Cited by 298Stress Responses and CortisolNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorAttachment and Relationship Dynamics

Psychobiology of social support: The social dimension of stress buffering

Open access
Ditzen, Beate, Heinrichs, Markus·2014·Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience

Abstract

Social integration and social support have a substantial influence on individual health and longevity, an effect assumed to be mediated through reduced stress reactivity in support recipients. However, considerable variability in individual responses to social support has been documented, suggesting that the beneficial effect of social support interacts with early experiences, genetically influenced differences in biological systems mediating social behavior, personality traits, and psychopathology. Here we outline the historical background of social support research, including epidemiological studies, laboratory studies, and field studies on the subject of social support and health, with regard to different psychobiological effector systems. Most recent research has focused on brain mechanisms which link social integration or social support with reduced neural threat responses. As numerous mental disorders are associated with considerable social impairment, understanding the potentially underlying mechanisms of neural plasticity in relation to social support, stress buffering and health in these disorders can help tailor new diagnostic and treatment strategies. Thus, theories of socially-driven emotional learning and memory, as presented in this review, might eventually lead to psychobiology-based treatment concepts for mental disorders involving social deficits.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3233/rnn-139008

Cites

128 of 128 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 130 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ditzen, B., & Heinrichs, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Ditzen, Beate
  • Heinrichs, Markus
Venue
Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience
Published
2014-02
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
149-162
ISSN
  • 0922-6028 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-3627
OpenAlex
W1671710112
Cited by
298
References
130
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
7.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
  • FreiDok plus (Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (5310/1-1)
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (108392, 124627)
  • Universität Zürich
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
Keywords
social support, stress buffering, psychobiology, social integration, stress reactivity, neuroplasticity, social-emotional learning, social memory, mental illness, social dysfunction, genetic factors, personality traits, psychopathology, longevity
MeSH terms
Humans, Social Support, Stress, Psychological

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