Social Working Memory Predicts Social Network Size in Humans

Abstract

Objectives

The Social Brain Hypothesis posits a quantitative relationship between primate neocortex size and social network size. However, the precise social-cognitive mechanisms that drive this relationship remain elusive. Social Working Memory (SWM)—the ability to actively maintain and manipulate social information—has been proposed as a potential mechanism, but, to date, has not been linked to network size. Here, we explicitly tested this association.

Methods

In Study 1, 125 participants completed a SWM task and reported on their social networks. In Study 2, 25 participants underwent fMRI during the SWM task and reported on their social networks.

Results

As predicted, in Study 1, SWM performance was significantly associated with social network size and, specifically, “Sympathy Group” size (i.e., the size of one’s core friend group). In Study 2, we conceptually replicated and extended this effect by showing that neural activity in the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex and medial prefrontal cortex engaged during SWM (vs. non-social working memory) was associated with individual variation in Sympathy Group size.

Conclusions

Taken together, these findings provide the first evidence that SWM constrains social network size, and suggest that SWM may be one social cognitive competency that underlies the Social Brain Hypothesis. In addition, whereas prior work investigating the Social Brain Hypothesis has largely focused on correlating brain structure size with social network size, to our knowledge, this is the first functional imaging evidence supporting the Social Brain Hypothesis.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    As indicated in our pre-registration, we aimed to recruit an additional 100 participants. In an effort to expedite data collection, we deviated from our original procedures and recruited some participants over the summer months (May–August), relying solely on on-line classified ads. These participants (N = 24), however, differed, significantly, from those recruited during the academic terms (N = 140); they were older (t (154) = −4.46, p < 0.001), more educated (t (155) = −4.59, p < 0.001), more likely to be employed full-time (χ2 = 22.31, p < 0.001), and less likely to be in school (χ2 = 10.28, p < 0.001), and, perhaps most importantly, performed significantly better on the SWM task (t (154) = −2.24, p = 0.027). Because of the different recruitment procedures and because they differed in non-trivial ways from the main sample, we excluded them from the analyses.

  2. 2.

    Of note, additional data from another sample of 56 participants who completed the SWM paradigm on two occasions, 12 days apart, indicate that the task is reliable (Meyer & Lieberman, unpublished data). Specifically, the Time 1 and Time 2 correlation for SWM (r(54) = .40) and non-SWM (r(54) = .42) were significant (both p’s < .003), and were not significantly different from one another (p = .91), suggesting that they are similarly reliable.

  3. 3.

    For the interested reader, we examined the effect of gender on SWM, non-social working memory, and both network sizes. There was no effect of gender on any of these variables (all ps > 0.195).

References

  1. Ashburner, J. (2007). A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm. NeuroImage, 38(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barnes, J. A. (1954). Class and committees in a Norwegian Island parish. Human Relations, 7(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22(6), 469–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2484(92)90081-J.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dunbar, R. I. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(04), 681–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dunbar, R. I. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Brain, 9(10), 178–190.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2014). The social brain: psychological underpinnings and implications for the structure of organizations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413517118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dunbar, R. I. M., & Spoors, M. (1995). Social networks, support cliques, and kinship. Human Nature, 6(3), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02734142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Funder, D. C., Levine, J. M., Mackie, D. M., Morf, C. C., Sansone, C., Vazire, S., & West, S. G. (2014). Improving the dependability of research in personality and social psychology: recommendations for research and educational practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313507536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gusnard, D. A., Raichle, M. E., & Raichle, M. E. (2001). Searching for a baseline: functional imaging and the resting human brain. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 2(10), 685–694. https://doi.org/10.1038/35094500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hill, R. A., & Dunbar, R. I. (2003). Social network size in humans. Human Nature, 14(1), 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kanai, R., Bahrami, B., Roylance, R., & Rees, G. (2012). Online social network size is reflected in human brain structure. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1732), 1327–1334. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.1959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lewis, P. A., Rezaie, R., Brown, R., Roberts, N., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). Ventromedial prefrontal volume predicts understanding of others and social network size. NeuroImage, 57(4), 1624–1629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Meyer, M. L., & Lieberman, M. D. (2012). Social working memory: neurocognitive networks and directions for future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 571. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Meyer, M. L., Spunt, R. P., Berkman, E. T., Taylor, S. E., & Lieberman, M. D. (2012). Evidence for social working memory from a parametric functional MRI study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(6), 1883–1888. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1121077109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Meyer, M. L., Taylor, S. E., & Lieberman, M. D. (2015). Social working memory and its distinctive link to social cognitive ability: an fMRI study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10, 1338–1347. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mumford, J. A., & Nichols, T. (2008). Power calculation for group fMRI studies accounting for arbitrary design and temporal autocorrelation. NeuroImage, 39(1), 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Powell, J. L., Lewis, P. A., Dunbar, R. I. M., García-Fiñana, M., & Roberts, N. (2010). Orbital prefrontal cortex volume correlates with social cognitive competence. Neuropsychologia, 48(12), 3554–3562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Stiller, J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2007). Perspective-taking and memory capacity predict social network size. Social Networks, 29(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2006.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Swann Jr, W. B., De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(5), 857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Swann Jr, W. B., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2003). The precarious couple effect: Verbally inhibited men+ critical, disinhibited women= bad chemistry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Using%20multivariate%20statistics&author=Tabachnick&publication_year=2007.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wager, T. D., & Nichols, T. E. (2003). Optimization of experimental design in fMRI: a general framework using a genetic algorithm. Neuroimage, 18(2), 293-309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 B: Biological Sciences, 272(1561), 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Celine Coletta, Costanza Graziani, Emily Ower, Irene Giannis, Jocelyn Ho, Elizabeth Pierce, and the Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center for data collection assistance.

Study 1 was supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada awarded to JAB and Study 2 was supported by a National Institute of Mental Health Pre-doctoral Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award awarded to MLM.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The study concept and designs were developed by S. A. Krol and J. A. Bartz (Study 1) and by M. L. Meyer and M. D. Lieberman (Study 2). Testing and data collection was performed by S. A. Krol (Study 1) and M. L. Meyer (Study 2). S. A. Krol and J. A. Bartz performed the data analyses and interpretation for Study 1. M. L. Meyer performed the data analyses for Study 2 and M. L. Meyer and M. D. Lieberman performed interpretation for Study 2. S. A. Krol and M. L. Meyer drafted the manuscript, and J. A. Bartz and M. D. Lieberman provided critical revisions. All authors approved the final version of the paper for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer A. Bartz.

Ethics declarations

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declare no conflicting interests.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krol, S.A., Meyer, M.L., Lieberman, M.D. et al. Social Working Memory Predicts Social Network Size in Humans. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology 4, 387–399 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-018-0100-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social working memory
  • Social networks
  • Social brain hypothesis
  • Neuroimaging
  • Evolution
  • Social bonds
  • Individual differences