The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Close social associations in animals and humans: functions and mechanisms of friendship
Abstract
Both humans and group-living animals associate and behave affiliatively more with some individuals than others. Human friendship has long been acknowledged, and recently scientists studying animal behaviour have started using the term friendship for close social associates in animals. Yet, while biologists describe friends as social tools to enhance fitness, social scientists describe human friendship as unconditional. We investigate whether these different descriptions reflect true differences in human friendship and animal close social associations or are a by-product of different research approaches: namely social scientists focussing on proximate and biologists on ultimate explanations. We first stress the importance of similar measures to determine close social associations, thereafter examine their ultimate benefits and proximate motivations, and discuss the latest findings on the central-neural regulation of social bonds. We conclude that both human friendship and animal close social associations are ultimately beneficial. On the proximate level, motivations for friendship in humans and for close social associations in animals are not necessarily based on benefits and are often unconditional. Moreover, humans share with many animals a similar physiological basis of sociality. Therefore, biologists and social scientist describe the same phenomenon, and the use of the term friendship for animals seems justified.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Comparative studies have revealed a wealth of commonalities between humans and nonhuman animals that allows them to engage in interspecific social relationships [14,18,19,20,21,22,23].”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [19]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I
Hamilton, W. D. (1964) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4 · Cited by 15,725
Social Relationships and Health
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3399889 · Cited by 7,073
Oxytocin increases trust in humans
Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03701 · Cited by 3,690
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02043 · Cited by 3,475
Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later
Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2008) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.010 · Cited by 1,592
Brown, S. L., Nesse, R. M., Vinokur, A. D., & Smith, D. M. (2003) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.14461 · Cited by 1,142
A role for central vasopressin in pair bonding in monogamous prairie voles
Winslow, J. T., Hastings, N., Carter, C. S., Harbaugh, C. R., & Insel, T. R. (1993) · Nature · doi:10.1038/365545a0 · Cited by 948 · cited 1×
“Infusion of oxytocin and vasopressin in the brain in respectively female and male prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) accelerates pair bonding (Winslow et al., 1993; Williams et al., 1994).”
BackgroundOxytocin Increases Retention of Social Cognition in Autism
Hollander, E., Bartz, J., Chaplin, W., Phillips, A., Sumner, J., Soorya, L., Anagnostou, E., & Wasserman, S. (2007) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.05.030 · Cited by 693
Fries, A. B. W., Ziegler, T. E., Kurian, J. R., Jacoris, S., & Pollak, S. D. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0504767102 · Cited by 570
Social Relationships, Gender, and Allostatic Load Across Two Age Cohorts
Seeman, T. E., Singer, B. H., Ryff, C. D., Dienberg Love, G., & Levy-Storms, L. (2002) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00006842-200205000-00004 · Cited by 496 · cited 1×
“is a causal relationship between the quantity and quality of social relations and the risk of ill-health and death (House et al., 1988; Seeman et al., 2002).”
BackgroundThe Automaticity of Social Life
Bargh, J. A., & Williams, E. L. (2006) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00395.x · Cited by 394
Attitudinal reciprocity in food sharing among brown capuchin monkeys
de Waal, F. B. M. (2000) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1471 · Cited by 302
Connor, R. C. (2007) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1997 · Cited by 289
Primate cognition: from ‘what now?’ to ‘what if
Barrett, L. (2003) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.005 · Cited by 169
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The “online brain”: How the Internet may be changing our cognition
Firth, J., Torous, J., Stubbs, B., Firth, J. A., Steiner, G. Z., Smith, L., Alvarez‐Jimenez, M., Gleeson, J., Vancampfort, D., Armitage, C. J., et al. (2019) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20617 · Cited by 694
The neuroethology of friendship
Brent, L. J. N., Chang, S. W. C., Gariépy, J., & Platt, M. L. (2014) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.12315 · Cited by 138
Prato-Previde, E., Basso Ricci, E., & Colombo, E. S. (2022) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani12202835 · Cited by 121
Relationship quality affects social stress buffering in dogs and wolves
Cimarelli, G., Marshall-Pescini, S., Range, F., Berghänel, A., & Virányi, Z. (2021) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.06.008 · Cited by 22
Schreier, A. L., Readyhough, T. S., Moresco, A., Davis, M., & Joseph, S. (2023) · Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science · doi:10.1080/10888705.2021.1908141 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Massen, J., Sterck, E., & de Vos, H.
- Affiliations
- 1Department of Behavioural Biology, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands;, Email: jorgmassen@gmail.com
- 2Department of Behavioural Biology, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands, Department of Ethology Research, Biomedical Primate Research Centre, Rijswijk, The Netherlands
- 3Department of Sociology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
- Venue
- Behaviour
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 147
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1379-1412
- ISSN
- 0005-7959
- 1568-539X
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 14
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
