Dr. Paul Zak is the director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University. He’s also a former member of the Neurology department at Loma Linda University Medical Center, an author, a speaker, and co-founder of the first neuroscience-as-a-service (NaaS) company (Immersion Neuroscience). He earned degrees in mathematics and economics from San Diego State University, a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Pennsylvania, and post-doctoral training in neuroscience at Harvard University. Dr. Zak developed a methodology called Ofactor that quantifies organizational culture and identifies how to continuously improve culture to increase trust, joy, and performance. He has authored four books. The latest one is Immersion: The Science of the Extraordinary and Source of Happiness (2022). Dr. Zak’s TV and movie appearances include World News Tonight, Good Morning America, Fox and Friends, Dr. Phil, The Bachelorette, John Stossel Show, and Fareed Zakaria’s GPS, and he did some voice work for The Amazing Spiderman.
1) In The Fun Habit, I assert, “Oxytocin gives us that real sweetness of something larger than ourselves, while dopamine is metaphorically feel-good saccharin.” Based on the research I reviewed, it seems that at its core, oxytocin benefits come from connection. And rather than dopamine’s fleeting nature, oxytocin’s release has cumulative advantages. What did I get right, and what perhaps deserves nuance?
There is a dance between dopamine and oxytocin. I think of dopamine as the molecule of being present. Again, we’re simplifying because there are about 200 neurochemicals in the brain. The first thing to having a great social experience is to be present. If I don’t have that presence, if I’m distracted, if I’m hungry, I have to pee, whatever it is, then I’m probably just burning neural bandwidth. Accordingly, we see that a lack of dopamine release, which results in a lack of arousal, gives me little motivation to interact with you. But if I have overarousal—for instance, a super-turbulent airplane—I can’t even talk either because I’m freaked out. So there is a sort of in-between sweet spot in which dopamine says, “Oh, this is important. Focus here.” Once that is established, if there’s social-emotional content, then I get this oxytocin release, which, interestingly, oxytocin then will facilitate additional dopamine release.
What that means from a social interaction perspective is we are creating not only this rewarding social interaction, but the process is producing a desire to repeat this interaction. We think of dopamine as the “wanting” system in the brain. So now my brain is identifying that not only is this emotionally valuable to me (dopamine and oxytocin), but I’m creating a multifaceted pathway that says, “You should do this thing again.” This makes sense from a social creature perspective because we don’t survive when we are alone.
The research we’ve done in the last 20 years—this weird neurologic phenomenon I’m calling immersion, driven by simultaneous dopamine and oxytocin release, seems to be a core part of our social valuation mechanism. We invest time, energy, and resources in relationships because we cannot survive on our own, right? Hermits are extremely rare and pretty unhappy. And so, how does one sustain oneself in a community? We learn we actually have to invest in that—our brain tells us to invest by creating this desire to repeat it. And that’s really interesting!
2) Studies suggest a dark side to dopamine, and deliberately architecting experiences that over-optimize its release could be potentially harmful (more support for the value of variable hedonics). Is there any “dark side” to oxytocin, and are there potential negative consequences to its release in any context?
All these systems are tuneable, right? So if you’re engaging in activities that stimulate dopamine release that are very exciting and very rewarding (e.g., skydiving or rock climbing), you start to potentiate that pathway so that it’s easier now to engage the release of dopamine. Similarly, for the oxytocin system, there’s very good evidence that it fairly rapidly tunes up.
When you’re in a caring, nurturing environment, it’s just much easier to release oxytocin. Maybe easier is not the right word, but with less stimulus, you’ll release more oxytocin. So you’re correct in some sense about dopamine. Dopamine is much more like a zero-one variable. But for the oxytocin system, it’s a pretty strong index of the strength of the attachment to a person, animal, or movie and the amount of oxytocin released. So you talk to me, we both get some oxytocin release, because we like each other. Now let’s say your kids come in and say, “Hey Daddy, we love you.” That’s just a different ballgame, i.e. oxytocin release will be high higher.
Most brain systems are tunable. You’re right that everything in biology is this inverted U-curve. So if one overwhelms either system, there will be some pathology. And we certainly have more evidence for the overwhelming of the dopamine system, for example, via drug use, in compulsive gamblers, etc. Those relationships are well-established.
We haven’t really seen an overwhelming of the oxytocin system. So, in particular, in oxytocin infusion studies, where we really sledgehammer the brain with synthetic oxytocin, we don’t see that people are more gullible or lack cognitive abilities. They’re not giving away money to strangers; they’re still cognitively intact. It’s just oxytocin has melted the self-other divide, and so everyone is their brother or sister, and they treat everyone as if they’re close, even, by the way, when we specifically identify groups as distinct. For instance, when we do studies where I give participants a red badge or a blue badge, or you wear a certain kind of clothing, and we have you do something to tighten the bond with your group and then interact in these kinds of “share-the-money” tasks that scientists use to capture cooperative behaviors. We say, “Hey, you’re red; you’re interacting with a blue person.” If you’ve released oxytocin with your group, the system is so blunt, you treat that so-called “out-group” just like they’re one of your group, which is so interesting. It points us to the deep need among human beings to connect with others. Once we have that connection, it becomes contagious. We’ve induced oxytocin release in others, and now they connect to others, and on and on. In my optimistic world, that makes the whole planet a nicer place. I call the system The Love+ Rule.
There is one exception. There is some literature out there that is, in my view, poorly designed and over-generous in its interpretation—it claims there is a dark side to oxytocin infusion, that sledgehammer we talked about earlier. Because oxytocin increases empathy, in these studies, if you do oxytocin infusion and prime these people to treat others badly, then those individuals primed will respond to that prime because they’re set up to be more empathic, then you find that they treat people badly. So we don’t see that for the brain’s own endogenous oxytocin release. It is only a “sledgehammer” effect. If I don’t prime you to treat other people badly with oxytocin infusion, you don’t. In fact, you treat them better. So there doesn’t seem to be a real dark side. We’ve even looked at things like pathological altruism, which turns out to be fairly rare. The only time we really see this happening is in people with focal brain damage, in which areas of the brain that modulate the balance between oxytocin and fear-based responses are damaged. In these cases, people might give a hundred dollars to the bus driver when they get on the bus. The brain damage means they are just unable to focus on the appropriate social interactions that they’re having.
Lastly, subject to the research, there’s no high from oxytocin. Once in a while, I get drug seekers saying, “Hey, I want to try oxytocin.” I’m like, “It’s a prescription drug. I can’t give it to you outside of a study.” Still, I don’t think there’s a real opportunity for abuse here. In fact, there are a bunch of therapeutic uses. It can improve the outlook of people who are acutely isolated or lonely. It seems to be helpful for Parkinson’s disease. I have a patent for treating Parkinson’s disease with synthetic oxytocin. And so there is this feel-good effect we get from being in quality social relationships. And the most exciting thing I’m doing right now, to be honest, is building out benchmarks so that people have goals for high-quality social interactions that encourage oxytocin release. The number one thing you can control that will improve your quality of life is to strengthen and extend the number of social interactions you have.
3) What are some of the best ways you’ve found to intentionally trigger oxytocin to cultivate positive emotions and habits in ways that support our well-being?
Oxytocin is such an interesting molecule of connection. You can’t get your own brain to make oxytocin. You have to give that gift to somebody else. So even if you’re the most selfish person who wants to increase your own well-being, you’ve got to connect to others. You’ve got to give to others to get that reciprocation.
In this way, it is very much like love. I can’t make you love me, but I can give love to other people, and if it’s reciprocated, that’s fabulous! So being in the service of others—everything from smiling, to opening a door for someone, to saying hello, and hugs (for sure!), any coordinated movement will do it. When we think about soldiers at boot camp, you never march into battle in formation, right? You’re storming, or else you’re hunkered down behind buildings. So why march in formation during boot camp? Because you’re creating a superorganism, right? You’re breaking these people down, putting them under stress, and having them do the same thing together, and their physiologies begin to coordinate, and you form these amazingly strong bonds. Accordingly, if you look at surveys of soldiers who’ve been in combat and you ask, “who do you feel closest to?” Number one is their children. Number two is the people they served with. You’re in this extraordinary experience in which your life was on the line, and you probably survived because of the actions of other people.
I’m not suggesting you join the army. On a smaller scale, we see that in play. When I’m playing a sport, I’m playing as a unit with others or against others as friends, and I get so much pleasure from that. Playing with others in any form can be a great way to trigger oxytocin intentionally.
4) How does the release of oxytocin differ between men and women, and what implications might this have for social behavior?
Regarding social behavior, anything that is complimentary can elicit oxytocin. I was teaching a class recently, and a student had a cool new haircut, and I said, “Hi, great haircut. You look great.” And he said, “Oh yeah, I just got this yesterday.” I’m recognizing that there’s been a change in his appearance, and it’s a very pleasant thing. It’s not weird. However, across sexes, you’ve got to be a little careful nowadays. You need some level of confidence the compliment is appropriate and will be well-received, or your efforts could become counter-productive and/or problematic.
From a biological perspective, based on twenty years of oxytocin measurements. For every study we’ve run, women release more oxytocin for the same stimulus compared to men. In addition, the release of oxytocin and its uptake by its receptor are modulated by estrogen positively and progesterone negatively. So on average, when women release more oxytocin, it doesn’t always have more of a behavioral effect because of progesterone. Progesterone is the hormone of ovulation and pregnancy. For instance, if you’re ovulating and oxytocin motivates social intercourse, that might lead to sexual intercourse.
We also find there are personality traits that tend to release more oxytocin than others. So people who, by personality, are more empathic and who are more agreeable consistently release more oxytocin for the same stimulus. These people are very warm, they tend to have more friends, and they also tend to be happier. They perhaps have some genetics that allows them to release more oxytocin, or they, through time, have trained their brains to do that. I believe women have a real advantage in terms of social connection that men do not. Particularly younger men, as predicted by neuroscience, and the data confirm, tend to have fewer social connections, and of the ones they do have, they tend to be lower quality. Where women, throughout their lifespan, tend to have more social connections and, by some measures, higher quality ones. This could be one of the reasons why women live longer. Oxytocin improves the immune system by reducing physiologic stress. And men die from a lot of stress-related diseases like cardiac disorders. Social connection is super important to our health. My advice for anybody 30 or older, is invest in social relationships because they’re not only going to make you mentally happier, but healthier, too!
5) On the digital health side, you are up to some really amazing technology that will help us all improve our emotional fitness. Can you quickly describe the concept of emotional fitness, and explain how technology can help us improve it?
There are two core components of emotional fitness. One is psychological safety. Am I comfortable around these other humans? Humans can be wonderful, but they also can stress us out! So we measure that. Number two is the value of social experiences.
We have developed measures of both those things in a simple app that has a lot of mathematics behind it, as well as physiology, so that people can begin to measure their own emotional fitness on these two dimensions: psychological safety and social interactions. By improving emotional fitness, you can live a happier and healthier life.
Having a prompt and a measurement tool that lets people assess how much social interaction one gets at work, during play, with one’s spouse, my kids, etc., you can begin to curate your life to have deeper and more meaningful social relationships. But also, it means sharing with other people. We’re back to that Love+ algorithm. The only way I can get the value of high-quality social experiences is to give that gift to other people and there’s something so beautiful about that.
When I make the people around me happier, more connected, and more valued, then that reflects back on me. And that is really beautiful! It’s really about giving in order to get, but you have to give first, someone’s got to start this. It’s incumbent on us who have done the research, who are thought leaders, to go out and share this message that we can make our communities, our world a better place, but we have to sacrifice and give to others. And by sacrifice, I mean it takes time, energy, and resources to ensure others are better off.
