Efficiently representing social networks is challenging, but cognitive schemas can help address this challenge. This study examined whether network schemas related to group typology influence social network representations. In Experiment 1, participants, who were given only group-type information and the number of relationships without network structure, freely constructed friendship networks, forming more interconnected and centralized structures for task groups than social categories. Experiment 2 provided identical partial friendship network data across group types, yet group-type labels biased participants’ inferences about potential future friendships, producing network structures similar to those in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, participants who memorized friendships from social networks—either from a task group or social category—showed greater accuracy when the memorized network structure aligned with the group type that activated corresponding schemas. These results suggest that individuals utilize group-related schemas to represent social networks, with task groups having closer and more centralized connections than social categories do.
BasyouniR.ParkinsonC. (2022). Mapping the social landscape: Tracking patterns of interpersonal relationships. Trends in Cognitive Science, 26(3), 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.12.006
3.
BayerJ. B.LewisN. A.JrStahlJ. L. (2020). Who comes to mind? Dynamic construction of social networks. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 279–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420915866
4.
BernsteinE. S.ShoreJ.JangA. J. (2022). Network centralization and collective adaptability to a shifting environment. Organization Science, 34(6), 2064–2096. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1584
BrandsR. A. (2013). Cognitive social structures in social network research: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(Suppl 1), S82–S103. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1890
7.
BrashearsM. E. (2013). Humans use compression Heuristics to improve the recall of social networks. Scientific Reports, 3, 1513. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01513
CrockettW. H. (1982). Balance, agreement, and positivity in the cognition of small social structures. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 1–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60294-4
10.
CsardiG.NepuszT. (2006). “The igraph software package for complex network research.”InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695. https://igraph.org
11.
De DreuC. K. W.GrossJ.RomanoA. (2024). Group formation and the evolution of human social organization. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 19(2), 320–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231179156
FalkE. B.BassettD. S. (2017). Brain and social networks: Fundamental building blocks of human experience. Trends in Cognitive Science, 21(9), 674–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.06.009
14.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
15.
FlynnF. J.ReagansR. E.GuilloryL. (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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020961
HalfordG. S.WilsonW. H.PhillipsS. (2010). Relational knowledge: The foundation of higher cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(11), 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.08.005
18.
HughesE. A.EllisS.SmithJ. R. (2024). Connecting groups and behaviours: A network analysis of identity-infused behaviours. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 63(1), 205–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12674
19.
JanicikG. A.LarrickR. P. (2005). Social network schemas and the learning of incomplete networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 348–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.348
20.
JohnsonA. L.CrawfordM. T.ShermanS. J.RutchickA. M.HamiltonD. L.FerreiraM. B.PetrocelliJ. V. (2006). A functional perspective on group memberships: Differential need fulfillment in a group typology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(6), 707–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.08.002
21.
JollyE.ChangL. J. (2021). Gossip drives vicarious learning and facilitates social connection. Current Biology, 31(12), 2539–2549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.03.090
22.
KazakA. E. (2018). Editorial: Journal article reporting standards. American Psychologist, 73(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000263
23.
KilduffM.CrosslandC.TsaiW.KrackhardtD. (2008). Organizational network perceptions versus reality: A small world after all?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.12.003
24.
KrackhardtD.KilduffM. (1999). Whether close or far: Social distance effects on perceived balance in friendship networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 770–782. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.770
25.
LickelB.HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J. (2001). Elements of a lay theory of groups: Types of groups, relational styles, and the perception of group entitativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_4
26.
LickelB.HamiltonD. L.WieczorkowskaG.LewisA.ShermanS. J.UhlesA. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.223
27.
LickelB.RutchickA. M.HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J. (2006). Intuitive theories of group types and relational principles. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.01.007
NoonanM. P.MarsR. B.SalletJ.DunbarR. I. M.FellowsL. K. (2018). The structural and functional brain networks that support human social networks. Behavioural Brain Research, 355, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2018.02.019
PeirceJ.GrayJ. R.SimpsonS.MacAskillM.HöchenbergerR.SogoH.KastmanE.LindelovJ. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203.
34.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://R-project.org/
35.
SchmälzleR.Brook O’DonnellM.GarciaJ. O.CascioC. N.BayerJ.BassettD. S.VettelJ. M.FalkE. B. (2017). Brain connectivity dynamics during social interaction reflect social network structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(20), 5153–5158. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616130114
36.
SchwyckM. E. (2023). Tracking relationships: Uncovering how people acquire, represent, use, and predict social network information[M]. University of California.
SheaC. T.FitzsimonsG. M. (2016). Personal goal pursuit as an antecedent to social network structure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.07.002
39.
ShermanS. J.CastelliL.HamiltonD. L. (2002). The spontaneous use of a group typology as an organizing principle in memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 328–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.328
SonJ. Y.BhandariA.FeldmanHallO. (2021). Cognitive maps of social features enable flexible inference in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(39), e2021699118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021699118
42.
SonJ. Y.BhandariA.FeldmanHallO. (2023). Abstract cognitive maps of social network structure aid adaptive inference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(47), e2310801120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2310801120
43.
SonJ. Y.VivesM. L.BhandariA.FeldmanHallO. (2024). Replay shapes abstract cognitive maps for efficient social navigation. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(11), 2156–2167. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01990-w
44.
StillerJ.DunbarR. I. M. (2007). Perspective-taking and memory capacity predict social network size. Social Networks, 29(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2006.04.001
SwellerJ. (2011). Chapter two—Cognitive load theory. In MestreJ. P.RossB. H. (Eds.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
47.
TatoneD.CsibraG. (2024). The representation of giving actions: Event construction in the service of monitoring social relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 33(3), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214241242460
48.
TrösterC.MehraA.van KnippenbergD. (2014). Structuring for team success: The interactive effects of network structure and cultural diversity on team potency and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2), 245–255. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.04.003
49.
VestnerT.TipperS. P.HartleyT.OverH.RueschemeyerS. A. (2019). Bound together: Social binding leads to faster processing, spatial distortion, and enhanced memory of interacting partners. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(7), 1251–1268. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000545
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
