Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34726153›Full record

ArticleeLife2021

Social selectivity and social motivation in voles.

Annaliese K Beery, Sarah A Lopez, Katrina L Blandino, Nicole S Lee, Natalie S Bourdon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Social attachment shapes interbrain synchrony.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Identification of hippocampal area CA2 in hamster and vole brain.The Journal of comparative neurology · 2024
    Article
  17. Identification of hippocampal area CA2 in hamster and vole brain.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. TheFrontiers in psychology · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Annaliese K BeeryDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1249-9182
Sarah A LopezProgram in Neuroscience, Departments of Psychology and Biology, Smith College, Northampton, United States.
Katrina L BlandinoProgram in Neuroscience, Departments of Psychology and Biology, Smith College, Northampton, United States.
Nicole S LeeNeuroscience and Behavior Graduate Program, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, United States.
Natalie S BourdonProgram in Neuroscience, Departments of Psychology and Biology, Smith College, Northampton, United States.
Smith College · US

Funding

Reward mechanisms supporting affiliation between peersR15MH113085 · NIMH · SMITH COLLEGE · PI BEERY, ANNALIESE K. · 2017 to 2017
$361k
NIMH NIH HHS R15 MH113085
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Selective relationships are fundamental to humans and many other animals, but relationships between mates, family members, or peers may be mediated differently. We examined connections between social reward and social selectivity, aggression, and oxytocin receptor signaling pathways in rodents that naturally form enduring, selective relationships with mates and peers (monogamous prairie voles) or peers (group-living meadow voles). Female prairie and meadow voles worked harder to access familiar versus unfamiliar individuals, regardless of sex, and huddled extensively with familiar subjects. Male prairie voles displayed strongly selective huddling preferences for familiar animals, but only worked harder to repeatedly access females versus males, with no difference in effort by familiarity. This reveals a striking sex difference in pathways underlying social monogamy and demonstrates a fundamental disconnect between motivation and social selectivity in males-a distinction not detected by the partner preference test. Meadow voles exhibited social preferences but low social motivation, consistent with tolerance rather than reward supporting social groups in this species. Natural variation in oxytocin receptor binding predicted individual variation in prosocial and aggressive behaviors. These results provide a basis for understanding species, sex, and individual differences in the mechanisms underlying the role of social reward in social preference.

Indexed as

MotivationSocial BehaviorAggressionAnimalsArvicolinaeFemaleMaleReceptors, OxytocinRewardSex FactorsSpecies SpecificityReceptors, Oxytocinmeadow voleMicrotusMicrotus ochrogasterMicrotus pennsylvanicusneuroscienceprairie vole

Identifiers

PMID34726153
PMCPMC8594915
OpenAlexW3210165062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.