Seminar Overview
An ESRC Seminar Series
Darwin’s Medicine: Evolutionary Psychology and its Applications
1st Workshop
Social Brains and Social Networks
13th January 2009
This first seminar had, as its theme, the way in which cognition limits and constrains our
social world. Societies and organisations consist of individuals linked together in networks
defined by friendships, kinship or business relationships. To the extent that cognition is a
consequence of the brain, the evolutionary background of human brain evolution may set
limits on how our social world is structured (a phenomenon known as the ‘social brain
hypothesis’). Given that social networks have emerged within the last 5 years or so as a
major area of interest within the social sciences and commerce (notably the mobile phone
industry and the online social networking environments), the extent to which evolved
human psychology might place constraints on both the size and structure of social networks
becomes an important issue that might affect both the technology for electronic
communications systems and the structural design of organisations. This seminar workshop
aimed to explore some of these ideas.
1st Speaker – Professor Robin Dunbar
The first talk of the morning was by Professor Robin Dunbar, director of the Institute of
Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology. During his talk he gave a basic background of the
social brain hypothesis. The idea is that we live in complex social organizations and group
size is a function of the neo-cortex (i.e. larger the neo-cortex, larger the group). Thus, a
relationship exists between increased cognitive and behavioural complexity. This evolved
mechanism allows for processes such as the development of cliques, coalitions and the use
of deception. In addition, Dunbar discussed what has come to be known as “Dunbar’s
Number”. That is the approximate number of members a group can naturally sustain
through means of informal relationship (e.g. kinship). His research has found 150 to be that
number. Professor Dunbar provided a number of examples in society where this mean
group size occurs. Of particular relevance to this seminar series is the Gore-Tex Company.
In each factory they limit the number of employees to 150 so that “everyone knows
everyone”. This sense of connectivity reduces the need for an overt hierarchy and increases
individual commitment to the group’s goals. Factors such as frequency of contact, intimacy,
trust and capacity for emotional closeness were identified as important considerations for
the bonding of group members.
In the subsequent discussion period a number of issues were raised. For instance, the
quality of relationship decreases as the “circle of acquaintanceship” increases. Specifically,
there is a difference between knowing the person or the group. Also, more research needs
to be conducted on “optimal network density”. Concerns were also raised about modern
urban environments where dispersal of kinship weakens peer pressure. The question is how
do you recreate a sense of community? It is noted that “natural networks” work because
they are bottom-up connected by families. How do we recreate that in modern societies to
instil a sense of peer pressure and community? This question is at the root of collective
action problems.
2nd Speaker – Dr. Sam Roberts
Sam Roberts, also a member of the Institute, provided us with the second talk. Sam focused
on social network analysis. A distinction was made between the “whole network” and the
“personal network”. Also, there appears to be constraints on the size of these networks.
Limitations of cognitive capacity and frequency of time were identified as key components
restricting quality and size of our networks. This was addressed in two studies. In the first,
Sam looked at active networks and found a difference between small and large networks.
As expect, more weak ties were found in larger networks. Also, individuals with large kin
related networks had fewer friends in the inner circles of acquaintanceship. In line with
general evolutionary thinking, family takes precedence. It was also shown that there are
denser networks with family compared to friends, and more contact with friends is required
to maintain ties. In study 2, Dr. Roberts, using longitudinal data on mobile phone usage
from students transitioning from A-levels to University, found that from month 1-9
emotional closeness with family increased whilst decreasing with school friends.
Additionally, maintaining male friendships was based on activity wjhereas female friendships
were based on emotional closeness and communication. In summary, constraints on
network size help explain the structure of the network – to include the quality and quantity
of the relationships. Likewise, kin and non-kin networks have different structures.
A number of ideas were raised in the discussion. First, a strong inner core appears to be
beneficial during stressful events. Moreover, as we become older (65+) health benefits are
associated with a strong support clique. Thus, later in life, more emphasis should be placed
on maintaining this inner circle rather than the overall network. Policy on aging should take
this into consideration. Second, i how do we foster emotional closeness n large
organizations so as to strengthen the entire network? It was suggested we identify ways of
eliciting endorphin surges in group members which in turn increase intensity of relationships
within the group. Primates typically accomplish this cohesion through grooming. Humans,
on the other hand, can use laughter, dancing and other methods of interaction.
Organizations/Businesses may want to consider the benefits of encouraging informal
socializing . Although, one should use caution to ensure this increase of emotional closeness
does not spill over into negative behaviour and compromise the organization’s
professionalism. Another suggested way of fortifying group bonds is creating a sense of
“family links” and a sense of trust. This is something many companies attempt when
welcoming new employees (i.e. “welcome to the Company XYZ family”). A final concern
raised was the ease with which we can switch networks in modern society (e.g. changing
employers), and the subsequent reduction of accountability and weakened ties. To ensure
strong bonds, modern organizations should pursue the creation of environments that
incorporate our evolved sense of social networks.
3rd Speaker – Dr. Judith Donath
Our first speaker in the afternoon session was Judith Donath of the Media Lab at MIT. Her
examination of networks began with the “information age” and changes in social needs.
With the advent of social network sites (e.g. Facebook), the concept of a meaningful
network has changed. For example, if we want to identify a qualified builder we no longer
need to rely solely on “strong ties” with people we know. Rather, we can utilize much larger
online social networks of many people sharing the same “market relationship” to give us the
required information. The latter is a good alternative given our ever increasing mobile
society (both physically and socially) which breaks down the traditional social structure and
creates fragmented groups – something not common for the majority of human history. In
addition to a continuous flow of information, the expansion of these social network sites
over the past 6 years has allowed for new opportunities to extend the quality and quantity
of social ties, convey reputation information and signal status.
One such example of signalling Dr. Donath addressed was the concept of fashion which was
defined as new social information such as academic research. Also, she noted a “fashion
risk” in adopting the new if others don’t find it fashionable. However, adopting something
novel that later becomes fashionable is a benefit as it expresses the quality of one’s
judgement. Thus, there is an increased likelihood of gaining followership. Fashion, though,
has a limited shelf life which requires innovation to stay fresh. As a final observation, a
distinction was made between utility and fashion. Though fashion may be embedded in
utility, the former exercises greater influence as it is a way of signalling both status and
allegiance. From this, the question was raised of how to use these social network sites to
promote issues such as environmental policy whilst preventing it from becoming yet another
“fad” and fading away. Understanding the nature of social networks sites and fashion can
help. A message should be marketable (e.g. edgy and viral) and remain innovative to stay in
fashion.
4th Speaker – Dr. Jukka-Pekka Onnela
Our final talk was given by Jukka-Pekka Onnela, currently at the Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University. Onnela’s presentation involved the study of meganetworks and in particular the mobile phone records of approximately 7.5 to 8 million users.
Using an approach that analyzed the existing electronic records to quantify social network
strength, he found that the majority of ties in these networks are weak – perhaps due to
time constraints. Also, cliques of “friends” have overlaps that are high in coherence and
intensity. When analyzing 20% of the weakest links in the network the overall global
structure was intact. Conversely, in 20% of the strongest links (cliques), it was found that
the global structure degraded and “disconnected islands” of networks appeared. Though,
between these communities of strong “island” ties, weak global ties remained.
Understanding these connections allows for studying the diffusion of information. Dr.
Onnela found that something like a rumour will spread quickly through island communities
within the network, but slows as it reaches global channels. Onnela proposed that the
strength of the tie is responsible for the rate of transmission, and most transmissions diffuse
through intermediate connections. To conclude his talk, Dr. Onnela presented a simple
model for studying large networks.
Panel Discussion and Final Thoughts
In conclusion all four speakers took part in a panel discussion and were asked to describe in
more detail the application of their work.
Robin Dunbar emphasized creating a sense of community in large scale societies that lack
connectivity. Modern societies seemed to have lost coherence because social networks had
become geographically dispersed, thus undermining the sense of local community. In
parallel with this, there appears to be an increase of dissatisfaction with large scale
governments. We need to establish a vision to re-unite the “community”. One solution
might be to develop a project to create a “church-like” small scale sense of community.
Sam Roberts discussed the power of networks to spread knowledge and information.
People are more likely to get engaged when a friend rather than a government official is
telling them about the issues – a bottom-up approach. Also, he stressed informal socializing
as an important part of workplace design. A chance for socializing can lead to the
development of new ideas.
Judith Donath concentrated on identity and its interplay with privacy in that excess privacy
can lead to isolation. In an online social network environment, we can publicly see how
people act, react and interact and this helps to define what parts of privacy are important.
She also focused on networks and environmental issues. Huge unsustainable amounts of
consumption are fashion driven and understanding the role of information technology can
help. She suggested that following an online fashion movement, as opposed to a material
world one, has no cost to the environment. Although, as a caveat, she added some online
information (e.g. about consumer goods) could drive more consumption.
Jukka-Pekka Onnela introduced the idea of computers as test labs to computationally test
models for organizations. Furthermore, computational analysis could be utilized to
distinguish between effective and ineffective organizations. Lastly, the connectivity of
modern networks can be used to increase the transfer of knowledge and information flow in
organizations.