ArticleAnimal cognition2023
Sex differences in social buffering and social contagion of alarm responses in zebrafish.
Article in Animal cognition, 2023. 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.
- Fin Whale (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Oxytocinergic Signaling in Zebrafish: Translational Perspectives for Autism Spectrum Disorder.Journal of neurochemistry · 2026Review
- Sexual dimorphism in zebrafish liver proteins and implications for hepatic regeneration and diseases.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Fishy culture in a changing world.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- Zebrafish (Biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The alarm substance in fish is a pheromone released by injured individuals after a predator attack. When detected by other fish, it triggers fear/defensive responses, such as freezing and erratic movement behaviours. Such responses can also help other fish in the shoal to modulate their own behaviours: decreasing a fear response if conspecifics have not detected the alarm substance (social buffering) or triggering a fear response if conspecifics detected the alarm substance (social contagion). Response variation to these social phenomena is likely to depend on sex. Because males have higher-risk life-history strategies than females, they may respond more to social buffering where they risk not responding to a real predator attack, while females should respond more to social contagion because they only risk responding to a false alarm. Using zebrafish, we explored how the response of males and females to the presence/absence of the alarm substance is modified by the alarmed/unalarmed behaviour of an adjacent shoal of conspecifics. We found that, in social buffering, males decreased freezing more than females as expected, but in social contagion males also responded more than females by freezing at a higher intensity. Males were, therefore, more sensitive to visual information, while females responded more to the alarm substance itself. Because visual information updates faster than chemical information, males took more risks but potentially more benefits as well, because a quicker adjustment of a fear response allows to save energy to other activities. These sex differences provide insight into the modifying effect of life-history strategies on the use of social information.
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.