Empathy and well-being correlate with centrality in different social networks

Abstract

Individuals benefit from occupying central roles in social networks, but little is known about the psychological traits that predict centrality. Across four college freshman dorms (n = 193), we characterized individuals with a battery of personality questionnaires and also asked them to nominate dorm members with whom they had different types of relationships. This revealed several social networks within dorm communities with differing characteristics. In particular, additional data showed that networks varied in the degree to which nominations depend on (i) trust and (ii) shared fun and excitement. Networks more dependent upon trust were further defined by fewer connections than those more dependent on fun. Crucially, network and personality features interacted to predict individuals' centrality: people high in well-being (i.e., life satisfaction and positive emotion) were central to networks characterized by fun, whereas people high in empathy were central to networks characterized by trust. Together, these findings provide network-based corroboration of psychological evidence that well-being is socially attractive, whereas empathy supports close relationships. More broadly, these data highlight how an individual's personality relates to the roles that they play in sustaining their community.social networks | empathy | well-being | centrality | personality I n a community, certain individuals take central roles and are sought out by others for advice, support, fun, and companionship. Central individuals substantially impact the health and well-being of their community (1-4), for example, by reducing stress and generating opportunities for other community members (5). Who comes to occupy these central network positions? Recent research suggests that individuals' personalities influence their ability to attract social ties (6-11),* but this personality-centrality relationship may vary depending on the type of connection that one uses to define a network. For example, extraverts become more central than introverts in networks defined by friendship (6).Past work generally focuses on the relationship between a single personality trait (e.g., extraversion) and centrality in a single network (e.g., friendship networks). However, communities contain multiple networks that are defined by different types of relationships. Individuals might ask for advice from one subset of their community, look for companionship with another subset, and seek emotional support from a third subset (12)(13)(14)(15). This means that an individual could occupy a central role in one type of network, but hold a more peripheral position in a different type of network (2). We study this by first mapping several networks within a community and then by assessing a person's position in a network with respect to a broad array of personality traits. This allows us to identify the features of an individual that predict their centrality in various types of networks.Previous psychological research suggests that an individual's personality might relate t...

Neural detection of socially valued community members

“…Participants. As part of a larger study on social networks (12), newly matriculated college students were recruited from two freshman-only dormitories at Stanford University. Ninety-seven freshmen for the larger study and 52 students who were eligible and willing to participate in the fMRI scanning session provided informed consent.…”

“…Socially valuable others provide high-quality support and minimize others' stress (7)(8)(9)(10). They also tend to be connected to other community members, and close relationships with them can offer a gateway to additional social resources (11,12).…”

“…We recruited newly matriculated college students from two freshman-only dormitories at Stanford University (n = 97) (12). In the second week of the academic year, we asked participants to nominate dorm members in response to eight prompts: for instance, identifying dorm members they viewed as socially supportive, positive, and empathic.…”

The Golden Age of Social Science

“…These models focus on a handful of key parameters, which can be grouped as: (1) degree centrality, (2) eigenvector centrality, (3) diffusion centrality, and (4) bridging (Jackson, 2019). While one might not wish to be central in an HIV infection network, centrality is viewed as an advantage in most social networks and is correlated with financial success (Burt & Ronchi, 2007) and wellbeing (Morelli, Ong, Makati, Jackson, & Zaki, 2017). Degree centrality captures "popularity," the sheer number of connections an individual might have, capturing the speed at which these individuals can easily transmit information to a wide group at once.…”

“…Network analysis has therefore allowed researchers to apply new tools while revisiting old questions about social influence. For example, researchers have investigated whom individuals gravitate to in a network, finding that empathetic people are chosen for situations which require trust and support, while positive people are chosen for situations that are fun and exciting (Morelli et al, 2017). Other work has found that people give less money to those who are more socially distant (unknown) friends of friends in standard economic games (Candelo, Eckel, & Johnson, 2018;Goeree, McConnell, Mitchell, Tromp, & Yariv, 2010).…”