Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-ntvhh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-13T17:16:35.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond the dyad: how do cognitive representations of social networks develop?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2026

Carolyn Parkinson Open the ORCID record for Carolyn Parkinson [Opens in a new window]  and
Jaimie Arona Krems Open the ORCID record for Jaimie Arona Krems [Opens in a new window]
Carolyn Parkinson*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA cparkinson@ucla.edu jaimie.krems@ucla.edu Brain Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Jaimie Arona Krems
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA cparkinson@ucla.edu jaimie.krems@ucla.edu
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Thomas’ paper provides a compelling account of the nature and development of mental representations of social relationships. Understandably, it focuses on dyadic and triadic relationships. We emphasize the need to elucidate the development of another key component of humans’ understanding of social relationships: “stitching together” knowledge of social ties into representations of social networks that shape one’s thoughts and actions.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e43
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Banerjee, A., Chandrasekhar, A. G., Duflo, E., & Jackson, M. O. (2019). Using gossips to spread information: Theory and evidence from two randomized controlled trials. The Review of Economic Studies, 86(6), 2453–2490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basyouni, R., & Parkinson, C. (2022). Mapping the social landscape: Tracking patterns of interpersonal relationships. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(3), 204–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brands, R. A. (2013). Cognitive social structures in social network research: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S82–S103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2009). The alliance hypothesis for human friendship. PloS one, 4(6), e5802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellwardt, L., Labianca, G. J., & Wittek, R. (2012). Who are the objects of positive and negative gossip at work?: A social network perspective on workplace gossip. Social Networks, 34(2), 193-205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faris, R., Felmlee, D., & McMillan, C. (2020). With friends like these: Aggression from amity and equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 126(3), 673–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, N. H., & Hagen, E. H. (2006). Psychological adaptations for assessing gossip veracity. Human Nature, 17, 337–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kilduff, M., Crossland, C., Tsai, W., & Krackhardt, D. (2008). Organizational network perceptions versus reality: A small world after all? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(1), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krems, J. A., Merrie, L. A., Rodriguez, N. N., & Williams, K. E. (2024). Venting makes people prefer—and preferentially support—us over those we vent about. Evolution and Human Behavior, 45(5), 106608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krems, J. A., Williams, K. E., Aktipis, A., & Kenrick, D. T. (2021). Friendship jealousy: One tool for maintaining friendships in the face of third-party threats? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 977–1012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, Z., Kinzler, K. D., & Woodward, A. L. (2021). Origins of homophily: Infants expect people with shared preferences to affiliate. Cognition, 212, 104695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parkinson, C., Kleinbaum, A. M., & Wheatley, T. (2017). Spontaneous neural encoding of social network position. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(5), 0072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwyck, M. E., Du, M., Li, Y., Chang, L. J., & Parkinson, C. (2024). Similarity among friends serves as a social prior: The assumption that “birds of a feather flock together” shapes social decisions and relationship beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(6), 823–840.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watts, D. J. (1999). Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xia, A., Teoh, Y., Nassar, M., Bhandari, A., & FeldmanHall, O. (2025). Knowledge of information cascades through social networks facilitates strategic gossip. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02241-2. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zerubavel, N., Bearman, P. S., Weber, J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2015). Neural mechanisms tracking popularity in real-world social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(49), 15072–15077.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed