Skip to main content

Social networks, support cliques, and kinship

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1984 On the Validity of Retrospective Data: The Problem of Informant Accuracy.Annual Review of Anthropology 13:495–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Booth, A. 1972 Sex and Social Participation.American Sociology Review 37:183–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bott, E. 1971Family and Social Network, revised edition. London: Tavistock Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Burt, R. S. 1982Towards a Structural Theory of Action: Network Models of Social Structure, Perceptions and Action. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buys, C. J., and K. K. Larsen 1979 Human Sympathy Groups.Psychology Reports 45:547–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. 1964Introduction to Mathematical Sociology. London: Collier-Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, R. I. M. 1992 Time: A Hidden Constraint on the Behavioural Ecology of Baboons.Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 31:35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1993 Coevolution of Neocortex Size, Group Size and Language in Humans.Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:681–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Firth, R., ed. 1956Two Studies of Kinship in London. London: Athlone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, C. S. 1982To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, R., and P. C. Lee 1989 Finite Social Space, Evolutionary Pathways and Reconstructing Hominid Behavior.Science 243:901–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foot, H. C., A. J. Chapman, and J. R. Smith 1980Friendship and Social Relations in Children. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, A. 1988Evolution and Human Kinship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keesing, R. M. 1975Kin Groups and Social Structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Killworth, P. D., H. R. Bernard, and C. McCarty 1984 Measuring Patterns of Acquaintanceship.Current Anthropology 25:391–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, D., and J. H. Kuklinski 1982Network Analysis. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kudo, H., S. Bloom, and R. I. M. Dunbar 1995 Neocortex as a Constraint on Social Network Size in Primates. Submitted toBehaviour.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Levi-Strauss, C. 1969The Elementary Structures of Kinship. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Milardo, R., ed. 1988Families and Social Networks. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J. C., ed. 1969Social Networks in Urban Situations. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Young, M., and P. Willmott 1957Family and Kinship in East London. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Robin Dunbar, B.A., Ph.D., until recently a professor of biological anthropology at University College London, is professor of psychology at the University of Liverpool. His main research interests concern mating systems and the evolution of mammalian social systems. Matt Spoors, B.Sc., M.Sc., teaches at St Hugh’s School, Grantham (England).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dunbar, R.I.M., Spoors, M. Social networks, support cliques, and kinship. Human Nature 6, 273–290 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02734142

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02734142

Key words

  • Networks
  • Kinship
  • Sex differences
  • Family size
  • Support group