Human Nature

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 273–290 | Cite as

Social networks, support cliques, and kinship

  • R. I. M. Dunbar
  • M. Spoors


Data on the number of adults that an individual contacts at least once a month in a set of British populations yield estimates of network sizes that correspond closely to those of the typical “sympathy group” size in humans. Men and women do not differ in their total network size, but women have more females and more kin in their networks than men do. Kin account for a significantly higher proportion of network members than would be expected by chance. The number of kin in the network increases in proportion to the size of the family; as a result, people from large families have proportionately fewer non-kin in their networks, suggesting that there is either a time constraint or a cognitive constraint on network size. A small inner clique of the network functions as a support group from whom an individual is particularly likely to seek advice or assistance in time of need. Kin do not account for a significantly higher proportion of the support clique than they do for the wider network of regular social contacts for either men or women, but each sex exhibits a strong preference for members of their own sex.

Key words

Networks Kinship Sex differences Family size Support group 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bernard, H. R., P. D. Killworth, and L. Sailer 1982 Informant Accuracy in Social Network Data, V: An Experimental Attempt to Predict Actual Communication from Recall Data.Social Science Research 11:30–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 1984 On the Validity of Retrospective Data: The Problem of Informant Accuracy.Annual Review of Anthropology 13:495–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berté, N. 1988 K’ekchi’ Horticultural Labor Exchange: Productive and Reproductive Implications. InHuman Reproductive Behaviour, L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, and P. Turke, eds. Pp. 83–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bliezner, R. 1988 Individual Development and Intimate Relationships in Middle and Late Adulthood. InFamilies and Social Networks, R. M. Milardo, ed. Pp. 147–167. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Booth, A. 1972 Sex and Social Participation.American Sociology Review 37:183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bott, E. 1971Family and Social Network, revised edition. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, B. B. 1981 A Lifespan Approach to Friendship: Age-related Dimensions of an Ageless Relationship. InResearch in the Interweave of Social Roles, Vol. 2:Friendship, H. Z. Lopata and D. R. Maines, eds. Pp. 23–50. Greenwich, Connecticut: J. A. I.Google Scholar
  8. Burt, R. S. 1982Towards a Structural Theory of Action: Network Models of Social Structure, Perceptions and Action. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Buys, C. J., and K. K. Larsen 1979 Human Sympathy Groups.Psychology Reports 45:547–553.Google Scholar
  10. Coleman, J. S. 1964Introduction to Mathematical Sociology. London: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Dunbar, R. I. M. 1992 Time: A Hidden Constraint on the Behavioural Ecology of Baboons.Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 31:35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 1993 Coevolution of Neocortex Size, Group Size and Language in Humans.Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:681–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunbar, R. I. M., A. Clark, and N. L. Hurst 1995 Conflict and Cooperation among the Vikings: Contingent Behavioural Decisions.Ethology and Sociobiology, in press.Google Scholar
  14. Firth, R., ed. 1956Two Studies of Kinship in London. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer, C. S. 1982To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Foley, R., and P. C. Lee 1989 Finite Social Space, Evolutionary Pathways and Reconstructing Hominid Behavior.Science 243:901–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foot, H. C., A. J. Chapman, and J. R. Smith 1980Friendship and Social Relations in Children. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Hames, R. B. 1979 Relatedness and Interaction among the Ye’kwana: a Preliminary Analysis. InEvolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior, N. A. Chagnon and W. Irons, eds. Pp. 238–249. North Scituate, Massachusetts: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Hughes, A. 1988Evolution and Human Kinship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Keesing, R. M. 1975Kin Groups and Social Structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  22. Killworth, P. D., H. R. Bernard, and C. McCarty 1984 Measuring Patterns of Acquaintanceship.Current Anthropology 25:391–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knoke, D., and J. H. Kuklinski 1982Network Analysis. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Kudo, H., S. Bloom, and R. I. M. Dunbar 1995 Neocortex as a Constraint on Social Network Size in Primates. Submitted toBehaviour.Google Scholar
  25. Larson, R. W., and N. Bradney 1988 Precious Moments with Family Members and Friends. InFamilies and Social Networks, R. M. Milardo, ed. Pp. 107–126. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Levinger, G., and A. C. Levinger 1986 The Temporal Course of Relationships and Development. InRelationships and Development, W. W. Hartup and Z. Rubin, eds. Pp. 111–133. London: LEA Press.Google Scholar
  27. Levi-Strauss, C. 1969The Elementary Structures of Kinship. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.Google Scholar
  28. McCannell, K. 1988 Social Networks and the Transition to Motherhood. InFamilies and Social Networks, R. M. Milardo, ed. Pp. 83–106. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Milardo, R. M. 1988 Families and Social Networks: An Overview of Theory and Methodology. InFamilies and Social Networks, R. M. Milardo, ed. Pp. 13–47. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Milardo, R., ed. 1988Families and Social Networks. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Mitchell, J. C. 1969 The Concept and Use of Social Networks. InSocial Networks in Urban Situations, J. C. Mitchell, ed. Pp. 1–50. Manchester, England: Manchester University PressGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitchell, J. C., ed. 1969Social Networks in Urban Situations. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rands, M. 1988 Changes in Social Networks following Marital Separation and Divorce. InFamilies and Social Networks, R. M. Milardo, ed. Pp. 127–146. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Rodseth, L., R. W. Wrangham, A. M. Harrigan, and B. B. Smuts 1991 The Human Community as a Primate Society.Current Anthropology 32:221–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thorne, B. 1986 Girls and Boys Together … But Mostly Apart: Gender Arrangements in Elementary Schools. InRelationships and Development, W. W. Hartup and Z. Rubin, eds. London: LEA Press.Google Scholar
  36. Young, M., and P. Willmott 1957Family and Kinship in East London. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Walter de Gruyter, Inc 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. I. M. Dunbar
    • 1
  • M. Spoors
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolEngland
  2. 2.University College LondonUK

Personalised recommendations