The Sociotype, a New Conceptual Construct on Human Social Networks: Application in Mental Health and Quality of Life

1 The Sociotype, a Ne w Conceptual Construct on Hum an Social Network s: Application in Mental Health and Quality of Life del Moral R 1* , Navarro J 1 , López-del Hoyo Y 2 , Gómez-Quintero JD 3 , Garcia- Campayo J 2 , Marijuán PC 1* 1 Bioinformation and Systems Biology Group, Aragon Health Sciences Institute ( IACS- IIS Aragon) 2 Research on Mental Health in Primary Care Group, Aragon Health Sciences Institute (IACS-IIS Aragon) 3 GESES Group, Social Science and Labor Faculty, University of Zaragoza *Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Raquel del Moral; Pedro C. Marijuán CIBA Building. Avda. San Juan Bosco 13, 50009, Zaragoza (Spain) Phone: (+34) 976 714476 Fax: (+34) 976 715554 E-mail: rdelmoral.iacs@aragon.es pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es Abstract The present wo rk discuss es the pertinence o f a "sociotype" construct, both theoretically and empirically ori ented. Th e term, based on the conceptual chain genotype-phenotype- sociotype, suggests an evolutionary preference in the human species for some determined a verages of social relationships. This core pattern or “socioty pe” has been explored herein for the netw orking relationships of young people--165 university students filling in a 20-items questionnaire on their social int eractions. In spi te t hat this is a preliminary study, i nteresting results have b een obtained on gender conversation time, mental health, sociability level, and s atisfaction with personal relationships. T his sociotype hypothesis could be a timely enterprise for mental health and quality of life policies. Keywords Sociotype, Social Brain Hypothesis, bonding relationshi ps, loneliness, mental health 2 1. INTRODUCTION Sociality is an obvious t rait of the human species --as Aristotle put in The Politics “man is by n ature a political a nimal” (Fowler and Schreiber 2008). Most of the evolutionar y and cultural novelties of our past refer to essenti al aspects of sociality --e.g. o rigins of language, emotional comm unication, group behavior, morals and ethics, religious and legal codes, political institutions, and so on. So fluid and culturally variable are the emerging structures of human sociality that, apparently, they def y an y precise classification or numeric s pecification. Tr aditionally, a number of schoo ls of thought have followed culturall y-oriented approaches t o the ‘open ended’ phenomenon of sociality (Derridá 1976; Lévi-Strauss 1990), while some others have emphasized views closer to biological dete rminism ( Lorenz 1965; Wils on 1977). I t is t he old conflict between biological and political views, the “nature” versus “nurture” unfortunate dichotomy. Scientific discussions have been com pounded by th e many different fields of st udy involved --anthropological, neurobiological, ethological, ps ychological, social and po litical, economics, network science, etc. More recentl y, ho wever, some anthropological and social science studies have achieved an i nteresting convergence between, sa y, biolog y and politics about fundamentals of hum an soci alit y (Chapais 2008, 2011). Hypothesis such as the “social brain” have also contributed to advanc e a new bond-centered approach on the evolutionar y emergence of human sociality (Dunbar 2004; Fowler and S chreiber 2008). Th e pr esence of a series of significant regularities in the siz e and struc tures of social groups, notwithstanding their remarkable variability, suggests the plausibility of a “deep structur e” of social bonding for the h uman species (Chapais, 2011; Hill et al, 2011). There seems to be an average of social networking, with very ample upper and lower limits, concerning the number and classes of bonding relationships that an individual i s able to maintain meaningfull y (Dunbar 2004; Dunbar and Shu ltz 2007). The finding of n etworking regularities such as the famous “Dunbar’s number” (150-200 individual acquaintances) makes a lot of evolutionary and anthropological sense. T his prelimi nary study ex plores these findin gs as well as other issues related to interpersonal communication and social bonding, integ rating them within the whole framework of the sociotype hypothesis. I n t he background, two basic questions emerge: How much do we talk? With whom? 3 1.1. The social brain hypothesis The social brain h ypothesis has posited that, in pr imate societies, s election has favored larger brains and more complex cognitive capabilities as a m ean to cope wit h the challenges of social life (Silk 2007). In primate societies, a t ight correlat ion has been observed between the size of social groups and the neocortex relative proportion (roughly, “brain size”). Actually, the idea of relating br ain size wit h the demands of communication in social life was alread y hinted by C. Darwin in “The Des cent of Man” (1871). More than a century l ater, J . Allman and others reconsidered t he idea and framed it as a social hypothesis (Allman 1999). Also known as the Machiavellian intelligence h ypothesis , it was more rigorously formulated b y R. Dunbar (2004) and extended into other mental and biomedical fields (Baron-Cohen et al. 1999; Badcok and Crespi 2008). Although the h ypothesis has been c riticized from several grounds (Balter 2012), and it is unclear whether it can be extended to the generality of mammalian societies, it has gained momentum regarding the evolut ionary explanation of the ‘natural’ groups and str uctures formed in human societies. In th e present work, the social brain views have been taken as one of t he main references to structurally develop the sociotype hypothesis. 1.2. Further relational and mental h ealth aspects Nevertheless, the m ain argument of this paper will depart from the social brain hypothesis in two important respects. First, the e mphasis will be put, not just in the size structures of social groups, but mostl y in the comm unication practices that underlie th e formation and maintenance of t he individual’s bonding networks --th e relational, linguistic activities. Ever y interpersonal bond i s but a “shared memory”, consisting in specialized neural “engrams” that encode a variable number of ad hoc behaviora l episodes positivel y or n egativel y fin alized (Coll ins and Marijuán 1997). Being far more than collections of mere recognition events, bond memories would occupy an i mportant quota of cortical space, presumabl y with each bond’s occupancy depending on its ‘strength’. This bondin g reliance on vast cortical spaces would be in accordance with the relevant multi -area activations produ ced by social inte ractions and soci al evaluations, as observed in different neuroimaging studies (Greene 2001; Lacoboni 4 2004; Cacciopo and Patrick 2008). Hence, the overall cortical conformation and capacity of our species would greatl y influence the number of bonds that, in general, human individuals can mea ningfully sustain. However, like many other brain/mind phenomena, exactly how bonds are made, m aintained, eroded, finaliz ed, or restored is not su fficiently und erstood y et. Language appears to be the essential tool for bond making in hum an societies, although not the only one ( Benzon 2001; Marijuán and Navarro 2010). Distinguishing several classes of bonds (related to their streng th) would also be important in order to a ssess their respective relevance wit hin t he relational sociotype of the individual, and how t he daily conversation/communication budget apportioned among the d ifferent bondi ng classes becomes sufficiently rewarding or not for each individual. Anal y zing the dif ferent conversation-time distributions could lead to very interesting comparatives: by age, gender, status, professions, cultures… The second aspect in wh ich the present work dep arts from the social brain h ypothesis concerns it s empirical, or better, pragmatic orientation. Herein the emphasis will be put on elaboratin g a mental-health oriented constru ct, rou ghly expl oring the potential applications of the sociotype as an indicator gauging the whole relational networks of the person, and how m uch daily conversation/com munication he or she is engaged on a regular basis . Seemingl y, rather than the ex change of functional information, it is t rivial conversation, gossiping about social acquaintances what represents the human equivalent of primate grooming --subsequentl y stimulating in our “soci al brain” the production of endorphin s, which reliev e stress and boost t he immune s ystem (Dunbar 2004; Nelson 2007; Shutt et al. 2007). Thus, counting with an appropriate network of relationships that can provide us pieces of amusing conversation would be an essential ingredient to our social, psychological and ph ysical well-being. Notw ithstanding a number of recent studies on social netwo rks (tech nologically oriented) th at have t racked vast amounts of interpersonal exchanges, the metrics of the relational st ructures necessary for mental health and well-being have not been properly addressed yet. The hope is that the pro gressive delineation o f a soci otype concept, pra gmatically o riented, and susceptible of both theoretical and empirical demarcation, could contribute to a better unde rstanding of the structures and d ynamics of human socialit y, and even provide some practical help when sociality itself is in crisis, as seem to be happening with t he current “ epidemics of loneliness” affecti ng large population tracts (Hawkle y and Cacioppo 2010). 5 1.3. Loneliness and its psychobiological consequences In our times the absence of social bonds has become a common experience : over 80% of children and 40% of those over 6 5 report feeling alone from time to time. Loneliness levels graduall y decline in the middle years of adulthood and increase with age (reaching the maxi mum around age 70) (Weeks 1994; Pinquart and Sorensen 2001; Berguno et al. 2004). As numerous studies have shown, there i s an associati on between social isolation, prim arily perceived isol ation, a nd poor ph ysical and mental health, which c annot be ex plained away usin g different health behaviors. Social isolation decreases lif e years of social species, from Drosophila (Ruan and Wu 2008) to Homo sapiens (House et al. 1988). The l ack o f social bonds has deleterious effects on health through its effect o n t he brain, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (H PA), vascular processes, blood pressure, gene t ranscription, inflammatory, immu ne, and sleep quality (Cacioppo and Hawkley 2009). Res earch i ndicates that p erceived social i solation (i.e., loneliness) i s a risk facto r, and ma y contribute to poorer co gnitive perform ance, greater cognitive impairment and poorer executive function and an increased negativit y and depressive co gnition that accentuate sensitivit y to social threats (Berkman 2009). In fact, l oneliness is associated not only with poor physical health; it also includes psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia and personality disorders, suicidal thoughts, depression and Alzheimer (Berkman 20 09; Wilson et al. 2007; Cacioppo and Hawkley 2009). 1.4. A growing social problem It’s supposed we are living in a societ y "technologically civilized", where the ubiquit ous presence o f Media and Information Technologies has dramatically altered life st yles. But it is uncle ar the effect that such pervasiveness of M edia and Information Technologies and th eir o veruse are h aving in our social relationships and q uality of lif e. In what extent could computers, cell phones, an d TVs replace our need of face-to-face relationships? Are t hey f acilitators or su rrogates and false s ubstitutes? In today's societ y there is a si gnificant ch ange in the w ay social relationships are m aintained, for the 6 intrusion of t he n ew ITs adds to the i mportant social disintegration that is occurring for other reasons (aging, m igration, marginalization of minorities, etc.). In our times, relational networks are apparently lar ger and fas ter, but more transient and devoid of personal contact, so that individuals are at greater risk of social isolation. The evidence in fast-developing countries is that economic growth and technolo gical development have gone hand-in-hand with an increase in mental and behavioral disorders, famil y disintegration, social exclusion, and lower social trust (Bok 2010; Huppert 2010). In 1950, 4 million Americans l ived alone, making up 9% of households; the census data from 2011 show that nearl y 33 million Americans are livin g alone, making up 28% of American households: three hundr ed per cent i ncrease. The same p rocess i s taking place in different countries, for example in Sweden the percenta ge of households "single" reaches 47%, Britain 34%, 31% in Japan, 29% in Italy and 25% in Russia. Living alone, paradoxically, could s ymbolize our social need t o reconnect (Klinen berg 2012). Similarly, mental disorders such as schizophrenia, depression, epilepsy, dementia, alcoholism and other su bstances abuse constitute 13% of th e global disease bu rden, a percentage that surpasses cardiovascular diseases and cancer (Collins et al. 2011). European studies estimate that in the period of one year, 165 million people (38% o f the population) will develop a mental illness (Wittchen et al. 2011). In S pain, according to the Tim e Use Surve y ( INE, 2010), people spend l ess and l ess t ime to interact ph ysically and fa ce to face. Between 2003 and 2010 participation in social life and fun activities decreased, while the time spent with computers (social networks, informatio n retrieval, computer games) substantiall y increased, from 17.3% of popul ation in 2 003 to 30% in 2011. Socializing and fu n activities were p erformed by 57% o f the popul ation, while seven years earlier (200 3) these activities we re performed b y 64.4%. In recent years there has been a significant transfer of so cial life and collective fun activiti es to individualized activities such as computer games, Internet, TV watching. In this regar d, it is significant that in Spain and in other countries, suicide rates have increa sed dramatically in the last three dec ades. In the US Census, 1985, the average number of confidants was three; in t he 2004 census the average was 2, but the most co mmon figure was zero confidants for almost 25 % (Cacciopo and Patrick 2008). In spi te of the pervasive epidemics of lon eliness and lack of meaningful rel ationships in contemporary societies, there is a dearth of adequate indica tors gauging the social 7 networking and relational activities of the individual. How much do we talk along the day ? W ith whom? Face-to-face, b y phone, via Internet? How often do we socializ e? Do we ex ercise alone? This t ype of questions has to be properly addressed and integrated with t he measurement of the social networks around the individual, and further correlated wit h well-being and mental health questionnaires. That’s what t he sociotype hypothesis aims. 2. THE SOCIOTYPE HYPOTHESIS The term sociotype has already appeared in the literature, though very scantl y. In psychology, it has been p ut into use by a J ungian oriented school, “socionics”, meanin g the sp ecific profile attributed to some well-reco gnized professions: law yer, poli cemen, firefighter, et c. (J ung 1971). I n the biomedical area, E.M. Berr y (2011) has recently proposed the sociot ype as an int egrative term covering internal and external factors for the management of chroni c disease, implying th e integration of bio-psycho-sociology with systems biology. Also, some other autho rs have alread y utilized the term within the triad genotype-phenotype-sociotype, impl ying th e social-evolutionary meaning h erein proposed (Marijuán 2006, 2009; del Moral and Navarro 2012). The sociotype construct is an attempt to cover the social interactions (bonding stru ctures and communication relat ionships) that are adaptively d emanded b y the ‘social brain’ of each individual. In the sam e wa y that t here is s cientific consensus on the validity of the genotype and phenot ype constructs for the human species, notwithstanding their respective degre es of variabilit y, a metrics could also be developed appl ying to the relative constancy of th e social environment to which the individuals of our species are evolutionarily adapted. The average brain stimulation coming from relational interactions in that social environment, together with further s ubstitutes a nd surro gates culturally elaborated, w ould constit ute a mental necessity for the indi vidual’s well being. Thus, t he interest of appropriatel y gauging the bondin g st ructures and communication relationships by me ans of a qu estionnaire, or a s eries of questionnaires, including also the influence of f actors related to a ge, personalit y, cultu re, etc. This sociotype construct could provide relevant help f or psychological counseling and ea rly psychiatric intervention. 8 2.1. Fundamental hypotheses More concretel y, devel oping the sociotype construct would impl y ad dressing and putting into test the following fundamental h ypotheses: • There exist in human beings an individual-sp ecific and p ervasive w ay to conform the structure a nd d ynamics of individual social bonds, th at p robably can be related with the function of several brain structures. • It is possible to d evelop a questionnaire to assess and measure this constr uct to validate it in the general population (quite probabl y in subpopulations segmented by age). • The sociot ype can b e a useful indicator of me ntal and general health in the population, becoming an adjuvant tool for psychiatric dia gnosis and risk assessment of mental illness. Thereafter, the following objectives have been addressed: 2.2. Central objective • The central goal i s establishing a new indicator, b ased on a sta ndard questionnaire, to collect essential data on the structure of the individual's social bonds, as well as their d ynamic update (conversation), and correlate it with other indicators of mental health. 2.3. Secondary objectives • Develop a questionnaire that can m easure and val idate t he sociot ype con cept in the Spanish population. • Generalize the sociot ype concept and its indicator as a general means of social and psychological study. 9 • Framing the sociot ype as an indicator of m ental and general health in the various segments of the population (youth, adults, seniors). • Demonstrate its use as a djuvant tool for the ps ychiatric diagnosis and risk for mental illness in patients with depression and derm atology patients. 2.4. Pilot Study In o rder to add ress both the structural and d ynamic aspects of the sociot ype construct, a pilot stud y ha s been undertaken anal yzing the social networks around adolesc ents. Subsequently, a sociotype questionnaire h as been developed, initiall y t ailored for the adolescent population. In this preliminar y stud y we have selected a young population due to the high pr evalence and intensit y of the feelings of loneliness, actuall y hi gher i n adolescence and transition to adulthood (16-25 y ears) than in any other group except the elderly (> 80 ye ars) (Pinquart and S orensen 2003). The study in olde r people has been discarded pr ecisely because most research in loneliness has alread y been done in ol der population (Cacioppo and Hawkley 2009 ). A tot al of 165 students were interviewed with the prelim inary vers ion of the “Sociotype Te st” developed b y the aut hors. A group of 95 students was recruited from the first courses of University (19-20 years old), and another gr oup of 70 st udents was recruited from the second and third courses of University (20-22 years old). 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1. Design: Exploratory, observational, cross-sectional stud y . 3.2. Study population In this stud y w e had app lied a “convenience sampling” (Cohen et al. 2009), where the subjects were students who came from t wo education centers which we had access. The total sample of students was 165. There were two samples, Sample_1 was recruited from last two courses of High School, it s sample size was n=95 (38.3% men and 61.7% 10 women) and the age av erage 19.37 (SD=2.44). Sample_2 was compos ed by students from the first course of University, its sample size was n=70 (80% women and 20% men) and the average age was 21.42 (SD=1.37). All the individuals were Spanish and none suffered any mental illness that prevented the realization of the task, so they were able to unde rstand and complete t he questionnaire. Inclusion criteria were a s follows: age 18-25 years, good master y of Span ish language. Exclusion criteria were: to suffer f rom severe m ental disorder, any clinical o psychological illness that prevented the realization of the test. Sample_1 was int erviewed with t he “Sociotype Test” i n order to explore both structural and dynamic aspects of s ocial networking, and S ample_2 was also interviewed with the GHQ-28 (General Health Questionnaire), addressed to relate t he social n etworks with mental health and psychological well-being. The Ethical C ommittee of Aragón had p reviousl y surveyed the Methodolog y of the Study, as part of the Project FIS P I12/01480. All subjects were students ab ove 18 years, the questionnaires w ere anon ymous, and the requested data di dn’t involv e confidential aspects, so the informed consent was obtained verbally. 3.3. Sociotype Questionnaire This preliminary Sociot ype Questionnaire was developed b y the authors. Based on the opinion of experts from different fields of knowledge (ej: sociology, anthropology, psychiatry/psychology, neuroscience) a set of 6-8 dominions to assess the concept were developed. Usi ng qualitative methods ( in-depth interviews, discussion groups, etc.), healthy people and p atients with psychiatric and physical disorders were approached to identify the key questions to assess those dominions. Finall y, factorial analysis was used to i dentify the definitive it ems included in the questionnaire following the usual methods to develop new questionnaires (Montero-Marín and García-Campa yo 2010). This preliminary version o f the Sociot ype Questionnaire was mad e up of 20 it ems. It included basic socio-demographic questions (age, gender, edu cational level, famil y 11 status...), and also questions related to th e wa y relationships are kept (ti me talking fac e- to-face, telephone, social networks or oth er channels). They were requested for th e four different la ye rs of soci al relationships considered (nu clear famil y, cl ose friends, relatives and parenthood, social acquaintances). The auto-evaluation of sociability, as well as the self-satisfaction l evel was asked too; and also changes in pe rsonal state. The questionnaire showed adequate ps ychometric properties that will be de scribed in an independent paper. 3.4. GHQ-28 Questionnaire The General Health Que stionaire-28 is a s creening tool to detect emotional di stress and the risk of developing psychiatric dis orders. T hrough factor analysis, the GHQ-28 considers four subscales: somatic s ymptoms, anxiety/insomnia, social d ysfunction and severe depression. The scoring method (CGHQ) takes into a ccount the chronicit y of ps ychiatric symptoms. It is su perior t o the conventional scoring method in y ielding a wide r range of scores, a more normal distribution and a well validated m easure of neurotic il lness. W e used the validated Spanish version of the questionnaire (Lobo et al. 1986). 3.5. Statistical Analysis Frequency distributions of the qualitative variables were calculated in e ach category (gender, pets…). Quantitative variables (time talki ng, number of contacts…) were tested for normal distribution by means of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and i ndicators of central tendenc y (mean, trimm ed mean or m edian) and dispersion (standard deviation or percentiles) wer e elabor ated. C orrelation betwe en social variables and ps ychological risk factors were perfor med by means of contrast h ypothesis, comparing proportions of qualitative variables (chi-square, Fish er exact test) or b y comp arison of means of quantitative variables (Student’s t, ANOVA). When the distribution wasn’t adjust ed to normalcy, the U Mann Whitne y or Krusk al Wallis tests were used. The analysis was executed by means of the SPSS 15.0 for Windows. A significance level (alpha) of 5% was used to consider statistical significance. 12 4. RESULTS Structural and relational data w ere obtained. In t he former, fou r lev els of relationships were distinguished (arguably, three levels could have been bette r, as will be discussed in the next section). The results may be seen just in Table 1. Mean SD Nuclear Family 5.05 1.24 Close Friends 6.02 3.23 Relatives&Parenthood 13.03 10.21 Social Acq uaintances 77.06 92.85 Table 1 . Nu mber of people in the differen t layers of socia l relationships About t he r elational dat a, they h ave b een p resented in minutes per week, for an eas y calculation, and the y are aggregated for the whole population (see Tabl e 2). They are also compared by gender (Table 3), in that case including equivalence in hours per day. 13 Mean SD Family Face-to-Face 464.40 394.17 Family Phone 41.52 62.65 Couple Face-to-Face 495.19 342.39 Couple Phone 96.59 95.01 Friends Face-to-Face 492.33 380.50 Friend Phone 69.36 80.58 A cquaintances Face-to-Face 127.10 149.57 A cquaintance Phone 19.89 34.48 Table 2. Con versation time ( min/weekl y) Table 3. T ime spent in conver sation, b y gender. 5% T rimmed mean The statistical analysis of the relationship between the most relevant variables in the Sociotype Questionnaire and the General Health Questionaire-28 is shown in Table 4. Minutes per Week Hours per Day Women Men Women Men Family Face-to-Face 473.89 421.11 1.13 1.00 Family Phone 58.98 31.85 0.14 0.08 Couple Face-to-Face 542.64 272.22 1.29 0.65 Couple Phone 101.34 35 0.24 0.08 Friends Face-to-Face 518.06 593.33 1.23 1.41 Friends Phone 108.06 29.44 0.26 0.07 A cquaintances Face-to-Face 131.81 131.11 0.31 0.31 A cquaintance Phone 15.83 12.96 0.04 0.03 14 The data are correspond ed t o the four psychiatric subscales, and quite many of them show statistical significance. Table 4. Relation s between t he subscales p sychiatrics and the variables o f interest. Med ians (Interq uartile Range) are sho wn for the q uantitative variables; Freque ncy (P ercentage) for the qualitat ive variab le. *indicates statistical significan ce (p< 0.05) 5. DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS To the authors’ information, thi s is the first attempt to identify and measure a construct related with the wa y t hat human beings dev elop and maintain their structure of relational bonds. Neither the emerging structures nor the dynamic relations hips have been studied in t heir mutual interaction yet. As mentioned in the I ntroduction, the ver y important changes in t he patterns of socializ ation withi n the “information societies” demand more sophisti cate conceptual apparatuses t o better tackle t he inheren t problems. Somatic Sy mptoms A nxiet y & Insomnia Social Dysfunc tion Severe Depression Not Probably Probably Not probably Probably Not probably Probably Not probably Probably Gender (women) 33 (80.5%) 23 (79.3%) 21 (77.8%) 35 (81.4%) 54 (83.1%)* 2 (40%)* 50 (80.6%) 6 (75%) A lmost 3 people you can trust when facing a problem 39 (95.1%)* 23 (79.3%)* 26 (96.3%) 36 (83.7%) 59 (90.8%)* 3 (60%)* 57 (91.9%)* 5 (62.5%)* People get in touch– weekly 53 (90) 39 (27) 45 (64)* 41 (34)* 42 (40) 19 (36) 44 (42.5) 38 (32.5) Time talking – min/week 2760 (3555) 1620 (4270) 2880 (4620) 2280 (4020) 2430 (3965) 1320 (3200) 2385 (3927.5) 1890 (4627.5) Tapas/Café – weekly 1 (2) 0 (2) 2 (3)* 0 (2)* 1 (2) 0 (2) 1 ( 2) 0 (3.25) Go for a walk accompanied– weekly 3 (4) 2 (4) 4 (4.25)* 2 (4)* 3 (3)* 0 (1.5)* 2.5 (3) 0.5 (3. 5) Sociability Lev el 75 (12.5) 80 (13.5) 75 (15) 80 (10) 80 (10)* 63 (45)* 80 (10)* 55 (39.5)* Satisfaction Personal Relationship 80 (20)* 70 (25)* 80 (20) 80 (20) 80 (15) 80 (43.5) 80 (15) 73.5 (60) 15 Although in this discussion we have t o refer to preliminary results obtained from a very limited survey, the topics which surface are of gen eral int erest and confirm the potential of the sociotype construct. A num ber o f observations can b e mad e about the social structure depicted in Table 1. Overall, the whole d ata indica te a pattern of s uperimposed social stru ctures with a consistent number of 100 members among young people (me an a ge=19.37, SD=2.44). Certainly this valu e is not much close to Dunb ar’s, but probabl y it is di fferent due to the fact that the st ructural pattern at this age i s not totally established. Actuall y the s tandard deviation for social acq uaintances is even hi gher than the mean i tself. A si gnificant number of students resp onded wi th pretty low figures, while other referred to several hundreds. So to speak, at this age an independent sociotype is in the ma king, and for some adolescents that is an unwanted task, while for others an unbridled social excitation reigns. Correl ating the t ype of structural values obtained with personality traits woul d be quite interesting –to be done in a near future. Besides, the number of layers or levels to distinguish is also an interesting aspect. In som e so cieties, the ‘extended famil y’ la yer makes little sense, while in others it becomes the fundamental strata (power of clans). In view of the obtained results in Table 2 we c onfirm the average of 3 -4 h of d aily conversation time referred in the literature (Dunbar 2004). We find gender as a fundamental factor (Table 3 ): women spend 1 hour per da y more than men in communication (4.64h women vs. 3.63h men). Obviously t hese data should be studied in more detail and with larger samples. Although the conversation ti me is not s trictly correlated with an y subs cale, there is an evidence of higher probabilit y o f developing a psychiatric disorder when the talking time is too low. As we have a lready argued, conversational ‘ grooming’ woul d be essential t o our social, ps ychological and ph ysical well-being. Attending to the i nfluence of social networks on mental health (see Table 4), we find very inter esting correlations: Severe D epression i s directly correlated with the number of people you c an t rust when facing a problem, as well as with the sociabilit y level; the same parameters correlate to Social Dysfunction , plus gender and going for a walk accompanied, and gender; Anxiet y and Insomnia also correlates with t he number o f 16 people you get in touch weekl y, going for a walk accompanied, and going out for ‘tapas’ o r c afé weekly; Somatic Symptoms and the self-satisfaction wit h your person al relationships. These resul ts emphasize that loneliness may be a risk factor by int erfering with some forms of ps ychosocial dist ress. In this questi onnaire the concept of loneliness is considered as a s eparate entity from social isolation and depression, so these measures of relationships include the distress that an individual ma y subjectively feel. As a further step, theoreti cal network approaches could be applied to the present data. What is the equivalent i n terms of structural sociot ype o f t he gain and loss of bond s in the different categories? How th e sociot ype evolves with a ge? How resi lient is this structure regarding changes in the social environment, e.g., migrations? How do contemporary technological-communication changes affect its d ynamics? In what extent could computers, cell phones, and Internet exchanges accelerate our bondin g relationships? May all those ITs gadgets replace our need of face-to-face conta ct? In what ex tent is continuous “accessibilit y” irrespectiv e of the inte rpersonal environment a disturbing circumstance? This Pilot Study has shown an intriguing panorama of correlations to be explored c arefully, hinting at comparative st udies on age and cultural differences. It also conduces to highl y debated topics on mental health and psychiatry, such as the therapeutic influence of changing life st y les (Walsh 2011), which have to be urgently addressed b y m ental health professionals for fostering individual and social well-being, and for pres erving and optimizing co gnitive function. The so cial support concept and the so-call ed “buffering h ypothesis” may also be considered under the sociotype angle (Qureshi et al. 2013). The m ain limitations of t he study are the following: First, the questionnaire used to assess the so ciotype is preliminar y and shoul d be subject to m ore thorou gh validation; but the preliminary results suggest that the construct exi sts and can be measured. Second, sample siz e is relativel y small and not representative o f the general population. Future studies wi th larger populati ons and including both health y people and patients with psychiatric and ph ysical di sorders are warranted. Third, the concept of sociot ype should be related not only with psychological variables but also with m ore biological variables such as genetic/epigenetic, neuroim age or immuno-neuro-endocrine variables to confirm the validity of the construct. 17 In any case, the present work is but an expl oratory attempt, and further research on the sociotype topic is under wa y in a n ational mental health project (Spanish FIS Project, Carlos III Health Institute). 6. EVOLUTIONARY CODA From the evolutionar y p oint of view, th e present “epidemics of loneliness” is nonsense, an arbitra ry imposition stemming from both socio-cultural and t echno-economic automatisms that are scarcel y understood in their self- generating complex ity. Much of the burden on h ealth systems, p articularl y in mental health, derives from social disintegration –the lack of a comm unity in which people can talk and feel connected to each other. It h as been p roved that people with the most extensive social networks and the highest levels of so cial engagement have the lowest rates of ph ysical and cognitive decline. But it is ver y difficult investi gating levels of social en gagement, a nd even more measuring them. In som e occasions, coining a n ew scientific concept hel ps to advance more use ful ideas and social p olicies. The so ciot ype h ypothesis and questionnaire herein presented may somehow contribute. 18 REFERENCES Allman, J.M. (1999). Evolving Brains. New York: Scientific American Librar y. Badcok, C., and Crespi, B. (2008). Battle of the sexes ma y set the brain. Natur e , 454 (7208): 1054-5. Balter, M. (2012). Why Are Our Brains So Big? Science , 338: 33-34. Baron-Cohen, S., Ring, H.A., Wheelwright S., Bullmore, E.T., Bramm er, M.J., Simmons, A., and Williams, S.C.R.. ( 1999). Social intelligence in the normal and autistic brain: an fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience , 11(6): 1891-8. Benzon, W .L. (2001). Beethoven's Anvil: Music In Mind And Culture. New York: Basic Books. Berguno, G., Leroux, P., McAinsh, K., and Shaikh, S. (2004). Chil dren's experience of loneliness at school and its relation to bu ll ying and the qualit y of teacher interventions. Qualitative Report , 9: 483-499. Berkman, L.F. (2009). S ocial epidemiology: social determinants of health in the United States: are we losing ground? Annual Rev Public Health , 30: 27-41. Berry, E.M. (2011). The role of the sociot ype in managing chronic dis ease: integrating bio-psycho-sociology with systems biology. Med Hypotheses , 77(4): 610-613. Bok, D. (2010). The Pol itics of Happiness: What Government C an Learn from the New Research on Well-Being. Princeton, NJ: P rinceton University Press. Cacciopo, J.T, and Patrick, W . (2008). Lonelin ess: human nature and the need for social connection. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Cacioppo, J .T., and Hawkley. L.C. (2009). Pe rceived soci al isolation and cognition . Trends Cognitive Sciences , 13: 447-454. Chapais, B. (2008). Primeval Kinship: How Pair-Bonding Gave Birth to Human Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universit y Pre ss. Chapais, B. (2011). The Deep social structure of Humankind. Science , 331: 1276-1277. Cohen, L., Manion, L ., and Morrison, K. (2009 ). Research methods in education (5ª ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Collins, K.P., and Marijuán, P.C . (1997). El Cerebro Dual: Un Acercamiento Interdisciplinar a la N aturaleza del Conocimiento Humano y Biológico. Barcelona: Editorial Hacer. Collins, P.Y., Patel, V., J oestl, S .S., M arch, D., Insel, T.R., and D aar, A.S . (2011). Grand challenges in global mental health. Nature , 475: 27-30. 19 Darwin, C.R. (1871 ). The Des cent of Man, and Selection in Relation t o Sex. London: John Murray. del Moral, R., and Nava rro, J . (2012). AAAS Annual Meeting 2012. The 'Sociotype': A New C onceptual Construct on the S tructure a nd Dynamics o f Human Social Networks. Vancouver, Canada. Retrieved February, 2012. ( http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2012/webprogram/Paper7882.html ) Derridá, J. (1976). Of Grammatology. Baltimore: J ohns Hopkins University Press. Dunbar, R.I.M., and Sh ultz, S. (2007). Evolution in the Social Brain. S cience , 317: 1344-47. Dunbar, R .I.M. ( 2004). The Human Story: A New Hist ory of Mankind's Evolution. London: Faber & Faber Ltd. Fowler, J .H., and Schreiber, D. (2008). Biolo gy, Politics, and the Emerging S cience of Human Nature. Science , 322: 912-914. Greene, J .D., Som merville, R.B., N ystrom, L.E., Darley, J .M., and Cohen, J.D. (2001). An fMR I Investigation of Emoti onal Engagement in Moral Judgment. Science , 293: 2105-2108. Hawkley, L.C., and Cacioppo, J.T. (2010). Loneliness matters: A th eoretical and empirical review of cons equences and me chanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine , 40: 218–227. Hill, K.R., W alter, R.S. Boži č evi ć , M., Eder, J., Headland, T., H ewlett, B., Hurtado, A.M., Marlowe, F., W iessner, P ., and Wood, B. Co-Residence Patterns in Hunter- Gatherer S ocieties Show Unique Human Socia l Structure. (2011). Science , 331: 1286-1289. House, J .S., Landis, K. R., and Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science , 29; 241: 540-5. Huppert, F. (2010). Happiness breeds prosperit y. Nature , 464: 1275–1276. Jung, C.G. (1971). Psychological Types. The C ollec ted Works of CG Jung, Vol. 6 . Hull RFC (Editor), Princeton: Princeton University Press. Klinenberg, E. (2012 ). G oing Solo: Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone. New York: Penguin Press. Lacoboni, M. , Lieberman, M.D., Knowlton, B.J., Molnar-Szakacs, I ., M oritz, C. M., Throop, J ., and P age Fis ke, A. (2004). Watching social interactions produces dorsomedial prefrontal and medial parietal BOLD fMRI sign al increases compared to a resting baseline. Neuroimage , 21(3):1167-73. 20 Lévi-Strauss, C. (1990). The Naked Man. Mythologiques , Volume 4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lobo, A., Pérez-Echeverría, M.J ., and Artal, J. (1986). Validity of the scal ed version of the General Healt h Questionnaire (GHQ-28) in a Spanish population. Psychol Med. , 16(1):135-40. Lorenz, K. (1965). Evolution and modification of behaviour. Chicago: Universit y of Chicago Press. Marijuán, P .C. (2006). F oundations on Inf ormation Science: FIS Discuss ion Archives. “On information ethics”. Retrieved May 7, 2006. ( https:// webmail.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/2006-March/001309.html ) Marijuán, P.C. (2009). T he role of information networks in the evolution of soc ial complexity. Banquete_nodes and networks. Madrid, España: Ed. Seacex /Turner. Marijuán, P.C., and Navarro, J. (2010). The Bonds of La ughter: A Multidiscipli nary Inquiry into the Information P rocesses of Human La ughter. Cite as: arXiv: 1010.5602v1 [q-bio.NC]. Montero-Marín, J ., and García-Campayo, J . A newe r and broader definition of burnout: validation of the "Burnout Clinical Subt y pe Q uestionnaire (BCSQ-36)". BMC Public Health . 2010; 10:302. Nelson, H. (2007). Mutual Grooming i n Human Dyadic Relationships: An Ethological Perspective. Current Psychology , 25 (2): 121-40. Pinquart, M., and Sörensen, S. (2001). Influences on loneliness in older ad ults: A meta- analysis. Basic and Applied Soc. Psychology , 23: 245-266. Pinquart, M., and Sörensen, S. (2003). Risk factor for loneli ness i n adulthood and old age --A meta-analysis. In S.P. Shohov (Ed.). Advances in Ps ychology research, vol. 19: 111-143. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Qureshi, A., C ollazos, F., S obradiel, N., Ei roa-Orosa, F.J., Febrel, M., R evollo- Escudero, H.W., Andrés, E., R amos, M.M., Roca, M., Casas, M., Serrano-Blanco, A., Escobar, J.I., and García-Campa yo, J. (2013). Epi demiology of psychiatric morbidity among migrants compared to native bo rn population in Spain: a controlled study. Gen Hosp Psychiatry , 35(1): 93-9. Ruan, H., and Wu, C.F. (2008). Social interaction-mediated lifespan extension of Drosophila Cu/Zn superoxide dismut ase mutants. Proc. Natl . Acad. Sci. USA, 105(21): 7506-7510. 21 Shutt, K., MacLarnon, A., Heistermann, M., and Semple, S. (2007). Grooming in Barbary macaques: better to give than to receive? Biol Lett ., 3 (3): 231–33. Silk, J.B. (2007). Social Components of Fitness in Primate Groups. Science , 317: 1347- 51. Walsh, R. (2011). Lifestyle and mental health . Am. Psychol ., 66(7): 579-92. Weeks, D.J. (1994). A review of loneliness concepts with particular reference to old age . Int. J. Ger. Psyc ., 9: 345-355. Wilson, E.O. (1977). Sociobiology: T he New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harva rd Universit y Press. Wilson, R.S., Krueger, K.R., Arnold, S .E., Schneider, J .A., Kelly, J.F., Barnes, L.L., Tang, Y., and Bennett, D.A. (2007). L oneliness and risk of Alzheimer disease. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry ., 64: 234-240. Wittchen, H.U., Jacobi, F., Rehm, J., Gustavsson, A., Svensson, M., Jöns son, B., Olesen, J ., All gulander, C., Alonso, J ., Faravelli, C., Fratiglioni, L., Jennum, P., Lieb, R., Maercker, A., van Os, J ., P reisig, M., Salvador-Carulla, L., Sim on, R., and Steinhausen, H.C. (2011). The size and burden of mental disorders and other disorders of the brain in Europe 2010. Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol ., 21: 655-679. 22 ANNEX 1 23 24