Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T09:36:05.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constraints on the evolution of social institutions and their implications for information flow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2010

R. I. M. DUNBAR
R. I. M. DUNBAR*
Affiliation:
British Academy Centenary Project, Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Human communities and ego-centric social networks have a distinct size that reflects a generic relationship between relative neocortex volume and social group size that is characteristic of primates in general (the ‘social brain hypothesis’). Human networks are structured into layers that reflect both differences in the frequency of contact and levels of emotional closeness. The rate of decay in the frequency of contact across network layers is very steep, and we might expect this to have a very significant effect on the likelihood of Ego finding out some novel fact when information flow is limited to face-to-face interaction. I use an analytical model parameterized by these contact frequencies to show that there may be little advantage in having a network larger than ~150 for the purposes of information exchange. I then present a Monte Carlo simulation model to show that structure significantly impedes the rate of information flow in structured communities.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 7 , Special Issue 3: Evolution of Institutions , September 2011 , pp. 345 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © The JOIE Foundation 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiello, L. and Wheeler, P. (1995), ‘The expensive-tissue hypothesis: the brain and the digestive system in human and primate evolution’, Current Anthropology, 36: 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aureli, F., Schaffner, C., Boesch, C., Bearder, S., Call, J., Chapman, A., Connor, R., Di Fiore, A., Dunbar, R. I. M., Henzi, P., Holekamp, K., Korstjens, A. H., Layton, R., Lee, P. C., Lehmann, J., Manson, J., Ramos-Fernández, G., Strier, K., and van Schaik, C. P. (2008), ‘Fission–fusion dynamics: new research frameworks’, Current Anthropology, 49: 627–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, L., Dunbar, R. I. M., and Lycett, J. E. L. (2000), Human Evolutionary Psychology, Basingstoke: Macmillan/Palgrave.Google Scholar
Barton, R. A. (1996), ‘Neocortex size and behavioural ecology in primates’, Proceedings of the Royal Society, 263B: 173–177, London.Google Scholar
Becher, T. (1989), Academic Tribes and Territories, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J. (1999), ‘Settlement and territory’, in Barker, G. (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology, London: Routledge, pp. 505–545.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. (1985), Culture and the Evolutionary Process, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bryant, F. C. (1981), We're All Kin: A Cultural Study of a Mountain Neighborhood, Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, R. W. and Corp, N. (2004), ‘Neocortex size predicts deception rate in primates’, Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 271: 1693–1699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. and Feldman, M. W. (1981), Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Christakis, N. A. and Fowler, J. H. (2007), ‘The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years’, New England Medical Journal, 357: 370–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of the Army (1994), ‘Organization of the United States army’, Pamphlet 10–1. Department of the Army, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1992), ‘Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates’, Journal of Human Evolution, 22: 469–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993), ‘Coevolution of neocortex size, group size and language in humans’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16: 681–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998), ‘The social brain hypothesis’, Evolutionary Anthropology, 6: 178–190.3.0.CO;2-8>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008), ‘Mind the gap: or why humans aren't just great apes’, Proceedings of the British Academy, 154: 403–423.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. and Shultz, S. (2007), ‘Understanding primate brain evolution’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 362B: 649–658, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. and Spoors, M. (1995), ‘Social networks, support cliques and kinship’, Human Nature, 6: 273–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, E. and Gächter, S. (2000), ‘Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments’, American Economic Review, 90: 980–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Gächter, S. (2002), ‘Altruistic punishment in humans’, Nature, 415: 137–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, E. and Henrich, J. (2003), ‘Is strong reciprocity a maladaptation?’, in Hammerstein, P. (ed.), Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 5–82.Google Scholar
Fowler, J. H. and Christakis, N. A. (2010a), ‘Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study’, British Medical Journal, 337: a2338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, J. H. and Christakis, N. A. (2010b), ‘Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 107: 5334–5338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gladwell, M. (2000), The Tipping Point, London: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Grannoveter, M. (1973), ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, M. J., Milne, B. T., Walker, R. S., Burger, O., and Brown, J. H. (2007), ‘The complex structure of hunter-gatherer social networks’, Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 274B: 2195–2202.Google Scholar
Hill, D. (1981), An Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hill, R. A. and Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003), ‘Social network size in humans’, Human Nature, 14: 53–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurd, J. P. (1985), ‘Sex differences in mate choice among the ‘Nebraska’ Amish of central Pennsylvania’, Ethology and Sociobiology, 6: 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerison, H. J. (1973), Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Killworth, P. D., Bernard, H. P., and McCarty, C. (1984), ‘Measuring patterns of acquaintanceship’, Current Anthropology, 25: 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knuth, D. E. (1969), The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2: Seminumerical Algorithms, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Kudo, H. and Dunbar, R. I. M. (2001), ‘Neocortex size and social network size in primates’, Animal Behaviour, 62: 711–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laslett, P. (1971), The World We Have Lost, London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Layton, R. and O'Hara, S. (2010), ‘Human social evolution: a comparison of hunter-gatherer and chimpanzee social organization’, in Dunbar, R. I. M., Gamble, C., and Gowlett, J. A. J. (eds.), Social Brain, Distributed Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 85–116.Google Scholar
Lehmann, J. and Dunbar, R. I. M. (2009), ‘Network cohesion, group size and neocortex size in female-bonded old world primates’, Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 276B: 4417–4422.Google Scholar
Lewis, K. (2001), ‘A comparative study of primate play behaviour: implications for the study of cognition’, Folia Primatologica, 71: 417–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, Y.-E., Roberts, S., Cheng, T., Dunbar, R. I. M., Lió, P., and Crowcroft, J. (2009), ‘On optimising personal network and managing information flow’, in Proceedings of 18th ACM Conference of Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) Workshop, Hong Kong.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, C. B. (1955), ‘Company’, Encyclopedia Britanica, 14th edn, pp. 143–144.Google Scholar
McElreath, R., Boyd, R., and Richerson, P. J. (2003), ‘Shared norms and the evolution of ethnic markers’, Current Anthropology, 44: 122–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mange, A. and Mange, E. (1980), Genetics: Human Aspects, New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Montross, L. (1975), ‘Tactics’, Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edn.Google Scholar
Muncy, R. L. (1973), Sex and Marriage in Utopian Communities: 19th Century America, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Nettle, D. and Dunbar, R. I. M. (1997), ‘Social markers and the evolution of reciprocal exchange’, Current Anthropology, 38: 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oates, J. (1977), ‘Mesopotamian social organization: archaeological and philological evidence’, in Friedman, J. and Rowlands, M. J. (eds.), The Evolution of Social Systems, London: Duckworth, pp. 457–485.Google Scholar
Orstrom, E. (2003), ‘Collective action and the evolution of social norms’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14: 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orstrom, E., Gardner, R., and Walker, J. (1994), Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources, Arbor, Ann: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawłowski, B. P., Lowen, C. B., and Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998), ‘Neocortex size, social skills and mating success in primates’, Behaviour, 135: 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, J., Lewis, P., Dunbar, R. I. M., García-Fiñana, M., and Roberts, N. in press, ‘Quantitative neural correlates of social cognitive competences’, Psychoneurologia.Google Scholar
Roberts, S., Dunbar, R. I. M., Pollet, T., and Kuppens, T. (2009), ‘Exploring variations in active network size: constraints and ego characteristics’, Social Networks, 31: 138–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shultz, S. and Dunbar, R. I. M. (2007), ‘The evolution of the social brain: anthropoid primates contrast with other vertebrates’, Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 274B: 2429–2436.Google Scholar
Shultz, S., Noe, R., McGraw, S., and Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004), ‘A community-level evaluation of the impact of prey behavioural and ecological characteristics on predator diet composition’, Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 271B: 725–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosis, R. and Alcorta, C. (2003), ‘Signalling, solidarity, and the sacred: evolution of religious behaviour’, Evolutionary Anthropology, 12: 264–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, D. W. and Krebs, J. R. (1986), Foraging Theory, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Strassman, B. I. and Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998), ‘Human evolution and disease: putting the Stone Age in perspective’, in Stearns, S. C. (ed.), Evolution in health and disease, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 91–101.Google Scholar
Travers, J. and Milgram, S. (1969), ‘An experimental study of the small world problem’, Sociometry, 32: 425–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urban Church Project (1974), ‘Let my people grow!’, Workpaper No. 1, Unpublished report to the General Synod of the Church of England, London.Google Scholar
Watts, D. (2004), Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age, London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Zhou, W.-X., Sornette, D., Hill, R. A., and Dunbar, R. I. M. (2005), ‘Discrete hierarchical organization of social group sizes’, Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 272B: 439–444.Google Scholar