↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

The neuroethology of friendship

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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

Brent, Lauren J.N., Chang, Steve W.C., Gariépy, Jean‐François, Platt, Michael L., Brent LJ, Chang SW, Gariépy JF, Platt ML, 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Senegal 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 149 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 22%
Researcher 33 20%
Student > Master 22 13%
Unspecified 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Other 45 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 44 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 24%
Unspecified 23 14%
Social Sciences 16 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 9%
Other 27 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 04 December 2018.
All research outputs
#365,575
of 12,380,756 outputs
Outputs from Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
#130
of 9,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,075
of 218,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
#4
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,380,756 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. 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 218,228 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.