Human Nature

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 53–72

Social network size in humans

Article

Abstract

This paper examines social network size in contemporary Western society based on the exchange of Christmas cards. Maximum network size averaged 153.5 individuals, with a mean network size of 124.9 for those individuals explicitly contacted; these values are remarkably close to the group size of 150 predicted for humans on the basis of the size of their neocortex. Age, household type, and the relationship to the individual influence network structure, although the proportion of kin remained relatively constant at around 21%. Frequency of contact between network members was primarily determined by two classes of variable: passive factors (distance, work colleague, overseas) and active factors (emotional closeness, genetic relatedness). Controlling for the influence of passive factors on contact rates allowed the hierarchical structure of human social groups to be delimited. These findings suggest that there may be cognitive constraints on network size.

Key words

Frequency of contact Group size Humans Neocortex size Social networks 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barrett, L., R. I. M. Dunbar, and J. E. Lycett 2002 Human Evolutionary Psychology. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan, and Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, R. A., and R. I. M. Dunbar 1997 Evolution of the Social Brain. In Machiavellian Intelligence II, A. Whiten and R. Byrne, eds. Pp. 240–263. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Belle, D. E. 1982 The Impact of Poverty on Social Networks and Supports. Marriage and Family Review 5:89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buys, C. J., and K. L. Larson 1979 Human Sympathy Groups. Psychology Reports 45:547–553.Google Scholar
  5. Dickens, W. J., and D. Perlman 1981 Friendship over the Life Cycle. In Personal Relationships 2: Developing Personal Relationships, S. Duck, and R. Gilmour, eds. Pp. 91–122. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dunbar, R. I. M. 1991 Functional Significance of Social Grooming in Primates. Folia Primatologica 57:121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 1992 Neocortex Size as a Constraint on Group Size in Primates. Journal of Human Evolution 22:469–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 1993 Coevolution of Neocortical Size, Group Size and Language in Humans. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 16:681–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 1998 The Social Brain Hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology 6:178–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunbar, R. I. M., and J. Bever 1998 Neocortex Size Predicts Group Size in Some Insectivores. Ethology 104: 695–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunbar, R. I. M., and M. Spoors 1995 Social Networks, Support Cliques, and Kinship. Human Nature 6:273–290.Google Scholar
  12. Hames, R. D. 1979 Relatedness and Interaction among the Ye’kwana: A Preliminary Analysis. In Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior, N. A. Chagnon and W. Irons, eds. Pp. 238–249. North Scituate: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hays, R. B., and D. Oxley 1986 Social Network Development and Functioning during a Lifetime Transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hughes, A. 1988 Evolution and Human Kinship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, E., H. R. Bernard, P. D. Killworth, G. A. Shelley, and C. McCarty 1995 A Social Network Approach to Cooroborating the Number of AIDS/HIV + Victims in the U.S. Social Networks 17:169–187.Google Scholar
  16. Keesing, R. M. 1975 Kin Groups and Social Structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.Google Scholar
  17. Killworth, P. D., H. R. Bernard, and C. McCarty 1984 Measuring Patterns of Acquaintanceship. Current Anthropology 25:391–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Killworth, P. D., E. Johnson, H. R. Bernard, G. A. Shelley, and C. McCarty 1990 Estimating the Size of Personal Networks. Social Networks 12:289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Killworth, P. D., C. McCarty, H. R. Bernard, G. A. Shelley, and E. C. Johnson 1998 Estimation of Seroprevalence, Rape and Homelessness in the United States Using a Social Network Approach. Evaluation Review 22:289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim, H. K., and P. C. McKenry 1998 Social Networks and Support: A Ccomparison of African Americans, Asian Americans, Caucasians, and Hispanics. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 29:313–334.Google Scholar
  21. Kudo, H., and R. I. M. Dunbar 2001 Neocortex Size and Social Network Size in Humans. Animal Behaviour 62:711–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCannell, K. 1988 Social Networks and the Transition to Motherhood. In Families and Social Networks, R. M. Milardo, ed. Pp. 83–106. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. McCarty, C., H. R. Bernard, P. D. Killworth, G. A. Shelley, and E. C. Johnson 1997 Eliciting Representative Samples of Personal Networks. Social Networks 19:303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCarty, C., P. D. Killworth, H. R. Bernard, E. C. Johnson, and G. A. Shelley 2001 Comparing Two Methods for Estimating Network Size. Human Organization 60:28–39.Google Scholar
  25. Marino, L. 1996 What Dolphins Can Tell Us about Primate Evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 5:81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marsden, P. V. 1987 Core Discussion Networks of Americans. American Sociological Review 52:122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Milardo, R. M. 1988 Families and Social Networks: An Overview of Theory and Methodology. In Families and Social Networks, R. M. Milardo, ed. Pp. 13–47. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Milardo, R. M., ed. 1988 Families and Social Networks. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Pool, I. S., and M. Kochen 1978 Contacts and Influence. Social Networks 1:5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rands, M. 1988 Changes in Social Networks Following Marital Separation and Divorce. In Families and Social Networks, R. M. Milardo, ed. Pp. 127–146. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Reis, H., L. Wheeler, N. Spiegel, M. Kernis, J. Nezlek, and M. Perri 1982 Physical Attractiveness and Social Interaction II: Why Does Appearance Affect Social Experience? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43:979–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruan, D., L. C. Freeman, X. Dai, Y. Pan, and W. Zhang 1997 On the Changing Structure of Social Networks in Urban China. Social Networks 19:75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sugawara, K. 1984 Spatial Proximity and Bodily Contact among the Central Kalahari San. African Study Monograph (Supplement) 3:1–43.Google Scholar
  34. Tschudin, A. 1997 Relative Neocortex Size and Its Correlates in Dolphins: Comparisons with Humans and Implications for Mental Evolution. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Natal.Google Scholar
  35. Wilson, R. 1995 An Investigation into the Effects of Individual Differences upon the Size and Composition of Individuals Social Networks. B.Sc. Dissertation, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Evolutionary Anthropology Research Group, Department of AnthropologyUniversity of DurhamDurhamU.K.

Personalised recommendations