4.4 Review

Relationships and the social brain: Integrating psychological and evolutionary perspectives

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
卷 103, 期 -, 页码 149-168

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02061.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/D05088X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/D05088X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Psychological studies of relationships tend to focus on specific types of close personal relationships (romantic, parentoffspring, friendship) and examine characteristics of both the individuals and the dyad. This paper looks more broadly at the wider range of relationships that constitute an individual's personal social world. Recent work on the composition of personal social networks suggests that they consist of a series of layers that differ in the quality and quantity of relationships involved. Each layer increases relationship numbers by an approximate multiple of 3 (515-50150) but decreasing levels of intimacy (strong, medium, and weak ties) and frequency of interaction. To account for these regularities, we draw on both social and evolutionary psychology to argue that relationships at different layers serve different functions and have different cost-benefit profiles. At each layer, the benefits are asymptotic but the costs of maintaining a relationship at that level (most obviously, the time that has to be invested in servicing it) are roughly linear with the number of relationships. The trade-off between costs and benefits at a given level, and across the different types of demands and resources typical of different levels, gives rise to a distribution of social effort that generates and maintains a hierarchy of layered sets of relationships within social networks. We suggest that, psychologically, these trade-offs are related to the level of trust in a relationship, and that this is itself a function of the time invested in the relationship.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据