and some of them may be more functional than others sometimes you try to re-establish your sense of belonging by maybe conforming to the group a little bit more or being more pleasant to be around so that you're not going to be ostracized but other times people respond to ostracism with frustration because they're not getting any response and so they try to provoke a response and they might say something or get in somebody's face or if they still don't get a response they might say very nasty things or maybe even shove them and we have one case where the wife eventually because she wasn't getting a response from a husband picked up a marble ashtray and threw it at her husband's head there are many times in our interviews with people who have had exposures to long term ostracism where they initially reacted with aggression and violence and so one way to reestablish a sense of control is to is to provoke and become violent so that you do control something all right so you saw a little bit then of Kip Williams research and then I want to go and tell you about this study that he did involving fMRI that he conducted with Eisenberger and Lieberman and was published in the journal Science in 2003 in this study they used fMRI scans again but while they were doing the fMRI they were acquiring it while the participants played cyber ball with two other players so it's very similar what you saw online is thing I think was exactly the same program and they did three scans though when they played cyber ball in one scan they had the participant just watched two other players playing cyber ball then in a second condition they had them play with the other two players and then in the third scan participants were excluded after receiving seven throws so this is very close to what happens in a cyber ball study that we've been done outside of a scanner what they found were two regions that were more active during the scan of exclusion so like that third type where they saw the mark what they found were two regions that were more active during the scan of exclusion they saw more activity in the right ventral prefrontal cortex and dorsal ACC those were the two areas that were more active when people felt excluded and it's interesting because these were also areas that have been found in other studies to be associated with physical pain that is when a very hot plate touches your hand and you feel some burning sensation you'll find similar that these areas are active what the authors concluded was that their results suggested that social pain is analogous in its neurocognitive function to physical pain and that it alerts us when we have a stain sustained and injury to our social connections allowing restorative measures to be taken so what they're saying is hey you your brain is processing social opinion like ostracism it needs to be dealt with it's quite severe it's bad for you and as you can see in that video that we just watched that even when it was a woman who is going through a recreation of being ostracized it's quite a painful thing so that pain according to Eisenberger at all is analogous to physical pain this social pain is the same thing as physical pain and the same brain regions are acting are becoming more active for both of those types of pain now some other researchers looked at that study after it was published and thought there might be a possible confound in the Eisenberger at all experiment Somerville and her colleagues published a paper in Nature Neuroscience in 2006 that argued that in their reading of the literature the dorsal ACC which was so important in Eisenberger all study often signals the occurrence of cognitive conflicts during a variety of tasks that encourage response competition whereas in their reading of the literature the ventral ACC is more typically associated when you have something as social or emotional going on what they point out was that Eisenberger at all had found that Doris Lacey C was active in the study but that would be usually involved with a cognitive conflict like maybe when something doesn't go expected whereas the eventual ACCE should have been what was more registering social pain so why didn't i Sandberg err at all get those ventral ACC differences well what Somerville at all argued was that in that original study participants were probably expecting to participate by getting the ball passed to them but suddenly that didn't happen which violated an expectancy that they had and they would also have experienced some emotional pain of being left out so there are two things that are happening they're not just only the feeling of being excluded but also the fact that an expectancy that you had about the events around you didn't go as you were expecting that violated your expectation and that would have also constituted or comprised some sort of activity than in the ACC so what they ended up doing in this next study in the summer villa well study was try to tease apart these two possible events that would cause activity in the ACC and they thought furthermore they should find some dissociation here between dorsal ACC versus ventral ACC so in this Somerville adult study they didn't actually use the cyber ball paradigm instead they had their participants make judgments of other people in the scanner so while they were in the scanner they were shown photographs of supposedly other participants actually the way they did this is that early in the semester all the participants who were going to be in a scanner had their photo taken and at that time they were told that other participants are getting their photos taken and that now in the scanner they're gonna see those photos that were taken and the participants task here is going to be to make a judgement about that person in the photo so a Q is presented and the participant is supposed to look at that photo and say what I like this person okay so that's what happened in experiment one you'd look at the photograph of this other person supposedly who's been in the experiment and answer the question would I like this person yes or no and you can see the participants response is presented there to the left of the face um in the second picture that's shown on the screen and then there was always his third feedback phase at the end where you would get feedback from the target individual about what they thought of you the participant so the participant remember had their photo taken weeks ago and ostensibly their photo had been shown to this participant while they were in the scanner and this other participant had looked at the photo and said you know I don't think I'd like this person so here you have an incongruent reaction where you can see that I said I thought I'd like this person and he didn't like me yes that's what a participant would say now in experiment 2 it was very similar this is another 22 participant so notice we have 20 participants in experiment one experiment two has 22 participants the task for these participants was very similar except that what they did when they saw the cue is they had to answer the question do I think that person would like me so they're saying do you think this person would like you and then you'd say yes or no and so they look at them they say yeah I think they would like me and then they're given feedback again just like the bottom about one thought they actually like them yes or no so see the feedback in experiment 2 is the same as the feedback in experiment 1 the only thing that's different they had to do preceding the feedback in the first experiment it was indicating how much you but whether or not you think you'd like the person and the second experiment the participants being asked to indicate whether or not they expected that person to like them and then like I said they're given the feedback about the target so their results revealed a double dissociation for an expectancy violation and the feedback positive or negative so here's what they found they focused on dorsal ACC and ventral ACC across the two experiments you can see that is in panel a in panel B you can see what happened when they looked at the effect of whether the other person's response was congruent with the participants okay so this is across the two experiments they just look at all the cases where the participant is made a response and then is that congruent or not with what the other person did when they got their feedback so for instance maybe the participant likes them and they find out that the other participant liked them a - or the participant predicts that they won't be liked and the other person doesn't like that purchase so that would be congruent as well in congroo it be a mismatch between those things well ventral ACC while it was more active for these connect kind of conditions it wasn't different between congruent and incongruent matches dorsal ACC though however as you can see here there was a significant difference in the activation such that dorsal ACC was more active for incongruent than congruent responses again that'd be like the participant like the other person but the other person didn't like them back now in panel C the analysis focuses on the other person's response only so it's not a it's not interested in this analysis of whether or not you matched or not what that other person did all we are caring about here is what happened when they found out what the other person thought of them well they're not they accepted them or rejected them and we can see here is that dorsal ACC doesn't differ it's the same whether you are getting feedback that the other person likes you or doesn't like you but ventral ACC does show a significant difference where we get more ventral ACC when you're given feedback that they accept you and less when you find out that they person has rejected you so it looks like ventral ACC was specifically involved in social and emotional evaluations about whether not the other person liked the participant whereas the dorsal ACC only seemed to process these expectancy violations when you were making a prediction or what you expected the other person was going to do so what Somerville at all concluded at the end of this study at the end of this paper was that they said that the original Eisenberger study didn't demonstrate social pain as much as they showed that being austere ostracized violated a fundamental expectation of social inclusion so you see again what happened in the Eisenberger at all study that used the cyber ball paradigm she got dorsal ACC value violation our changes between the conditions which the Somerville people want to say is really just about the fact that you were expected to have the ball thrown to you and it's not really about the social pain and so they didn't look at ventral ACC in that study and if they had perhaps they would have seen that was more sensitive to whether or not the person was actually feeling pain so it's an interesting interpretation of the Eisenberger at all study doesn't say that there was anything done incorrectly it's just interpreting the results differently based on what you see in this 2006 paper all right let's move on though to the fourth topic for this lecture which is a focus on test Hosler testosterone is sometimes dubbed male hormone although both genders have it it's just that men have it in higher levels but keep in mind that both men and women have testosterone and they're affected by testosterone it's usually associated with dominance and aggression and there was a lot of research back done in the 90s and even back to the 80s that showed this by it was conducted by Jim dabs and some other people DAV's wrote a book about this 20 years ago arguing that testosterone probably plays a role both in the behaviors of heroes and rogues that is having high testosterone can make you dominant in a way that maybe causes you to do heroic things like saving somebody from a burning burning building but it's also the kind of chemical that could lead to roguish behaviors you know things that are dastardly and cause violence and so on so things that would get you into trouble well let's look at how to saw strowman plays a role in social behavior for both men and women the study I'm going to tell you about first took place in a very interesting context a dog agility competition I want to give you a sense of what this is like I recorded this from a similar competition at the eka in Brisbane in 2018 watch the woman here as she takes her collar around her collie around the course [Applause] don't touch the coin I have to have the each [Music] so you get a sense of what a dog agility competition looks like now what happened in this study was they worked with the competitors in this competition they were handling the dogs and measured their baseline testosterone levels for both the men and the women and even though the competitions focused on the dogs you can realize pretty quickly here that the human as the handler has a lot of stress and they're quite competitive and they've been practicing a long time with these dogs so they go ahead and provide a sample 90 minutes prior to the competition and then they competed leading their dogs through their agility course in front of the judges the spectators and the other competitors and then the results of the competition were publicly posted and that's when the participants provided a second saliva sample approximately two and a half hours after the first this means that the researchers had two saliva samples from the competitors who were about to compete and they knew that some of them were going to win and some that we're going to lose I mean everybody can't be a winner so knowing this they could then look to see how people's testosterone levels change as a function of winning and losing nice thing here about collecting saliva samples is another thing that could assay in the saliva was cortisol so they were able to look at cortisol levels as a way of measuring maybe stress and how that is react is changing as a function of this what you see in this graph is what the pre competition testosterone levels were like for the winners and the losers so we don't know they're winners and losers at the beginning and then we can see what happens in terms of their change so as we go from the beginning of the competition there's no difference between the two they have the same levels of testosterone but what we're actually looking at here is what happens as we look at people who have higher testosterone at the beginning and people have lower testosterone at the beginning and we can watch their change in their cortisol levels as they from winning and losing what you're trying to get here is to see that if you're somebody who if you you're a winner so that's the white line you can see that as you go from low testosterone to people who have higher testosterone there isn't much of a change in cortisol if there is a change it's actually a decrease in cortisol so as they go to winning you can see people with higher testosterone are showing less cortisol at the end of the competition the people when the low testosterone didn't change very much people who won you can't really see a difference for those people who are loo low in testosterone between winners and losers so you have about the same amount of change in cortisol but if they lost you can see that people who had high testosterone had higher changes in cortisol so those people who at the beginning of the competition had high testosterone showed the biggest change in cortisol when they lost they seemed to have much more of it being invested and so it just looks to see it really mattered a lot more to them as affection a function of whether they won or lost now here's how they summarized this they say high testosterone participants who lost the dog competition rose and cortisol whereas high testosterone participants who won dropped low testosterone participants really showed no changes in their cortisol and then in that study in 2008 they had a second laboratory tests that they did with women we were supposedly a test of intelligence they found that people who were high testosterone winners and again these were all women were more willing to go ahead and repeat this test of tasks of intelligence than they were for people who were high testosterone losers so if you had high testosterone and you competed in this task of intelligence you didn't want to repeat it if you lost however for people who had low testosterone it didn't really matter whether they were winners or losers they wanted to repeat about the same there wasn't any difference in the amount of numbers of people wanted to repeat so it shows us that people who were high testosterone what happens to them at the end in terms of whether they win or lose matters a lot more to them than people who are low in testosterone now I'm going to show you a study that Ronay and von Hippel conducted in 2010 that looks at a very different question in terms of what the effects of testosterone are the idea behind the Rhoni and von Hippel study was that for men they argued the site of an attractive woman is similar to getting a blow to the frontal lobes and that attractive women have the power to shift men's time perspective away from the long-term consequences of their choices and focus their attention on the here and now so this had to do with the broader theory they had from evolutionary social psychology about men basically being very short-term when they're around somebody they find sexually attractive they conducted this study at skateboard parks around Brisbane so this is actually a PhD that was done here at UQ and all the skateboarders were people at different parks here in Brisbane and when they would do is they'd go out and look at the tricks that these skateboarders were naturally performing okay so the independent variables were first of all I mean this is really manipulated but something that they can go ahead and compare if they looked at the easy versus difficult tricks of the skateboarders and the second independent variable had to do with whether or not they had a male experiment or at the time that they were performing the trick or an attractive female experimenter this female experimenter was apparently an undergraduate here in psychology who everybody had rated as being highly attractive so you have to just assume that these skateboarders would have found her attractive the dependent variables here where the skateboarders attempts and what happened when they tried doing the trip where are they successful did they crash did they have an aborted attempt where they maybe kind of chickened out the end and didn't actually to perform the the trick another dependent variable was testosterone so they're measuring their testosterone levels and finally they had them perform a simple little cognitive test called the reverse a learning task which was supposed to measure sort of frontal lobe functioning if you perform poorly on the reverse learning task it would show us that your frontal lobes were more impaired to be like having a blow to the frontal lobes and they also measured heart rate so they're hypotheses here where that they would just assume then that whenever the female was there that you'd see more short-term focus which would mean that these guys would probably do more daring tricks they'd be less likely to you know try something that was just simple because they'd wanted to sort of show off in front of this woman so here's what they found in the study you can look at the different kinds of a tricks that they have the first 10 tricks versus the second 10 tricks and what we're going to do is we're not really gonna pay attention whether the tricks are easy or difficult we're just looking at whether or not the tricks themselves were aborted failed or successful so an aborted trick again means they started to do the trick and then they kind of chickened out in the end and you can see the little marks here to indicate whether it's a male or a female experimenter and what we see is that when you look at the first 10 tricks this is when they all have male experimenters okay so the first 10 tricks the dark bars all involved having a male experimenter you can see basically how many aborted tricks they made how many failed tricks they had and how many successive lay tricks they had out of 10 and then you can look at the next 10 tricks and for some of these participants the male experimenter stayed there so they had a male experiment for the second 10 tricks but for other participants the female experimenter suddenly showed up so the male experimenter left and the female experiment would be watching the skateboarder for 10 tricks and so you can see for the gray bars there it's either a male experimenter or a female experiment or depending on what condition they're in if you look around you'll see that for a boater aborted tricks that when there was a male watching these guys doing their skateboard tricks you can see that they were more likely to give up on the trick that is they start the trick and quit it before they actually successfully complete it when there was a female experimenter there as you can see in the upper left corner they're less likely to do that that means they went ahead and went through the trick the next panel over on the right shows you their failed tricks their tricks were they they made a mistake they didn't actually succeed they crashed so you can see here they're more likely to crash and make these sort of failed tricks if they're in that condition where the female experimenter is watching them for those last 10 tricks and then successful tricks you can see that that also sort of had a payoff here in the sense that that there was a difference here between having a male and a female experimenter for the first and second ten tricks such that these guys were more successful and doing their tricks when there was a female experimenter there so it's like they're actually taking a risk more likely to try something more innovative almost in a way that they're trying to show off here for the female experimenter now as I said the other key thing here is that they're measuring testosterone and what they found was that in a mediation analysis that the testosterone levels actually mediated the number of aborted tricks that they had so you can see whether you had a male or a female experimenter affected testosterone so that if you had a female experiment or watching you during those 10 tricks your testosterone levels went up and if your testosterone levels went up you were less likely to have aborted tricks so that is the the entire effect of having a female there instead of a male experimenter on the number of whether or not they went through on a trick was moderated I'm sorry mediated by their testosterone levels so it's an interesting idea to look at just how testosterone levels could have changed as a function of the gender of the experimenter I will point out one thing that they didn't do in this study is they didn't measure testosterone at the beginning of the experiment to see what the change in testosterone level was so we don't know if for instance they the it just happened to be that the men who were didn't less aborted tricks were you know higher or lower in testosterone we're gonna have that that data here we just have what happened after they had a male or female experiment or watching them alright let's look at one last situation and this is at this situation is one where hormones might be related to financial risk-taking so in a review paper that was published in the Philosophical Transactions transactions of the Royal Society in 2010 coats at all talked about this big picture idea they had about how hormones might be related - how much traders who are working in the stock exchange take risks and they talk about a model here the idea is that if you have increased testosterone the testosterone makes you more likely to feel confident and more likely to take risks like those skateboarders were and because you take more risks you're probably more likely to have victory and the victory itself it causes you to have increased testosterone as we saw from watching a little bit of we got a little bit of that from what watching what happened with those people who are in dog agility competitions although they just only looked at the cortisol changes and then that means that they it challenges them and it causes them to increase their testosterone so they wanted to kind of look at this naturally among a bunch of traders in London who are working as stockbrokers making big trades all day long and whether or not they make big risks in this study what they did was they looked at them twice each day at 11 o'clock and I think it's six at four o'clock in the afternoon so 11 o'clock in the morning they would measure their testosterone and then look at it again at four o'clock in the afternoon this just shows you what happened when you look at the data from the testosterone levels is measured at the morning at 11 o'clock at the evening of their trading period and what we can see is that we're not dividing the participants up into low T and high T because they're all the same participants that's just then on different days they'd have higher or lower testosterone so your testosterone levels do fluctuate a bit some people might have naturally on average higher testosterone but what we're looking at here is just is this the low or the high testosterone levels for a particular participant or all those participants so you can see that on days when participants had lower testosterone levels what the y-axis is showing you is how much profit they got from their trading and so you can see that they don't make a whole lot of profit on a day in which their testosterone levels were lower at 11 o'clock in the morning but when they have higher testosterone levels at 11 o'clock in the morning they actually end up at the end of that day making more profit for their company and so they're actually taking more risks and generating more revenue the people on the right in B are just those ten traders they had in this studies just ten people on the right who are their most experienced traders and they've had at least two years of trading experience and there you can see a much bigger difference between the days when their testosterone level is low and their testosterone levels are high this is suggesting the only even on a day-to-day level where your testosterone is could affect your risk-taking and therefore your risk taking in social situations and again it could have a big impact on your social behavior so there's definitely a lot to look at here with testosterone and we'll come back to it again in a future lecture so those are all my topics for today we talked about daydreaming and social interactions we've talked about cooperation and fairness exclusion and rejection and finally these effects of testosterone on behavior and so that's all I have thank you