4.2 Article

Social hedonic capacity is associated with the A118G polymorphism of the mu-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) in adult healthy volunteers and psychiatric patients

Journal

SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 88-97

Publisher

PSYCHOLOGY PRESS
DOI: 10.1080/17470919.2010.482786

Keywords

OPRM1; A118G polymorphism; Avoidant attachment; Social anhedonia; Brain opioids

Funding

  1. Telethon Italy [GGP05220]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A large body of evidence links altered opioid signaling with changes in social behavior in animals. However, few studies have attempted to determine whether similar links exist in humans. Here we investigate whether a common polymorphism (A118G) in the mu-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) is associated with alterations in personality traits linked to affiliative behavior and attachment. In a mixed sample (N = 214) of adult healthy volunteers and psychiatric patients, we analyzed the association between the A118G polymorphism of the OPRM1 and two different psychological constructs reflecting individual differences in the capacity to experience social reward. Compared to individuals expressing only the major allele (A) of the A118G polymorphism, subjects expressing the minor allele (G) had an increased tendency to become engaged in affectionate relationships, as indicated by lower scores on a self-report measure of avoidant attachment, and experienced more pleasure in social situations, as indicated by lower scores on a self-report measure of social anhedonia. The OPRM1 variation accounted for about 3.5% of the variance in the two measures. The significant association between the A118G polymorphism and social hedonic capacity was independent of the participants' mental health status. The results reported here are in agreement with the brain opioid hypothesis of social attachment and the established role of opioid transmission in mediating affiliative behavior.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available