Does Helping Others Change Your Brain? What the Research Shows

Checked against primary sources by the Editorial Team. Every figure in this article was traced to the study it came from, including the ones that contradict what we previously published. How we review.

You have probably heard that helping others is good for you. The more specific version says helping rewires your brain chemistry. We published that version earlier, and when we traced it to the studies, the chemistry part did not hold up. What the research does show is still worth knowing, and it is more modest.

What brain imaging shows about giving

Harbaugh, Mayr and Burghart scanned 19 women with functional magnetic resonance imaging while they made donations to a charity. The authors report activation in the ventral striatum, including the caudate and nucleus accumbens, and in the insulae. They also report that activation was higher when the transfer was voluntary than when it was mandatory, and that activation in very similar areas rose with money going to the subject and money going to the charity.

The authors link these results to reward processing. The study did not measure dopamine, serotonin or oxytocin. Imaging shows which regions become more active; it does not show which chemicals are responsible. We found no source we could open that measured those three chemicals during volunteering or mentoring, so we have removed the claims that they surge, that serotonin rises, and that oxytocin release lowers cortisol. The sample was small and female only, and the task was a laboratory donation, so it tells us little about a weekly shift at a food bank.

What the health research shows

Stephen Post reviewed the research on altruism and health in 2005. He reports that altruistic emotions and behaviors are associated with greater well being, health and longevity. He also notes the need for reasonable boundaries, since excessive caregiving demands can undercut the benefit. Associations are what the review describes; it does not show that helping causes better health.

The Harvard study, stated precisely

Malone and colleagues used the Harvard Study of Adult Development. Interviews with participants were rated at about age 47 on a five point scale of psychosocial development, running from identity through intimacy and career consolidation to generativity. That is a composite rating of Erikson's stages, not a measure of generativity alone. The 159 participants were all white men. Cognitive testing happened between ages 75 and 85.

The authors report a correlation of .22 between the midlife rating and global cognition, and .20 with executive function. Executive function tests included response inhibition and set shifting. The correlation with memory was .06, which was not statistically significant. Late life depression partly explained the links with global cognition and executive function. The authors note the design is correlational and say they cannot make causal statements. Our earlier text said high generativity brought better abstract thinking and flexibility in general. The study supports small associations with global cognition and executive function, and none with memory.

A second study points the same direction in a different place. Nonaka and colleagues followed 879 community dwelling adults aged 65 to 84 in Japan for two years. Higher generativity scores went with lower odds of declining higher level functional capacity (odds ratio 0.70, 95 percent confidence interval 0.58 to 0.84). The design is observational and cannot show cause.

Why midlife

Erik Erikson described generativity as the midlife concern with guiding the next generation. The data suggest a plateau more than a peak. Einolf analyzed 1,482 adults from the national MIDUS survey, measured in 1995 and again in 2005. The author found no significant change in mean generative concern for people who moved from their 30s, 40s and 50s across that decade. Scores declined for those in their 60s (from 2.78 to 2.66), and the author describes all changes as small. The measure was a shortened six item scale, and many original participants dropped out, so treat the pattern as a good estimate and not a rule.

Cox and colleagues studied 128 adults aged 28 to 74, averaging 49. Generativity went with extraversion and achievement striving. The authors report that generativity was associated with positive societal engagement (r = .47), while personality traits were the stronger predictors of well being. That suggests midlife is a fine time to start, and so is any other decade.

Two ways to act on this

Based on those findings, here are two behaviors the authors' work connects to well being and later functioning. We are describing the behaviors only. Neither study tested a program, product or service, and neither shows these behaviors cause the outcomes.

1. Volunteer on a regular schedule

Post's review links altruistic behavior with well being and health, and Nonaka's cohort links generative concern and behavior with maintained function. Both are observational. We did not open a trial that assigned people to volunteer. Skip it if your schedule is already stretched thin; Post flags excessive caregiving demands as a risk.

2. Mentor or teach one person

Cox's work links generativity to engagement with others and to well being. No study we opened tested mentoring or teaching as an intervention. Skip it if no mentee is available to you right now; the first option is easier to start alone.

This article is for education only. It is not therapy, counseling or medical advice.