Size and structure of freely forming conversational groups

Abstract

Data from various settings suggest that there is an upper limit of about four on the number of individuals who can interact in spontaneous conversation. This limit appears to be a consequence of the mechanisms of speech production and detection. There appear to be no differences between men and women in this respect, other than those introduced by women’s lighter voices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Argyle, M., M. G. Lalljee, and M. Cook 1968 The Effects of Visibility on Interaction in a Dyad.Human Relations 21:3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beranek, L. L. 1954Acoustics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cohen, J. E. 1971Casual Groups of Monkeys and Men. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kendon, A. 1967 Some Functions of Gaze in Social Interaction.Acta Psychologica 26:1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Laaksonen, R., and A. Dornic 1990 Sex Differences in Tolerance for Noise. Reports from the Department of Psychology, University of Stockholm.

  6. Leavitt, M. J., and R. A. H. Mueller 1955 Some Effects of Feedback on Communication. InSmall Groups, A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta, and R. F. Bales, eds. Pp. 414–433. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Legget, R. F., and T. D. Northwood 1960 Noise Surveys of Cocktail Parties.Journal of the Statistical Society of America 32:16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Morton, G. W. 1977 On the Occurrence and Significance of Motivation—Structural Rules in Some Bird and Mammal Sounds.American Naturalist 111:855–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ohala, J. J. 1983 Cross-language Use of Pitch: An Ethological View.Phonetica 40:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Philips, S. U. 1976 Some Sources of Cultural Variability in the Regulation of Talk.Language in Society 5:81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sommer, R. 1961 Leadership and Group Geometry.Sociometry 24:99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Steinzor, B. 1955 The Spatial Factor in Face-to-face Discussion Groups. InSmall Groups, A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta, and R. F. Bales, eds. Pp. 348–352. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Watson, O. M. 1970Proxemic Behaviour: A Cross-Cultural Study. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Webster, J. C. 1965 Speech Communications as Limited by Ambient Noise.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 37:692–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. I. M. Dunbar.

Additional information

Robin Dunbar, formerly Professor of BiologicalAnthropology at University College London, is currently Professor of Psychology at the University of Liverpool, where he carries out research on the behavior and ecology of human and nonhuman primates. Neil Duncan M.D. has recently qualified as a medical practitioner. Dan Nettle is carrying out doctoral research on the evolution of language.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dunbar, R.I.M., Duncan, N.D.C. & Nettle, D. Size and structure of freely forming conversational groups. Human Nature 6, 67–78 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02734136

Download citation

Key words

  • Conversation
  • Group size
  • Speech detection
  • Spacing