Human Nature

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 414–429 | Cite as

Clique Size and Network Characteristics in Hyperlink Cinema

Constraints of Evolved Psychology
Article

Abstract

Hyperlink cinema is an emergent film genre that seeks to push the boundaries of the medium in order to mirror contemporary life in the globalized community. Films in the genre thus create an interacting network across space and time in such a way as to suggest that people’s lives can intersect on scales that would not have been possible without modern technologies of travel and communication. This allows us to test the hypothesis that new kinds of media might permit us to break through the natural cognitive constraints that limit the number and quality of social relationships we can manage in the conventional face-to-face world. We used network analysis to test this hypothesis with data from 12 hyperlink films, using 10 motion pictures from a more conventional film genre as a control. We found few differences between hyperlink cinema films and the control genre, and few differences between hyperlink cinema films and either the real world or classical drama (e.g., Shakespeare’s plays). Conversation group size seems to be especially resilient to alteration. It seems that, despite many efficiency advantages, modern media are unable to circumvent the constraints imposed by our evolved psychology.

Keywords

Clique size Network structure Hyperlink cinema Cognitive constraints 

References

  1. Barabási, A. L., Albert, R., & Jeong, H. (2000). Scale-free characteristics of random networks: the topology of the world-wide web. Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 281(1), 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barabási, A. L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 311(3), 590–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P. D., Evans, M. J., McCarty, C., & Shelley, G. A. (1988). Studying social relations cross-culturally. Ethnology, 27(2), 155–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birdsell, J. B. (1968). Some predictions for the Pleistocene based on equilibrium systems among recent hunter-gatherers. In R. B. Lee & I. DeVore (Eds.), Man the hunter (pp. 229–240). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  5. Bordwell, D. (2008). Poetics of cinema. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for windows: Software for social network analysis. Cambridge: Harvard Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  7. Broder, A., Kumar, R., Maghoul, F., Raghavan, P., Rajagopalan, S., Stata, R., et al. (2000). Graph structure in the web. Computer Networks, 33(1), 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1995). Neocortex size and group size in primates: a test of the hypothesis. Journal of Human Evolution, 28(3), 287–296.Google Scholar
  9. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology, 6, 178–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2005). Why are good writers so rare? an evolutionary perspective on literature. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 3(1), 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Mind the gap; or why humans are not just great apes. Proceedings of the British Academy, 154, 403–423.Google Scholar
  12. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2012). Social cognition on the Internet: testing constraints on social network size. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1599), 2192–2201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunbar, R. I. M., Duncan, N. D. C., & Nettle, D. (1995). Size and structure of freely forming conversational groups. Human Nature, 6(1), 67–78.Google Scholar
  14. Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., & Martinez, N. D. (2002). Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance. Ecology Letters, 5(4), 558–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Everett, W. (2005). Fractal films and the architecture of complexity. Studies in European Cinema, 2(3), 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamilton, M. J., Milne, B. T., Walker, R. S., Burger, O., & Brown, J. H. (2007). The complex structure of hunter–gatherer social networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1622), 2195–2203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hill, R. A., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). Social network size in humans. Human Nature, 14(1), 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hutton, J. (1982). Aristotle’s poetics. New York: WW Norton.Google Scholar
  19. Kinderman, P., Dunbar, R. I. M., & Bentall, R. P. (1998). Theory-of-mind deficits and causal attributions. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Layton, R. (1986). Political and territorial structures among hunter-gatherers. Man, 21, 18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewis, P. A., Rezaie, R., Browne, R., Roberts, N., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). Ventromedial prefrontal volume predicts understanding of others and social network size. NeuroImage, 57, 1624–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liljeros, F., Edling, C. R., Amaral, L. A. N., Stanley, H. E., Aberg, Y. (2001). The web of human sexual contacts. Available online at Arxiv preprint cond-mat/0106507.Google Scholar
  23. Matthews, P., & Barrett, L. (2005). Small-screen social groups: soap operas and social networks. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 3(1), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Montoya, J. M., & Solé, R. V. (2002). Small world patterns in food webs. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 214(3), 405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pollet, T., Roberts, S. B. G., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). Use of social network sites and instant messaging does not lead to increased offline social network size, or to emotionally closer relationships with offline network members. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14, 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Powell, J., Lewis, P. A., Roberts, N., García-Fiñana, M., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2012). Orbital prefrontal cortex volume predicts social network size: an imaging study of individual differences in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 279B, 2157–2162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Quart, A. (2005). Networked: Don Roos and Happy Endings (film comment). Retrieved from http://www.alissaquart.com/articles/2005/08/networked_don_roos_and_happy_e.html.
  29. Roberts, S. B. G., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). Communication in social networks: effects of kinship, network size and emotional closeness. Personal Relationships, 18, 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Silvey, V. (2009). Not just ensemble films: Six degrees, webs, multiplexity and the rise of network narratives. Forum, 8. Retrieved from http://www.forumjournal.org/site/issue/08/vivien-silvey.
  31. Stiller, J., & Dunbar, R. (2007). Perspective-taking and memory capacity predict social network size. Social Networks, 29(1), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stiller, J., & Hudson, M. (2005). Weak links and scene cliques within the small world of Shakespeare. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 3(1), 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stiller, J., Nettle, D., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). The small world of Shakespeare’s plays. Human Nature, 14(4), 397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Strogatz, S. H. (2001). Exploring complex networks. Nature, 410(6825), 268–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sutcliffe, A. J., Dunbar, R. I. M., Binder, J., & Arrow, H. (2012). Relationships and the social brain: integrating psychological and evolutionary perspectives. British Journal of Psychology, 103, 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Voloshinov, A. V., & Gozhanskaya, I. V. (2008). Russian vs. English drama in the context of network theory. Paper presented at the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics–XX Biеnnial Congress, Chicago.Google Scholar
  37. Watts, D. J. (1999). Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Williams, R. J., Berlow, E. L., Dunne, J. A., Barabási, A. L., & Martinez, N. D. (2002). Two degrees of separation in complex food webs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(20), 12913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhou, W.-X., Sornette, D., Hill, R. A., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2005). Discrete hierarchical organization of social group sizes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 272B, 439–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zunshine, L. (2006). Why we read fiction: Theory of mind and the novel. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social PsychologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations