Kristen M. Berendzen- 1Department of Psychiatry and Biological Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States
- 2Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States
The representation and demonstration of human values are intimately tied to our status as a social species. Humans are relatively unique in our ability to form enduring social attachments, characterized by the development of a selective bond that persists over time. Such relationships include the bonds between parents and offspring, pair bonds between partners and other affiliative contacts, in addition to group relationships to which we may form direct and symbolic affiliations. Many of the cognitive and behavioral processes thought to be linked to our capacity for social attachment—including consolation, empathy, and social motivation, and the implicated neural circuits mediating these constructs, are shared with those thought to be important for the representation of prosocial values. This perspective piece will examine the hypothesis that our ability to form such long-term bonds may play an essential role in the construction of human values and ethical systems, and that components of prosocial behaviors are shared across species. Humans are one of a few species that form such long-term and exclusive attachments and our understanding of the neurobiology underlying attachment behavior has been advanced by studying behavior in non-human animals. The overlap in behavioral and affective constructs underlying attachment behavior and value representation is discussed, followed by evidence from other species that demonstrate attachment behavior that supports the overlapping neurobiological basis for social bonds and prosocial behavior. The understanding of attachment biology has broad implications for human health as well as for understanding the basis for and variations in prosocial behavior.
Introduction
Social attachments are essential components of human social behavior, forming the basis for relationships between parents and offspring, romantic partners, friends, and even the bonds felt toward ideological or cultural groups. Attachment behavior is often defined by the selective, enduring bonds formed between offspring and a parent or caregiver as well as between unrelated partners or peers in adolescence and adulthood (1–3). A core feature of attachment theory is the existence of a caregiving relationship, typically from adult to child, that is fundamental to guide the development of prosocial behaviors such as empathy, cooperation, reciprocity, and consolation (4–7). Across species, prosocial behaviors are defined by the voluntary actions intended to benefit other individuals (8). In humans, such prosocial behaviors and attitudes are commonly integrated into culturally shaped individual values, defined as the motivations, beliefs, and goals that guide behavior (9). The innate construction of an attachment framework in early development, shaped by learned cultural attitudes and subsequent social experiences, may provide a primary scaffold upon which moral principles and value systems are built.
Early attachment experiences, as formalized by Bowlby and Ainsworth (1, 2, 10), have primarily been described in the relationships between parents and offspring, which are thought to have longstanding effects on subsequent close relationships as well as on broader social development (11–13). Subsequent attachments between mates are typically organized around the formation and maintenance of pair bonds (11, 14). These bonds are also associated with physiological distress upon separation from the pair-mate, and reduced anxiety with reunion (11, 15, 16). Regardless of social, marriage, or mating systems across cultures, pair-bonds are a ubiquitous feature of human relationships (17, 18). Humans are not unique in their ability to form such bonds, but are one of the 3–5% of mammals that form sustained, selective affiliations (19–21). Similarly, prosocial behaviors are identified across species, and in non-human animals may include grooming, support and protection, and food sharing. The neurobiology underlying long-term bonds in both humans and non-human species has been a focus of intense interest and study over the past several decades and is thought to be conserved across species that display attachment behaviors (22–24). The high level of conservation hints at the centrality of these behaviors across phylogeny and indicates that considering the biology of model organisms alongside theories of human social organization may provide powerful entry points into understanding prosocial behavior.
While prior work has explored the link between attachment behavior and the development of prosocial values (4, 6, 25), the perspective that follows suggests that the antecedents to prosocial and ethical behavior exist across species that form long term attachments. This is not to suggest that there is equivalence in the affective and behavioral states experienced, but that there are powerful precursors to prosocial processes present in non-human species. The great apes, some species of monkeys, and birds, among other species, demonstrate behavioral and affective features that approximate those of human social emotions (26–29). Here, I examine two components of prosocial values, social openness (defined as the tendency toward social contact and approach over avoidance or fear) and empathy as examples of constructs that are strongly linked to attachment behavior. I then examine the evidence for conserved underlying neurobiology mediating attachment behavior and prosocial values. Disruptions to these processes play a role in neuropsychiatric diseases that preferentially impair attachment behavior. An understanding of the overlapping neurobiology may have relevance not only to cognitive health but to social health more broadly.
Integrating social attachment and prosocial behavior
The relationship between social attachment and prosocial behavior has been examined previously in the psychological literature (4, 23, 30). Shaver et al. in their Handbook of Attachment put forward that attachment theory, which describes a framework for social-emotional behavior primarily through development (2, 12) is, fundamentally, “a theory of prosocial behavior” (13). Interactions with attachment figures, commonly parental figures, through development shape the mental representations of others. When positive, these attachment relationships provide an enduring sense of safety and security, and the ability to recognize and regulate emotions (7, 13). Studies in adolescents find that secure attachment to parents contributes positively to compassionate, empathic responses to people in need (31, 32). Studies that have directly examined the relationship between the development of social values and adult attachment find that more secure attachments in adulthood are associated with increased prosociality, as measured by social value orientation (the balance of an individual's preference to allocate resources to the self or to others) (33, 34). Similarly, attachment quality and style with a primary caregiver are associated with the degree of altruistic helping seen in adults (35). Attachment style is correlated with the degree of exploration, curiosity, empathy, as well as fear of strangers and openness to others exhibited by adults (5, 36).
Comparative studies across species allow us to observe the “primitive” underpinnings of moral behavior in animals, while also allowing for experimental manipulation of neurobiological mechanisms involved in the representation of constructs such as empathy, fairness, reciprocity, social reward, and social openness (37, 38). A wealth of data from other species suggests not only that there is a neural substrate for attachment and prosocial behavior, but that it also developed by evolutionary selection (19, 39). Across species, social attachments have been defined by similar patterns of behavior, including mate (or pair) bonding, biparental care, and peer affiliation (36, 40). Adult pair bonds are characterized by long-term, preferential mating between two individuals and the active rejection of novel potential mates (14, 17, 41). In non-human primates, prosocial behaviors are present, including reciprocity, mutual assistance, retributive justice, reconciliation, consolation and openness to social engagement and sustained contact (42). Among these, social approach vs. avoidance and empathy and consolation are thought to be shared across species, including in rodents (30, 42, 43).
Our ability to engage in cooperation, sharing, and helping, all key components of prosocial behavior, depends upon a tendency toward social approach as opposed to social threat and fear. However, equally essential to successful social navigation is the selective engagement of such prosocial behaviors within a social network stratified by the strength of attachment relationships (44). The biological function of an innate attachment system is thought to serve to obtain or maintain proximity to significant others and caregivers in times of need or in the presence of threats, and thus to regulate support seeking behavior (4). Across species, social affiliation requires reduced physical distance and reduced threat or fear responses with close contact. In non-human animals, attachment is often measured as selective proximity-seeking and maintenance between individuals. This has been operationalized, for example, in partner-preference tests used to assess pair bonding in prairie voles, socially monogamous species that form long-term attachments (45, 46). The maintenance of proximity by two animals has been conceptualized as a cooperative behavior, one that facilitates and comes to define the pair bond (47). Social engagement and broader prosocial behaviors, including resource sharing, care-taking, and consolation, require a perception of safety, the capacity for which may be established by the nature of early attachment experiences (30).
Early attachment relationships may also shape our capacity for empathy, an essential component of prosocial values. Empathy comprises both the sharing of emotions between individuals and the adopting of another's point of view. The communication of emotional states (“emotion contagion”) as well as consolation behavior and reconciliation are components of empathy that can be examined in non-human animals. The latter two may reflect cognitive processes required for perspective taking (26). Highly social animals, such as humans, apes, corvids, and elephants, show both aspects of empathic response (26, 28, 29, 48). Consolation and reconciliation behavior have been well-characterized in chimpanzees (49, 50). Rhesus monkeys will refuse to pull a chain that delivers food to themselves if doing so shocks a companion (51, 52). Emotion contagion is likely to be present even in rodent species (53, 54). Church (53) found that rats that press a lever to obtain food, stop lever-pressing if that action is paired with delivery of a shock to a neighboring rat. The communication of emotional state is well-described across species and may have a basis in synchronized neural activity between interacting individuals. In a recent study, pairs of socially interacting mice exhibited interbrain correlations of neural activity in prefrontal cortex (PFC) that predicted future social interactions (55). While consolation behavior has not been described in commonly studied rodent species like mice and rats, prairie voles do exhibit consolation behavior characterized by allogrooming of a stressed companion (56). Such findings of shared emotional states and consolation behaviors have supported the view that non-human animals exhibit primitive, but likely neurobiologically conserved, forms of empathy (43, 57).
Overlapping neurobiology of attachment and prosocial behavior
Compared to other species, human and non-human primate maternal and pair-bonding behaviors are more complex and flexible and are likely shaped to a greater degree by early experience. However, the underlying circuitry mediating such bonding behaviors is likely conserved across species. Activity in regions including the amygdala, ventrotegmental area (VTA), hippocampus, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), insula, and temporal cortex has been implicated in attachment behavior in humans and other species (23). The ACC, in particular, processes information integrating social affective and representational processes (58). The insula, particularly the anterior insula, is thought to encode interoception, as well as affective states associated with physiological processes across species (59). Studies of attachment-related neural responses in humans have commonly examined parents' neural responses to their own infant vs. an unfamiliar infant. Increased connectivity between the ACC and anterior insula is found when parents view their own infant– supporting a hypothesis that synchronized activity across these regions consolidates attachment representations (60). The ACC and anterior insula are also highly implicated in empathic responses in humans, particularly in studies examining empathic pain (61). In comparison to neutral situations, painful conditions elicit significant activation in these regions. The ACC in rats may encode a primitive of fear or pain contagion as neurons in this area respond to both experienced pain and the pain of others (62), and insular cortex in rats mediates age-dependent approach vs avoidance of stressed conspecifics (63). While these regions do not selectively encode attachment and support multiple affective processes associated with social and non-social contexts, research across species has repeatedly implicated these regions in the formation and maintenance of long-term bonds (23, 24).
Work across species has shown that specific neuroendocrine mediators, in particular oxytocin, may act on similar neural circuitry to that described above to mediate many of the correlates to prosocial behavior (64, 65). Oxytocin has been linked to a host of prosocial processes and particularly to attachment behaviors across species. In humans, the oxytocin receptor (OTR) has been associated with empathy, emotion recognition, and socioemotional engagement (66–68). Oxytocin has pleiotropic actions in the brain, but is thought to mediate threat states, somatic and visceral encoding, including pain responses, as well as cognitive processes related to learning and memory and reward as they apply to social behavior (69). The effects of peripheral administration of oxytocin have been described across species with regards to prosocial and cooperative behaviors. In primates as well as monkeys, oxytocin administration facilitates cooperation and pair bonding (70, 71). Marmosets given intranasal oxytocin initiated more bouts of huddling than non-treated animals, and administration of antagonists to OTR eliminated food-sharing between partners (71). In prairie voles, where the oxytocinergic system has perhaps been most extensively studied for its role in attachment, OTR is highly expressed relative to non-monogamous species in the ACC, PLC, anterior insula, and NAc (72, 73). OTR antagonism in the ACC in voles specifically abolished consolation responses toward cagemates that experienced an unobserved stressor (56). In mice, intranasal oxytocin enhances observational fear as well as neural activity within the ACC (74). While it has become increasingly evident that the role of oxytocin in regulating social behaviors is complex and highly context- and stimulus-dependent (75–77), it remains a candidate for coordinating and organizing the underlying components of prosocial behaviors discussed above.
Attachment behavior influences health across the lifespan
It is clear that attachment behavior has profound implications for human health. The development of close relationships early in life is essential for defining one's identity and group affiliations (78, 79) and in surviving to mate and raise offspring. Further, the formation and maintenance of long-term bonds has profound effects on physical and mental health throughout the lifespan (80–82). Intact, close social relationships consistently confer a benefit on diverse health outcomes, while the loss of close relationships and isolation have profound detrimental effects on human health. For example, stronger social relationships, measured by relationship quality, decrease the risk for all-cause morality by 50% (82), similar in effect size to interventions related to diet and physical activity (83). Conversely, decreased social interaction is significantly associated with incident dementia, with a relative risk similar to that of other established risk factors, such as low educational attainment, inactivity, and late-life depression (84, 85). Data across numerous studies reveal a clear effect of disrupted attachment relationships on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular health, metabolic function, and dementia (86–91).
Interestingly, the same circuits and brain networks implicated in attachment are those commonly disrupted across neuropsychiatric diseases that affect prosocial behaviors, such as behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) (92–95). bvFTD is characterized by a loss of empathy and often impulsive, disregard for social norms (96), which fundamentally disrupt relationships with attachment figures. These social and emotional deficits correlate with significant degeneration in ACC and orbital frontoinsula (97, 98). The overlap between attachment neurobiology and the circuitry implicated in prosocial deficits in disease highlights the conservation of the underlying processes and their relevance to human health. In this issue Raya et al. propose that the rigidity and perseveration exhibited by patients with FTD reflects a decrease in openness that is linked to atrophy of dlPFC and ACC (99, 100). The deficits in empathy may also involve altered activity in the right anterior temporal lobe and medial frontal regions in FTD patients (101). Such disruptions to the neural circuitry of attachment have profound implications for patient quality of life as well. In dementia patients, and particularly those with bvFTD, decreases in empathy are associated with relationship dissolution and infidelity (102). Further, a rich body of literature has focused on the interactions between caregivers, who are often family or spouses and other attachment figures, and dementia patients and the impact on caregiver wellbeing and health (103–105). While caregivers of those with chronic conditions have been noted to exhibit increased empathy and prosocial behaviors in some studies (106), the ability to maintain attachments with the care recipient may be impacted by conditions like bvFTD with subsequent adverse effects on health outcomes for both the patient and caregiver.
One can also turn to attachment neurobiology to examine deviations from prosocial attitudes that support the values described above of empathy, compassion, reciprocity, etc. Our tendency for inter-group violence, prejudice, and bias may reflect another side of the same attachment biology (107). The development of the circuitry underlying attachment early in life drives the display of culturally normative pro-social values later in life, but may also facilitate tendencies toward out-group bias and persecution. Severe disruptions to attachment development result in profound adult social deficits (3, 108). Neglect from early attachment figures may lead to impaired bond formation later in life, as well as impulsive behaviors including violence (5). Even with typical attachment development, the formation of culturally-derived value systems and intragroup attachment is intricately tied to the neurobiology of human ethnocentrism—the tendency to judge other cultures based on standards of one's own culture (109). Such group-directed prosocial processes may simultaneously promote intergroup “antisocial” tendencies. These processes have relevance in considering care and treatment for dementia patients at both an individual and societal level. It is well documented that conditions like dementia and other neuropsychiatric diseases that may impair attachment behavior continue to be stigmatized (110, 111). This is particularly so for minoritized populations with neurodegenerative conditions, leading to decreased access to and quality of care (112, 113). Deficits in attachment and prosocial behavior that occur in conditions like FTD may further exacerbate stigmatization and ethnocentrism already demonstrated toward patient populations. Understanding these innate tendencies as reactions of the same neural system will help to elucidate both our profound capacity for prosocial and altruistic action as well as the selective withdrawal of such compassionate behaviors toward those of other groups.
The neuroendocrine mechanisms described above may provide insight into the seemingly dichotomous roles of the attachment system in mediating value-based behaviors. One prominent theory regarding oxytocin's effects on behavior suggests that while oxytocin acts to motivate in-group preference and cooperation, it simultaneously promotes out-group “derogation” (77, 109, 114). Several studies in humans have shown that peripheral administration of oxytocin is associated with increased in-group bias and that oxytocin may facilitate the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence (114, 115). In the context of attachment more specifically, the formation of a preference for a partner across species is also accompanied by rejection, often aggressively, of a novel mate (14, 40). Thus, understanding the antisocial correlates of attachment neurobiology may be key to examining the etiology of prejudice, xenophobia, and intergroup violence.
Conclusion
Our unique ability to display selective affiliation not only with other members of our species throughout life but with social constructs such as nationality, religion, and social identity forms the basis for societal values and prosocial ethics. Early relational experiences direct the development and patterning of prosocial motivations and behaviors and have profound effects on brain health later in life (3, 5). The potential for attachment behaviors to serve as proxies in other species for components of value-based behaviors may allow us to examine, manipulate, and causally interpret such behaviors in a way that has previously not been possible in the study of human values. Comparative work on the neurobiology of attachment offers entry points into the circuitry underlying value evolution, formation, and structure as well as the mechanisms underlying disruptions to value systems in disease and common variations of human social behavior. Leveraging such understanding may allow for interventions that facilitate attachment to diverse groups and ideologies, consequently expanding prosocial responses to broader populations while reducing intergroup bias (116). Interventions such as attachment-based family therapy or school-based holistic intervention programs that are focused on early-life interactions between family members and peers have proven beneficial in promoting prosocial behaviors in children and adolescents (117–119). Adapting such programs to other stages of the lifespan may lessen neuropsychiatric symptom burden in certain populations, reduce caregiver burnout, and enhance overall quality of life for both patients and care providers (105, 120–122). Thus, a deeper neurobiological understanding of prosocial thinking and the early attachment experiences that shape it may facilitate our progression toward a more inclusive and global moral position.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
KB conceptualized, planned, and wrote the manuscript.
Funding
The project has received funding from the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers R24AG065172, 5P30AG062422-03, and K08AG070377), an AP Giannini Foundation Fellowship (grant number P0534952), and a Larry L. Hillblom Foundation Fellowship (grant number 2020-A-023-FEL).
Acknowledgments
I thank Nerissa Hoglen and other members of the Manoli lab for helpful review and edits to this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Ainsworth MS. Infant–mother attachment. Am Psychol. (1979) 34:932. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.932
2. Bowlby J, John B. Attachment. 2. ed. Attachment and Loss. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Basic Books (1982).
4. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. An Attachment Perspective on Prosocial Attitudes and Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2013).
5. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. An attachment perspective on psychopathology. World Psych. (2012) 11:11–5. doi: 10.1016/j.wpsyc.2012.01.003
6. Thompson RA, Laible D, Padilla-Walker LM, Carlo G. Early moral development and attachment theory. Oxford Handbook Parent Moral Develop. (2019) 4:21–39. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190638696.013.2
7. Preston SD. The origins of altruism in offspring care. Psychol Bull. (2013) 139:1305. doi: 10.1037/a0031755
8. Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Spinrad TL. Prosocial development. In: William D, Richard ML, editors. Handbook of Child Psychology, Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley and Sons, Inc (2007).
9. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25. Academic Press (1992).
10. Ainsworth MDS, Blehar MC, Waters E, Wall SN. Patterns of attachment: a psychological study of the strange situation. Psychology Press. (2015). doi: 10.4324/9780203758045
11. Hazan C, Shaver P. Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. J Pers Soc Psychol. (1987) 52:511. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
13. Cassidy J and Shaver PR eds. (2016). Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. Third edition. New York: Guilford Press.
14. Bales KL, Ardekani CS, Baxter A, Karaskiewicz CL, Kuske JX, Lau AR, et al. What is a pair bond? Horm Behav. (2021) 136:105062. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2021.105062
15. Brewster H. Grief: a disrupted human relationship. Human Org. (1950) 9:19–22. doi: 10.17730/humo.9.1.g718686718498167
16. McNeal N, Scotti MAL, Wardwell J, Chandler DL, Bates SL, LaRocca M, et al. Disruption of social bonds induces behavioral and physiological dysregulation in male and female prairie voles. Autonomic Neurosci. (2014) 180:9–16. doi: 10.1016/j.autneu.2013.10.001
17. Chapais B. The Evolutionary History of Pair-Bonding and Parental Collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2011).
18. Chapais B. Monogamy, strongly bonded groups, and the evolution of human social structure. Evolut Anthropol Issues News Rev. (2013) 22:52–65. doi: 10.1002/evan.21345
19. Lukas D, Clutton-Brock TH. The evolution of social monogamy in mammals. Science. (2013) 341:526–30. doi: 10.1126/science.1238677
21. Kleiman DG, Malcolm JR. The evolution o f male parental investment in mammals. Par Care Mamm. (1981) 347–87. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-3150-6_9
22. Carter CS, Keverne EB. The neurobiology of social affiliation and pair bonding. in Hormones Brain and Behavior. Academic Press (2002). p. 299-337.
23. Feldman R. The neurobiology of human attachments. Trends Cogn Sci. (2017) 21:80–99. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.007
24. Insel TR, Young LJ. The neurobiology of attachment. Nat Rev Neurosci. (2001) 2:129–36. doi: 10.1038/35053579
25. Feldman R. The neurobiology of hatred: tools of dialogue© intervention for youth reared amidst intractable conflict impacts brain, behaviour, and peacebuilding attitudes. Acta Paediatr. (2023) 112:603–16. doi: 10.1111/apa.16676
26. De Waal, Preston FB. Mammalian empathy: behavioural manifestations and neural basis. Nat Rev Neurosci. (2017) 18:498–509. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2017.72
27. Brosnan SF, De Waal FB. Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature. (2003) 425:297–9. doi: 10.1038/nature01963
28. Cools AK, Van Hout AJM, Nelissen MH. Canine reconciliation and third-party-initiated postconflict affiliation: do peacemaking social mechanisms in dogs rival those of higher primates? Ethology. (2008) 114:53–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01443.x
29. Seed A, Emery N, Clayton N. Intelligence in corvids and apes: a case of convergent evolution? Ethology. (2009) 115:401–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01644.x
30. Porges SW. Social engagement and attachment: a phylogenetic perspective. Ann N Y Acad Sci. (2003) 1008:31–47. doi: 10.1196/annals.1301.004
31. Laible DJ, Carlo G, Raffaelli M. The differential relations of parent and peer attachment to adolescent adjustment. J Youth Adolesc. (2000) 29:45–59. doi: 10.1023/A:1005169004882
32. Markiewicz D, Doyle AB, Brendgen M. The quality of adolescents' friendships: Associations with mothers' interpersonal relationships, attachments to parents and friends, and prosocial behaviors. J Adolesc. (2001) 24:429–45. doi: 10.1006/jado.2001.0374
33. Van Lange PA, Bruin De, Otten EW, Joireman JA. Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: theory and preliminary evidence. J Personal Soc Psychol. (1997) 73:733. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.733
34. Liu Y, Wang B, Van Lange PA. The development of social value orientation: Attachment styles, number of siblings, age, and a comparison of measures. Eur J Pers. (2023) 37:402–17. doi: 10.1177/08902070221094216
35. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, Gillath O, Nitzberg RA. Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: boosting attachment security increases compassion and helping. J Pers Soc Psychol. (2005) 89:817. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.817
36. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. New York, NY: Guilford Publications (2010).
37. Adolphs R. The social brain: neural basis of social knowledge. Annu Rev Psychol. (2009) 60:693–716. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163514
38. Anderson DJ, Adolphs R. A framework for studying emotions across species. Cell. (2014) 157:187–200. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.003
39. Ayala FJ, Conde CJC. Processes in Human Evolution: The Journey From Early Hominins to Neanderthals and Modern Humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2017).
40. Lee NS, Beery AK. Selectivity and sociality: aggression and affiliation shape vole social relationships. Front Behav Neurosci. (2022) 16:826831. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2022.826831
41. Carter CS, Getz LL. Monogamy and the prairie vole. Sci Am. (1993) 268:100–6. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0693-100
42. De Waal FB Homo homini lupus? Morality the social instincts and our fellow primates. In Neurobiology of Human Values. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2005). p. 17-35.
43. Panksepp J, Panksepp JB. Toward a cross-species understanding of empathy. Trends Neurosci. (2013) 36:489–96. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2013.04.009
44. Laurita AC, Hazan C, Spreng RN. An attachment theoretical perspective for the neural representation of close others. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. (2019) 14:237–51. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsz010
45. Williams JR, Catania KC, Carter CS. Development of partner preferences in female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): the role of social and sexual experience. Horm Behav. (1992) 26:339–49. doi: 10.1016/0018-506X(92)90004-F
46. Beery AK. Familiarity and mate preference assessment with the partner preference test. Current protocols. (2021) 1:e173. doi: 10.1002/cpz1.173
47. Gustison ML, Phelps SM. Individual differences in social attachment: a multi-disciplinary perspective. Genes Brain Behav. (2022) 2:2792. doi: 10.1111/gbb.12792
48. Plotnik JM, Lair R, Suphachoksahakun W, De Waal FB. Elephants know when they need a helping trunk in a cooperative task. Proc Nat Acad Sci. (2011) 108:5116–21. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1101765108
49. de Waal FBM, van Roosmalen A. Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. (1979) 5:55–66. doi: 10.1007/BF00302695
50. Romero T, Castellanos MA, De Waal FB. Consolation as possible expression of sympathetic concern among chimpanzees. Proc Nat Acad Sci. (2010) 107:12110–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006991107
51. Masserman JH, Wechkin S, Terris W. “Altruistic” behavior in rhesus monkeys. Am J Psychiatry. (1964) 121:584–5. doi: 10.1176/ajp.121.6.584
52. Wechkin S, Masserman JH, Terris Jr W. Shock to a conspecific as an aversive stimulus. Psychon Sci. (1964) 1:47–8. doi: 10.3758/BF03342783
53. Church RM. Emotional reactions of rats to the pain of others. J Comp Physiol Psychol. (1959) 52:132. doi: 10.1037/h0043531
54. Rice GE, Gainer P. “Altruism” in the albino rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol. (1962) 55:123. doi: 10.1037/h0042276
55. Kingsbury L, Huang S, Wang J, Gu K, Golshani P, Wu YE, et al. Correlated neural activity and encoding of behavior across brains of socially interacting animals. Cell. (2019) 178:429–46. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.022
56. Burkett JP, Andari E, Johnson ZV, Curry DC, de Waal FBM, Young LJ. Oxytocin-dependent consolation behavior in rodents. Science. (2016) 351:375–8. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4785
58. Fan Y, Duncan NW, De Greck, Northoff M. Is there a core neural network in empathy? An fMRI based quantitative meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2011) 35:903–11. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.10.009
59. Craig A. Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Curr Opin Neurobiol. (2003) 13:500–5. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4388(03)00090-4
60. Ulmer-Yaniv A, Waidergoren S, Shaked A, Salomon R, Feldman R. Neural representation of the parent–child attachment from infancy to adulthood. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. (2022) 17:609–24. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsab132
61. Jackson PL, Meltzoff AN, Decety J. How do we perceive the pain of others? A window into the neural processes involved in empathy. Neuroimage. (2005) 24:771–9. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.09.006
62. Carrillo M, Han Y, Migliorati F, Liu M, Gazzola V, Keysers C, et al. Emotional mirror neurons in the rat's anterior cingulate cortex. Curr Biol. (2019) 29:1301–12. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.03.024
63. Rogers-Carter MM, Varela JA, Gribbons KB, Pierce AF, McGoey MT, Ritchey M, et al. Insular cortex mediates approach and avoidance responses to social affective stimuli. Nat Neurosci. (2018) 21:404–14. doi: 10.1038/s41593-018-0071-y
64. Feldman R, Monakhov M, Pratt M, Ebstein RP. Oxytocin pathway genes: evolutionary ancient system impacting on human affiliation, sociality, and psychopathology. Biol Psychiatry. (2016) 79:174–84. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.08.008
65. Dölen G. Oxytocin: parallel processing in the social brain? J Neuroendocrinol. (2015) 27:516–35. doi: 10.1111/jne.12284
66. Domes G, Heinrichs M, Michel A, Berger C, Herpertz SC. Oxytocin improves “mind-reading” in humans. Biol Psychiatry. (2007) 61:731–3. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.07.015
67. Hurlemann R, Patin A, Onur OA, Cohen MX, Baumgartner T, Metzler S, et al. Oxytocin enhances amygdala-dependent, socially reinforced learning and emotional empathy in humans. J Neurosci. (2010) 30:4999–5007. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5538-09.2010
68. Bartz JA, Nitschke JP, Krol SA, Tellier PP. Oxytocin selectively improves empathic accuracy: a replication in men and novel insights in women. Biol Psych Cogn Neurosci Neuroimag. (2019) 4:1042–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bpsc.2019.01.014
69. Manjila SB, Betty R, Kim Y. Missing pieces in decoding the brain oxytocin puzzle: Functional insights from mouse brain wiring diagrams. Front Neurosci. (2022) 16:1044736. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.1044736
70. Bales KL, Del Razo RA, Conklin QA, Hartman S, Mayer HS, Rogers FD, et al. Titi monkeys as a novel non-human primate model for the neurobiology of pair bonding. Yale J Biol Med. (2017) 90:373–87.
71. Smith AS, Ågmo A, Birnie AK, French JA. Manipulation of the oxytocin system alters social behavior and attraction in pair-bonding primates, Callithrix penicillata. Horm Behav. (2010) 57:255–62. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.12.004
72. Insel TR. Oxytocin—a neuropeptide for affiliation: evidence from behavioral, receptor autoradiographic, and comparative studies. Psychoneuroendocrinology. (1992) 17:3–35. doi: 10.1016/0306-4530(92)90073-G
73. Shapiro LE, Insel TR. Oxytocin receptor distribution reflects social organization in monogamous and polygamous voles. Ann N Y Acad Sci. (1992) 652:448–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb34380.x
74. Pisansky MT, Hanson LR, Gottesman II, Gewirtz JC. Oxytocin enhances observational fear in mice. Nat Commun. (2017) 8:2102. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02279-5
75. Leppanen J, Ng KW, Tchanturia K, Treasure J. Meta-analysis of the effects of intranasal oxytocin on interpretation and expression of emotions. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2017) 78:125–44. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.04.010
76. Sikich L, Kolevzon A, King BH, McDougle CJ, Sanders KB, Kim SJ, et al. Intranasal oxytocin in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. N Eng J Med. (2021) 385:1462–73. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2103583
77. Shamay-Tsoory SG, Abu-Akel A. The social salience hypothesis of oxytocin. Biol Psychiatry. (2016) 79:194–202. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.07.020
78. Vygotskij LS, Cole M. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Nachdr. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press (1981).
79. Granqvist P, Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Religion as attachment: normative processes and individual differences. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. (2010) 14:49–59. doi: 10.1177/1088868309348618
80. Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Newton TL. Marriage and health: his and hers. Psychol Bull. (2001) 127:472. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.4.472
81. Adams GC, Wrath AJ, Le T, Alaverdashvili M. A longitudinal exploration of the impact of social anxiety and individual attachment on depression severity. J Affect Disord. (2019) 257:250–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.07.051
82. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med. (2010) 7:e1000316. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
83. Robles TF. Marital quality and health: implications for marriage in the 21st century. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. (2014) 23:427–32. doi: 10.1177/0963721414549043
84. Kuiper JS, Zuidersma M, Voshaar RCO, Zuidema SU, van den Heuvel ER, Stolk RP, et al. Social relationships and risk of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies. Ageing Res Rev. (2015) 22:39–57. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2015.04.006
85. Livingston G, Huntley J, Sommerlad A, Ames D, Ballard C, Banerjee S, et al. Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2020 report of the lancet commission. Lancet. (2020) 396:413–46. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30367-6
86. Ong AD, Uchino BN, Wethington E. Loneliness and health in older adults: A mini-review and synthesis. Gerontology. (2016) 62:443–9. doi: 10.1159/000441651
87. Valtorta NK, Kanaan M, Gilbody S, Ronzi S, Hanratty B. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart. (2016) 102:1009–16. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308790
88. Tomaka J, Thompson S, Palacios R. The relation of social isolation, loneliness, and social support to disease outcomes among the elderly. J Aging Health. (2006) 18:359–84. doi: 10.1177/0898264305280993
89. Troxel WM, Matthews KA, Gallo LC, Kuller LH. Marital quality and occurrence of the metabolic syndrome in women. Arch Intern Med. (2005) 165:1022–7. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.9.1022
90. Liu H, Zhang Z, Choi SW, Langa KM. Marital status and dementia: evidence from the Health and Retirement Study. J Gerontol Series B. (2020) 75:1783–95. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbz087
91. Roberson PN, Shorter RL, Woods S, Priest J. How health behaviors link romantic relationship dysfunction and physical health across 20 years for middle-aged and older adults. Soc Sci Med. (2018) 201:18–26. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.037
92. Tilvis RS, Jolkkonen KPJ, Strandberg TE. Social networks and dementia. Lancet. (2000) 356:77–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)73414-0
93. Sturm VE, Brown JA, Hua AY, Lwi SJ, Zhou J, Kurth F, et al. Network architecture underlying basal autonomic outflow: evidence from frontotemporal dementia. J Neurosci. (2018) 38:8943–55. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0347-18.2018
94. Seeley WW. Selective functional, regional, and neuronal vulnerability in frontotemporal dementia. Curr Opin Neurol. (2008) 21:701. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e3283168e2d
95. Miller BL, Seeley WW, Mychack P, Rosen HJ, Mena I, Boone K, et al. Neuroanatomy of the self: evidence from patients with frontotemporal dementia. Neurology. (2001) 57:817–21. doi: 10.1212/WNL.57.5.817
96. Rascovsky K, Hodges JR, Knopman D, Mendez MF, Kramer JH, Neuhaus J, et al. Sensitivity of revised diagnostic criteria for the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia. Brain. (2011) 134:2456–77. doi: 10.1093/brain/awr179
97. Schroeter ML, Raczka K, Neumann J, Von Cramon Y. Neural networks in frontotemporal dementia-a meta-analysis. Neurobiol Aging. (2008) 29:418–26. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2006.10.023
98. Rosen HJ, Gorno-Tempini ML, Goldman WP, Perry RJ, Schuff N, Weiner M, et al. Patterns of brain atrophy in frontotemporal dementia and semantic dementia. Neurology. (2002) 58:198–208. doi: 10.1212/WNL.58.2.198
99. Zhou J, Gennatas ED, Kramer JH, Miller BL, Seeley WW. Predicting regional neurodegeneration from the healthy brain functional connectome. Neuron. (2012) 73:1216–27. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.03.004
100. Abu Raya M, Ogunyemi AO, Broder J, Carstensen VR, Illanes-Manrique M, Rankin KP. The neurobiology of openness as a personality trait. Front Neurol. (2023) 14:1235345. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1235345
101. Rankin KP, Gorno-Tempini ML, Allison SC, Stanley CM, Glenn S, Weiner MW, et al. Structural anatomy of empathy in neurodegenerative disease. Brain. (2006) 129:2945–56. doi: 10.1093/brain/awl254
102. Takeda A, Sturm VE, Rankin KP, Ketelle R, Miller BL, Perry DC. Relationship turmoil and emotional empathy in frontotemporal dementia. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. (2019) 33:260–5. doi: 10.1097/WAD.0000000000000317
103. Brown CL, Lwi SJ, Goodkind MS, Rankin KP, Merrilees J, Miller BL, et al. Empathic accuracy deficits in patients with neurodegenerative disease: association with caregiver depression. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. (2008) 26:484–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2017.10.012
104. Brown CL, Wells JL, Hua AY, Chen K-H, Merrilees J, Miller BL, et al. Emotion recognition and reactivity in persons with neurodegenerative disease are differentially associated with caregiver health. Gerontologist. (2020) 60:1233–43. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnaa030
105. Otero MC, Levenson RW. Lower visual avoidance in dementia patients is associated with greater psychological distress in caregivers. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. (2017) 43:247–58. doi: 10.1159/000468146
106. Beadle J. Prosocial behavior in caregivers to older adults with chronic conditions. Alzheimer's Dement. (2022) 18:e069218. doi: 10.1002/alz.069218
107. Pedersen CA. Biological aspects of social bonding and the roots of human violence. Ann N Y Acad Sci. (2006) 1036:106–27. doi: 10.1196/annals.1330.006
108. Humphreys KL, Gleason MM, Drury SS, Miron D, Nelson CA, Fox NA, et al. Effects of institutional rearing and foster care on psychopathology at age 12 years in Romania: follow-up of an open, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psych. (2015) 2:625–34. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00095-4
109. De Dreu CKW, Greer LL, Van Kleef GA, Shalvi S, Handgraaf MJJ. Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism. Proceed Nat Acad Sci. (2011) 108:1262–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1015316108
110. Low L-F, McGrath M, Swaffer K, Brodaty H. Communicating a diagnosis of dementia: a systematic mixed studies review of attitudes and practices of health practitioners. Dementia. (2019) 18:2856–905. doi: 10.1177/1471301218761911
111. Burgener SC, Buckwalter K, Perkhounkova Y, Liu MF. The effects of perceived stigma on quality of life outcomes in persons with early-stage dementia: longitudinal findings: part 2. Dementia. (2015) 14:609–32. doi: 10.1177/1471301213504202
112. Adame HY, Chavez-Dueñas NY, Salas SP, Manley CR. Intersectionality as a practice of dementia care for sexual and gender minoritized latinxs. In: Adames HY, Tazeau YN, editors. Caring for Latinxs with Dementia in a Globalized World. New York, NY: Springer (2020). p. 205–29. doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-0132-7_12
113. Lin P-J, Zhu Y, Olchanski N, Cohen JT, Neumann PJ, Faul JD, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in hospice use and hospitalizations at end-of-life among Medicare beneficiaries with dementia. JAMA Network Open. (2022) 5:e2216260. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.16260
114. De Dreu CK, Greer LL, Handgraaf MJ, Shalvi S, Van Kleef GA, Baas M, et al. The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science. (2010) 328:1408–11. doi: 10.1126/science.1189047
115. Zhang H, Gross J, De Dreu, Ma C. Oxytocin promotes coordinated out-group attack during intergroup conflict in humans. elife. (2019) 8:e40698. doi: 10.7554/eLife.40698
116. Dovidio JF, Love A, Schellhaas FMH, Hewstone M. Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Process Inter Relat. (2017) 20:606–20. doi: 10.1177/1368430217712052
117. Diamond GS, Reis BF, Diamond GM, Siqueland L, Isaacs L. Attachment-based family therapy for depressed adolescents: a treatment development study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2002). 41:1190–96. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200210000-00008
118. Ikeda R, Farrell AD, Horne AM, Rabiner D, Tolan PH, Reid J. The multisite violence prevention project. Am J Prevent Med. (2004) 26:3–11. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2003.09.017
119. Vagos P, Carvalhais L. The impact of adolescents' attachment to peers and parents on aggressive and prosocial behavior: a short-term longitudinal study. Front Psychol. (2020) 11:592144. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.592144
120. Gitlin LN, Hodgson N. Caregivers as therapeutic agents in dementia care. In: Family Caregiving in the New Normal. Elsevier (2015). p. 305–53. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-417046-9.00017-9
121. Possin KL, Merrilees J, Bonasera SJ, Bernstein A, Chiong W, Lee K, et al. Development of an adaptive, personalized, and scalable dementia care program: early findings from the care ecosystem. PLOS Med. (2017) 14:e1002260. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002260
122. Possin KL, Merrilees JJ, Dulaney S, Bonasera SJ, Chiong W, Lee K, et al. Effect of collaborative dementia care via telephone and internet on quality of life, caregiver well-being, and health care use: the care ecosystem randomized clinical trial. JAMA Int Med. (2019) 179:1658. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4101
Keywords: attachment, prosocial behavior, values, comparative neurobiology, pair bonds, oxytocin
Citation: Berendzen KM (2023) Understanding social attachment as a window into the neural basis of prosocial behavior. Front. Neurol. 14:1247480. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1247480
Received: 26 June 2023; Accepted: 12 September 2023;
Published: 05 October 2023.
Edited by:
Ian Robertson, Trinity College Dublin, IrelandReviewed by:
Francesca R. Farina, Trinity College Dublin, IrelandGiulio Gabrieli, Italian Institute of Technology (IIT), Italy
Copyright © 2023 Berendzen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Kristen M. Berendzen, S3Jpc3Rlbi5iZXJlbmR6ZW4mI3gwMDA0MDt1Y3NmLmVkdQ==