The role of genes in altruistic behavior: Evidence from quantitative genetics and molecular genetics

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.01574

Abstract

Abstract:

Altruistic behavior is a behavior that benefits others at a cost to oneself, which is of great significance to groups and individuals. People differ significantly in their everyday altruistic behaviors, which is partly influenced by genetic factors. Recently, researchers have focused on the role of genes in altruistic behavior.
First, the heritability of altruistic behavior was explored based on the method of quantitative genetics. A large number of studies have confirmed that altruistic behavior is indeed affected by heredity, and heritability estimates vary among studies (0~0.87). The heritability of altruistic behavior may be influenced by factors such as age, the method of measurement, and some environmental factors (e.g., culture, family environments). Second, based on molecular genetic research, researchers have found four categories of altruism-related candidate genes, including dopamine receptor genes, serotonin transporter genes, oxytocin receptor genes, and vasopressin receptor genes. These findings confirmed that altruistic behavior was correlated with some gene loci. Taken together, both quantitative and molecular genetic studies have provided abundant genetic evidence of altruistic behavior.
Furthermore, according to the aforementioned studies, the environment has been proven not only to affect the heritability of altruistic behavior but also to play a key role in the influence of genes on altruistic behavior in both quantitative and molecular genetic studies. On the one hand, genotype is associated with an environment that jointly influences altruistic behavior, known as gene-environment correlation. There are three types of gene-environment correlations: passive, evocative and active. On the other hand, the effect of genetics on altruistic behavior is influenced by the environment, known as the differential susceptibility model; that is, the environment affects the development of the altruistic behavior of susceptibility gene carriers in a manner of “strengthening or weakening.” Accordingly, a large number of findings regarding the interactions between genes and the environment on altruism have been found in oxytocin receptor genes and dopamine receptor genes.
The current studies have some problems, such as speculative selection of altruistic candidate genes and inconsistent conclusions. Future research needs to expand on and further explore the effect of neurobiological systems on altruistic behavior, which may focus on genome-wide research, meta-analysis, mechanism exploration, and systematic environmental intervention practice.

Key words: altruistic behavior, gene, gene-environment correlation, differential susceptibility

CLC Number:

LI Haihong, SHANG Siyuan, XIE Xiaofei. The role of genes in altruistic behavior: Evidence from quantitative genetics and molecular genetics[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(7): 1574-1588.

Figures/Tables 2

References 91

[1]	黄文强, 杨沙沙, 于萍. (2016). 风险决策的神经机制: 基于啮齿类动物研究. 心理科学进展, 24, 1767-1779.
[2]	胡捷. (2017). 利他行为的神经生物学机制——自我利益与他人利益在帮助行为中的作用 (博士学位论文). 北京大学.
[3]	李曦, 林小楠, 曹衍淼, 张文新. (2020). DRD4基因与亲社会行为的关联及其潜在脑机制. 心理科学, 43, 409-415.
[4]	尚思源, 苏彦捷. (2016). 催产素系统与社会行为——催产素及其受体基因的作用机制. 心理技术与应用, 4(4), 224-235.
[5]	王云强, 顾伟伟, 王志琳, 郭本禹, 葛芹玉. (2020). 多巴胺受体基因DRD4与家庭亲密度或矛盾性对大学生亲社会倾向的交互作用. 科学通报, 65, 2032-2046.
[6]	吴小燕, 封春亮, 徐家华, 何振宏, 罗艺, 罗跃嘉. (2019). 垂体后叶加压素对人类社会行为的影响. 心理科学进展, 27, 811-820.
[7]	谢晓非, 王逸璐, 顾思义, 李蔚. (2017). 利他仅仅利他吗?——进化视角的双路径模型. 心理科学进展, 25, 1441-1455.
[8]	张闻, 郑多 . 主编. (2016). 医学生物学(全国普通高等医学院校五年制临床医学专业“十三五”规划教材). 中国医药科技出版社.
[9]	张旭凯, 尹航, 李鹏, 李红. (2018). 催产素对社会决策行为的影响. 心理科学进展, 26, 1438-1449.
[10]	赵德懋, 冯姝慧, 邢淑芬. (2017). 基因与环境的交互作用:来自差别易感性模型的证据. 心理科学进展, 25, 1310-1320.
[11]	莊雅婷. (2017). 人际公民行为与身心感受的关系: 双螺旋模型 (博士学位论文). 北京大学.
[12]	Anacker, K., Enge, S., Reif, A., Lesch, K-P., & Strobel, A. (2013). Dopamine D4 receptor gene variation impacts self- reported altruism. Molecular Psychiatry, 18, 402-403. doi: 10.1038/mp.2012.49 pmid: 22565783
[13]	Apicella, C. L., Cesarini, D., Johannesson, M., Dawes, C. T., Lichtenstein, P., Wallace, B., … Westberg, L. (2010). No association between oxytocin receptor (OXTR) gene polymorphisms and experimentally elicited social preferences. Plos One, 5, e11153. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011153 URL
[14]	Avinun, R., Israel, S., Shalev, I., Gritsenko, I., Bornstein, G., Ebstein, R. P., & Knafo, A. (2011). AVPR1A variant associated with preschoolers’ lower altruistic behavior. Plos One, 6, e25274. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025274 URL
[15]	Bachner-Melman, R., Gritsenko, I., Nemanov, L., Zohar, A. H., Dina, C., & Ebstein, R. P. (2005). Dopaminergic polymorphisms associated with self-report measures of human altruism: A fresh phenotype for the dopamine D4 receptor. Molecular Psychiatry, 10, 333-335. pmid: 15655563
[16]	Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2011). Differential susceptibility to rearing environment depending on dopamine-related genes: New evidence and a meta-analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 39-52. doi: 10.1017/S0954579410000635 pmid: 21262038
[17]	Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2014). A sociability gene? Meta-analysis of oxytocin receptor genotype effects in humans. Psychiatric Genetics, 24, 45-51. doi: 10.1097/YPG.0b013e3283643684 pmid: 23921259
[18]	Barraza, J. A., McCullough, M. E., Ahmadi, S., & Zak, P. J. (2011). Oxytocin infusion increases charitable donations regardless of monetary resources. Hormones Behavior, 60, 148-151. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.04.008 URL
[19]	Batson, C. D. (2012). A history of prosocial behavior research. In A. W. Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp.243-264). Psychology Press.
[20]	Beam, C., & Turkheimer, E. (2013). Phenotype-environment correlations in longitudinal twin models. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 7-16. doi: 10.1017/S0954579412000867 URL
[21]	Benjamin, D. J., Cesarini, D., van der, Loos, M. J. H. M., Dawes, C. T., Koellinger, P. D., Magnusson, P. K. E., … Visscher, P. M.(2012). The genetic architecture of economic and political preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 8026-8031. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1120666109 pmid: 22566634
[22]	Bersted, K. (2016). Exploring interactions between DRD4 genotype and perceived parenting environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
[23]	Bhogal, M. S., Galbraith, N., & Manktelow, K. (2017). Physical attractiveness, altruism and cooperation in an ultimatum game. Current Psychology, 36, 549-555. doi: 10.1007/s12144-016-9443-1 URL
[24]	Burr, J. A., Han, S., Lee, H. J., Tavares, J. L., & Mutchler, J. E. (2018). Health benefits associated with three helping behaviors: Evidence for incident cardiovascular disease. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 73, 492-500.
[25]	Cesarini, D., Dawes, C. T., Fowler, J. H., Johannesson, M., Lichtenstein, P., & Wallace, B. (2008). Heritability of cooperative behavior in the trust game. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 3721-3726. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0710069105 pmid: 18316737
[26]	Chong, A., Chew, S. H., Lai, P. S., Ebstein, R. P., & Gouin, J-P.(2019). The role of the oxytocin-neurophysin I gene in contributing to human personality traits promoting sociality. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 136, 81-86. doi: S0167-8760(17)30443-9 pmid: 29501452
[27]	Crocker, J., Canevello, A., & Brown, A. A. (2017). Social motivation: Costs and benefits of selfishness and otherishness. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 299-325. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044145 URL
[28]	Daughters, K., Manstead, A. S. R., Ten Velden, F. S., & de Dreu, C. K. W. (2017). Oxytocin modulates third-party sanctioning of selfish and generous behavior within and between groups. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 77, 18-24. doi: S0306-4530(16)30867-8 pmid: 28006725
[29]	Deater-Deckard, K., Dunn, J., O’Connor, T. G., Davies, L., & Golding, J. (2003). Using the stepfamily genetic design to examine gene-environment processes in child and family functioning. Marriage & Family Review, 33, 131-155.
[30]	de Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279-300. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625 URL
[31]	DiLalla, L. F., Bersted, K., & John, S. G. (2015). Evidence of reactive gene-environment correlation in preschoolers’ prosocial play with unfamiliar peers. Developmental Psychology, 51, 1464-1475. doi: 10.1037/dev0000047 URL
[32]	Feng, C., Hackett, P. D., DeMarco, A. C., Chen, X., Stair, S., Haroon, E., … Rilling, J. K. (2015). Oxytocin and vasopressin effects on the neural response to social cooperation are modulated by sex in humans. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 9, 754-764. doi: 10.1007/s11682-014-9333-9 URL
[33]	Gallotti, R. & Grujić, J. (2019). A quantitative description of the transition between intuitive altruism and rational deliberation in iterated prisoner’s dilemma experiments. Scientific Reports, 9, article 17046.
[34]	Gregory, A. M., Light-Häusermann, J. H., Rijsdijk, F., & Eley, T. C. (2009). Behavioral genetic analyses of prosocial behavior in adolescents. Developmental Science, 12, 165-174. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00739.x pmid: 19120424
[35]	Hartman, S., & Belsky, J. (2016). An evolutionary perspective on family studies: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Family Process, 55, 700-712. doi: 10.1111/famp.12161 pmid: 26133233
[36]	Huetter, F. K., Moehlendick, B., Knop, D., & Siffert, W. (2020). Lack of association of common polymorphisms linked to empathic behavior with self-reported trait empathy in healthy volunteers. Hormones and Behavior, 126, 104841. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2020.104841 URL
[37]	Hui, B. P. H., Ng, J. C. K., Berzaghi, E., Cunningham-Amos, L. A., & Kogan, A. (2020). Rewards of kindness? A meta- analysis of the link between prosociality and well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 146, 1084-1116. doi: 10.1037/bul0000298 URL
[38]	Hur, Y-M., & Rushton, J. P. (2007). Genetic and environmental contributions to prosocial behaviour in 2- to 9-year-old South Korean twins. Biology Letters, 3, 664-666. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0365 URL
[39]	Hur, Y-M., Taylor, J., Jeong, H-U., Park, M-S., & Haberstick, B. C. (2017). Perceived family cohesion moderates environmental influences on prosocial behavior in nigerian adolescent twins. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 20, 226-235. doi: 10.1017/thg.2017.15 URL
[40]	Inagaki, T. K., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). Neural correlates of giving support to a loved one. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74, 3-7. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3182359335 URL
[41]	Isgett, S. F., Algoe, S. B., Boulton, A. J., Way, B. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2016). Common variant in OXTR predicts growth in positive emotions from loving-kindness training. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 73, 244-251. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2016.08.010 URL
[42]	Isgett, S. F., Kok, B. E., Baczkowski, B. M., Algoe, S. B., Grewen, K. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2017). Influences of oxytocin and respiratory sinus arrhythmia on emotions and social behavior in daily life. Emotion, 17, 1156-1165. doi: 10.1037/emo0000301 URL
[43]	Israel, S., Hasenfratz, L., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2015). The genetics of morality and prosociality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 55-59. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.027 URL
[44]	Israel, S., Lerer, E., Shalev, I., Uzefovsky, F., Riebold, M., Laiba, E., … Ebstein, R. P. (2009). The oxytocin receptor (OXTR) contributes to prosocial fund allocations in the dictator game and the social value orientations task. Plos One, 4, e5535. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005535 URL
[45]	Jiang, Y., Bachner-Melman, R., Chew, S. H., & Ebstein, R. P. (2015). Dopamine D4 receptor gene and religious affiliation correlate with dictator game altruism in males and not females: Evidence for gender-sensitive gene × culture interaction. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9, article 338.
[46]	Jonsson, H., Magnusdottir, E., Eggertsson, H. P., Stefansson, O. A., Arnadottir, G. A., Eiriksson, O., … Stefansson, K. (2021). Differences between germline genomes of monozygotic twins. Nature Genetics, 53, 27-34. doi: 10.1038/s41588-020-00755-1 pmid: 33414551
[47]	Kaiser, K. (2017). A new taxonomy of altruism in terms of prosocial behaviors. Dialogue & Nexus, 4, article 4.
[48]	Knafo, A., Israel, S., Darvasi, A., Bachner-Melman, R., Uzefovsky, F., Cohen, L., … Ebstein, R. P. (2008). Individual differences in allocation of funds in the dictator game associated with length of the arginine vasopressin 1a receptor RS3 promoter region and correlation between RS3 length and hippocampal mRNA. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 7, 266-275. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2007.00341.x URL
[49]	Knafo, A., Israel, S., & Ebstein, R. P. (2011). Heritability of children’s prosocial behavior and differential susceptibility to parenting by variation in the dopamine receptor D4 gene. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 53-67. doi: 10.1017/S0954579410000647 URL
[50]	Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Prosocial behavior from early to middle childhood: Genetic and environmental influences on stability and change. Developmental Psychology, 42, 771-786. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.771 URL
[51]	Knafo, A., Uzefovsky, F., Israel, S., Davidov, M., & Zahn- Waxler, C. (2015). The prosocial personality and its facets: Genetic and environmental architecture of mother-reported behavior of 7-year-old twins. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, article 112.
[52]	Knoblach, R. A., Schwartz, J. A., McBride, M., & Beaver, K. M. (2019). The association between genetic predisposition and parental socialization: An examination of gene- environment correlations using an adoption-based design. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64, 187-209. doi: 10.1177/0306624X19849568 URL
[53]	Kogan, A., Saslow, L. R., Impett, E. A., Oveis, C., Keltner, D., & Saturn, S. R. (2011). Thin-slicing study of the oxytocin receptor (OXTR) gene and the evaluation and expression of the prosocial disposition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 19189-19192.
[54]	Krueger, R. F., Hicks, B. M., & McGue, M. (2001). Altruism and antisocial behavior: Independent tendencies, unique personality correlates, distinct etiologies. Psychological Science, 12, 397-402. pmid: 11554673
[55]	Lesch, K. P. (2007). Linking emotion to the social brain. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports, 8, 24-29.
[56]	Li, H., Song, Y., & Xie, X. (2020). Altruistic or selfish? Responses when safety is threatened depend on childhood socioeconomic status. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 1001-1016. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2651 URL
[57]	Matthews, K. A., Batson, C. D., Horn, J., & Rosenman, R. H. (1981). “Principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others…”: The heritability of empathic concern for others. Journal of Personality, 49, 237-247. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1981.tb00933.x URL
[58]	Nave, G., Camerer, C., & McCullough, M. (2015). Does oxytocin increase trust in humans? A critical review of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 772- 789. doi: 10.1177/1745691615600138 URL
[59]	Nes, R. B., & Røysamb, E. (2017). Happiness in behaviour genetics: An update on heritability and changeability. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 1533-1552. doi: 10.1007/s10902-016-9781-6 URL
[60]	Perlstein, S., & Waller, R. (2022). Integrating the study of personality and psychopathology in the context of gene- environment correlations across development. Journal of Personality, 90, 47-60. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12609 URL
[61]	Poulin, M. J., Holman, E. A., & Buffone, A. (2012). The neurogenetics of nice: Receptor genes for oxytocin and vasopressin interact with threat to predict prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 23, 446-452. doi: 10.1177/0956797611428471 URL
[62]	Qian, A., Wang, X., Liu, H., Tao, H., Zhou, J., Ye, Q., … Wang, M. (2018). Dopamine D4 receptor gene associated with the frontal-striatal-cerebellar loop in children with ADHD: A resting-state fMRI study. Neuroscience Bulletin, 34, 497-506. doi: 10.1007/s12264-018-0217-7 URL
[63]	Rettew, D. C., & McKee, L. (2005). Temperament and its role in developmental psychopathology. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 13, 14-27. pmid: 15804931
[64]	Reuter, M., Felten, A., Penz, S., Mainzer, A., Markett, S., & Montag, C. (2013). The influence of dopaminergic gene variants on decision making in the ultimatum game. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 242.
[65]	Rivizzigno, A. S., Brendgen, M., Feng, B., Vitaro, F., Dionne, G., Tremblay, R. E., & Boivin, M. (2014). Gene-environment interplay between number of friends and prosocial leadership behavior in children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 60, 110-141. doi: 10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.60.2.0110 URL
[66]	Rushton, J. P., Fulker, D. W., Neale, M. C., Nias, D. K. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Altruism and aggression: The heritability of individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1192-1198. pmid: 3723334
[67]	Sasaki, J. Y., Kim, H. S., Mojaverian, T., Kelley, L. D. S., Park, I. Y., & Janušonis, S. (2013). Religion priming differentially increases prosocial behavior among variants of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene. Social Cognition and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 209-215.
[68]	Scarr-Salapatek, S. (1971). Race, social class, and IQ. Science, 174, 1285-1295. doi: 10.1126/science.174.4016.1285 pmid: 5167501
[69]	Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424-435. pmid: 6683622
[70]	Schlomer, G. L., Cleveland, H. H., Feinberg, M. E., Murray, J. L., & Vandenbergh, D. J. (2020). Longitudinal links between adolescent and peer conduct problems and moderation by a sensitivity genetic index. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31, 189-203. doi: 10.1111/jora.12592 URL
[71]	Scourfield, J., John, B., Martin, N., & McGuffin, P. (2004). The development of prosocial behaviour in children and adolescents: A twin study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 927-935. pmid: 15225336
[72]	Shang, S., Wu, N., & Su, Y. (2017). How oxytocin receptor (OXTR) single nucleotide polymorphisms act on prosociality: The mediation role of moral evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, article 396.
[73]	Skuse, D. H., & Gallagher, L. (2009). Dopaminergic- neuropeptide interactions in the social brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 27-35. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.09.007 URL
[74]	Smith, A. S., Ågmo, A., Birnie, A. K., & French, J. A. (2010). Manipulation of the oxytocin system alters social behavior and attraction in pair-bonding primates, Callithrix penicillata. Hormones and Behavior, 57, 255-262. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.12.004 pmid: 20025881
[75]	Smith, V. L. (2003). Constructivist and ecological rationality in economics. American Economic Review, 93, 465-508.
[76]	Stoltenberg, S. F., Christ, C. C., & Carlo, G. (2013). Afraid to help: Social anxiety partially mediates the association between 5-HTTLPR triallelic genotype and prosocial behavior. Social Neuroscience, 8, 400-406. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2013.807874 pmid: 23789884
[77]	Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35-57. doi: 10.1086/406755 URL
[78]	Tse, W. S., & Bond, A. J. (2002). Difference in serotonergic and noradrenergic regulation of human social behaviours. Psychopharmacology, 159, 216-221. doi: 10.1007/s00213-001-0926-9 URL
[79]	Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Bates, T. C. (2016). Large cross-national differences in gene × socioeconomic status interaction on intelligence. Psychological Science, 27, 138-149. doi: 10.1177/0956797615612727 pmid: 26671911
[80]	van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Pannebakker, F., & Out, D. (2010). In defence of situational morality: Genetic, dispositional and situational determinants of children’s donating to charity. Journal of Moral Education, 39, 1-20. doi: 10.1080/03057240903528535 URL
[81]	Verbeke, W., Bagozzi, R. P., van den Berg, W. E., & Lemmens, A. (2013). Polymorphisms of the OXTR gene explain why sales professionals love to help customers. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, article 171.
[82]	Volbrecht, M. M., Lemery-Chalfant, K., Aksan, N., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Goldsmith, H. H. (2007). Examining the familial link between positive affect and empathy development in the second year. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168, 105-130. doi: 10.3200/GNTP.168.2.105-130 URL
[83]	Wang, M., & Saudino, K. J. (2015). Positive affect: Phenotypic and etiologic associations with prosocial behaviors and internalizing problems in toddlers. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, article 416.
[84]	Wang, Y., Ge, J., Zhang, H., Wang, H., & Xie, X. (2020). Altruistic behaviors relieve physical pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117, 950-958.
[85]	Whillans, A. V., Aknin, L. B., Ross, C., Chen, L., & Chen, F. S. (2020). Common variants of the oxytocin receptor gene do not predict the positive mood benefits of prosocial spending. Emotion, 20, 734-749. doi: 10.1037/emo0000589 pmid: 31021112
[86]	Wilson, D. S., & Wilson, E. O. (2007). Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82, 327-348. doi: 10.1086/522809 URL
[87]	Wood, R. M., Rilling, J. K., Sanfey, A. G., Bhagwagar, Z., & Rogers, R.,D. (2006). Effects of tryptophan depletion on the performance of an iterated prisoner’s dilemma game in healthy adults. Neuropsychopharmacology, 31, 1075-1084. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300932 URL
[88]	Wu, N., Shang, S., & Su, Y. (2015). The arginine vasopressin V1b receptor gene and prosociality: Mediation role of emotional empathy. Psych Journal, 4, 160-165. doi: 10.1002/pchj.102 URL
[89]	Wu, N., & Su, Y. (2018). Variations in the oxytocin receptor gene and prosocial behavior: Moderating effects of situational factors. Integrative Zoology, 13, 687-697. doi: 10.1111/1749-4877.12336 URL
[90]	Wu, Y., Stillwell, D., Schwarz, H. A., & Kosinski, M. (2017). Birds of a feather do flock together: Behavior-based personality-assessment method reveals personality similarity among couples and friends. Psychological Science, 28, 276-284. doi: 10.1177/0956797616678187 URL
[91]	Zahn-Waxler, C., Robinson, J. L., & Emde, R. N. (1992). The Development of Empathy in Twins. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1038-1047. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.28.6.1038 URL

候选基因	分类	位点/基因型	环境因素	利他测量工具或范式	结果
多巴胺受体基因	G	DRD₄(4R, 7R)	--	改编的NEO人格问卷(Revised NEO Personality Inventory, NEO- PI-R)	4R基因携带者比7R基因携带者更利他(Anacker et al., 2013)
	G	DRD₄(4R, 7R)	--	无私量表	4R基因携带者比7R基因携带者更利他(Bachner-Melman et al., 2005)
	G	DRD₄(4R, 7R)	--	最后通牒博弈	4R基因携带者比7R基因携带者更利他(Reuter et al., 2013)
	G×E	DRD₄(2R, 7R)	宗教信仰	志愿活动意愿	启动宗教信仰, 易感性基因(2R、7R)携带者志愿活动意愿更高, 未携带者不受宗教信仰启动影响(Sasaki et al., 2013)
	G×E	DRD₄(2R, 7R)	攻击性家庭环境	PTM中文版(Prosocial Tendencies Measure, PTM)的利他分维度	在高攻击性家庭环境中, 易感性基因(2R、7R)携带者利他倾向更低; 在低攻击性家庭环境中, 非易感性基因携带者利他倾向更低(王云强等, 2020)
	G×E	DRD₄(4R)	宗教信仰, 性别	独裁者博弈	4R基因携带者, 宗教与利他无显著关联; 非4R基因携带者, 基督教徒男性比非基督教徒更利他(Jiang et al., 2015)
	G×E	DRD₄(7R)	父母教养方式	SDQ问卷	父母教养方式和DRD₄-7R基因对儿童自评利他行为交互作用不显著(Bersted, 2016)
5-羟色胺转运体基因	G	5-HTTLPR (LL, SS, LS)	--	人际反应指针量表(Davis’ Interpersonal Reactivity Index, IRI)	5-HTTLPR基因与特质共情无显著关联(Huetter et al., 2020)
5-羟色胺转运体基因	G	5-HTTLPR (LL, SS, LS)	--	帮助量表	L基因携带者比S基因携带者更帮助他人(Stoltenberg et al., 2013)
催产素受体基因	G	rs53576 (GG, AA, AG)	--	顾客导向量表(customer orientation scale)	SNP (rs53576)GG型个体比A等位基因携带者(即AG, AA)更愿意帮助客户(Verbeke et al., 2013)
	G	rs1042778, rs2268490, rs237887	--	独裁者博弈社会价值取向问卷	3种SNP基因与两个利他任务有显著关联, 其中rs1042778相关性最高(Israel et al., 2009)
	G	rs53576 (GG, AA, AG)	--	观察者观察一对伴侣求助互动无声视频	SNP (rs53576)GG型个体比A等位基因携带者(即AG, AA)更利他, 且可被观察者识别(Kogan et al., 2011)
	G	rs7632287, rs237887, rs2268493, rs237897, rs1042778, rs53576, rs2254298, rs75775, rs4686302,	--	独裁者博弈信任游戏	9种SNP与两个利他任务无显著关联(Apicella et al., 2010)
	G×E	rs53576 (GG, AA, AG)	感知的环境威胁	慈善行为	SNP (rs53576)A等位基因(AA、AG)携带者, 环境威胁感知越高慈善行为越少; GG型个体, 环境威胁感知与慈善行为无显著关联(Poulin et al., 2012)
	G×E	rs2254298 (GG, AA, AG)	性别	PTM中文版	男性个体SNP (rs2254298)G等位基因(AG、GG)携带者更利他, 女性个体三种基因携带者利他倾向无显著差异(Shang et al., 2017)
	G×E	rs13316193 (CC, TT, CT)	接受者身份、帮助成本	帮助情境	当接受者是外群体且帮助成本较高时, SNP (rs13316193)C等位基因(CT/CC)携带者比TT型个体帮助倾向更高; 低成本以及接受者是内群体时, 不同基因型面对高/低帮助成本帮助倾向无差异 (Wu & Su, 2018)
候选基因	分类	位点/基因型	环境因素	利他测量工具或范式	结果
加压素受体基因	G	AVPR1aRS3 (327~343bp, 308~325bp)	--	独裁者博弈	长版基因携带者比短版基因携带者更利他(Knafo et al., 2008)
	G	AVPR1aRS3 (327bp)	--	独裁者博弈	携带目标等位基因的儿童更不利他(Avinun et al., 2011)
	G	AVPR1b的rs28373064 (GG, AA, AG)	--	改编的亲社会倾向量表(revised Prosocial Tendencies Measure, PTM-R), 包含利他分量表	AVPR1b的SNP (rs28373064)G等位基因携带者比A等位基因携带者更利他(Wu et al., 2015)

候选基因	分类	位点/基因型	环境因素	利他测量工具或范式	结果
多巴胺受体基因	G	DRD₄(4R, 7R)	--	改编的NEO人格问卷(Revised NEO Personality Inventory, NEO- PI-R)	4R基因携带者比7R基因携带者更利他(Anacker et al., 2013)
	G	DRD₄(4R, 7R)	--	无私量表	4R基因携带者比7R基因携带者更利他(Bachner-Melman et al., 2005)
	G	DRD₄(4R, 7R)	--	最后通牒博弈	4R基因携带者比7R基因携带者更利他(Reuter et al., 2013)
	G×E	DRD₄(2R, 7R)	宗教信仰	志愿活动意愿	启动宗教信仰, 易感性基因(2R、7R)携带者志愿活动意愿更高, 未携带者不受宗教信仰启动影响(Sasaki et al., 2013)
	G×E	DRD₄(2R, 7R)	攻击性家庭环境	PTM中文版(Prosocial Tendencies Measure, PTM)的利他分维度	在高攻击性家庭环境中, 易感性基因(2R、7R)携带者利他倾向更低; 在低攻击性家庭环境中, 非易感性基因携带者利他倾向更低(王云强等, 2020)
	G×E	DRD₄(4R)	宗教信仰, 性别	独裁者博弈	4R基因携带者, 宗教与利他无显著关联; 非4R基因携带者, 基督教徒男性比非基督教徒更利他(Jiang et al., 2015)
	G×E	DRD₄(7R)	父母教养方式	SDQ问卷	父母教养方式和DRD₄-7R基因对儿童自评利他行为交互作用不显著(Bersted, 2016)
5-羟色胺转运体基因	G	5-HTTLPR (LL, SS, LS)	--	人际反应指针量表(Davis’ Interpersonal Reactivity Index, IRI)	5-HTTLPR基因与特质共情无显著关联(Huetter et al., 2020)
5-羟色胺转运体基因	G	5-HTTLPR (LL, SS, LS)	--	帮助量表	L基因携带者比S基因携带者更帮助他人(Stoltenberg et al., 2013)
催产素受体基因	G	rs53576 (GG, AA, AG)	--	顾客导向量表(customer orientation scale)	SNP (rs53576)GG型个体比A等位基因携带者(即AG, AA)更愿意帮助客户(Verbeke et al., 2013)
	G	rs1042778, rs2268490, rs237887	--	独裁者博弈社会价值取向问卷	3种SNP基因与两个利他任务有显著关联, 其中rs1042778相关性最高(Israel et al., 2009)
	G	rs53576 (GG, AA, AG)	--	观察者观察一对伴侣求助互动无声视频	SNP (rs53576)GG型个体比A等位基因携带者(即AG, AA)更利他, 且可被观察者识别(Kogan et al., 2011)
	G	rs7632287, rs237887, rs2268493, rs237897, rs1042778, rs53576, rs2254298, rs75775, rs4686302,	--	独裁者博弈信任游戏	9种SNP与两个利他任务无显著关联(Apicella et al., 2010)
	G×E	rs53576 (GG, AA, AG)	感知的环境威胁	慈善行为	SNP (rs53576)A等位基因(AA、AG)携带者, 环境威胁感知越高慈善行为越少; GG型个体, 环境威胁感知与慈善行为无显著关联(Poulin et al., 2012)
	G×E	rs2254298 (GG, AA, AG)	性别	PTM中文版	男性个体SNP (rs2254298)G等位基因(AG、GG)携带者更利他, 女性个体三种基因携带者利他倾向无显著差异(Shang et al., 2017)
	G×E	rs13316193 (CC, TT, CT)	接受者身份、帮助成本	帮助情境	当接受者是外群体且帮助成本较高时, SNP (rs13316193)C等位基因(CT/CC)携带者比TT型个体帮助倾向更高; 低成本以及接受者是内群体时, 不同基因型面对高/低帮助成本帮助倾向无差异 (Wu & Su, 2018)
候选基因	分类	位点/基因型	环境因素	利他测量工具或范式	结果
加压素受体基因	G	AVPR1aRS3 (327~343bp, 308~325bp)	--	独裁者博弈	长版基因携带者比短版基因携带者更利他(Knafo et al., 2008)
	G	AVPR1aRS3 (327bp)	--	独裁者博弈	携带目标等位基因的儿童更不利他(Avinun et al., 2011)
	G	AVPR1b的rs28373064 (GG, AA, AG)	--	改编的亲社会倾向量表(revised Prosocial Tendencies Measure, PTM-R), 包含利他分量表	AVPR1b的SNP (rs28373064)G等位基因携带者比A等位基因携带者更利他(Wu et al., 2015)