Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:41:38.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Where you are, what you want, and what you can do: The role of master statuses, personality traits, and social cognition in shaping ego network size, structure, and composition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2020

Matthew E. Brashears Open the ORCID record for Matthew E. Brashears [Opens in a new window] ,
Laura Aufderheide Brashears  and
Nicolas L. Harder Open the ORCID record for Nicolas L. Harder [Opens in a new window]
Matthew E. Brashears*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC29208, USA (emails: [email protected], [email protected])
Laura Aufderheide Brashears
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC29208, USA (emails: [email protected], [email protected])
Nicolas L. Harder
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC29208, USA (emails: [email protected], [email protected])
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ego networks are thought to be influenced by the opportunities provided to associate with others given by our master statuses (e.g., race or sex), by the preferences individuals possess for interaction given our personality traits (e.g., extroverted or neurotic), and by the capacity to manage interactions on an ongoing basis given our cognitive ability to recall network information. However, prior research has been unable to examine all three classes of predictors concurrently. We rectify this deficiency in the literature by using a novel dataset of nearly 1000 respondents collected using controlled laboratory designs; using this dataset, we can simultaneously examine the impact of master statuses, personality traits, and social cognitive competencies on ego network size, structure (i.e., density), and composition (i.e., diversity). We find that all classes of predictors influence our ego networks, though in different ways, and point to new avenues for research into human sociability.

Keywords

ego networkscognitionmemorypersonalitymaster statuses
Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 8 , Issue 3: Special Issue Ego Networks , September 2020 , pp. 356 - 380
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

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.)

Footnotes

Special Issue Editors: Brea L. Perry, Bernice A. Pescosolido, Mario L. Small, and Ann McCranie

References

Adams, J. (2015). Glee’s McKinley High: Following Middle America’s sexual taboos. Network Science, 3, 293–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alba, R., & Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. The International Migration Review, 31(4), 826–874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddely, A. (1986). Working merno.Google Scholar
Baams, L., Overbeek, G., van de Bongardt, D., Reitz, E., Dubas, J. S., & van Aken, M. A. (2015). Adolescents’ and their friends’ sexual behavior and intention: Selection effects of personality dimensions. Journal of Research in Personality, 54, 2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, R. A., Peters, J. R., Eisenlohr-Moul, T. A., Geiger, P. J., & Sauer, S. E. (2012). Emotion-related cognitive processes in borderline personality disorder: A review of the empirical literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(5), 359–369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrick, M. R. (2005). Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more important matters. Human Performance, 18(4), 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Barton, R. A. (1996). Visual specialization and brain evolution in primates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 265(1409), 1933–1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D. C., Belli-McQueen, B., & Haider, A. (2007). Partner naming and forgetting: Recall of network members. Social Networks, 29(2), 279–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bickart, K. C., Wright, C. I., Dautoff, R. J., Dickerson, B. C., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). Amygdala volume and social network size in humans. Nature Neuroscience, 14(2), 163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blau, P. M. (1977). A macrosociological theory of social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 83(1), 26–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolger, N., & Eckenrode, J. (1991). Social relationships, personality, and anxiety during a major stressful event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bondonio, D. (1998). Predictors of accuracy in perceiving informal social networks. Social Networks, 20(4), 301–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2017). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in America. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Brashears, M. E. (2008a). Gender and homophily: Differences in male and female association in Blau space. Social Science Research, 37(2), 400–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brashears, M. E. (2008b). Sex, society, and association: A cross-national examination of status construction theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71(1), 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brashears, M. E. (2011). Small Networks and high isolation? A reexamination of American discussion networks. Social Networks, 33(4), 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brashears, M. E. (2013). Humans use compression heuristics to improve the recall of social networks. Scientific Reports, 3, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brashears, M. E. (2014). “Trivial” topics and rich ties: The relationship between discussion topic, alter role, and resource availability using the “important matters” name generator. Sociological Science, 1, 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brashears, M. E. (2015). A longitudinal analysis of gendered association patterns: Homophily and social distance in the general social survey. Journal of Social Structure, 16, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brashears, M. E., & Brashears, L. A. (2016). The enemy of my friend is easy to remember: Balance as a compression heuristic. In Thye, S. R., & Lawler, E. J. (Ed.), Advances in group processes (pp. 1–31). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Brashears, M. E., Hoagland, E., & Quintane, E. (2016). Sex and network recall accuracy. Social Networks, 44, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brashears, M. E., & Brashears, L. A. (Forthcoming). Compression heuristics, social networks, and the evaluation of human intelligence. Frontiers in Cognitive Psychology.Google Scholar
Brashears, M. E., & Quintane, E. (2018). The weakness of tie strength. Social Networks, 55, 104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, W. F., & Treyens, J. C. (1981). Role of schemata in memory for places. Cognitive Psychology, 13(2), 207–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In Dubos, R. (Ed.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 31–56). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Casciaro, T. (1998). Seeing things clearly: Social structure, personality, and accuracy in social network perception. Social Networks, 20(4), 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, B. P., & Zhou, X. (1991). Status processes in enduring task groups. American Sociological Review, 56(2), 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, E. G., & Roper, S. S. (1972). Modification of interracial interaction disability: An application of status characteristics theory. American Sociological Review, 37(6), 643–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, P. T. Jr., Terraccio, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, J. R., Santos, A. J., Peceguina, I., & Vaughn, B. E. (2013). Exponential random graph models of preschool affiliative networks. Social Networks, 35(1), 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Sola Pool, I., & Kochen, M. (1978-79). Contacts and influence. Social Networks, 1(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Soto, C. B. (1960). Learning a social structure. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(3), 417–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demir, M., & Weitekamp, L. A. (2007). I am so happy’cause today I found my friend: Friendship and personality as predictors of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(2), 181–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doeven-Eggens, L., De Fruyt, F., Hendriks, A. J., Bosker, R. J., & Van der Werf, M. P. (2008). Personality and personal network type. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 689–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22(6), 469–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(4), 681–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. (1995). Neocortex size and group size in primates: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Human Evolution, 28(3), 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eder, D., & Hallinan, M. T. (1978). Sex differences in children’s friendships. American Sociological Review, 43(2), 237–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emery, C. (2012). Uncovering the role of emotional abilities in leadership emergence. A longitudinal analysis of leadership networks. Social Networks, 34(4), 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, R., Landis, B., Zhang, Z., Anderson, M. H., Shaw, J. D., & Killduff, M. (2015). Intergrating personal and social networks: A meta-analysis of personality, network position, and work outcomes in organizations. Organizational Science, 26(4), 1243–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faust, K., & Skvoretz, J. (2002). 8. Comparing networks across space and time, size and species. Sociological Methodology, 32(1), 267–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feiler, D. C., & Kleinbaum, A. M. (2015). Popularity, similarity, and the network extraversion bias. Psychological Science, 26(5), 593–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feld, S. L. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 1015–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feshbach, N., & Sones, G. (1971). Sex differences in adolescent reactions toward newcomers. Developmental Psychology, 4(3), 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., Amanatullah, E. T., & Ames, D. R. (2006). Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1123–1137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, L. C. (1992). Filling in the blanks: A theory of cognitive categories and the structure of social affiliation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 118–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gloor, P. A., Fischbach, K., Fuehres, H., Lassenius, C., Niinimäki, T., Olguin, D. O., Pentland, S., Putzke, J. (2011). Towards “honest signals” of creativity–identifying personality characteristics through microscopic social network analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 26, 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, B., Perra, N., & Vespignani, A. (2011). Modeling users’ activity on twitter networks: Validation of Dunbar’s number. PloS One, 6(8), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hallinan, M. T., & Kubitschek, W. N. (1988). The effects of individual and structural characteristics on intransitivity in social networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(2) 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janicik, G. A., & Larrick, R. P. (2005). Social network schemas and the learning of incomplete networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jariego, I. M. (2018). Why name generators with a fixed number of alters may be a pragmatic option for personal network analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 62(1–2), 233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 3(2), 114–158.Google Scholar
Kalish, Y., & Robins, G. (2006). Psychological predispositions and network structure: The relationship between individual predispositions, structural holes and network closure. Social Networks, 28(1), 56–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalish, Y. (2008). Bridging in social networks: Who are the people in structural holes and why are they there?. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karniol, R., & Ross, M. (1979). Children’s use of a causal attribution schema and the inference of manipulative intentions. Child Development, 50(2), 463–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, K. J., Lim, B. C., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 952–963.Google Scholar
Kudo, H., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2001). Neocortex size and social network size in primates. Animal Behaviour, 62(4), 711–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laakasuo, M., Rotkirch, A., Berg, V., & Jokela, M. (2017). The company you keep: Personality and friendship characteristics. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(1), 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leinhardt, S. (1973). The development of transitive structure in children’s interpersonal relations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18(4), 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., Gonzalez, M., Wimmer, A., & Chistakis, N. (2008). Tastes, ties, and time: A new social network dataset using Facebook.com. Social Networks, 30(4), 330–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, J. R., Zhang, W., & Alba, R. D. (2002). Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communities in New York and Los Angeles. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, P. V. (1987). Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological Review, 52(1), 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, P. V. (1988). Homogeneity in confiding relations. Social Networks, 10(1), 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, P. V. (2002). Egocentric and sociometric measures of network centrality. Social Networks, 24(4), 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, P. V. (2003). Interviewer Effects in measuring network size using a single name generator. Social Networks, 25(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marin, A. (2004). Are respondents more likely to list alters with certain characteristics? Implications for name generator data. Social Networks, 26(4), 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. L. (1993). New directions for investigating children’s gender knowledge. Developmental Review, 13(2), 184–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, J. M. (2016). Connecting in college: How friendship networks matter for academic and social success. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, K. O., & Fleeson, W. (2012). What is extraversion for? Integrating trait and motivational perspectives and identifying the purpose of extraversion. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1498–1505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarty, C. (2002). Structure in personal networks. Journal of Social Structure, 3(1), 20.Google Scholar
McEvily, B. (2014). Do you know my friend? Attending to the accuracy of egocentered network data. In Brass, D. J., Labianca, G., Mehra, A., Halgin, D. S., & Borgatti, S. P. (Eds.), Contemporary perspective on organizational social networks, (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 40, pp. 295–313). Bingley UK: Emerald Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashears, M. (2008). Erratum to social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review, 73, 1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social problems and social theory, In Merton, R. & Nisbet, R. (Eds.), Contemporary social problems. New York, USA: Harcourt, Brace and world.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. L., Spunt, R. P., Berkman, E. T., Taylor, S. E., & Lieberman, M. D. (2012). Evidence for social working memory from a parametric functional MRI study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(6), 1883–1888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mollenhorst, G., Völker, B., & Flap, H. (2008). Social contexts and personal relationships: The effect of meeting opportunities on similarity for relationships of different strength. Social Networks, 30(1), 60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. (1990). Structural determinants of men’s 908 and women’s personal networks. American Sociological Review, 55(5), 726–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munch, A., McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1997). Gender, children, and social contract: The effects of childrearing for 910 men and women. American Sociological Review, 62(4), 509–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neisser, U. (2014). Cognitive psychology: Classic edition. New York, USA: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omodei, E., Brashears, M. E., & Arenas, A. (2017). A mechanistic model of human recall of social network structure and relationship affect. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paik, A., & Sanchagrin, K. (2013). Social isolation in America: An artifact. American Sociological Review, 78, 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, B. L., Bernice, A. P., & Stephen, P. B. (2018). Egocentric network analysis: Foundations, methods, and models. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pollet, T. V., Roberts, S. G., & Dunbar, R. I. (2011). Extraverts have larger social network layers. Journal of Individual Differences, 32(3), 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, S. G., Wilson, R., Fedurek, P., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Individual differences and personal social network size and structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 954–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sallet, J., Mars, R. B., Noonan, M. P., Andersson, J. L., O’reilly, J. X., Jbabdi, S., Rushworth, M. F. (2011). Social network size affects neural circuits in macaques. Science, 334(6056), 697–700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaefer, D. R., Light, J. M., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., & Martin, C. L. (2010). Fundamental principles of network formation among preschool children. Social Networks, 32(1), 61–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selden, M., & Goodie, A. S. (2018). Review of the effects of Five Factor Model personality traits on network structures and perceptions of structure. Social Networks, 52, 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, B., Markovsky, B., & Steketee, M. (2011). Power and the perception of social networks. Social Networks, 33(2), 166–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skvoretz, J., & Faust, K. (2002). Relations, species, and network structure. Journal of Social Structure, 3(3), 139–145.Google Scholar
Smith, J. A., McPherson, M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2014). Social distance in the United States: Sex, race, religion, age, and education homophily among confidants, 1985 to 2004. American Sociological Review, 79(3), 432–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smółka, P., & Szulawski, M. (2011). Personality traits and motivational traits as predictors of social competence. Implication for occupational selection process. Education of Economists & Managers, 22(4), 111–124.Google Scholar
Steensland, B., Robinson, L. D., Wilcox, W. B., Park, J. Z., Regnerus, M. D., & Woodberry, R. D. (2000). The measure of American religion: toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79(1), 291–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiller, J., & Dunbar, R. I. (2007). Perspective-taking and memory capacity predict social network size. Social Networks, 29(1), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatum, B. D. (2003). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? A psychologist explains the development of racial identity. United Status: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A Personality Trait-Based Interactionist Model of Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Totterdell, P., Holman, D., & Hukin, A. (2008). Social networkers: Measuring and examining individual differences in propensity to connect with others. Social Networks, 30(4), 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tran, V. C., & Valdez, N. M. (2017). Second–Generation decline or advantage? Latino assimilation in the aftermath of the great recession. International Migration Review, 51(1), 155–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, J., Lüdtke, O., Roberts, B. W., & Trautwein, U. (2014). Who belongs to me? Social relationship and personality characteristics in the transition to young adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 28(6), 586–603.Google Scholar
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge university press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Y. J., DeYoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zahn, R., Moll, J., Paiva, M., Garrido, G., Krueger, F., Huey, E. D., & Grafman, J. (2009). The neural basis of human social values: evidence from functional MRI. Cerebral Cortex, 19(2), 276–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zell, D., McGrath, C., & Vance, C. M. (2014). Examining the interaction of extroversion and network structure in the formation of effective informal support networks. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 15(2), 59–81.Google Scholar
Zhou, M., Lee, J., Vallejo, J. A., Tafoya-Estrada, R., & Xiong, Y. S. (2008). Success attained, deterred, and denied: Divergent pathways to social mobility in Los Angeles’s new second generation. The Annals of the National Academy of Political and Social Science, 620, 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, X., Woo, S. E., Porter, C., & Brzezinski, M. (2013). Pathways to happiness: From personality to social networks and perceived support. Social Networks, 35(3), 382–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar