| Title |
The neuroethology of friendship
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1111/nyas.12315 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lauren J.N. Brent, Steve W.C. Chang, Jean‐François Gariépy, Michael L. Platt |
| Abstract |
Friendship pervades the human social landscape. These bonds are so important that disrupting them leads to health problems, and difficulties forming or maintaining friendships attend neuropsychiatric disorders like autism and depression. Other animals also have friends, suggesting that friendship is not solely a human invention but is instead an evolved trait. A neuroethological approach applies behavioral, neurobiological, and molecular techniques to explain friendship with reference to its underlying mechanisms, development, evolutionary origins, and biological function. Recent studies implicate a shared suite of neural circuits and neuromodulatory pathways in the formation, maintenance, and manipulation of friendships across humans and other animals. Health consequences and reproductive advantages in mammals additionally suggest that friendship has adaptive benefits. We argue that understanding the neuroethology of friendship in humans and other animals brings us closer to knowing fully what it means to be human. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 31% |
| Germany | 2 | 6% |
| France | 2 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 6% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 63% |
| Scientists | 8 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 326 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Senegal | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 316 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 66 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 47 | 14% |
| Researcher | 43 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 7% |
| Other | 47 | 14% |
| Unknown | 64 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 68 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 63 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 31 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 23 | 7% |
| Other | 40 | 12% |
| Unknown | 78 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 97. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 January 2024.
All research outputs
#434,239
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
#132
of 11,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,082
of 320,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
#4
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,416 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.