Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Dunbar's number

Dunbar's number denotes the proposed upper bound on the number of stable, meaningful social relationships an individual can cognitively sustain, estimated at roughly 150 by evolutionary anthropologist Robin Dunbar.^[1] This concept originates from the social brain hypothesis, which establishes a positive correlation between relative neocortex volume and mean group size across primate species, interpreting neocortical expansion as enabling the tracking and manipulation of complex social bonds.^[2] Dunbar applied this primate scaling relationship to humans, yielding a predicted community size of about 150, where language supplants physical grooming as the primary mechanism for maintaining cohesion in larger groups.^[3] Empirical observations supporting the figure include alignments with prehistoric settlement sizes, military company structures, and contemporary personal networks, though the hypothesis posits not a single threshold but hierarchical layers of relational intensity: approximately 5 intimate supporters, 15 sympathy-group members, 50 casual friends, and 150 total meaningful contacts.^[1] Despite its explanatory power for evolutionary constraints on sociality, the precise value of 150 has drawn scrutiny for relying on extrapolated regressions with wide confidence intervals and for underemphasizing cultural, ecological, and institutional factors that enable variable human group scales beyond cognitive limits alone.^[4]^[5]

Theoretical Foundations

Primate Brain-Group Size Correlation

Robin Dunbar's 1992 study examined data from 38 primate genera and identified a robust positive correlation between the neocortex ratio—calculated as the volume of the neocortex divided by the volume of the remaining brain components—and mean social group size, yielding a Pearson correlation coefficient of r ≈ 0.80 (p < 0.001).^[2] This metric outperformed total brain size or overall encephalization quotient as a predictor, explaining approximately 64% of the variance in group sizes across prosimians, monkeys, and apes.^[2] The analysis drew on volumetric brain data from preserved specimens and field observations of group compositions, highlighting how neocortical expansion tracks the evolutionary pressures of sociality in primates.^[2] The correlation implies a cognitive limit wherein neocortical capacity determines the feasible scale of cohesive social units; beyond this threshold, individuals cannot sustain the informational demands of mutual recognition, reciprocity, and alliance formation without relational breakdown.^[2] Primates invest disproportionately in neocortical tissue to handle these demands, as evidenced by allometric scaling where social group size increases exponentially with neocortex volume rather than linearly with overall brain mass.^[2] For example, gorillas (Gorilla gorilla), with a lower neocortex ratio, maintain harem-based groups averaging 10-20 individuals centered on a silverback male, minimizing the complexity of multi-male coalitions.^[2] Conversely, spider monkeys (Ateles spp.), featuring a higher neocortex ratio, organize into larger, fission-fusion communities of 40-50 members, necessitating advanced tracking of dispersed subgroups and affiliative bonds.^[2] This primate pattern underscores a causal link: expanded neocortical regions, particularly frontal and temporal lobes involved in social cognition, enable processing of deceptive signals, grooming reciprocity, and coalitionary politics, which in turn permit larger groups before cognitive overload fragments social structure.^[2] Dunbar's regression model, log(group size) = 3.42 + 2.69 × log(neocortex ratio), quantifies this constraint, with residuals indicating species-specific adaptations like territoriality influencing deviations.^[2] Subsequent validations on expanded datasets have upheld the core association, though refinements account for phylogenetic controls and sex-specific bonding patterns.^[6]

Extrapolation to Human Cognitive Limits

Dunbar extrapolated the primate neocortex-group size correlation to humans by applying the regression equation derived from 38 primate genera: \log_{10}(N) = 0.093 + 3.389 \log_{10}(CR), where N is mean group size and CR is the neocortex ratio (neocortex volume to remainder of brain volume).^[7] For humans, with a CR of 4.1—about three times the primate maximum—this yields N \approx 147.8, conventionally rounded to 150.^[7] This prediction assumes evolutionary continuity in social brain function, positing that neocortical expansion scales cognitive capacity for tracking relationships and intentions proportionally across species.^[7] The underlying causal mechanism emphasizes time constraints on social cognition: primates allocate roughly 20% of active time to grooming for bond maintenance, a limit tied to neocortical processing demands rather than arbitrary behavior.^[8] Humans exhibit a parallel budget, devoting approximately 20-21% of waking hours (about 3-3.3 hours in a 16-hour day) to conversation, the evolved substitute for grooming that enables efficient information exchange about third parties.^[8] This fixed allocation caps viable relationships at the point where reciprocal emotional investment becomes unsustainable, as each bond requires disproportionate cognitive resources for empathy, reciprocity tracking, and deception detection—costs unmitigated by mere informational tools like language or technology.^[7] Claims of unbounded scalability through cultural or digital innovations overlook these biological invariants; while language amplifies grooming efficiency by a factor of about 2.8 (enabling the jump from primate maxima of ~50-60 to human scales), it does not eliminate the neocortically imposed ceiling, as superficial contacts fail to substitute for deep, trust-based ties demanding ongoing mental simulation.^[7] Empirical deviations in larger groups arise from hierarchical delegation or reduced intimacy, not expanded individual capacity, underscoring that cognitive limits persist independently of environmental scaffolds.^[8]

Empirical Validation

Evidence from Primate Societies

Observational studies of non-human primates have established a robust positive correlation between relative neocortex size—measured as the ratio of neocortex volume to the rest of the brain—and typical social group size across multiple species.^[2] This relationship, derived from comparative analyses of 38 primate species, indicates that species with larger neocortical ratios maintain larger stable groups, with a regression explaining approximately 75% of the variance in group sizes ranging from small troops of 10-20 individuals in prosimians to herds exceeding 100 in some cercopithecines.^[2] Field data from long-term observations confirm this pattern without relying on captive conditions, emphasizing ecological validity in wild populations where predation, resource distribution, and intra-group competition shape group dynamics.^[6] In gelada baboons (Theropithecus gelada), which possess one of the highest neocortex ratios among Old World monkeys, field studies document band sizes averaging 150-250 individuals, subdivided into reproductive units of 10-20 and all-male bachelor groups, aligning with predictions from neocortical capacity for multilevel social structures.^[2] Similarly, macaque species (Macaca spp.), with moderate neocortical development, exhibit typical troop sizes of 20-80 in provisioning-free habitats, as observed in long-term censuses of rhesus and Japanese macaques, where group cohesion is maintained despite occasional fission events driven by resource scarcity.^[6] These dynamics highlight fission-fusion patterns more prevalent in species with expanded neocortices, allowing flexible subgrouping within larger overall communities to manage conflicts and foraging efficiency. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) provide further evidence, with long-term field projects reporting average community sizes of 50-60 individuals across multiple sites, matching their intermediate neocortical ratio relative to other great apes.^[9] Within these communities, fission-fusion foraging parties of 5-20 members predominate, enabling sustained tracking of alliances amid high male-male competition.^[10] Empirical metrics from grooming behaviors underscore the causal role of neocortical processing: time allocated to grooming increases logarithmically with group size in cercopithecines and hominoids, serving as a mechanism for reciprocity and bond maintenance, with network analyses revealing clique sizes limited by cognitive constraints in species like baboons and macaques.^[6] Conflict resolution via third-party interventions and coalitionary support, documented in chimpanzee patrols and macaque dominance hierarchies, further demonstrates neocortically mediated abilities to monitor multiple dyadic relationships and predict alliance outcomes based on prior interactions.^[11]

Human Studies and Observational Data

Ethnographic observations of hunter-gatherer societies from 20th-century studies reveal that while daily residential camps typically comprised 30-50 individuals, larger stable social units such as dialect groups or maximal bands averaged approximately 148 members, aligning with the cognitive limit for maintaining cohesive relationships without excessive hierarchy.^[12] This pattern reflects the practical constraints of resource sharing and conflict resolution in pre-agricultural communities, where groups exceeding this size fragmented or required formalized leadership.^[13] Historical military structures offer additional proxies for stable group sizes. Roman centuries, the basic tactical subunits of legions, consisted of 80 legionaries plus support staff, totaling around 100 men, enabling direct oversight by a centurion while approximating the threshold for personal acquaintance and loyalty.^[14] Similarly, infantry companies in World War II armies ranged from 100 to 200 soldiers, with 150 frequently observed as the upper limit for effective cohesion, beyond which communication breakdowns and reduced morale necessitated further subdivision.^[15] ^[16] These limits arise from the time and energy demands of relationship maintenance, as stable bonds require cumulative investments of approximately 250 hours for close friendships, constraining the total network size given finite daily social time budgets of about 4-5 hours on average.^[17] Observational data from modern proxies, such as Christmas card distribution lists in Western societies, confirm this empirically, with mean network sizes of 153.5 recipients representing actively maintained ties.^[18] Such evidence underscores that deviations beyond ~150 often correlate with instability unless supplemented by institutional mechanisms.

Layered Structure of Relationships

Concentric Circles Model

The concentric circles model, proposed by anthropologist Robin Dunbar, posits that human social networks are structured in hierarchical layers radiating outward from the individual, with each successive ring encompassing approximately three times as many relationships as the previous one and demanding progressively less intensive cognitive and emotional investment.^[1] The innermost layer consists of 3-5 intimates, typically immediate family members or close dyadic partners, characterized by high mutual dependence and frequent interaction.^[19] This is followed by a sympathy or support group of 10-15 individuals, such as close friends who provide emotional backing during personal crises; next is a band of 30-50 regular contacts for casual but reliable social exchanges; and the outermost stable layer forms a clan of about 150 people with whom one maintains meaningful, recognizable ties sufficient for community cohesion.^[20] Beyond this, recognition extends to roughly 500 acquaintances and up to 1,500-2,000 faces or names, though these outer limits involve minimal ongoing engagement and are prone to decay without reinforcement.^[21] These layer sizes emerge from time allocation models that treat social bonding—analogous to primate grooming—as a fixed resource constrained by neocortical processing capacity and available interaction time, typically modeled as exponential decay in contact frequency outward from the core.^[22] Empirical derivation relies on surveys querying respondents about relationship frequencies, emotional intimacy levels, and support-seeking behaviors, such as Oxford-based studies analyzing self-reported contact patterns and network compositions.^[23] Validation has extended to objective data like mobile phone call logs, where frequency distributions cluster around the predicted thresholds, confirming the layered geometry across diverse populations.^[1] Functionally, inner layers prioritize emotional reciprocity and deep trust, requiring substantial cognitive effort for nuanced empathy and conflict resolution, while outer layers serve instrumental roles like information exchange or loose alliances with lower reciprocity demands.^[21] The entire structure is bounded by a weekly social time budget of approximately 5 hours dedicated to active maintenance beyond obligatory kin interactions, as interaction drops from near-daily in the core to infrequent in peripheral rings, enforcing the cognitive limit to prevent overload.^[24] This differentiation reflects causal trade-offs in mental bandwidth, where expanding any layer risks eroding quality in others due to finite attentional resources.^[22]

Functional Roles of Relationship Layers

The relationship layers delineated in Dunbar's model fulfill specialized roles shaped by evolutionary pressures, with emotional closeness and time investment diminishing outward from the core, underscoring a hierarchical structure rather than uniform egalitarianism in social bonds. Inner layers prioritize intensive, reciprocal support critical for individual resilience, while outer layers facilitate broader network stability through looser connections, constrained by the neocortex's capacity for tracking relationships. This stratification aligns with primate social dynamics, where bonding mechanisms like grooming (analogous to human conversation) allocate limited time budgets unevenly, favoring proximate ties for survival advantages such as protection and resource sharing.^[25] The innermost support clique (typically 3–5 individuals) serves as the primary reservoir for crisis management and emotional sustenance, comprising close kin, romantic partners, or equivalent bonds that enable kin selection and pair-bonding for reproductive success and immediate threat mitigation. Members of this layer are those sought for advice or aid during acute personal distress, such as illness, loss, or conflict, providing a buffer against existential risks in ancestral environments. Empirical network analyses confirm this clique's role in delivering dependable, high-stakes support, distinct from broader affiliations.^[26] ^[27] Mid-level layers, including the sympathy group (~12–15 individuals), extend support to routine emotional needs and coalition formation, fostering alliances for status enhancement, resource defense, and reciprocal aid in competitive settings. These bonds, maintained through frequent interaction like weekly contact, leverage gossip as a human equivalent to primate grooming to build trust and monitor reputations within the group, enabling coordinated action against rivals or for collective gains. The ~50-person layer functions similarly but at a scale suited for band-level conflicts or communal endeavors, where participants offer sympathy and limited reciprocity without the intensity of inner ties.^[28] The outermost layer (~150 individuals) underpins community cohesion via weak ties, facilitating information dissemination, novel opportunity access, and risk distribution across the network, as theorized by Granovetter's principle that peripheral connections bridge disparate clusters for adaptive benefits like resource scouting or threat alerts. However, biological limits cap this at Dunbar's number, preventing indefinite expansion; ties here involve infrequent contact and minimal emotional investment, serving reconnaissance rather than deep loyalty, with empirical data showing reduced interaction frequency compared to inner layers. This outer function complements inner hierarchies by providing systemic resilience without diluting core bonds' intensity.^[29]^[30]

Practical Applications

Organizational and Institutional Uses

Hutterite colonies, an Anabaptist communal society emphasizing shared labor and religious discipline, historically fission into new settlements upon reaching an average size of approximately 166 members, a process driven by emerging social stresses and the need to sustain intimate governance and mutual accountability.^[31] This practice aligns with Dunbar's number by limiting group scale to foster enduring personal bonds and avert factionalism, as evidenced by demographic records from 1878 to 1970 showing consistent splits near this threshold to restore relational stability.^[32] Military structures frequently incorporate units of about 150 personnel, such as infantry companies in modern armies or Roman centuries, enabling leadership through familiarity and loyalty rather than impersonal enforcement.^[15] ^[33] Neolithic settlements, inferred from archaeological surveys of farming villages, similarly averaged around 150 inhabitants, supporting cohesive resource management and defense without formalized hierarchies.^[34] In contemporary business, W. L. Gore & Associates, producer of Gore-Tex fabrics, deliberately caps individual plant workforces at 150 to preserve fluid communication, innovative collaboration, and low turnover in its lattice organizational model, splitting facilities beyond this size to mitigate diluted trust and inefficiencies.^[35] Exceeding 150 correlates with observable declines in group cohesion, including fragmented information flow and elevated administrative overhead, as larger teams demand codified rules over relational norms.^[36] ^[37] Larger polities and firms circumvent the limit via layered hierarchies and institutional protocols, yet the underlying constraint on dyadic relationships endures, constraining informal trust networks and necessitating compensatory mechanisms like oversight to sustain functionality.^[38] Digital social networks enable users to amass connections numbering in the thousands or more, yet empirical investigations reveal that the cognitive constraints encapsulated by Dunbar's number persist, limiting stable, meaningful relationships to roughly 150 individuals regardless of platform scale. A 2016 study analyzing self-reported network sizes from two large UK surveys, stratified by age, gender, and region, found that while online environments facilitate broader acquaintance networks, the core circle of emotionally close contacts—those involving regular, reciprocal interaction—averages around 150, mirroring offline patterns and showing no significant expansion attributable to digital tools.^[39] This holds across platforms like Facebook and Twitter, where total "friends" or followers frequently exceed 200 or even 1,000, but active engagement, such as direct messaging or substantive commenting, concentrates among a Dunbar-sized subset, as users allocate finite time and attention to prioritize deeper bonds over superficial links.^[40] The dilution of relationship quality in digital spaces further underscores these limits, with evidence indicating that increased connectivity does not equate to enhanced emotional bandwidth or bypass neocortical capacities for empathy and theory of mind. For instance, interactions on social media often devolve into weak ties—acquaintances providing informational benefits but lacking the mutual support of strong bonds—without evidence of overcoming the biological ceiling on intimate relationships, as time budgets for grooming-like social maintenance remain fixed at approximately two hours daily.^[20] Dunbar has emphasized that platforms amplify visibility and transient exchanges but fail to foster the stable, cognitively demanding ties essential for human sociality, with 2021 assessments confirming that purported expansions in network size pertain to low-stakes acquaintances rather than quality relationships sustainable over time.^[41] Claims of technology enabling "infinite" networks overlook this causal constraint: human empathy and reciprocal investment are bounded by neural architecture and temporal resources, rendering mass-follower models illusory for genuine social cohesion.^[42] These patterns suggest digital networks primarily extend peripheral layers of Dunbar's concentric model, such as casual contacts or clans (up to 1,500), but cannot supplant the inner layers of sympathy groups and close friendships, where face-to-face cues remain irreplaceable for building trust and emotional depth. Observational data from platform usage logs corroborate that beyond 150 active ties, interaction frequency drops precipitously, leading to echo chambers of passive consumption rather than enriched relational ecologies.^[43] Thus, while digital tools democratize weak-tie formation—valuable for diffusion of information—they reinforce rather than transcend the evolutionary imprint of Dunbar's number on human social limits.

Criticisms and Challenges

Methodological and Statistical Critiques

A 2021 phylogenetic comparative analysis re-examined Dunbar's regression-based extrapolation using Bayesian multilevel models and generalized least-squares methods on expanded primate datasets (n=71 for neocortex ratios, n=142 for brain weights), incorporating consensus phylogenies to account for evolutionary dependencies. This yielded predicted human group sizes of 69–108 (Bayesian, 95% CI: 3.8–520) or 16–42 (GLS, 95% CI: 2.1–336), far from a precise 150 and with confidence intervals indicating substantial statistical uncertainty.^[4] Such wide variability questions the replicability of the original fixed correlation, as results fluctuated across model runs and variable selections, suggesting sensitivity to methodological choices.^[4] Dunbar's foundational 1992 analysis drew from a modest sample of 36 primate genera for neocortex-to-group-size regressions, raising risks of overfitting in the linear model without phylogenetic corrections, which modern approaches reveal as overly simplistic for cross-species inference.^[44] ^[4] Human-side validations, such as layer estimates from surveys or Christmas card lists, further introduce confounds by potentially capturing transient reciprocity or recall biases rather than enduring cognitive constraints on relationship stability.^[4] The primate neocortex-group size link represents correlation without proven causation, as ecological drivers like dietary complexity and predation pressure shape both brain expansion and aggregation independently, per comparative studies across mammals and primates.^[45] ^[46] Resource scarcity and habitat stability, for instance, impose group size ceilings via foraging efficiency, decoupling neural capacity from social limits in ways unaddressed by brain-centric models alone.^[47]

Evidence of Variability and Alternatives

Empirical studies indicate variability in the size of stable social networks around Dunbar's number of 150, influenced by individual personality traits. Extraverts, characterized by a positive attitude toward social interaction and higher energy allocation to relationships, maintain larger personal networks compared to introverts, with network sizes scaling positively with extraversion scores across multiple layers from close friends to acquaintances.^[48] ^[49] A 2025 analysis of perceived energy distribution in networks (N=906) confirmed that extraversion correlates with expanded outer layers, though core intimate circles remain constrained by cognitive limits.^[48] Cultural and socioeconomic factors also contribute to deviations, with the 150 limit appearing more applicable in premodern or middle-income Western contexts, while larger or smaller effective networks emerge in other settings due to differing social norms and resource availability.^[20] In collectivist societies, inner relationship layers may exhibit tighter bonding and fewer outer ties, prioritizing group cohesion over expansive casual contacts, though direct cross-cultural data on network sizes remains limited and often inferred from observational patterns rather than large-scale surveys.^[20] Alternative estimates challenge a strict 150 threshold, with some research proposing averages of approximately 154 for active sympathy networks based on reciprocal exchanges like Christmas card lists in Western populations.^[18] Critiques, such as a 2021 analysis, argue against a fixed cognitive limit, positing that modern tools and weaker tie definitions allow exceeding 150 meaningful connections without proportional time investment.^[50] However, aggregating data across studies reveals consistent clustering near 150 for relationships involving regular emotional or informational reciprocity, supporting predictive utility in organizational design and historical group sizes despite outliers.^[4] This variability underscores limitations, as the model may underemphasize exceptional cases like leaders or influencers who sustain influence over larger groups through delegation, hierarchies, or mediated interactions rather than direct personal grooming equivalents.^[20] While alternatives highlight flexibility, the core constraint's robustness persists in explaining average human social capacities, with deviations rarely invalidating the central tendency derived from neocortex ratio correlations.^[5]

Recent Research and Developments

Individual Differences and Personality Factors

A 2025 study published in PLOS One, drawing on an online survey of 906 participants, examined subjective perceptions of energy allocation across Dunbar's layered social network structure and found associations between Big Five personality traits and network sizes. Specifically, higher extraversion and agreeableness correlated with larger perceived networks in the sympathy (∼50) and active (∼150) layers, while neuroticism was linked to smaller inner support cliques (∼5), suggesting that outgoing and cooperative traits facilitate broader connections but do not exceed cognitive or energetic limits imposed by the layered model.^[48] These findings align with prior evidence from a longitudinal analysis of older adults, where extraversion and agreeableness predicted greater overall network sizes, independent of changes over time.^[51] Individual differences extend to neurodevelopmental and cognitive outliers, as explored in a 2024 analysis in the New Hampshire Journal of Science, which highlights how genetic conditions modulate network optima away from the population mean. For instance, individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) typically exhibit smaller social networks, with empirical comparisons showing reduced numbers of overall members, informal ties, and family connections compared to neurotypical peers.^[52]^[53] This pattern persists across ages, including among university students, where autistic individuals report fewer connections amid heightened social anxieties.^[54] In contrast, higher intelligence quotients may enable marginally larger networks in rare cases, potentially through enhanced perspective-taking and memory capacity for social tracking, though such expansions remain constrained by physiological ceilings.^[55] While these traits and conditions introduce variability in personal optima—debunking strict uniformity—empirical distributions cluster around a population mean of approximately 150 for stable relationships, anchored by the social brain hypothesis linking neocortical volume to group size limits across primates and humans. Energy demands for grooming-like maintenance further enforce these caps, with outliers representing deviations rather than refutations of the underlying cognitive architecture.^[48]

Cultural and Evolutionary Reassessments

Recent evolutionary analyses reaffirm Dunbar's number as a constraint rooted in neocortical processing capacity, with approximately 150 representing the optimal stable group size for hunter-gatherer societies where direct personal relationships predominated.^[56] In such ancestral environments, exceeding this limit strained cognitive resources for maintaining reciprocal bonds, gossip, and alliance tracking essential for survival. Modern large-scale states circumvent this biological ceiling not by expanding individual relational capacity, but through institutional abstractions like laws, hierarchies, and bureaucracies that simulate trust and coordination at impersonal scales.^[56] A 2024 review marking thirty years since the social brain hypothesis's empirical establishment validates its core predictions linking primate neocortex size to group complexity, including Dunbar's number for humans, while acknowledging refinements such as variability in layer sizes due to ecological pressures.^[57] The hypothesis retains strong predictive power across ethnographic, historical, and neuroscientific data, with no evidence warranting a paradigm shift; instead, it underscores enduring cognitive limits on social embeddedness despite cultural adaptations.^[57] In the digital era, assessments counter tech-utopian claims that platforms like social media expand meaningful networks beyond neocortical bounds, finding instead that core relationship structures remain anchored around 150, with peripheral ties weakening rapidly.^[58] Technological affordances facilitate broader connectivity but fail to deepen empathy or reciprocity at scale, resulting in fragmented interactions and "holes" in network cohesion for groups exceeding 150, as relational demands outpace cognitive throughput.^[58] This persistence challenges narratives of unbounded virtual communities, aligning with evolutionary evidence that human sociality evolved under finite brain constraints rather than infinite scalability.^[58]^[56]

References

[1]
Calling Dunbar's numbers - ScienceDirect.com
The social brain hypothesis predicts that humans have an average of about 150 relationships at any given time. Within this 150, there are layers of friends ...
[2]
Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates
Group size is found to be a function of relative neocortical volume, but the ecological variables are not. This is interpreted as evidence in favour of the ...
[3]
[PDF] Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans
Nonhuman primates maintain group cohesion through social grooming; among the Old. World monkeys and apes, social grooming time is linearly related to group size ...
[4]
'Dunbar's number' deconstructed | Biology Letters - Journals
May 5, 2021 · 'Dunbar's number' is the notion that there exists a cognitive limit on human groups of about 150 individuals.Missing: definition Robin
[5]
'Dunbar's number' deconstructed - PMC - NIH
May 5, 2021 · Also, researchers have disputed the empirical observation of mean human group sizes approximately averaging around 150 persons, presenting ...
[6]
Network cohesion, group size and neocortex size in female-bonded ...
... primate group size, total brain size, neocortex ratio and several . ... Dunbar R. I. M.1992Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates.
[7]
[PDF] Co-evolution of neocortex size, group size and language in humans
& Dunbar, R. (in preparation). Neocortex size as a constraint on social network size in primates. Kummer, H. (1982). Social knowledge in free-ranging primates.
[8]
Laughter and its role in the evolution of human social bonding
Sep 21, 2022 · In fact, a sample of time budgets from seven societies drawn from a wide range of cultures gives an average of 20% of the day devoted to social ...
[9]
Ngogo Chimpanzee Project - Yale University
In contrast, the Kanyawara community has fluctuated between 44-52 during the course of research there, and average community size at all research sites is 50-60 ...
[10]
Flexibility in the social structure of male chimpanzees (Pan ...
Sep 28, 2022 · Increased group size increases in-group competition and, in some species ... The study employed long-term data collected by the Budongo ...Introduction · Methods · Results · Discussion
[11]
Neocortex size and social network size in primates - ScienceDirect
Analysis of the patterns of grooming among males and females suggested that large primate ... Coalitions and alliances: are primates more complex than non- ...
[12]
Discrete hierarchical organization of social group sizes - PMC - NIH
The ethnographic data on hunter-gatherer societies (summarized in Dunbar 1993) point to a grouping of 30–50 individuals as the typical size of overnight camps ...<|separator|>
[13]
SCALING THE SIZE, STRUCTURE, AND DYNAMICS OF ...
Oct 16, 2018 · This result is consistent with ethnographic data that show that, on average, hunter-gatherer bands are composed of about four families and that ...<|separator|>
[14]
The Roman Imperial Legion and Military Ranks - UNRV.com
Centuria (century): was made up of 10 contubernium with a total of 80 men commanded by a centurion. Cohorts (cohort): included 6 centuriae or a total of 480 ...
[15]
Why The Infantry Company Is No Larger Than 150 Soldiers
Jan 2, 2019 · This number – the maximum social group size for a given species, based on pre-frontal cortex size – became known as the Dunbar Number. Hence ...Missing: WWII | Show results with:WWII
[16]
WW2 Army Units and Sizes | World War 2 Facts
Jun 6, 2021 · WW2 Army Unit and Size Composition Table ; Regiment, 2 or more Battalions, 1000 to 2000 ; Battalion, 3 or more Companies, 400 to 1000 ; Company, 2 ...Missing: Dunbar's | Show results with:Dunbar's<|separator|>
[17]
Relationships and the social brain: integrating psychological and ...
Jul 25, 2011 · Abstract. Psychological studies of relationships tend to focus on specific types of close personal relationships (romantic, parent-offspring, ...
[18]
Social network size in humans | Human Nature
This paper examines social network size in contemporary Western society based on the exchange of Christmas cards. Maximum network size averaged 153.5 indiv.
[19]
You Can Only Maintain So Many Close Friendships - The Atlantic
May 20, 2021 · The layers come about primarily because the time we have for social interaction is not infinite. ... Dunbar: It takes about 200 hours of ...Missing: allocation | Show results with:allocation
[20]
Dunbar's number: Why we can only maintain 150 relationships - BBC
Oct 9, 2019 · Dunbar became convinced that there was a ratio between brain sizes and group sizes through his studies of non-human primates. This ratio was ...
[21]
Beyond Dunbar circles: a continuous description of social ... - Nature
Feb 10, 2022 · We discuss the structure of human relationship patterns in terms of a new formalism that allows to study resource allocation problems.Missing: basis | Show results with:basis
[22]
Cognitive resource allocation determines the organization of ...
Jul 26, 2018 · The theory accounts for well-documented empirical evidence on personal networks, such that connections are typically arranged in layers of increasing size and ...
[23]
The Limits of Friendship | The New Yorker
Oct 7, 2014 · The Dunbar number is actually a series of them. The best known, a hundred and fifty, is the number of people we call casual friends—the people, ...Missing: paper | Show results with:paper
[24]
Social networks: Dunbar's 5-15-50-150 model (assessing how we're ...
A healthy social network with its approximate (1-2) 5-15-50-150 structure looks a bit like a mountain. And we want a mountain-shaped personal social network.
[25]
Structure and function in human and primate social networks
In primates as a whole (but not other birds and mammals), social group size is a function of neocortex volume, and especially the more frontal neocortex regions ...
[26]
Social networks, support cliques, and kinship | Human Nature
A small inner clique of the network functions as a support group from whom an individual is particularly likely to seek advice or assistance in time of need.
[27]
Social networks, support cliques, and kinship - PubMed
A small inner clique of the network functions as a support group from whom an individual is particularly likely to seek advice or assistance in time of need.
[28]
Dunbar's 5-15-50-150 model (sympathy group & full active network)
Dunbar's model includes a support clique (5), a sympathy group (5+10), and a full active network (up to 150), with the total network being everyone we vaguely ...
[29]
Exploring variation in active network size: Constraints and ego ...
These weak ties are contacted less frequently than the strong ties (Hill and Dunbar, 2003), although a minimal level of contact may be necessary to keep the ...
[30]
The strength of weak ties | Stanford Report
Jul 24, 2023 · Granovetter found that a person's weak ties – their casual connections and loose acquaintances – were more helpful than their strong ones in securing ...
[31]
Optimising human community sizes - ScienceDirect.com
In this case, the distribution is approximately normal, with mean size at fission of 166.5 ± 25.8SD: this most closely approximates the hunter-gatherer clan ...
[32]
The Demography of Colony Fission from 1878–1970 Among the ...
This dataset includes the community size at fission, and the sizes of the resulting daughter communities, for two colonies (leuts) of South Dakota Hutterites ( ...
[33]
Dunbar's number and how speaking is 2.8x better than picking fleas
Apr 5, 2022 · 150, Dunbar's number, is the natural size of human social groups. Robin Dunbar's 1993 paper, where he put forward this hypothesis, is a ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[34]
Dunbar's Numbers and Organising for Social Business
Jan 21, 2014 · c 120 – 150 men – Company (The Dunbar Number unit. The Spartans used a 144 man basic formation, the Roman “Century” was 60-80 men but these were ...Missing: WWII | Show results with:WWII
[35]
Is your team the right size? | Joe Hirsch - LEADx
Jul 13, 2017 · So Gore made a spot decision: He would cap the number of workers in any factory at 150. Once a facility expanded beyond 150 people, he would ...
[36]
The Dunbar Number and Its Importance in the Workplace - Instill AI
Aug 3, 2022 · The Dunbar number is 150, the size a group can grow to before relationships fray. After 150, communication breaks down, and inefficiencies ...Missing: applications military colonies Gore Associates
[37]
Dunbar's Number, Psychological Safety and Team Size
Oct 21, 2022 · Dunbar suggested that a maximum group size of 150, which he found represented in natural-forming groups all over the world in different domains and cultures.
[38]
Dunbar's Number and the Jetson Fallacy
Dunbar's Number suggests humans can comfortably manage about 150 relationships. The Jetson Fallacy is that more isn't always better, and engagement is human ...Missing: military Hutterite colonies
[39]
Do online social media cut through the constraints that limit the size ...
Jan 1, 2016 · This is tested using two separate UK surveys, each randomly stratified by age, gender and regional population size. The data show that the size ...Abstract · Introduction · Results · Discussion
[40]
Facebook: 150 is the limit of real friends on social media - ABC News
Jan 19, 2016 · A theoretical limit of 150 friends has become known as "Dunbar's Number" after British evolutionary psychologist Professor Robin Dunbar, who ...<|separator|>
[41]
Robin Dunbar Explains Why His 'Number' Still Counts
May 13, 2021 · Thus was born the “social brain hypothesis” and “Dunbar's number,” the former referring to the relationship between group size and brain size in ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[42]
How face-to-face still beats Facebook | University of Oxford
Jan 20, 2016 · This research shows that face-to-face interaction is essential for truly authentic relationships and that shares, selfies and 'likes' are no replacement.
[43]
The structure of online social networks mirrors those in the offline ...
These layers have previously been identified only from samples of quite modest size (grouping levels in small scale societies, Christmas card distribution lists ...
[44]
Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates
### Summary
[45]
Why big brains? A comparison of models for both primate and ...
Dec 21, 2021 · In primates, evidence is found for consistent associations between brain size and ecological factors, particularly diet; however, evidence was ...
[46]
Re-evaluating the link between brain size and behavioural ecology ...
Oct 18, 2017 · In particular, a recent analysis by DeCasien et al. [20] found that diet, and not social group size, correlates with brain size in primates.
[47]
Understanding primate brain evolution - PMC - NIH
Finally, Lewis (2000) has shown, for a small sample of primate species, that ... Kudo H, Dunbar R.I.M. Neocortex size and social network size in primates.
[48]
Individual differences in energy allocation to personal relationships
Drawing on an online survey sample (N = 906), we tested whether subjective perceptions of energy allocation conform to so-called Dunbar's Number(s). In addition ...
[49]
[PDF] Extraverts Have Larger Social Network Layers
At the outer layer, extraversion predicted number of friends but not number of relatives (Table 2). Extraverts also had significantly larger support groups ...Missing: variability | Show results with:variability<|separator|>
[50]
Dunbar's Number Debunked: You Can Have More Than 150 Friends
May 11, 2021 · In a 1993 study, Robin Dunbar, a British anthropologist, theorized that humans could have no more than about 150 meaningful relationships.
[51]
Personality Traits Predict Social Network Size in Older Adults - PMC
Higher levels of extraversion and agreeableness were associated with greater social network sizes but did not predict network size change over 14 years.
[52]
Analyzing Outliers and Significance: Insights into Dunbar's Number ...
Apr 16, 2024 · This article introduces the Square Root Law of Outliers and provides its derivation, highlighting its significance and the context of its application.
[53]
Do Social Networks Differ? Comparison of the ... - PubMed Central
Compared to the REF group, participants with ASD had a smaller number of network members (p = . 046), informal network members (p = . 022) and family members ( ...
[54]
Differences in anxieties and social networks in a group-matched ...
Dec 19, 2019 · Autistic students reported greater transition to university worries, and a smaller social network size compared to typically developing students ...
[55]
Perspective-taking and memory capacity predict social network size
Aug 10, 2025 · Stiller and Dunbar [59] found that individual differences in social cognition explain the size of an individual's support clique in a better way ...
[56]
Size matters:The link between social groups and human evolution
Feb 26, 2025 · Dunbar's number is simply the limit on the number of meaningful relationships that you can have at any one time. It's always about 150, although ...
[57]
Full article: The social brain hypothesis – thirty years on
Jul 12, 2024 · The social brain hypothesis, and its use to predict a natural grouping size for humans (Dunbar's Number), was established empirically thirty ...
[58]
The end of Dunbar's number: Have our social networks changed for ...
Feb 2, 2023 · Dunbar's number is the proposed limit on the size of our social networks, made up of people with whom we can sustain stable relationships.<|separator|>