1932

Abstract

Social network analysis, now often thought of simply as network science, has penetrated nearly every scientific and many scholarly fields and has become an indispensable resource. Yet, social networks are special by virtue of being specifically social, and our growing understanding of the brain is affecting our understanding of how social networks form, mature, and are exploited by their members. We discuss the expanding research on how the brain manages social information, how this information is heuristically processed, and how network cognitions are affected by situation and circumstance. In the process, we argue that the cognitive turn in social networks exemplifies the modern conception of the brain as fundamentally reprogrammable by experience and circumstance. Far from social networks being dependent upon the brain, we anticipate a modern view in which cognition and social networks coconstitute each other.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054736
2020-07-30
2024-05-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/46/1/annurev-soc-121919-054736.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054736&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Atkinson RC, Shiffrin RM. 1968. Human memory: a proposed system and its control processes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation K Spence, JT Spence 89–195 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baddeley A. 1986. Working Memory Oxford Psychol. Ser. 11 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press/Clarendon
  3. Bartels A, Zeki S. 2000. The neural basis of romantic love. NeuroReport 11:3829–34
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartlett FC. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  5. Barton RA. 1996. Neocortex size and behavioural ecology in primates. Proc. R. Soc. B 263:173–77
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bell DC, Belli-McQueen B, Haider A 2007. Partner naming and forgetting: recall of network members. Soc. Netw. 29:279–99
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bernard HR, Killworth PD. 1977. Informant accuracy in social network data II. Hum. Commun. Res. 4:3–18
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernard HR, Killworth PD, Sailer L 1979. Informant accuracy in social network data IV. A comparison of clique-level structure in behavioral and cognitive network data. Soc. Netw. 2:191–218
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bernard HR, Killworth PD, Sailer L 1980. Informant accuracy in social-network data V. An experimental attempt to predict actual communication from recall data. Soc. Sci. Res. 11:30–66
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bickart KC, Wright CI, Dautoff RJ, Dickerson BC, Barrett LF 2011. Amygdala volume and social network size in humans. Nat. Neurosci. 14:163–64
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brands RA, Kilduff M. 2013. Just like a woman? Effects of gender-biased perceptions of friendship network brokerage on attributions and performance. Organ. Sci. 25:1530–48
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Brands RA, Mehra A. 2019. Gender, brokerage, and performance: a construal approach. Acad. Manag. J. 62:196–219
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Brands RA, Menges JI, Kilduff M 2015. The leader-in-social-network schema: perceptions of network structure affect gendered attributions of charisma. Organ. Sci. 26:1210–25
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Brashears ME. 2013. Humans use compression heuristics to improve the recall of social networks. Sci. Rep. 3:1513
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brashears ME. 2014. “Trivial” topics and rich ties: the relationship between discussion topic, alter role, and resource availability using the “important matters” name generator. Sociol. Sci. 1:493–511
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Brashears ME, Brashears LA. 2016. The enemy of my friend is easy to remember: balance as a compression heuristic. Advances in Group Processes SR Thye, EJ Lawler 1–31 Bingley, UK: Emerald Insight
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Brashears ME, Hoagland E, Quintane E 2016. Sex and network recall accuracy. Soc. Netw. 44:74–84
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Brashears ME, Quintane E. 2015. The microstructures of network recall: how social networks are encoded and represented in human memory. Soc. Netw. 41:113–26
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Brewer DD, Garrett SB. 2001. Evaluation of interviewing techniques to enhance recall of sexual and drug injection partners. Sex. Transm. Dis. 28:666–77
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Brewer DD, Yang BL. 1994. Patterns in the recall of persons in a religious community. Soc. Netw. 16:347–79
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Brewer WF, Treyens JC. 1981. Role of schemata in memory for places. Cogn. Psychol. 13:207–30
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Burt RS. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  23. Cao J, Smith EB. 2020. Why do high status people have larger social networks? Belief in status–quality coupling as a driver of social networking behavior Work. Pap., Kellogg Sch. Manag., Northwest. Univ Evanston, IL:
  24. Casciaro T. 1998. Seeing things clearly: social structure, personality, and accuracy in social network perception. Soc. Netw. 20:331–51
    [Google Scholar]
  25. De Soto CB. 1960. Learning a social structure. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 60:417–21
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dunbar RI. 1992. Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. J. Hum. Evol. 22:469–93
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Dunbar RI. 1993. Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behav. Brain Sci. 16:681–94
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Dunbar RI. 1995. Neocortex size and group size in primates: a test of the hypothesis. J. Hum. Evol. 28:287–96
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Eagly AH, Crowley M. 1986. Gender and helping behavior: a meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychol. Bull. 100:283–308
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Eagly AH, Steffen VJ. 1984. Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 46:735–54
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Enemark D, McCubbins MD, Weller N 2014. Knowledge and networks: an experimental test of how network knowledge affects coordination. Soc. Netw. 36:122–33
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fang R, Landis B, Zhang Z, Anderson MH, Shaw JD, Kilduff M 2015. Integrating personality and social networks: a meta-analysis of personality, network position, and work outcomes in organizations. Organ. Sci. 26:1243–60
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Flynn FJ, Reagans RE, Amanatullah ET, Ames DR 2006. Helping one's way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 91:1123–37
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Flynn FJ, Reagans RE, Guillory L 2010. Do you two know each other? Transitivity, homophily, and the need for (network) closure. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 99:855–69
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Freeman LC. 1992. Filling in the blanks: a theory of cognitive categories and the structure of social affiliation. Soc. Psychol. Q. 55:118–27
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Freeman LC, Freeman SC, Michaelson AG 1988. On human social intelligence. J. Soc. Biol. Struct. 11:415–25
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Freeman LC, Freeman SC, Michaelson AG 1989. How humans see social groups: a test of the Sailer–Gaulin models. J. Quant. Anthropol. 1:229–38
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Freeman LC, Romney AK. 1987. Words, deeds and social structure: a preliminary study of the reliability of informants. Hum. Organ. 46:330–34
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Freeman LC, Romney AK, Freeman SC 1987. Cognitive structure and informant accuracy. Am. Anthropol. 89:310–25
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Garrard P, Hodges JR. 1999. Semantic dementia: implications for the neural basis of language and meaning. Aphasiology 13:609–23
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Gobbini MI, Haxby JV. 2007. Neural systems for recognition of familiar faces. Neuropsychologia 45:32–41
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Gonçalves B, Perra N, Vespignani A 2011. Modeling users’ activity on Twitter networks: validation of Dunbar's number. PLOS ONE 6:e22656
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Heilman ME, Eagly AH. 2008. Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 1:393–98
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hilton JL, Von Hippel W 1996. Stereotypes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 47:237–71
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Hlebec V, Ferligoj A. 2001. Respondent mood and the instability of survey network measurements. Soc. Netw. 23:125–40
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hsieh YP. 2015. Check the phone book: testing information and communication technology (ICT) recall aids for personal network surveys. Soc. Netw. 41:101–12
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Humphrey NK. 1976. The social function of intellect. Growing Points in Ethology PPG Bateson, RA Hinde 303–17 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Hyon R, Kleinbaum AM, Parkinson C 2019. Social network proximity predicts similar trajectories of psychological states: evidence from multi-voxel spatiotemporal dynamics. NeuroImage In press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116492
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. Janicik GA, Larrick RP. 2005. Social network schemas and the learning of incomplete networks. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 88:348–64
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kanai R, Bahrami B, Roylance R, Rees G 2012. Online social network size is reflected in human brain structure. Proc. R. Soc. B 279:1327–34
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kashima Y, Wilson S, Lusher D, Pearson LJ, Pearson C 2013. The acquisition of perceived descriptive norms as social category learning in social networks. Soc. Netw. 35:711–19
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Killworth PD, Bernard HR. 1979. Informant accuracy in social network data III. A comparison of triadic structure in behavioral and cognitive data. Soc. Netw. 2:19–46
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Killworth PD, Bernard HR. 1982. A technique for comparing mental maps. Soc. Netw. 3:307–12
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Kovacs B, Kleinbaum AM. 2020. Language-style similarity and social networks. Psychol. Sci. 31:202–13
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Krackhardt D. 1987. Cognitive social structures. Soc. Netw. 9:109–34
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Krackhardt D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape: structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 35:342–69
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Kudo H, Dunbar RI. 2001. Neocortex size and social network size in primates. Anim. Behav. 62:711–22
    [Google Scholar]
  58. LaBar KS, LeDoux JE, Spencer DD, Phelps EA 1995. Impaired fear conditioning following unilateral temporal lobectomy in humans. J. Neurosci. 15:6846–55
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Landis B, Kilduff M, Menges JI, Kilduff GJ 2018. The paradox of agency: Feeling powerful reduces brokerage opportunity recognition yet increases willingness to broker. J. Appl. Psychol. 103:929–38
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Maguire EA, Woollett K, Spiers HJ 2006. London taxi drivers and bus drivers: a structural MRI and neuropsychological analysis. Hippocampus 16:1091–101
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Marin A. 2004. Are respondents more likely to list alters with certain characteristics? Implications for name generator data. Soc. Netw. 26:289–307
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Marsden PV. 1987. Core discussion networks of Americans. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52:122–31
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Martin CL. 1993. New directions for investigating children's gender knowledge. Dev. Rev. 13:184–204
    [Google Scholar]
  64. McPherson JM, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:415–44
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Mehra A, Kilduff M, Brass DJ 2001. The social networks of high and low self-monitors: implications for workplace performance. Adm. Sci. Q. 46:121–46
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Menon T, Smith EB. 2014. Identities in flux: cognitive network activation in times of change. Soc. Sci. Res. 45:117–30
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Neisser U. 2014. Cognitive Psychology New York: Psychology. Class, ed..
  68. O'Connor KM, Gladstone E. 2015. How social exclusion distorts social network perceptions. Soc. Netw. 40:123–28
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Omodei E, Brashears ME, Arenas A 2017. A mechanistic model of human recall of social network structure and relationship affect. Sci. Rep. 7:17133
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Parkinson C, Kleinbaum AM, Wheatley T 2017. Spontaneous neural encoding of social network position. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1:0072
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Parkinson C, Kleinbaum AM, Wheatley T 2018. Similar neural responses predict friendship. Nat. Commun. 9:332
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Parkinson C, Liu S, Wheatley T 2014. A common cortical metric for spatial, temporal, and social distance. J. Neurosci. 34:1979–87
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Parkinson C, Lynn B, Kleinbaum AM, Wheatley T 2019. Network centrality modulates social attention Work. Pap., Dartmouth Univ. Hanover, NH:
  74. Parkinson C, Wheatley T. 2015. The repurposed social brain. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19:133–41
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Pascual-Leone A, Amedi A, Fregni F, Merabet LB 2005. The plastic human brain cortex. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 28:377–401
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Powell J, Lewis PA, Roberts N, García-Fiñana M, Dunbar RIM 2012. Orbital prefrontal cortex volume predicts social network size: an imaging study of individual differences in humans. Proc. R. Soc. B 279:2157–62
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Reisberg D. 1997. Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind New York: Norton
  78. Roberts SG, Dunbar RI, Pollet TV, Kuppens T 2009. Exploring variation in active network size: constraints and ego characteristics. Soc. Netw. 31:138–46
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Romney AK, Faust K. 1982. Predicting the structure of a communications network from recalled data. Soc. Netw. 4:285–304
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Sallet J, Mars RB, Noonan MP, Andersson JL, O'Reilly JX et al. 2011. Social network size affects neural circuits in macaques. Science 334:697–700
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Schwarz N. 2009. Mental construal in social judgment. Social Cognition: The Basis of Human Interaction F Strack, J Förster 121–38 New York: Psychology
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Semin GR, Garrido MV. 2015. Socially situated cognition. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology MP Zanna 283–304 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Shea CT, Fitzsimons GM. 2016. Personal goal pursuit as an antecedent to social network structure. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 137:45–57
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Shea CT, Menon T, Smith EB, Emich K 2015. The affective antecedents of cognitive social network activation. Soc. Netw. 43:91–99
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Simpson B, Markovsky B, Steketee M 2011. Power and the perception of social networks. Soc. Netw. 33:166–71
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Small ML. 2017. Someone to Talk To Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  87. Smith EB, Menon T, Thompson L 2012. Status differences in the cognitive activation of social networks. Organ. Sci. 23:67–82
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Spencer SJ, Logel C, Davies PG 2016. Stereotype threat. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67:415–37
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Stiller J, Dunbar RI. 2007. Perspective-taking and memory capacity predict social network size. Soc. Netw. 29:93–104
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Van Kreveld D, Zajonc RB 1966. The learning of influence structures. J. Personal. 34:205–23
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Von Der Heide R, Vyas G, Olson IR 2014. The social network-network: Size is predicted by brain structure and function in the amygdala and paralimbic regions. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 9:1962–72
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Welles BF, Xu W. 2018. Network visualization and problem-solving support: a cognitive fit study. Soc. Netw. 54:162–67
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Zerubavel N, Bearman PS, Weber J, Ochsner KN 2015. Neural mechanisms tracking popularity in real-world social networks. PNAS 112:15072–77
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054736
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error