Human Sociality: Past and Present
Humans are social beings, a definitive trait of the primate order which developed far back in our evolutionary lineage. At some point in time, our primate ancestors formed social groups, most likely in order to combat the dangers of predators and co-operate with one another to gain access to food. These social bonds would have been nurtured by physical grooming (exhibited by non-human primates today). Periods of time away from these social bonds may have evoked ‘social pain’ in our ancestors, causing a desire to return to their social groups. This phenomenon most likely formed the origins of the emotion ‘loneliness’. Soon enough, sociality became a staple trait within our species, providing a reason for why Homo sapiens are so widespread today. But how important is sociality to modern day humans? And is it an evolutionary characteristic we are losing touch with?
Human social network structures
Interactions with our social counterparts constitute a large part of our day-to-day lives. Similar to chimpanzees and baboons, we interact with one another using fission-fusion dynamics. This means we interact with different individuals in different contexts throughout the day, e.g. at home with our family, at work with our colleagues and at the pub with our friends.
The maximum human social group size (i.e. the maximum number of stable relationships our brain can cope with (reviewed in Dunbar 2018) is said to be around 150 individuals, this figure is based on data from primates and other gregarious mammals, which states that as social group size increases so does brain (neocortex) size. Ethnographic studies support the ‘150’ figure (reviewed in Dunbar 2018), finding that this group size is common according to data from tribal and more traditional societies. In the Western world, the figure may become more elusive due to more complex social networks. However, some contemporary studies have found evidence of this number, most famously in a study which found that the maximum average social network size in a Western community was 153.5, a number which was based on Christmas card exchanges (Hill and Dunbar 2003). Interestingly, other human organisations correspond with this number. For example, in land armies of many countries, the maximum number of troops within a company is often around 150 (Zhou et. al. 2005).
The members of our social networks are organised in expanding circles which progressively include more individuals, known as ‘circles of intimacy’. These circles are ranked by emotional closeness, which decreases as circles move further from the individual (see diagram).
So how do these intricately organised social networks benefit us nowadays? The majority of the world’s population no longer need to co-operate to ward-off predators or forage and hunt for food, yet we still find ourselves investing a lot in social interactions and building social ties. What is it that is keeping these highly social traits alive in the present day? (Dunbar 2018)
Social network benefits
One primal benefit our social networks provide us with is the release of hormones known as 'opiates'. These opiates promote calmness and well-being through interaction, which can be expressed tactually or vocally. For humans, the latter is exhibited through language,
our most common form of communication; which again, most likely evolved in order to deal with larger group sizes and demands on social cohesion.
As mentioned, most primate species are immensely social, but humans take this trait to the next level. We are highly altruistic; forming strong bonds with, and being willing to go out of our way to help individuals outside of our family, something rare in primate species (Fehr et. al. 2002). One of the ways we display this is through the mutual exchange of social support: the emotional, instrumental or informational help we give to and receive from our friends. Social support can affect us in different ways. One way is by providing direct help which intervenes with a negative event, making it seem less threatening and/or increasing our belief that we can cope with the problem. Another occurs after the negative event has happened, which may disrupt our physiological or psychological reaction to the event, and weaken or stop negative psychological feelings.
Other than directly interfering with negative events, social support can have a sustained effect on us too. Being well integrated into a large, stable social network has constant positive effects on our wellbeing by making us feel confident that there are many people available to support us should we need it. So, in terms of wellbeing, it may not matter if you actually have a lot of supportive friends and family or not, as long as you believe that you do, you will receive the psychological benefits.
So, our social networks guide us through tough times, but what happens when we lose touch with our social connections, or they are absent during times of transition?
Distancing social bonds
Just as our ancestors did, we experience loneliness too. Times of change can put distance between our social networks and induce negative psychological feelings. Somewhere we can observe this is when we look at divorced couples, marital disruption causes increases in depression levels. This is because of a break in a long standing social relationship, which causes a reduction in social support.
Increases in physical distance from our social relationships can also affect our wellbeing. This is apparent in studies on university students, where increased distance from parental homes were associated with increased homesickness (Tongli 2003). The most effective way of combatting this homesickness may be to integrate into a local social network, and provide themselves with new, accessible (or perceived) sources of social support.
New social worlds?
Something else may be causing a more permanent and serious distance between us and our social networks however, and that is technology. Humans evolved to interact with each other face-to-face, with another individual directly within our presence. This is not always the case nowadays however, where we are becoming more and more involved with our smart-phones, tablets and laptops. But what kind of effect may this have on our livelihoods?
Recent research suggests that those who use smart phones more frequently experience a lower quality and quantity of face-to-face interactions (Drago 2015). In turn, other studies show that higher levels of face-to-face social interaction can half the risk of depression, whereas other modes of contact such as telephone or email were shown to make no difference (Teo et. al. 2015)
In a time where social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are dominating our social worlds, and new modes of digital communication are being used more frequently. What will our increased connection to a digital world mean for the future of sociality in our species?
For a recent review of what human friendship means see:
Dunbar, R. I. M. 2018. The anatomy of friendship. Trends in cognitive sciences 22.1: 32-51.
Cited works:
Drago, E., 2015. The Effect of Technology on Face-to-Face Communication. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, vol. 6 (1), 13-19
Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U. & Gächter, S., 2002. Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms. Journal of Human Nature, vol. 13 (1), 1-25
Hill, R. and Dunbar, R., 2003. Social Network Size in Humans. Human Nature, vol. 14 (1), 53-72
Tongli J., 2003. Leaving Home. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, vol. 18 (1), 35-48
W.-X. Zhou, et al. 2005. Discrete hierarchical organization of social group sizes.
Proc. Biol. Sci., 272: 439-444
