ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2017
A valence-free definition of sociality as any violation of inter-individual independence.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The social life of viruses: a queer sort of science.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2026Article
- Dynamic influences on the neural encoding of social valence.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2022Review
- The bystander effect in rats.Science advances · 2020Article
- Humans as model organisms.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2017Article
- Humans as a model for understanding biological fundamentals.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Well over 90% of studies in biomedical sciences are performed on single animals. While knowledge of the genetics, development and physiology of single individuals accrues, an understanding of the biological mechanisms by which individuals interact has barely budged. Yet many of society's greatest problems derive from an inability of humans to get along with each other. Studies in social neuroscience are primarily observational and rarely employ subjects who physically interact. Thus, social interaction represents a largely unexplored frontier of biology. The neuroscience that underlies social behaviour and interactions can and should be studied using the scientific method. However, a workable and objective definitional framework of sociality is needed for scientific progress in this field. Here we propose a definition that uses a test of independence from the presence of others. The null hypothesis is that a behaviour is independent from the influence of others. Rejection of this null hypothesis means that the actions of an individual depend on the actions of one or more other individuals. This definition has the advantages of not being contaminated by moral judgements or biases in favour of pro-social behaviour, and of being applicable to a wide range of physiological processes. The definition of a social behaviour proposed here says nothing regarding the valence of the behaviour with respect to others. Thus, a behaviour that is influenced by the presence of others may benefit, harm, or have no effect on others. It is hoped that this definitional framework for sociality will facilitate our understanding of the origins and mechanisms of social behaviour among animals including humans as well as offer efficacious approaches to social disorders such as autism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.