Ping! A notification from a long-lost acquaintance pops up on your phone, requesting to connect. You pause for a moment, trying to recall the last time you interacted with this person. It's been years since you last spoke or saw each other in person. Yet, in the digital landscape of social media, such reconnections are becoming increasingly common. People are constantly expanding their online networks, accumulating large numbers of virtual friends and followers. This raises an important question that is highly relevant to the concept of Dunbar's number, which posits that humans can only maintain a limited number of meaningful social relationships.
In his 1992 paper, anthropologist Robin Dunbar introduced this concept and explored its implications for human social networks. Drawing from his research on non-human primate species, Dunbar found a correlation between the size of the neocortex - which relates to cognitive abilities such as communication and thought - and the average size of their social groups. Applying these findings to humans, he proposed that our maximum capacity for stable social relationships is around 150 individuals. This suggests that larger networks require us to fragment into smaller groups in order to effectively maintain our innate social structures.

Does Dunbar's number change in the age of social media:
The rise of social media platforms has expanded the scope of Dunbar's number. These platforms have allowed individuals to connect with a larger number of people, surpassing the limits originally proposed by Dunbar. However, research indicates that despite this increased connectivity, cognitive and temporal limitations still influence online relationships. In a 2016 study conducted by Dunbar among Facebook users, it was found that over half had more than 200 friends. On Twitter, the average number of followers is even higher at 707. This challenges the previously held belief that our brains can only retain meaningful connections with approximately 150 individuals.

Recent studies, including one from Stockholm University, have begun to challenge Dunbar's theory, which posits a cognitive limit to the number of social relationships an individual can maintain, usually estimated to be around 150. The Stockholm University research using Dunbar's 1992 methods discovered an average group size of 69 individuals but with a wide confidence interval from approximately 5 to nearly 292. This result shows great statistical variability, further expanding the proposed range for human social connections from a minimum of 4 to more than 520. However, one co-author of the study, Andreas Wartel, highlights the complexity of these estimations: "It is not possible to make an estimate for humans with any precision." While this study has faced criticism regarding its statistics, his comment underscores the challenge of defining fixed limits on human social connections. Additional research in 2011 criticised Dunbar's theory by arguing against the restricted definition of a "relationship" and challenging the biologically driven argument for limiting group sizes to around 150, given the evident benefits of larger group sizes.
Despite the expansion of human connections on social media platforms, it is clear that these online relationships often do not exhibit the depth of traditional offline interactions. They lack non-verbal cues, physical proximity, and shared experiences that offline relationships typically offer. Even with extensive online networks, individuals may feel isolated or alone. While for younger generations the line between online and offline connections may blur, research suggests that social media, although transforming the way we build connections, may not supplant the intimacy of face-to-face interactions. Individuals generally value and find deeper meaning in their offline relationships.
Therefore, although social media broadens our networks horizontally, concerns arise that we may be sacrificing deeper and more meaningful connections formed through offline interactions.
What do we derive from social connections and how that's changing?
As social beings, we derive a sense of belonging, support, and emotional fulfilment from our social bonds. These bonds provide us with a support system, companionship, and a sense of identity. They also affect our life outcomes, such as our mental and physical well-being, happiness, and overall quality of life.
Throughout history, social connections have been crucial for obtaining loans, financial support, and opportunities. Trust and secrecy have played essential roles in these connections. However, the emergence of virtual social networks has reshaped the significance of trust and secrecy compared to offline relationships. In online platforms, individuals often interact with acquaintances or even strangers, altering the dynamics of trust. This shift brings both positive and negative implications for our social connections.
For instance, a study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that people who spent more time on Facebook reported feeling lonelier and more depressed. This suggests that while social media can increase our number of connections, it may not necessarily increase our sense of well-being. Another study found that people who used social media more frequently had weaker social skills in real-life interactions, suggesting that online relationships may not be as beneficial as in-person ones.
These findings align with the idea that the quality of our friendships may be diminishing in the digital age. However, it's important to note that not all studies support the idea that social media is negatively impacting our friendship circles. For example, a study found that social media use was positively associated with greater social support and subjective well-being. Overall, the impact of social media on friendships and the quality of relationships is a debated issue that requires further research and examination.
The concept of ideal community size may have less significance in today's digital age where longevity can be uncertain. It is widely accepted that individuals have a limited capacity for maintaining close friendships. However, it remains unclear whether this capacity has been expanded or diminished by virtual interactions online. Can conversations held through screens provide the same level of emotional support as face-to-face meetings? Is there a sense of genuine closeness in online relationships? According to Dunbar, virtual friendships are inherently fragile and do not tend to endure over time. He argues that even anonymous interactions online bear resemblance to private confessions made within Catholic churches - they offer confidentiality but lack true intimacy. Weak ties, on the other hand, exist outside these realms altogether and differ significantly from strong offline connections.
So, the next time you receive a friend request from that long-lost acquaintance, take a moment to reflect on the nature of your connection. Are you building a network or nurturing a friendship?