Individual differences and personal social network size and structure.

By Susan C. Roberts, R. Wilson, Pawel Fedurek, Robin I. M. Dunbar. 2008

172 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d49ce728a4c255b7d5eee9710ccc6eb8daad137f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Exploring variation in active network size: Constraints and ego characteristics (2009, background): “Networks show strong homophily by gender, such that female networks are dominated by females, and male networks by males (McPherson et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2008).”
Communication in social networks: Effects of kinship, network size, and emotional closeness (2011, background): “Extraversion is negatively related to age (McCrae et al., 1999; Roberts et al., 2008), but whether the increase in time to last contact with age is due to inclination (i.”
Dispositional Optimism and the Emergence of Social Network Diversity (2012, background): “For instance, Asendorpf and Wilpers (1998) found that extraversion, a disposition toward sociability and positive emotion (Digman 1990), is related to number of peer relationships (also see Swickert, Hittner, and Foster 2010; cf. Roberts et al. 2008).”
Providing Adaptive Health Updates Across the Personal Social Network (2014, background): “The consistent structure of the network (Figure 2) is common across cultural and socioeconomic groups (Roberts et al., 2008; Stiller & Dunbar, 2007; Zhou, Sornette, Hill, & Dunbar, 2005).”
Behavioural trait assortment in a social network: patterns and implications (2009, background): “Our findings are consistent with 404 observations of human social network formation in which the personality score of 405 individuals influences the formation of network ties (Roberts et al. 2008).”
Extraverts Have Larger Social Network Layers But Do Not Feel Emotionally Closer to Individuals at Any Layer (2011, methodology): “, 1999), it is important to include a wide range of ages when assessing the effects of extraversion on network size and to control for the possible effects of age on personality and network size (Roberts et al., 2008).”
Too Many ‘Friends,’ Too Few ‘Likes’? Evolutionary Psychology and ‘Facebook Depression’ (2015, background): “There may even be indirect evidence of the reverse effect: Roberts et al. (2008) found that women (in particular) who scored high on the neuroticism scale had significantly fewer kin in their networks.”
The relationship between networking behaviors and the Big Five personality dimensions (2012, background): “In this vein, emotional stability appears to affect strong ties, but not weak ties (Asendorpf and Wilpers, 1998) and is not related to network size (Roberts et al., 2008).”
The Neurobiology of Social Distance (2020, unknown): “Several fairly conventional factors are responsible for this variation: age (younger people typically have larger social networks than older people [53]), sex (females usually have larger social networks thanmales [53,54], although this does vary with age [55]), personality (extraverts have larger s”
Female bisexual kinship ties maintain social cohesion in a dolphin network (2010, background): “In humans, stable personality descriptors such as degree of extroversion and neuroticism appear to affect the size and quality of an individual’s social network (Asendorpf & Wilpers 1998; Kalish & Robins 2006; Roberts et al. 2008).”