Social buffering

In social psychology, social buffering is a phenomenon where social connections can alleviate negative consequences of stressful events.

Although there are other models and theories to describe how social support can help reduce individuals’ stress responses, social buffering hypothesis is one of the dominant ones. According to this idea, social partners, who can be familiar others or conspecifics, act as buffers in the face of stressful events, specifically while the stress is happening. The model further describes that social support is especially beneficial when levels of stress are also high, but buffering effects are not as relevant when levels of stress are low.

Social buffering has been explored in humans and other social animals, and is important to questions about physical and mental health. Research has attempted to gain insight about the protective effects of social support in several domains, such as biological, developmental, neurological, and clinical settings. Social buffering is also relevant to other psychological processes, including fear, social bonding, and emotional reactivity.

Background

Early history

Psychological research in the mid-twentieth century began to increasingly reveal the role of stressful life events on psychological well-being. ^[1] This was also around the time that there was a focus on creating standardized approach to diagnosing mental illnesses, with the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders (commonly referred to as the DSM) being published in 1952. ^[2] With a honed focus on effective, universal ways to measure mental well-being, and the application of experimental psychology on social issues, a large literature on the effects of social support began to form. This occurred in an effort to fill in the gaps on the specific factors that mediate the relationship between life events and psychological consequences. ^[3]

Specific focus on the attenuation of social support on the negative impacts of stressful events on physical and mental health began in the mid-1970’s. ^[4] This is around the time when the idea of social buffering began to take shape. ^[4]

It is unclear where the phrase social buffering hypothesis was first mentioned, but one of the most credited and cited works on the topic was published by researchers Sheldon Cohen and Thomas A. Wills in 1985. ^[5]

Social buffering has been an important feature in psychology since its early use, specifically relevant to social and health psychology. ^{[6] [7]} The framework has been applied to several other areas as well, and methods of measurement and definitions of relevant terminology continue to be refined and built upon. ^{[8] [9]}

Social support

Social buffering is a subset of social support, and not all occurrences of social support are social buffering. Social support encompasses both the expectation and actual act of being assisted, nurtured, attended to, or participation in a social network. ^[10]

Research on social support makes the distinction between perceived support and received social support. Perceived social support refers to the amount of support people believe that they could potentially receive from their available support system, while received social support is the level of support that people have received. ^{[11] [12]} Some studies have shown that perceived social support may be better for mitigating the negative effects of stress on health and psychological well-being, ^{[13] [14]} meaning there is a measurable difference between the types of social support and proper definition of variables is important to research in the area.

Social support is robustly associated with positive health outcomes. Research has shown that people with larger social networks, higher quality relationships, and greater access to social support resources have better mental and physical health. ^[15] The effects of social support have been studied in many different domains of psychology, such as social, developmental, clinical, health, and neuroscience. ^{[16] [12] [17] [18]}

Competing model: direct effects hypothesis

The social buffering hypothesis is often compared to or evaluated with the direct effect hypothesis. ^{[8] [19]} This hypothesis differs from social buffering in that it holds that social support enhances physical and psychological well-being in general, regardless of the presence of stressors. This model says that social support is beneficial all the time, and that people with high social support have overall better health than those without it. ^[20]

The two models tend to deal with different measures of social support. The direct effects hypothesis measures the level at which a person is integrated into a social network, while the social buffering hypothesis assesses how available the social resources are that help people respond to stressful events. ^[8] The language around both hypotheses also tends to be different, with the direct effects hypothesis often looking at the enhancement of health and well-being as a result of the perception of support and integration in a network, whereas the buffering hypothesis is more concerned with protection (or prevention), especially in times of need. ^[8]

Statistically, the direct effect hypothesis holds that there is no interaction between stress and social support, ^[21] meaning the same beneficial effects will be observed notwithstanding of the level of stress. Conversely, according to the social buffering hypothesis, the magnitude of the beneficial effect from social support is larger when stress is present, which is reflected in a statistically significant observable interaction when the two effects are studied experimentally. ^[8] This also means that knowledge of the degree of stress is required for the social buffering hypothesis, where this level may not be as relevant in the context of the direct effects hypothesis. ^[21]

Despite these models providing somewhat separate explanations, research has found support for both hypotheses, ^[12] and some work even suggests that both processes happen simultaneously. ^[19] Researchers have suggested that work directed at critically comparing the two hypotheses may not actually benefit the field studying social support. ^[8] Instead it may be more beneficial to use either as a model that aims to explain specific questions about how social support relates to mediators of health, that can be behavioral, psychological, emotional, or biological. ^[8]

Biology

HPA axis and endocrine hormone mechanism

Research studies done on social buffering and health consequences consistently show that the HPA axis plays a central role in the link between the two. ^{[22] [23]}

The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis is a crucial regulator of neuroendocrine responses in the body. The HPA axis is made up of a series of pathways and feedback loops that involve the hypothalamus, anterior pituitary gland, and adrenal gland. ^[24] It modulates several physiological processes, including the autonomic nervous system, immune system reactions, metabolism, and several other processes that are active during short-term physiological responses to stress. ^[24] The HPA axis also plays a major role in bodily homeostasis, which includes regulating the cardiovascular system, reproductive system, and central nervous system in addition to those previously mentioned. ^[24]

Proper functioning of the HPA axis is very important for adaptation and development, and both over and under reactivity can lead to a series of consequences. ^[24] It is important for humans to experience high levels of circulating stress hormones early in life so that they can learn to effectively respond to threat and adapt to their environments. ^[25] However, too much stress in childhood can lead to long term and often irreversible dysfunction of the HPA axis. ^[26]

HPA axis activity goes up during aversive or arousing situations, which can be induced by physical or psychosocial events. The HPA axis is particularly sensitive to psychological stressors, ^[27] including uncertainty, novelty, and the feeling of being out of control. ^{[28] [29]} In addition to being influenced by psychological stressors, one of the most powerful and widely studied moderators of HPA axis activity induced by stressful events is social support. ^[26] This is why the HPA axis is often a focal point in physiological research examining social buffering effects. ^{[23] [22]}

The biological mechanisms of social buffering have been explored, and several components have been identified as relevant:

Endocrine

There are several hormones involved in HPA axis endocrine regulation. One is corticotrophin-releasing factor (CRF). CRF stimulates the release of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), which is the crucial physiological regulator of increased activity of the HPA axis. ^[30] Another is vasopressin (AVP), and glucocorticoids are the final step in the process. ^[31] Social buffering is observed when high levels of social support are correlated with lower levels of stress hormone and HPA axis activation. ^[25]

Oxytocin

Oxytocin has been recognized as an important hormone involved in the mechanism of social buffering. Oxytocin is a molecule that is often called the “love hormone”. ^[32] It is released into the blood in response to physiological and psychological stress, and increased oxytocin release from the hypothalamus inhibits activation of the HPA axis. ^{[33] [34]} Oxytocin is involved in stress processes by inhibiting the release of corticosteroids, ACTH release from the pituitary gland, and release of CRF from the hypothalamus. ^[30] The central nervous system also meditates the inhibitory effect of oxytocin on the HPA axis. ^[30] Oxytocin is also involved in the behavioral side of social buffering. Oxytocin's role in bonding means that it is related to the process of social support, in addition to being released in response to a stressor. ^[35]

Opioids

Endogenous opioids, or endorphins, also appear to play a major role in social buffering, via a reinforcing effect that is active in social attachment. ^[30] Opioid release is also observed when animals recognize each other, which supports the idea that animals find social support in others of the same species. This is necessary to see social buffering effects in animals, and opioid release also helps explain the seeking of affiliation in animals as well. Opioid release as a result of social stimulation has also been found to reduce corticotrophin-releasing factor CRF activity in the brain and body. ^[30]

Neural circuitry

Research on the brain regions involved in social buffering is less extensive compared to the role of the HPA axis and cortisol. ^[36]

However, the prefrontal cortex has been identified as a region involved in the social buffering and stress responses. Higher activity in the prefrontal cortex has been found to be correlated with higher degrees of cortisol responses to stress. A similar relationship has been observed in the anterior cingulate cortex. ^[18] Both the prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex have been shown to be involved in emotional responses and reactivity to stressful situations, ^[37] and activity in these areas is closely related with HPA activation. The presence of social support causes cortisol levels to go down as well as decreased activity in these regions. ^[36]

Social buffering has also been observed in regions that are thought to be involved in responding to threats to safety, which include the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, posterior insula, and posterior cingulate cortex. ^[38]

Clinical applications

Social support has been historically identified as very important for people’s well-being, and it can be even more important for populations that are vulnerable to high stress and loneliness. Work on the social buffering hypothesis has been done on these populations, which include racial and ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, middle-aged and elderly, impoverished individuals, and other adversely affected demographic groups. This type of work aims to find specific applications of social buffering, often to provide frameworks for developing and/or assessing effectiveness of treatments or build an understanding for prevention of the negative consequences of stressful life events. ^{[39] [8] [40]}

A social buffering effect was observed in work done on suicidality, and findings indicate that focusing on buffering has the potential of being an effective area in developing interventions. ^[39] The buffering effect has also been found to be strong in individuals with depression, ^{[41] [42]} meaning that social support can reduce symptoms of depression during times of stress. A relationship has also been drawn between social buffering and drug and alcohol use disorders, which lower likelihood of developing substance abuse disorders with higher social support. ^[43]

Another issue that social buffering relates to is loneliness. The United States has a growing rate of loneliness, some consider it a “loneliness epidemic”, ^[44] and there is a documented rise in the number of people living alone in many cultures globally. ^{[45] [46]} Loneliness is strongly linked with many psychiatric disorders, including depression and anxiety, as well as several physical disorders, such as cardiovascular diseases and hypertension. ^[47] Additionally, the rate of loneliness increases with age and has serious health consequences particularly in older populations. ^[48] Research shows that high levels of social connectedness can help alleviate negative effects of loneliness that frequently accompany getting older. ^[45] The robust connection between loneliness and poor mental and physical health is difficult to debate, and social buffering research can highlight the specific aspects of loneliness that are most damaging. ^[49]

Social buffering is also relevant to the process of acculturation. ^[50] Immigrants, guest workers, and international students may experience increased likelihood of isolation and psychological difficulties such as depressive symptoms. ^[51] Research shows that those who have more interpersonal connections and participate in acculturation at higher degrees, benefit from the effects of social buffering. ^[50] Increasing the size of one’s social network has been shown to have salient buffering effects particularly in older immigrants as well. ^[51]

It Is important to note that social buffering works differently in different groups in society. ^[52] There are gender, age, and cultural differences. ^[26] Additionally, it can be difficult to study the effects of social support on stress in individuals who have impaired social functioning. ^[53] These include individuals with autism spectrum disorders, social phobias, and social anxiety disorder. ^[54]

Development

Social buffering is recognized as an essential way through which the nature of experiences in childhood affect development and subsequent health. ^[23]

During infancy, parents play a large role in regulating the negative consequences of childhood, especially regarding fear or pain responses. ^[55] Attachment is also very relevant to studies on development and stress reduction. Attachment theory posits that the type of attachment relationship a child forms with their parents influences their ability to regulate emotional states whether or not the parents are immediately present. ^[55] Stress buffering effects are often seen with securely attached children, indicating that the type and stability of relationships is crucial to how well a child recovers from stressful events. ^{[55] [56]}

Some research shows that parents are especially important for social buffering up until around puberty or late childhood, ^[55] when primary caregivers tend to become less influential than peers in social settings. ^[57] This does not take away from the role that parents play in social buffering as a whole, and instead reflects how they are replaced by friends who become a major source of social support with buffering. Furthermore, major stressors during adolescence and puberty tend to be peers and social standing, so the social buffering provided by friends during this time is heavily interwoven with social networks and relates to an idea called the friendship protection hypothesis. ^[55] The friendship protection hypothesis reflects the idea of the social buffering hypothesis and explains how children with at least one supportive friend are less negatively affected by bullying and peer rejection. ^[58]

When looking at social buffering and development, a common approach to measuring stress responses involves looking at the HPA axis. The HPA axis is referred to as one of the primary hormonal stress systems. ^[31] Research looking at stress and social buffering in development consistently shows that parents play a role in shaping HPA axis function, which is evidenced in part by how early social deprivation may later result in long term dysfunction of stress reactivity. ^[59] Social buffering effects have also been observed when a child is exposed to a threatening event. The presence of a parent during such a time can lower or completely block the activation of the HPA axis. ^[60]

Additional support for the social buffering hypothesis and social neuroscience involves fear conditioning. The amygdala has been recognized as an important part in the process of fear learning, and research has shown that children have reduced amygdala activity when around a parent. ^[61] In addition to this, greater connectivity between the prefrontal cortex and amygdala was observed when a child viewed their mother compared to a stranger. ^[62] The prefrontal cortex is involved in emotional processes so communication between the two brain areas indicates that parents play a large role in emotional regulation and provide neurological support for social buffering. ^[63]

Although the functioning of stress processes and fear learning are evolutionarily crucial, research on social buffering shows that social support can reduce the negative developmental consequences of too high stress and potentially aid with proper biological functioning. ^{[64] [65]}

Animal research

Social buffering has been observed in conspecific animals

Phenomena consistent with the social buffering hypothesis have been widely observed in non-human animals. The literature on animals uses the word conspecifics to refer to animals of the same species, and in each case it is clear that the effects are seen between like-animals and not due to the presence of other beings in general. ^{[26] [66]}

Social interaction and communication are very important for survival in many species of animals, aiding with cooperation and essential for protection from threats. ^[67] Highly social animals, such as non-human primates, rodents, and birds, show positive physiological and psychological effects when they are together with animals of the same species. ^[30] This was an idea that gained more attention in the early 2000’s, while many of the experiments conducted in earlier research focused on the stress-inducing factors of social interaction. ^[67]

Social buffering has been observed in a wide range of animals, including guinea pigs, ^[68] horses, ^[69] rhesus monkeys, ^[70] and pigs. ^[71] Studies have found support for social buffering both from a physiological, in the form of reduced HPA activity or lower cortisol levels, and behavioral perspective. Behavioral observations in rats, for example, include increased locomotor activity, indicating less fear, in a stress inducing open space in the presence of other rats, and an increase in the seeking of the proximity of other rats when they were exposed to stress. ^[67]

Research on animals has also revealed several sensory cues for social buffering:

• Olfactory cues - Highly social animals use chemical communication to transmit certain information, such as emotional status in times of stress that alters both the physiological responses and behavior of animals. ^{[72] [73]} Animals may also use appeasing pheromones to calm others down and reduce fighting behavior. ^{[71] [74] [75]} An example of this in humans is that maternal breast odor is both attractive to infants and has positive emotional effects. ^[76]
• Vocal cues - Vocal communication can be used to indicate familiarity, emotions, and help with attachment formation. In marmosets, a species that use vocal communication, stress hormone levels decrease more when hearing a familiar voice compared to hearing an unfamiliar one. ^[77]
• Visual cues - In certain animals, visual cues may be enough to evoke the effects of social buffering. These effects were shown in sheep, where seeing pictures of other sheep's faces reduced behavioral and physiological stress responses. ^{[78] [26] [66]} Zebrafish have been observed to communicate about danger with visual cues, leading to social buffering from conspecifics in response to the threat of predators. ^{[79] [80] [81]}

References

1. Thoits, Peggy A. (1982). "Conceptual, Methodological, and Theoretical Problems in Studying Social Support as a Buffer Against Life Stress". Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 23 (2): 145–159. doi:10.2307/2136511. JSTOR   2136511. PMID   7108180.
2. "DSM History". American Psychiatric Association.
3. Wilcox, Brian L. (August 1981). "Social support, life stress, and psychological adjustment: A test of the buffering hypothesis". American Journal of Community Psychology. 9 (4): 371–386. doi:10.1007/bf00918169. PMID   7282647. S2CID   26597416.
4. Lin, Nan; Woelfel, Mary W.; Light, Stephen C. (1985). "The Buffering Effect of Social Support Subsequent to an Important Life Event". Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 26 (3): 247–263. doi:10.2307/2136756. JSTOR   2136756. PMID   4067240.
5. Cohen, Sheldon; McKay, Garth (2020). "Social Support, Stress and the Buffering Hypothesis: A Theoretical Analysis". Handbook of Psychology and Health (Volume IV). pp. 253–267. doi:10.1201/9781003044307-10. ISBN   978-1-00-304430-7. S2CID   229105524.
6. Thoits, Peggy A. (1982). "Conceptual, Methodological, and Theoretical Problems in Studying Social Support as a Buffer Against Life Stress". Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 23 (2): 145–159. doi:10.2307/2136511. JSTOR   2136511. PMID   7108180.
7. Cohen, Sheldon; Wills, Thomas A. (September 1985). "Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis". Psychological Bulletin. 98 (2): 310–357. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310. PMID   3901065. S2CID   18137066. ProQuest   614319825.
8. Schaefer, Catherine (March 1985). "Book Reviews : Social Support and Health, Sheldon Cohen and S. Leonard Syme, Eds. Academic Press, Orlando, 1984". Health Education Quarterly. 12 (1): 109–112. doi:10.1177/109019818501200110. S2CID   143573926.
9. Kiyokawa, Yasushi; Hennessy, Michael B. (March 2018). "Comparative studies of social buffering: A consideration of approaches, terminology, and pitfalls". Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 86: 131–141. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.12.005. PMC   5801062 . PMID   29223771.
10. Gunnar, Megan R. (May 2017). "Social Buffering of Stress in Development: A Career Perspective". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 12 (3): 355–373. doi:10.1177/1745691616680612. PMC   5445937 . PMID   28544861.
11. Helgeson, Vicki S. (May 1993). "Two Important Distinctions in Social Support: Kind of Support and Perceived Versus Received". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 23 (10): 825–845. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01008.x.
12. Taylor, Shelley E. (2012). "Social Support: A Review". The Oxford Handbook of Health Psychology. pp. 190–214. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195342819.013.0009. ISBN   978-0-19-534281-9.
13. Uchino, Bert N. (May 2009). "Understanding the Links Between Social Support and Physical Health: A Life-Span Perspective With Emphasis on the Separability of Perceived and Received Support". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 4 (3): 236–255. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01122.x. PMID   26158961. S2CID   17551921.
14. Taylor, Shelley E.; Sherman, David K.; Kim, Heejung S.; Jarcho, Johanna; Takagi, Kaori; Dunagan, Melissa S. (2004). "Culture and Social Support: Who Seeks It and Why?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 87 (3): 354–362. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.354. PMID   15382985.
15. Hornstein, Erica A.; Eisenberger, Naomi I. (2017-05-02). Brown, Kirk Warren (ed.). "Unpacking the buffering effect of social support figures: Social support attenuates fear acquisition". PLOS ONE. 12 (5): e0175891. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1275891H. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175891 . PMC   5413011 . PMID   28463999.
16. Schwarzer, Ralf; Leppin, Anja (January 1989). "Social support and health: A meta-analysis". Psychology & Health. 3 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1080/08870448908400361.
17. Winemiller, David R.; Mitchell, M. Ellen; Sutliff, Jane; Cline, Daniel I. (September 1993). "Measurement strategies in social support: A descriptive review of the literature". Journal of Clinical Psychology. 49 (5): 638–648. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199309)49:5<638::aid-jclp2270490505>3.0.co;2-7. PMID   8254070.
18. Eisenberger, Naomi I.; Taylor, Shelley E.; Gable, Shelly L.; Hilmert, Clayton J.; Lieberman, Matthew D. (May 2007). "Neural pathways link social support to attenuated neuroendocrine stress responses". NeuroImage. 35 (4): 1601–1612. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.01.038. PMC   2710966 . PMID   17395493.
19. Hobfoll, Stevan E., ed. (2014). Stress, Social Support, and Women. doi:10.4324/9781315803128. ISBN   978-1-317-77060-2.^{[ page needed ]}
20. Cohen, Sheldon; Wills, Thomas A. (September 1985). "Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis". Psychological Bulletin. 98 (2): 310–357. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310. PMID   3901065. S2CID   18137066.
21. Whelan, Christopher T. (January 1993). "The role of social support in mediating the psychological consequences of economic stress". Sociology of Health & Illness. 15 (1): 86–101. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11343797 .
22. Gunnar, Megan R.; Hostinar, Camelia E. (3 September 2015). "The social buffering of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical axis in humans: Developmental and experiential determinants". Social Neuroscience. 10 (5): 479–488. doi:10.1080/17470919.2015.1070747. PMC   4618716 . PMID   26230646.
23. Hostinar, Camelia E.; Sullivan, Regina M.; Gunnar, Megan R. (January 2014). "Psychobiological mechanisms underlying the social buffering of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical axis: A review of animal models and human studies across development". Psychological Bulletin. 140 (1): 256–282. doi:10.1037/a0032671. PMC   3844011 . PMID   23607429.
24. Sheng, Julietta A.; Bales, Natalie J.; Myers, Sage A.; Bautista, Anna I.; Roueinfar, Mina; Hale, Taben M.; Handa, Robert J. (2021-01-13). "The Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis: Development, Programming Actions of Hormones, and Maternal-Fetal Interactions". Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 14. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2020.601939 . PMC   7838595 . PMID   33519393.
25. Sapolsky, R. M. (February 2000). "How Do Glucocorticoids Influence Stress Responses? Integrating Permissive, Suppressive, Stimulatory, and Preparative Actions". Endocrine Reviews. 21 (1): 55–89. doi: 10.1210/edrv.21.1.0389 . PMID   10696570.
26. Hennessy, Michael B.; Kaiser, Sylvia; Sachser, Norbert (October 2009). "Social buffering of the stress response: Diversity, mechanisms, and functions". Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology. 30 (4): 470–482. doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2009.06.001. PMID   19545584. S2CID   28636621.
27. Mason, John W. (June 1975). "A Historical View of the Stress Field". Journal of Human Stress. 1 (2): 22–36. doi:10.1080/0097840X.1975.9940405. PMID   798013.
28. Henry, James Paget; Stephens, Patricia M. (1977). Stress, Health, and the Social Environment: A Sociobiologic Approach to Medicine. Springer-Verlag. ISBN   978-3-540-90293-5.^{[ page needed ]}
29. Hennessy, John W.; Smotherman, William P.; Levine, Seymour (April 1976). "Conditioned taste aversion and the pituitary-adrenal system". Behavioral Biology. 16 (4): 413–424. doi:10.1016/s0091-6773(76)91571-6. PMID   183642.
30. Kiyokawa, Yasushi (2018). "Relief from Stress Provided by Conspecifics: Social Buffering". Neuronal Correlates of Empathy. pp. 137–149. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-805397-3.00011-5. ISBN   978-0-12-805397-3.
31. Aguilera, Greti (2012). "The Hypothalamic–Pituitary–Adrenal Axis and Neuroendocrine Responses to Stress". Handbook of Neuroendocrinology. pp. 175–196. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-375097-6.10008-3. ISBN   978-0-12-375097-6.
32. "Oxytocin: The love hormone". Harvard Health. 2021-07-20. Retrieved 2023-11-27.
33. DeVries, A.Courtney; Glasper, Erica R; Detillion, Courtney E (August 2003). "Social modulation of stress responses". Physiology & Behavior. 79 (3): 399–407. doi:10.1016/s0031-9384(03)00152-5. PMID   12954434. S2CID   6200847.
34. Neumann, Inga D. (2002). "Chapter 12 Involvement of the brain oxytocin system in stress coping: Interactions with the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis". Vasopressin and Oxytocin: From Genes to Clinical Applications. Progress in Brain Research. Vol. 139. pp. 147–162. doi:10.1016/s0079-6123(02)39014-9. ISBN   978-0-444-50982-6. PMID   12436933.
35. Crockford, Catherine; Deschner, Tobias; Wittig, Roman M. (2017). "The Role of Oxytocin in Social Buffering: What do Primate Studies Add?". Behavioral Pharmacology of Neuropeptides: Oxytocin. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences. Vol. 35. pp. 155–173. doi:10.1007/7854_2017_12. ISBN   978-3-319-63738-9. PMID   28864973.
36. Eisenberger, Naomi I.; Taylor, Shelley E.; Gable, Shelly L.; Hilmert, Clayton J.; Lieberman, Matthew D. (2007-05-01). "Neural pathways link social support to attenuated neuroendocrine stress responses". NeuroImage. 35 (4): 1601–1612. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.01.038. PMC   2710966 . PMID   17395493.
37. Eisenberger, Naomi I.; Lieberman, Matthew D.; Williams, Kipling D. (10 October 2003). "Does Rejection Hurt? An fMRI Study of Social Exclusion". Science. 302 (5643): 290–292. Bibcode:2003Sci...302..290E. doi:10.1126/science.1089134. PMID   14551436. S2CID   21253445.
38. Eisenberger, Naomi I. (July 2013). "An Empirical Review of the Neural Underpinnings of Receiving and Giving Social Support: Implications for Health". Psychosomatic Medicine. 75 (6): 545–556. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e31829de2e7. PMC   3763941 . PMID   23804014.
39. Trujillo, Michael A.; Perrin, Paul B.; Sutter, Megan; Tabaac, Ariella; Benotsch, Eric G. (2017-01-02). "The buffering role of social support on the associations among discrimination, mental health, and suicidality in a transgender sample". International Journal of Transgenderism. 18 (1): 39–52. doi:10.1080/15532739.2016.1247405. PMC   5996383 . PMID   29904324.
40. Ditzen, Beate; Heinrichs, Markus (2014). "Psychobiology of social support: The social dimension of stress buffering". Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. 32 (1): 149–162. doi: 10.3233/rnn-139008 . PMID   23603443.
41. Dalgard, Odd Steffen; Bjørk, Sven; Tambs, Kristian (January 1995). "Social Support, Negative Life Events and Mental Health". British Journal of Psychiatry. 166 (1): 29–34. doi:10.1192/bjp.166.1.29. PMID   7894872. S2CID   23886094.
42. Takizawa, Tohru; Kondo, Tsuyoshi; Sakihara, Seizou; Ariizumi, Makoto; Watanabe, Naoki; Oyama, Hirofumi (December 2006). "Stress buffering effects of social support on depressive symptoms in middle age: Reciprocity and community mental health". Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 60 (6): 652–661. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2006.01579.x . PMID   17109698.
43. Stockdale, Susan E.; Wells, Kenneth B.; Tang, Lingqi; Belin, Thomas R.; Zhang, Lily; Sherbourne, Cathy D. (2007-11-01). "The importance of social context: Neighborhood stressors, stress-buffering mechanisms, and alcohol, drug, and mental health disorders". Social Science & Medicine. Placing Health in Context. 65 (9): 1867–1881. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.045. PMC   2151971 . PMID   17614176.
44. "New Surgeon General Advisory Raises Alarm about the Devastating Impact of the Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation in the United States". www.hhs.gov. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health. 2023-05-03. Retrieved 2023-11-27.
45. Schafer, Markus H; Sun, Haosen; Lee, Jin A (11 August 2022). "Compensatory Connections? Living Alone, Loneliness, and the Buffering Role of Social Connection Among Older American and European Adults". The Journals of Gerontology: Series B. 77 (8): 1550–1560. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbab217. PMID   34850873.
46. "Increased loneliness has become a global public health issue". Open Access Government. February 10, 2022.
47. Mushtaq, Raheel (2014). "Relationship Between Loneliness, Psychiatric Disorders and Physical Health ? A Review on the Psychological Aspects of Loneliness". Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 8 (9): WE01-4. doi: 10.7860/jcdr/2014/10077.4828 . PMC   4225959 . PMID   25386507.
48. "Loneliness and Social Isolation Linked to Serious Health Conditions". CDC. 8 December 2022.
49. Lee, Chih-Yuan Steven; Goldstein, Sara E. (March 2016). "Loneliness, Stress, and Social Support in Young Adulthood: Does the Source of Support Matter?". Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 45 (3): 568–580. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0395-9. PMID   26602564. S2CID   42662313.
50. Lee, Jee-Sook; Koeske, Gary F.; Sales, Esther (September 2004). "Social support buffering of acculturative stress: a study of mental health symptoms among Korean international students". International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 28 (5): 399–414. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2004.08.005.
51. Jang, Heejung; Tang, Fengyan (June 2022). "Loneliness, age at immigration, family relationships, and depression among older immigrants: A moderated relationship". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 39 (6): 1602–1622. doi:10.1177/02654075211061279. PMC   9216219 . PMID   35747127.
52. Kawachi, I. (1 September 2001). "Social Ties and Mental Health". Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 78 (3): 458–467. doi:10.1093/jurban/78.3.458. PMC   3455910 . PMID   11564849.
53. Ditzen, Beate; Heinrichs, Markus (2014). "Psychobiology of social support: The social dimension of stress buffering" (PDF). Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. 32 (1): 149–162. doi: 10.3233/RNN-139008 . PMID   23603443.
54. Reinelt, Eva; Aldinger, Maren; Stopsack, Malte; Schwahn, Christian; John, Ulrich; Baumeister, Sebastian E.; Grabe, Hans Jörgen; Barnow, Sven (August 2014). "High social support buffers the effects of 5-HTTLPR genotypes within social anxiety disorder". European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 264 (5): 433–439. doi:10.1007/s00406-013-0481-5. PMID   24407753. S2CID   22418294.
55. Gunnar, Megan R.; Hostinar, Camelia E. (2015-09-03). "The social buffering of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical axis in humans: Developmental and experiential determinants". Social Neuroscience. 10 (5): 479–488. doi:10.1080/17470919.2015.1070747. PMC   4618716 . PMID   26230646.
56. Gunnar, Megan R.; Brodersen, Laurie; Nachmias, Melissa; Buss, Kristin; Rigatuso, Joseph (April 1996). "Stress reactivity and attachment security". Developmental Psychobiology. 29 (3): 191–204. doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-2302(199604)29:3<191::aid-dev1>3.0.co;2-m. PMID   8666128.
57. Brown, B. Bradford; Larson, James (2009). "Peer Relationships in Adolescence". Handbook of Adolescent Psychology. doi:10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002004. ISBN   978-0-470-14920-1.
58. Kendrick, Kristin; Jutengren, Göran; Stattin, Håkan (August 2012). "The protective role of supportive friends against bullying perpetration and victimization". Journal of Adolescence. 35 (4): 1069–1080. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.014. PMID   22464910.
59. Hostinar, Camelia E.; Johnson, Anna E.; Gunnar, Megan R. (November 2015). "Early social deprivation and the social buffering of cortisol stress responses in late childhood: An experimental study". Developmental Psychology. 51 (11): 1597–1608. doi: 10.1037/dev0000029 . PMC   4623953 . PMID   26322485.
60. Gunnar, Megan R.; Sullivan, Regina M. (2017-01-02). "The neurodevelopment of social buffering and fear learning: integration and crosstalk". Social Neuroscience. 12 (1): 1–7. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2016.1151824 . PMID   26872845.
61. Gee, Dylan G.; Humphreys, Kathryn L.; Flannery, Jessica; Goff, Bonnie; Telzer, Eva H.; Shapiro, Mor; Hare, Todd A.; Bookheimer, Susan Y.; Tottenham, Nim (2013-03-06). "A Developmental Shift from Positive to Negative Connectivity in Human Amygdala–Prefrontal Circuitry". The Journal of Neuroscience. 33 (10): 4584–4593. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.3446-12.2013 . PMC   3670947 . PMID   23467374.
62. Tottenham, Nim; Shapiro, Mor; Telzer, Eva H.; Humphreys, Kathryn L. (May 2012). "Amygdala response to mother". Developmental Science. 15 (3): 307–319. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01128.x. PMC   3522470 . PMID   22490172.
63. Gunnar, Megan R.; Sullivan, Regina M. (2 January 2017). "The neurodevelopment of social buffering and fear learning: integration and crosstalk". Social Neuroscience. 12 (1): 1–7. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2016.1151824 . PMID   26872845.
64. Uchino, Bert N.; Cacioppo, John T.; Kiecolt-Glaser, Janice K. (1996). "The relationship between social support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health". Psychological Bulletin. 119 (3): 488–531. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.3.488. PMID   8668748.
65. McEwen, Bruce S. (2004). "Protective and Damaging Effects of the Mediators of Stress and Adaptation: Allostasis and Allostatic Load". Allostasis, Homeostasis, and the Costs of Physiological Adaptation. pp. 65–98. doi:10.1017/cbo9781316257081.005. ISBN   978-0-521-81141-5.
66. Kiyokawa, Yasushi; Hennessy, Michael B. (2018-03-01). "Comparative studies of social buffering: A consideration of approaches, terminology, and pitfalls". Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 86: 131–141. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.12.005 . PMC   5801062 . PMID   29223771.
67. Kikusui, Takefumi; Winslow, James T; Mori, Yuji (2006-12-29). "Social buffering: relief from stress and anxiety". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 361 (1476): 2215–2228. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1941. PMC   1764848 . PMID   17118934.
68. Hennessy, Michael B.; Zate, Ryan; Maken, Deborah S. (March 2008). "Social buffering of the cortisol response of adult female guinea pigs". Physiology & Behavior. 93 (4–5): 883–888. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.12.005. PMID   18221759. S2CID   23034099.
69. Ricci-Bonot, Claire; Romero, Teresa; Nicol, Christine; Mills, Daniel (23 April 2021). "Social buffering in horses is influenced by context but not by the familiarity and habituation of a companion". Scientific Reports. 11 (1): 8862. Bibcode:2021NatSR..11.8862R. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-88319-z. PMC   8065151 . PMID   33893366.
70. Gust, Deborah A.; Gordon, Thomas P.; Hambright, M.Karen; Wilson, Mark E. (September 1993). "Relationship between Social Factors and Pituitary-Adrenocortical Activity in Female Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta)". Hormones and Behavior. 27 (3): 318–331. doi:10.1006/hbeh.1993.1024. PMID   8225256. S2CID   41023620.
71. McGlone, John J.; Stansbury, Wayne F.; Tribble, Leland F. (1 September 1986). "Aerosolized 5α-androst-16-en-3-one Reduced Agonistic Behavior and Temporarily Improved Performance of Growing Pigs1". Journal of Animal Science. 63 (3): 679–684. doi:10.2527/jas1986.633679x. PMID   3759697.
72. Kikusui, Takefumi; Takigami, Shu; Takeuchi, Yukari; Mori, Yuji (January 2001). "Alarm pheromone enhances stress-induced hyperthermia in rats". Physiology & Behavior. 72 (1–2): 45–50. doi:10.1016/s0031-9384(00)00370-x. PMID   11239980. S2CID   863183.
73. Kiyokawa, Yasushi; Kikusui, Takefumi; Takeuchi, Yukari; Mori, Yuji (May 2005). "Mapping the neural circuit activated by alarm pheromone perception by c-Fos immunohistochemistry". Brain Research. 1043 (1–2): 145–154. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2005.02.061. PMID   15862528. S2CID   41186952.
74. Guiraudie, G. (September 2003). "Functional Characterization of Olfactory Binding Proteins for Appeasing Compounds and Molecular Cloning in the Vomeronasal Organ of Pre-pubertal Pigs". Chemical Senses. 28 (7): 609–619. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjg052. PMID   14578123.
75. Sheppard, G.; Mills, D. S. (April 2003). "Evaluation of dog-appeasing pheromone as a potential treatment for dogs fearful of fireworks". Veterinary Record. 152 (14): 432–436. doi:10.1136/vr.152.14.432. PMID   12708592. S2CID   6519633.
76. Porter, RichardH.; Winberg, Jan (January 1999). "Unique salience of maternal breast odors for newborn infants". Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 23 (3): 439–449. doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(98)00044-x. PMID   9989430. S2CID   34940555.
77. Rukstalis, Michael; French, Jeffrey A. (January 2005). "Vocal buffering of the stress response: exposure to conspecific vocalizations moderates urinary cortisol excretion in isolated marmosets". Hormones and Behavior. 47 (1): 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2004.09.004. PMC   2987614 . PMID   15579259.
78. da Costa, Ana P.; Leigh, Andrea E.; Man, Mei-See; Kendrick, Keith M. (7 October 2004). "Face pictures reduce behavioural, autonomic, endocrine and neural indices of stress and fear in sheep". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 271 (1552): 2077–2084. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2831. PMC   1691828 . PMID   15451699.
79. Oliveira, Thiago Acosta; Idalencio, Renan; Kalichak, Fabiana; dos Santos Rosa, João Gabriel; Koakoski, Gessi; de Abreu, Murilo Sander; Giacomini, Ana Cristina Varrone; Gusso, Darlan; Rosemberg, Denis Brook; Barreto, Rodrigo Egydio; Barcellos, Leonardo José Gil (4 September 2017). "Stress responses to conspecific visual cues of predation risk in zebrafish". PeerJ. 5: e3739. doi: 10.7717/peerj.3739 . PMC   5588784 . PMID   28890851.
80. Hall, D.; Suboski, M.D. (May 1995). "Visual and Olfactory Stimuli in Learned Release of Alarm Reactions by Zebra Danio Fish (Brachydanio rerio)". Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 63 (3): 229–240. doi:10.1006/nlme.1995.1027. PMID   7670836. S2CID   31426348.
81. Gilmour, Kathleen M.; Bard, Brittany (October 2022). "Social buffering of the stress response: insights from fishes". Biology Letters. 18 (10). doi:10.1098/rsbl.2022.0332. PMC   9597401 . PMID   36285460.