Cognitive social structures

Last updated

Cognitive social structures (CSS) is the focus of research that investigates how individuals perceive their own social structure (e.g. members of an organization, friend group, hierarchy, company employees, etc.). It is part of social network research and uses social network analysis to understand how various factors affect one's cognitive representation of the network (i.e. the individual's belief of who is connected to whom). Importantly, an individual's perception of the network may be different than reality. In fact, these differences between the perceived network and the actual network are the focus of many studies that seek insight into how we think about others and our relationships. [1] [2]

Contents

Overview

In 1987, [1] David Krackhardt discussed the study of cognitive social structures in an article that defined the term and outlined its uses in social network research. Social structures are defined by a set of individual members and the relations between those members. The study of cognitive social structures also includes every member's understanding of the social structure. Thus, a cognitive social structure consisting of n people has n separate, and possibly distinct, representations of that social structure.

Example: Alice, Bob, and Charlie are all friends. Thus, there are three separate representations of their network. If they each believe they are friends with the other two, but that the other two are not friends, then all three representations are distinct. That is, none of them agree on the structure of their friendship network. If, on the other hand, they all believed they were all friends, then they would all have the same representation of the network.

Furthermore, the perceived structure of the network and the actual structure of the network may be inconsistent. [1] [2] By measuring every member's perception of the network, researchers can analyze the systematic errors to understand how we think about networks and what affects these perceptions.

A network may consist of directed relations. A directed relation involves a sender and a receiver. For example, the relation “goes to for advice” is directed in that if Alice (sender) goes to Bob (receiver) for advice, it does not mean that Bob also goes to Alice for advice. The relation, "is a sibling of", on the other hand, is symmetric, not directed, because if Alice is a sibling of Bob, then Bob is necessarily a sibling of Alice.

Terminology

Alice is friends with Bob and Charlie. The triad is said to be balanced if Bob and Charlie are also friends. It is unbalanced if Bob and Charlie are not friends.
Alice goes to Bob and Charlie for advice. Bob goes to Alice for advice. Alice has in-degree 1, and out-degree 2.
Alice is friends with Bob who is friends with Charlie who is friends with David. The geodesic distance between Alice and Bob is one, between Alice and Charlie is two, and between Alice and David is three.
Alice goes to Bob for advice. This relationship is reciprocal if Bob also goes to Alice for advice.

Analyzing Cognitive Social Structures

Ego Network Analysis

An ego network, or a local structure, consists of the individual and every member who is directly connected to that individual. For example, on social media, a user's ego network consists of the user (ego), everyone who is directly linked to that user's account (e.g. "friends" or "followers"), and the connections between those people (e.g. whether or not they are "friends" with or "followers" of each other). In an experiment, an ego network is measured by asking the participant to list everybody to whom they are directly connected, and then note which of those people are connected to each other. Thus, in an experimental setting, the ego network reflects the participant's view of their local network, and therefore may differ from another's participant's perspective.

Full Network Analysis

There are three primary methods used to examine a full cognitive social structure: slices (the individual perceptions of the full network), locally aggregated structures (the combination of each member's direct connections), and consensus structures (the network of relations that more than a certain portion of members agree on). [1]

Slices

One way to analyze a cognitive social structure is to individually look at each “slice”, that is, each member's perception. Biases in network perception may shift based on the individual (e.g. personality) or the position (e.g. popular, low status). Comparing slices reveals differences between individuals as well as systematic errors in perception across members. [1]

Locally Aggregated Structures (LAS)

One approach to studying a cognitive social structure is to measure each member's direct connections (ego networks). In other words, ask each individual to report who they are related to (e.g. friends with) in the network. That is, consider the individual's own relationships. Then connect all of these local networks to form the whole network. Building a network model in this way can be achieved by asking individuals who they relate to (e.g. “Who do you go to for advice?”), known as a Row Dominated Locally Aggregated Structure, or who is related to them (e.g. “Who goes to you for advice?”), known as a Column Dominated Locally Aggregated Structure. [1]

There are two ways to combine local structures into the full locally aggregated structure. Taking the intersection of the local networks results in a network in which relations exist if both members perceive it. In a friendship network, this means that a friendship only exists if both people consider the other a friend. The union of the local networks is a structure consisting of relations that at least one involved member perceives. In a friendship network, this is equivalent to saying a friendship exists between two people if at least one of them considers the other a friend. [1]

Consensus Structures

The consensus structure of a cognitive social structure is the network that more than a certain number of people perceive. This is accomplished by fixing a threshold such that a relation is said to exist if and only if the proportion of members who perceive that relation is greater than the threshold. For example, setting the threshold to 0.5 means that the relation between two people exists if the majority of people believe it exists. Similarly, a relation between two people does not exist if a majority of people do not perceive it. [1]

Empirical Findings

Many species are able to represent social structures, yet humans are able to represent disproportionately large social structures (based on cortical thickness in the brain). [3] Research suggests that this is, at least in part, due to the use of schemas. [1] [4] Schemas are a pre-established method of organizing and perceiving the world. Similar to a template, schemas provide a basic scaffolding that allow humans to make assumptions about a social structure without remembering every detail individually. This preserves neural resources, allowing for representation of larger structures. [3] [4] Some research suggests that a basic schema people utilize is based on small-world network properties. [4] Namely, one tends to believe that their social network contains groups of people who are highly intraconnected, and that these groups, or clusters, are connected via short paths. [4] Other work suggests that this is particularly true of one's own group, but not for others. [5] For example, Alice likely believes that all of her friends are friends with each other, but other groups are not as connected.

In addition to making network representation efficient, schemas, as well as other biases, lead to systematic errors in network perception. These errors in individual and group perceptions has been the focus of much of the research related to cognitive social structures.

In research, a typical method of measuring cognitive social structures involves

(a) listing one’s direct ties, either in general or in terms of whom they’ve interacted with recently, or
(b) completing a table that lists all members in the rows and columns by checking off whom everyone is connected to.

Learning Networks

Specific factors have been shown to influence how easily and how well people are able to learn new networks. [6] As discussed above, people use schemas to represent networks. It makes sense, therefore, that structures that are consistent with these schemas are easier to learn. [7] Specifically, behavioral research suggests that individuals are better at learning networks that group members by positive relations (e.g. "liking") and divide groups by negative relations (e.g. "disliking"), [8] individuals are better able to learn people who are at the extremes of a hierarchy, rather than in the middle, [9] and larger networks are easier to remember if they are balanced (if one person is friends with two others, than those two are also friends). [3] People are also better at remembering large networks if they include kin labels (e.g. "Mother", "Uncle", "Cousin", etc.) than if they do not. [3]

Accuracy

Many researchers compare individuals’ cognitive social structures to the actual social structure in order to measure consistent errors, or biases, involved with cognitive social structures. While some research shows that individuals’ representations correlate with the aggregate group's representation, [5] there are systematic errors that occur as a result of network position and individual differences. [2] [5]

Many researchers have studied the effects of and the perceptions of centrality, or how well connected one is within the network. Broadly, individuals tend to believe they have higher centrality (i.e. better connected within the network) and higher degree (e.g. more friends) than others believe. [5] Furthermore, members who have low centrality, such as those who are on the periphery of the network or at the bottom of the hierarchy (unpopular, low status), tend to have more accurate representations than those who are more central (popular, high status). [10] [11]

Several studies suggest that social network representations track overall patterns of behavior, rather than specific events. [12] Furthermore, there appears to be a trade-off between overall accuracy and specific event accuracy: those who remember details of a specific interaction tend to have less accurate representations of overall behavior patterns, while those with more accurate pattern representations have more trouble recalling event details. [13] This can cause issues when studying cognitive social structures because, often, the only way to determine the true social network is by observing behavior. If, however, the researchers do not sufficiently observe the network, then the observed behavior may not be representative of the overall patterns of behavior. Some research suggests that people extract these patterns of behavior by tracking the frequency of interactions, assuming that the more frequently two people interact, the more likely they are connected. [14] This leads to the belief that people are more connected than they actually are. [15] In accordance with balance theory, [16] people tend to believe that the missing relation in unbalanced groups (e.g. groups of three in which two members are connected to the third but are not connected themselves) actually exists, thereby believing the triad is balanced. [17] [14] This is especially true when considering triads that are very close to the individual and very distant, but not for members who are intermediately far away. [18]

Neural Findings

Research indicates that the interpersonal relationships among people shaped the evolution of human brains. [19] Neuroimaging work has identified specific regions in the brain that aid in network representation, many of which are included in the default mode network, and track network position properties, such as eigenvector centrality, brokerage, and popularity. [20] [21] That is, when participants see a network member's face, they automatically retrieve information about that person's network position, suggesting that this information is important in understanding that person. [20]

Much of the research relating social networks to neural measures focuses on physical size and density of brain regions. Research shows that social network size correlates with brain volume in specific regions, including the amygdala [22] and regions associated with the default mode network, [23] [24] [25] [26] which is thought to process information about others' thoughts and feelings. [27]

Individual Differences

Studies on individual differences in cognitive social structures examine how individuals' traits affect their perceptions of social networks. Following are specific aspects of individuals that researchers have found influence cognitive social structures.

Need for closure , [28] which refers to one's tendency to avoid ambiguity, has been shown to correlate with the number of ties that are perceived as transitive. [29] That is, the higher one's need for closure, the more likely they are to perceive unbalanced groups as balanced. Additionally, people with high need for closure tend to cluster people by racial similarity in their representation of social networks. [29]

Status, Power, Popularity: in real-world social networks, low-power members tend to have more accurate perceptions of social networks than high-power individuals, particularly regarding people who are distant to the perceiver. [11] One study found that these low-power individuals with accurate network perceptions received more payoffs compared to other low-power members with less accurate perceptions. [30] However, the benefits to low-status individuals with accurate network knowledge only held if other low-status people had worse knowledge. [30] Similarly, in a controlled setting, participants primed with low-status then had more accurate representations of a social network, but not of a non-social network. [10] This research suggests that one's own status is an important factor in their representation of their social networks, because high power prompts people to use heuristics, while low-power people use more systematic methods to understand the network. [10]

There has been much research on how people perceive their social network and the differences between these perceptions. Other individual differences measures have been suggested to influence cognitive social structures, including need for achievement, need for affiliation, and self-monitoring. [31] [32] However, since studies often use different types of networks (e.g. real-world organizations, friend groups, communication networks), there is not yet consensus on the effect of these differences.

See also

Related Research Articles

Social psychology is the scientific study of how thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others. Social psychologists typically explain human behavior as a result of the relationship between mental states and social situations, studying the social conditions under which thoughts, feelings, and behaviors occur, and how these variables influence social interactions.

Categorization is a type of cognition involving conceptual differentiation between characteristics of conscious experience, such as objects, events, or ideas. It involves the abstraction and differentiation of aspects of experience by sorting and distinguishing between groupings, through classification or typification on the basis of traits, features, similarities or other criteria that are universal to the group. Categorization is considered one of the most fundamental cognitive abilities, and it is studied particularly by psychology and cognitive linguistics.

Closure or need for closure (NFC), used interchangeably with need for cognitive closure (NFCC), are social psychological terms that describe an individual's desire for a clear, firm answer or peaceful resolution to a question or problem to avert ambiguity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Attitude (psychology)</span> Concept in psychology and communication studies

An attitude "is a summary evaluation of an object of thought. An attitude object can be anything a person discriminates or holds in mind." Attitudes include beliefs (cognition), emotional responses (affect) and behavioral tendencies. In the classical definition an attitude is persistent, while in more contemporary conceptualizations, attitudes may vary depending upon situations, context, or moods.

Social cognition is a topic within psychology that focuses on how people process, store, and apply information about other people and social situations. It focuses on the role that cognitive processes play in social interactions.

In the psychology of self, one's self-concept is a collection of beliefs about oneself. Generally, self-concept embodies the answer to the question "Who am I?".

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

Distributed cognition is an approach to cognitive science research that was developed by cognitive anthropologist Edwin Hutchins during the 1990s.

In psychology and cognitive science, a schema describes a pattern of thought or behavior that organizes categories of information and the relationships among them. It can also be described as a mental structure of preconceived ideas, a framework representing some aspect of the world, or a system of organizing and perceiving new information, such as a mental schema or conceptual model. Schemata influence attention and the absorption of new knowledge: people are more likely to notice things that fit into their schema, while re-interpreting contradictions to the schema as exceptions or distorting them to fit. Schemata have a tendency to remain unchanged, even in the face of contradictory information. Schemata can help in understanding the world and the rapidly changing environment. People can organize new perceptions into schemata quickly as most situations do not require complex thought when using schema, since automatic thought is all that is required.

Fritz Heider was an Austrian psychologist whose work was related to the Gestalt school. In 1958 he published The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, which expanded upon his creations of balance theory and attribution theory. This book presents a wide-range analysis of the conceptual framework and the psychological processes that influence human social perception. It had taken 15 years to complete; before it was completed it had already circulated through a small group of social psychologists.

In psychology, the theory of attachment can be applied to adult relationships including friendships, emotional affairs, adult romantic and carnal relationships and, in some cases, relationships with inanimate objects. Attachment theory, initially studied in the 1960s and 1970s primarily in the context of children and parents, was extended to adult relationships in the late 1980s. The working models of children found in Bowlby's attachment theory form a pattern of interaction that is likely to continue influencing adult relationships.

Susan Tufts Fiske is an American psychologist who serves as the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs in the Department of Psychology at Princeton University. She is a social psychologist known for her work on social cognition, stereotypes, and prejudice. Fiske leads the Intergroup Relations, Social Cognition, and Social Neuroscience Lab at Princeton University. Her theoretical contributions include the development of the stereotype content model, ambivalent sexism theory, power as control theory, and the continuum model of impression formation.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Self-image</span> Mental picture of self that comes from different sources

Self-image is the mental picture, generally of a kind that is quite resistant to change, that depicts not only details that are potentially available to an objective investigation by others, but also items that have been learned by persons about themselves, either from personal experiences or by internalizing the judgments of others. In some formulations, it is a component of self-concept.

Memory supports and enables social interactions in a variety of ways. In order to engage in successful social interaction, people must be able to remember how they should interact with one another, whom they have interacted with previously, and what occurred during those interactions. There are a lot of brain processes and functions that go into the application and use of memory in social interactions, as well as psychological reasoning for its importance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Embodied cognition</span> Interdisciplinary theory

Embodied cognition is the concept suggesting that many features of cognition are shaped by the state and capacities of the organism. The cognitive features include a wide spectrum of cognitive functions, such as perception biases, memory recall, comprehension and high-level mental constructs and performance on various cognitive tasks. The bodily aspects involve the motor system, the perceptual system, the bodily interactions with the environment (situatedness), and the assumptions about the world built the functional structure of organism's brain and body.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reconstructive memory</span> A theory of memory recall

Reconstructive memory is a theory of memory recall, in which the act of remembering is influenced by various other cognitive processes including perception, imagination, motivation, semantic memory and beliefs, amongst others. People view their memories as being a coherent and truthful account of episodic memory and believe that their perspective is free from an error during recall. However, the reconstructive process of memory recall is subject to distortion by other intervening cognitive functions and operations such as individual perceptions, social influences, and world knowledge, all of which can lead to errors during reconstruction.

Emotion perception refers to the capacities and abilities of recognizing and identifying emotions in others, in addition to biological and physiological processes involved. Emotions are typically viewed as having three components: subjective experience, physical changes, and cognitive appraisal; emotion perception is the ability to make accurate decisions about another's subjective experience by interpreting their physical changes through sensory systems responsible for converting these observed changes into mental representations. The ability to perceive emotion is believed to be both innate and subject to environmental influence and is also a critical component in social interactions. How emotion is experienced and interpreted depends on how it is perceived. Likewise, how emotion is perceived is dependent on past experiences and interpretations. Emotion can be accurately perceived in humans. Emotions can be perceived visually, audibly, through smell and also through bodily sensations and this process is believed to be different from the perception of non-emotional material.

In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Krackhardt, David (1987). "Cognitive Social Structures". Social Networks. 9 (2): 109–134. doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(87)90009-8 .
  2. 1 2 3 Brands, Raina A. (6 August 2013). "Cognitive social structures in social network research: a review". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 34 (S1): S82–S103. doi:10.1002/job.1890.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Brashears, Matthew E. (21 March 2013). "Humans use Compression Heuristics to Improve the Recall of Social Networks". Scientific Reports. 3: 1513. Bibcode:2013NatSR...3E1513B. doi:10.1038/srep01513. PMC   3604710 . PMID   23515066.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Kilduff, Martin; Crossland, Craig; Tsai, Wenpin; Krackhardt, David (5 March 2008). "Organizational network perceptions versus reality: A small world after all?". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 107 (1): 15–28. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.12.003.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Kumbasar, Ece; Rommey, A. Kimball; Batchelder, William H. (1994). "Systematic biases in social cognition". American Journal of Sociology. 100 (2): 477–505. doi:10.1086/230544. S2CID   143389505.
  6. ↑ Karuza, Elisabeth A.; Thompson-Schill, Sharon L.; Bassett, Danielle S. (August 2016). "Local patterns to global architectures: influences of network topology on human learning". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 20 (8): 629–640. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.06.003. PMC   4970514 . PMID   27373349.
  7. ↑ Janicik, Gregory A.; Larrick, Richard P. (2005). "Social Network Schemas and the Learning of Incomplete Networks". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 88 (2): 348–364. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.348. PMID   15841863.
  8. ↑ De Soto, Clinton B.; Henley, Nancy M.; London, Marvin (1968). "Balance and the grouping schema". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 8 (1): 1–7. doi:10.1037/h0025321. PMID   4866672.
  9. ↑ De Soto, Clinton B.; Bosley, John J. (1962). "The cognitive structure of a social structure". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 64 (4): 303–307. doi:10.1037/h0044867. PMID   13884554.
  10. 1 2 3 Simpson, Brent; Markovsky, Barry; Steketee, Mike (May 2011). "Power and the perception of social networks". Social Networks. 33 (2): 166–171. doi:10.1016/J.SOCNET.2010.10.007.
  11. 1 2 Simpson, Brent; Borch, Casey (2005). "Does power affect perception in social networks? Two arguments and an experimental test". Social Psychology Quarterly. 68 (3): 278–287. doi:10.1177/019027250506800306. S2CID   146769998.
  12. ↑ Killwroth, Peter; Bernard, H. (1976). "Informant accuracy in social network data". Human Organization. 35 (3): 269–286. doi:10.17730/humo.35.3.10215j2m359266n2.
  13. ↑ Freeman, Linton C.; Romney, A. Kimball; Freeman, Sue C. (1987). "Cognitive structure and informant accuracy". American Anthropologist. 89 (2): 310–325. doi: 10.1525/aa.1987.89.2.02a00020 .
  14. 1 2 Freeman, Linton C. (June 1992). "Filling in the blanks: a theory of cognitive categories and the structure of social affiliation". Social Psychology Quarterly. 55 (2): 223–247. doi:10.2307/2786941. JSTOR   2786941.
  15. ↑ Freeman, Linton C.; Webster, Cynthia M. (1994). "Interpersonal proximity in social and cognitive space". Social Cognition. 12 (3): 223–247. doi:10.1521/soco.1994.12.3.223.
  16. ↑ Heider, Fritz (1946). "Attitudes and cognitive organization". Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied. 21 (1): 107–112. doi:10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275. PMID   21010780.
  17. ↑ Crockett, Walter H. (1982). "Balance, agreement, and positivity in the cognition of small social structures". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 15: 1–57. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60294-4. ISBN   9780120152155.
  18. ↑ Krackhardt, David; Kilduff, Martin (1999). "Whether close or far: social distance effects on perceived balance in friendship networks". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 76 (5): 770–782. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.770.
  19. ↑ Dunbar, R.I.M.; Shultz, S. (7 September 2007). "Evolution of the Social Brain". Science. 317 (6843): 1344–1347. Bibcode:2007Sci...317.1344D. doi:10.1126/science.1145463. PMID   17823343. S2CID   1516792.
  20. 1 2 Parkinson, Carolyn; Kleinbaum, Adam M.; Wheatley, Thalia (18 April 2017). "Spontaneous neural encoding of social network position". Nature Human Behaviour. 1 (5): 72. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0072. S2CID   11366569.
  21. ↑ Zerubavel, Noam; Bearman, Peter S.; Weber, Jochen; Ochsner, Kevin N (8 December 2015). "Neural mechanisms tracking popularity in real-world social networks". PNAS. 112 (49): 15072–15077. Bibcode:2015PNAS..11215072Z. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1511477112 . PMC   4679039 . PMID   26598684.
  22. ↑ Bickart, Kevin C; Wright, Christopher I; Dautoff, Rebecca J; Dickerson, Bradford C; Barrett, Lisa Feldman (26 December 2010). "Amygdala volume and social network size in humans". Nature Neuroscience. 14 (2): 163–164. doi:10.1038/nn.2724. PMC   3079404 . PMID   21186358.
  23. ↑ Kanai, R.; Bahrami, B.; Roylance, R.; Rees, G. (19 October 2011). "Online social network size is reflected in human brain structure". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 279 (1732): 1327–1334. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1959. PMC   3282379 . PMID   22012980.
  24. ↑ Lewis, Penelope A.; Rezaie, Roozbeh; Brown, Rachel; Roberts, Neil; Dunbar, R.I.M. (August 2011). "Ventromedial prefrontal volume predicts understanding of others and social network size". NeuroImage. 57 (4): 1624–1629. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.030. PMC   7614375 . PMID   21616156. S2CID   8123082.
  25. ↑ Von Der Heide, Rebecca; Vyas, Govinda; Olson, Ingrid R. (December 2014). "The social network-network: size is predicted by brain structure and function in the amygdala and paralimbic regions". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 9 (12): 1962–1972. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsu009 . PMC   4249478 . PMID   24493846.
  26. ↑ Powell, J.; Lewis, P. A.; Roberts, N.; Garcia-Finana, M.; Dunbar, R. I. M. (1 February 2012). "Orbital prefrontal cortex volume predicts social network size: an imaging study of individual differences in humans". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 279 (1736): 2157–2162. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.2574. PMC   3321718 . PMID   22298855.
  27. ↑ Andrews-Hanna, Jessica R. (15 June 2011). "The Brain's Default Network and Its Adaptive Role in Internal Mentation". The Neuroscientist. 18 (3): 251–270. doi:10.1177/1073858411403316. PMC   3553600 . PMID   21677128.
  28. ↑ Webster, Donna M.; Kruglanski, Arie W. (1994). "Individual differences in need for cognitive closure". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 67 (6): 1049–1062. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049. PMID   7815301.
  29. 1 2 Flynn, Francis J.; Reagans, Ray E.; Guillory, Lucia (November 2010). "Do you two know each other? Transitivity, homophily, and the need for (network) closure". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 99 (5): 855–869. doi:10.1037/a0020961. PMID   20954787.
  30. 1 2 Simpson, Brent; Markovsky, Barry; Steketee, Mike (2011). "Network knowledge and the use of power". Social Networks. 33 (2): 172–176. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2010.10.008.
  31. ↑ Casciaro, Tiziana (October 1998). "Seeing things clearly: social structure, personality, and accuracy in social network perception". Social Networks. 20 (4): 331–351. doi:10.1016/S0378-8733(98)00008-2.
  32. ↑ Flynn, Francis J.; Reagans, Ray E.; Amanatullah, Emily T.; Ames, Daniel R. (December 2006). "Helping one's way to the top: self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who help whom". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 91 (6): 1123–1137. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1123. PMID   17144769.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.