Skip to main content

Social network size in humans

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.

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

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 1992 Neocortex Size as a Constraint on Group Size in Primates. Journal of Human Evolution 22:469–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 1993 Coevolution of Neocortical Size, Group Size and Language in Humans. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 16:681–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 1998 The Social Brain Hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology 6:178–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dunbar, R. I. M., and J. Bever 1998 Neocortex Size Predicts Group Size in Some Insectivores. Ethology 104: 695–708.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Marsden, P. V. 1987 Core Discussion Networks of Americans. American Sociological Review 52:122–131.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. A. Hill.

Additional information

This project was funded by a grant from Hewlett Packard Research Laboratories (Bristol) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). The support of the ESRC is gratefully acknowledged. This work was part of the programme of the ESRC Research Centre for Economic Learning and Social Evolution (ELSE).

Russell Hill (B.Sc., M.Phil, Ph.D.) is an Addison Wheeler Research Fellow at the University of Durham. His main research interests are in the evolution of mammalian social systems. Robin Dunbar (B.A., Ph.D.) is a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Liverpool. His research interests span mammalian behavioral ecology, including humans, cognitive mechanisms, and Darwinian psychology.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hill, R.A., Dunbar, R.I.M. Social network size in humans. Hum Nat 14, 53–72 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-003-1016-y

Download citation

Key words

  • Frequency of contact
  • Group size
  • Humans
  • Neocortex size
  • Social networks