Do these genes make my heart seem big? Study finds a gene for empathy

In the long-running nature-nurture debate over what makes us who we are, chalk up a new victory for nature.

A study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found a single coding variation in the human genome that appears responsible, at least in part, for individual variations in such personality and behavior traits as empathy and response to stress. 

The gene they looked at -- the OXTR gene -- carries the design and production blueprint for cells scattered throughout the heart, uterus, spinal cord and brain that serve as docking stations for a chemical called oxytocin.

Scientists have long known oxytocin as the chemical of bonding and nurture. Produced in the hypothalamus and pumped into both the brain and the bloodstream, oxytocin responds to warm human interaction and drives us to seek it out when our stores are low. It is thought to cause the letdown of milk in breastfeeding mothers, and to soar for many after lovemaking. At the same time, oxytocin appears to have a pronounced calming effect: people and mice alike seem to chill out when the chemical is puffed up their noses or pumped into their bloodstreams, even under conditions of stress.

These two qualities prompted research psychologists from Oregon State University and University of California Berkeley to ask themselves: If some people's genetic endowment made them richer in oxytocin receptors, might they not, by nature, be more attuned to others and more unflappable when under stress?

In the massively complex human genome, it's a daunting challenge to find a single site where a tiny variation in the code of inheritance might produce observable differences in behavior. Fortunately, the authors of the PNAS study had a few clues to guide them: Researchers had earlier found a site on the OXTR gene where certain variations brought with them a higher incidence of autism -- a disorder marked by impairments in social interaction and communication. Variations in this site also had been shown to predict how sensitively mothers responded to their offspring. Perhaps, they asked, coding variations at this same site would yield more subtle differences in a person's sociability and ability to withstand stress?

To make a long story short, they did. The researchers put 192 college students at UC Berkeley through a pair of experimental tests -- one that measured their ability to infer the emotional state of others from looking at their facial expressions and another that measured their jumpiness when warned that a loud blast of noise was imminent. The students also were asked to rate their own levels of empathy and ability to handle stressful situations.

The one in four subjects who inherited a variation in this allele called G/G were significantly better at accurately reading the emotions of others by observing their faces than were the remaining three-quarters of subjects, who had inherited either a pair of A's or an A and a G from their parents at this site. Compared to the three-fourths with A/A or A/G variations, the G/G individuals were also less likely to startle when blasted by a loud noise, or to become stressed at the prospect of such a noise. And by their own reports, the G/G subjects were mellower and more attuned to other people than were the A/As or A/Gs.

The group's findings would appear to strike a decisive blow for nature over nurture in shaping who we are and how we behave. In fact, subjects were asked to rate how nurturing their own parents were, and researchers found that a subject's genetic inheritance seemed a better predictor of his empathic disposition than did his mother and father's parenting styles.

But UC graduate student Laura R. Saslow, a co-author of the paper, cautioned that genetic inheritance -- nature -- is never the sole determinant of our personalities. While researchers will get closer to filling in the inborn components of our personalities, the environments in which we've been raised will always interact with our genetic inheritance and shape how it expresses itself, Saslow says.

"Really, both matter," says Saslow.

-- Melissa Healy

  

Spanking lowers a child's IQ, researcher says

Being spanked as a child is linked to having a lower IQ, according to a study presented today at the International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma in San Diego.

The relationship between spanking and intelligence is found in children around the world, said the lead author of the study, University of New Hampshire professor Murray Straus. Children in the United States who were spanked had lower IQs -- by 2.8 to 5 points -- than those who were not spanked, Straus found.

Straus studied 806 children ages 2 to 4 and 704 ages 5 to 9. Both groups were retested four years later. How often parents spanked influenced IQ score. "The more spanking, the slower the development of the child's mental ability," Straus said in a news release. "But even small amounts of spanking made a difference."

Straus and his colleagues looked at corporal punishment practices in 32 countries by surveying 17,404 university students. The analysis found a lower average IQ in nations in which spanking was more prevalent. The strongest link between corporal punishment and IQ was for those whose parents continued to use corporal punishment even when they were teenagers.

"It is ... time for the United States to begin making the advantages of not spanking a public health and child welfare focus, and eventually enact federal no-spanking legislation," he said.

How would spanking impact intelligence? Straus suggests that the chronic stress created by regular spanking creates post-traumatic stress symptoms in children. PTSD is linked to lower IQ. Economic status also underlies both spanking practices and IQ, Straus said, a leading researcher on corporal punishment. His studies were funded, in part, by the National Institute of Mental Health.
 
Another study, reported earlier this month in Booster Shots, found that many poor children are spanked at ages as young as 1 and that the practice is tied to more aggressive behavior by age 2 and delayed social-emotional development by age 3.

-- Shari Roan

Photos: The top chart shows the correlation between parents who use corporal punishment with teenagers and the nation's average IQ. The bottom chart shows the more spanking, the greater the likelihood of post-traumatic stress symptoms. Credit: Murray Straus, University of New Hampshire.

Swine flu: Parents not flocking toward H1N1 flu vaccinations for their kids

Germ-spreading school children are expected to be the focus of a massive U.S. vaccination campaign against the novel H1N1 flu. But if their parents are hearing the sounding of the tocsin at all, they're not buying it, says a new national survey.

A poll conducted by the University of Michigan's C.S. Mott Children's Hospital found that only 4 in 10 parents said they would get their children immunized against the H1N1 virus--even as 54% indicated they will get their kids vaccinated against regular seasonal flu. Among those that said they do not intend to have their kids vaccinated against H1N1, almost half--46% indicated they're not worried about their child becoming ill with the pandemic virus. One in five told surveyers they do not believe the H1N1 flu is serious.

Skepticism about the new vaccine among parents has drawn on many old, and a few new fears, according to a recent look at the subject in The Times.

There were differences along racial and ethnic groups in parents' responses. More than half of Latino parents said they will bring their kids to get vaccinated against H1N1. Among white parents, 38% said they would do so. African American parents were least inclined to vaccinate: 30% said they planned to do so.

About half of the parents who planned to take a pass on the H1N1 flu shot for their kids expressed concern about possible side effects of the vaccine.

The chatter about seasonal flu and novel H1N1 flu and their relative virulence has certainly confused parents, the survey suggests. Half of respondents said they believe that, for children, seasonal and H1N1 flu pose roughly equivalent risks.

"That perception may not match the actual risks," says Dr. Matthew Davis, a University of Michigan professor of pediatrics and internal medicine and director of the poll. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that while serious complications of seasonal flu appear to spare most kids and strike the elderly and very young most heavily, the novel H1N1 flu appears to hit children and young adults hardest.

Parents who believe that H1N1 flu will be worse for children were most likely to say they will have their own children vaccinated. In a news release accompanying the poll results, Davis said that public health officials wishing to maximize vaccination rates among school children need to communicate clearly to their parents that kids are at relatively greater risk of becoming seriously ill with the novel flu strain if they get it.

-- Melissa Healy

Family dinners work some kind of magic

Teenagers who have frequent family dinners are much less likely to drink and use drugs, according to a report released today. It doesn't seem to matter what food is served, the authors point out. The value appears to be in the social interaction between family members and the attention that parents give their children during a meal.

The report, titled "The Importance of Family Dinners V," summarizes research that began more than a decade ago that has found that children who have meals with their parents are less likely to smoke, drink or use drugs. In this year's survey, researchers looked at the link between the frequency of family dinners and teens' substance abuse, teens' relationships with their parents and what effect distractions such as phones and other electronic devices have at the dinner table.

Researchers from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse found that teens who have family dinners fewer than three times a week -- compared with those who have family dinners five or more times a week -- were much more likely to use drugs and alcohol and have less academic success. Teens who say they have family dinners but that there are distractions at the table also have higher rates of substance abuse that teens who have frequent family dinners without interruptions.

The survey found that 59% of teens and 62% of parents reported having dinner with their families at least five times a week. Of those who didn't dine together frequently, 69% said they're too busy with work and other activities to share meals. However, two-thirds of the respondents said they would be willing to give up a weeknight activity to have dinner with their family. The average family dinners lasts about 35 minutes, according to the survey.

"The message for parents could not be any clearer: Turn off your cellphone -- and tell the kids to do the same. Make a regular date with your kids. Let them know how important they are to you. Listen to what they have to say," said Joseph A. Califano Jr., founder and chairman of the center.

The survey of 1,000 teenagers and 452 of their parents was conducted this year. The center an annual "Family Day -- A Day to Eat Dinner with Your Children," which will be held this year on Monday, Sept. 28.

-- Shari Roan

Background TV noise impairs parent-child interactions, study finds

The sounds emanating from a television have become the backdrop for family life in the United States. But that constant drone can affect the quality of parent-child interactions, according to a study published today in the journal Child Development.

Researchers from the University of Massachusetts studied 50 children, ages 1 to 3, each of whom was with a parent in a university child study center. In the first half of a one-hour session, the parent and child were in a room without a TV, and in the other half-hour the parents chose a program to watch -- not a child's show but something aimed at adults, such as "Jeopardy!"

The researchers found that both the quality and quantity of parent-child interactions declined when the television was on. Parents spent about 20% less time talking to their children, were less active, less attentive and less responsive to their children.

About one-third of all young children grow up in households where the television is on all or most of the time, even when no one is watching, according to previous studies. It's unlikely babies and toddlers understand much of the content of programs for older children or adults. It's just background noise. Yet another study, published last year in Child Development, found that background TV noise disrupts a child's solitary play with toys as well. "Both findings may in part explain the negative associations found between early exposure to television and subsequent development," the authors of the current study wrote.

Parental attention is likely to be even less in actual homes compared to the child-study center, the authors said. And, in an ongoing study, preliminary findings suggest that the quality of parent-child interactions also decreases when a children's television program is on.

-- Shari Roan

Planned home births are safe, study says

Great controversy surrounds the issue of home births. American doctors are generally opposed to the practice, but many women say they would prefer to give birth at home. Studies on the safety of home births have been mixed.

However, a study published today -- one of the stronger attempts to clarify the issue -- has found that planned home births attended by registered midwives have similar rates of fetal death and adverse outcomes as compared with hospital births. The study followed 2,889 women in British Columbia who had planned home births between 2000 and 2004. They were compared with 4,752 women who gave birth in a hospital. The fetal death rate was less than one per 1,000 births in both groups, and Apgar scores, a rating of a newborn's health, were similar. The only difference between the groups is that babies born at home are more likely to be hospitalized, usually because of infant jaundice. Jaundice in hospital-born infants is usually detected and treated before the infant is discharged. The study is published in the Canadian Medical Assn. Journal.

The study "should add confidence to the safety of home birth in a context such as ours in which registered midwives have a baccalaureate degree or equivalent and are an integral part of the healthcare system," the authors, from the University of British Columbia, wrote. "Our findings do not extend to settings where midwives do not have extensive academic and clinical training."

An editorial accompanying the study notes that the good outcomes found by the researchers may be due in part by self-selection; that is, women who choose home birth endorse the practice and are motivated to achieve success. More studies should be conducted before home births become standard for large populations of women, the editorial adds. "The debate about the safety of home births cannot be driven by ideology. The call for better evidence remains."

-- Shari Roan

Photo: Christine Cotter  /  Los Angeles Times

 

Women mimic their own mothers' parenting practices. But men?

Where does one learn to become a parent? Besides trial-and-error, the assumption is that people parent similar to how they were raised by their parents. A new study shows that is true for women: They tend to mimic what their own mothers did. Fathers, however, don't seem to use their moms as parenting role models.

Researchers at Ohio State University studied how often parents in the 1990s spanked their children, read to them and showed affection. Their practices were compared to mothers'.

"We were surprised that mothers seem to learn a lot about the parenting role from their own mothers, but fathers don't follow their mothers as much," Jonathan Vespa, a co-author of the study, said in a news release. "Although more women were entering the workforce then, they still did the lion's share of parenting and childcare.... There was good reason to expect that fathers would have learned parenting from their mothers."

The study did not measure whether men learned parenting from their fathers. So that is certainly possible. "We really need to learn a lot more about how fathers learn to parent," Vespa said.

The study also reflected some big changes in parenting practices between the generations. The most recent generation of parents reads more to their kids, shows more affection and spanks less. Fathers who were spanked as children appeared especially reluctant to spank their own children.

"If parents really just learned from their own parents, we wouldn't witness such dramatic generational shifts as were seen in this study," Vespa said.

The data were collected from the National Longitudenal Survey of Youth and included 1,133 young adult parents of the mothers from the original survey in 1979. The study was presented today at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Assn.

-- Shari Roan
 
Photo credit: Peter Lennihan / Associated Press

Want a brouhaha? Start with a doll, add sucking sounds, sell it to kids ...

... and what you get is a toy that mimics the act of breastfeeding. Seriously. A breastfeeding doll. You also get a riot of righteous outrage and counter-indignation and broad commentary on the state of our society -- and the more-than-fleeting thought that, you know, maybe we're all being played.

The doll is called Bebe Gloton. So far, it's available only in Spain, but the company says it will be available in the United States next year. Here's the full story from ABC News. It describes the plaything thusly:

"The doll allows children to imitate the act of breast-feeding by using a special halter top that comes with the toy. The halter top is made from a colorful material with two flowers positioned where nipples would be.  When the mouth of the doll is brought close to a sensor embedded in the flower, the baby makes motions and sounds consistent with suckling."

The story goes on from there, but the best part, the absolutely fabulous part has been the reaction.

The Chicago Sun-Times sums it up: Breast-feeding doll stirs debate. The story says: 

"On parenting Web sites, some say the doll, which is about 20 inches long, is inappropriate and could even promote early sexual activity. Some breast-feeding advocacy groups say the doll promotes the normal, healthy act of feeding a baby a mother's milk."

Then it gets better.

From feministing.com: "I'm appalled by the haters who are the ones stigmatizing and sexualizing a perfectly natural act that children often imitate. Will folks ever be able to realize that our body parts are not purely for public consumption?"

From ecochildsplay: "Wearing a halter top with pasties is not natural. It’s not the normal way to feed a hungry infant. The doll’s sounds, the pasties, the age group targeted in the commercial? All wrong. And the silly doll is simply encouraging parents to buy more 'stuff,' and plastic stuff at that. Let your kid put her own favorite baby doll up her shirt and 'breastfeed.' The mimicry -- the interest -- that is normal."

And my favorite (because I do so love practical dads), from thingamababy, describing how to play with the doll:

"Your child wears a colorful bra-like halter-top featuring flowers over the nipple area. When the doll is lifted to the flowers, it makes a suckling motion and sound. When your child’s flower nipples grow sore and cracked, either the baby cries for more, or beckons to be burped."

He points out that he's kidding about the sore nipples part -- at least as it relates to the doll.

Then there's the backlash against the backlash. On NJ.com, a father of three kids pleads for forgiveness from the breastfeeding community outraged over his earlier post:

"Was it appropriate to in any way equate a doll that breast feeds to a doll who's an alcoholic, suffering from erectile dysfunction, or raped in prison? Clearly not, as a number of people have managed to express in no uncertain terms. So, if it's worth anything, I retract that. And even apologize. While only meant in jest, that was offensive."

His mea culpa goes on from there.

Maybe the doll, if it ever lands on these shores, will prove wildly popular. But it seems unlikely -- whether because Americans are oversexualized, undersexualized, uptight about breast-feeding or feel it unnecessary to pay for something that many kids with younger siblings probably have done a time or two with a run-of-the-mill Barbie (before getting bored and moving on).    

But if someone wanted to have fun with Americans and their media, really, they couldn't have done a better job.

-- Tami Dennis

Photo: Many kids with younger siblings have seen the real thing a thousand times. But a pretend version with sound effects? Not so much.

Credit: Ricardo DeAratanha / Los Angeles Times

Is mother's love unconditional?

Most of humanity rests comfortably on the idea that even if no one else loves us, our mothers still will. But a new study casts some uncomfortable doubt on that assertion. It suggests women may be biologically programmed to love children who are healthy and most likely to live.

Researchers at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., showed 13 healthy men and 14 healthy women pictures of 80 infants. Fifty of the infants were normal-appearing and 30 had abnormal facial features, such as cleft palate, skin disorders or Down syndrome. The participants were given four seconds to view each photo but could choose to extend or shorten that viewing time. They were also asked to rate the attractiveness of each infant.

The study found that women were more likely than men to reject the unattractive babies. The attractiveness ratings the men gave to normal-appearing babies were also significantly lower than those given by the women. The women made a greater effort to avoid looking at the abnormal babies.

It could be that women have an evolutionary need to pay more attention to normal-looking infants. In a time of limited resources, mothers might have diverted their resources away from sick infants toward the healthy children who were more likely to live, the researchers said.

"Women may be more sensitized to aesthetic defects and may be more prone to reject unattractive kids," the first author of the paper, Rinah Yamamoto, said in a news release. "Men do not appear to be as motivated. They didn't expend the same effort."

Most of the women I know whose children have health problems or physical abnormalities are the most loving mothers around. However, there is some support for this evolutionary theory in real life. Studies of neglected or abandoned children show they are more likely to have a flaw in their appearance.

The study is published in PLoS ONE.

-- Shari Roan

If you value verbal skills in children, please talk while the TV is on

Watching TV is a lot harder than it used to be. For parents, anyway. Now, not only should they avoid using the television as a babysitter, distraction or even sanity-saving break, they apparently also need to keep up a running commentary (or pseudo-dialogue) on what the little ones are watching. 

Researchers had already established that time spent watching TV or videos is linked to delayed language development in children ages 8 months to 16 months. (Here's the synopsis of that study.) What they didn't know was exactly why.

So in a new study published this week in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, researchers at the University of Washington and Seattle Children's Reseach Institute measured everything heard by, or uttered by, 329 children ages 2 months to 48 months. They did this by attaching digital recorders to the kids' clothing on various days throughout a two-year period.

Each hour of TV the children heard was linked to a 7% decrease in words that adults spoke to them. It was also connected to a decrease in the number of words (or utterances, really — these are very small kids) from the children themselves. (Here's the synopsis of the new study.)

The report concludes: "Having a television on within earshot of young children diminishes their exposure to adult words, their own vocalizations, and the conversational turns in which they engage."

This doesn't mean TV is bad, mind you. And the researchers point out that, unsurprisingly, many parents interact less with their children when the television is on. One of the things they seem to be taking issue with is the notion that some of the shows the kids are watching promise to encourage parent-child interaction — and that such interaction appears limited.

They add: "Given the critical role that adult caregivers play in children's linguistic development, whether they talk to their child while the screen is on may be critical and explain the effects that are attributed to content or even amount of television watched.

In short, it's OK to talk while watching TV.

— Tami Dennis

Photo: Playing with your baby is good; shushing her and yourself while watching "Sesame Street" ... not so good.

Credit: Beatrice de Gea / Los Angeles Times