ReviewiScience2026
Social stress and affiliative touch: A tale of two affective states.
Review in iScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social interactions are an integral part in the life of social species. Humans and other species, such as rats and mice, thrive on positive social interactions, whereas stressful social encounters can be among the most negative and traumatizing experiences. These traumatic experiences have often been linked to psychopathology, with some individuals being more vulnerable than others in developing maladaptations. Here, we review literature regarding both positive and negative affective states linked with prosocial/affiliative and stressful social experiences, respectively. Of all positive social interactions, social touch is a particularly potent and evolutionarily conserved behavior associated with social buffering. We examine these topics from the standpoint of both human studies and fundamental research involving rodents, as rodents are among the most commonly used model organisms. As we explore the physiological mechanisms underlying social stress and affiliative touch, our review highlights that many common brain regions are engaged in both species examined. Moreover, a substantial overlap exists in the neural substrates involved during both positive and negative social interactions. This evidence denotes the need to refine our experimental approaches to further delineate the involvement of these areas in a cell- and projection-specific manner for positive and negative social interactions. We conclude that despite the well-known buffering effects of social touch for stress and anxiety, more interdisciplinary research is needed to establish somatosensorial approaches, such as touch-based interventions, as a standard avenue in the treatment of stress-related symptomatology. We argue that social/affiliative touch could, in fact, be one of the most effective "antidotes" in the aftermath of social stress.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.