In the 1990s, British anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar posited that humans can maintain only a limited number of stable social relationships at any one time.
Dunbar’s Number is 150: a large enough group to make for an extended community but far smaller than the thousands of names, followers and connections modern life puts within reach.
His research grew out of comparisons between primate brain size vs. the size of their social groups. Humans, he argued, have cognitive limits as well. We can recognize far more than 150 people, of course, but there appears to be a ceiling on the number of meaningful relationships we can maintain.
A modern look at the theory raises an important question: What happens to Dunbar’s Number when some of the people taking up space in our social lives don’t actually know us?
Parasocial relationships count, too
My theory is that parasocial relationships now count toward Dunbar’s Number (with thanks to The Line editor Jen Gerson for having made similar observations in recent years).
People spend enormous amounts of time following their favourite personalities on Instagram, X, LinkedIn, YouTube and elsewhere. This is psychologically different from simply knowing who a celebrity is or occasionally enjoying their art. It is a subscription relationship: you follow their updates continuously, hear their opinions, learn details about their lives and, in some cases, spend hours with them every week through podcasts or video.
Especially among younger generations, these relationships can occupy a meaningful amount of social attention. Media personalities may now function as part of our social circles, even though they have no idea we exist.
The algorithm displaces your loved ones
When Dunbar developed his theory, the people occupying those theoretical 150 slots were determined largely by family, geography, work and our own choices. Today, at least some of those choices are being made for us.
Algorithms determine which personalities repeatedly appear in front of us, encouraging more interaction and more time on the platform. The design is deliberately habit-forming, while prolonged screen exposure, including blue light at night, can disrupt sleep and make it harder to disengage.
Algorithms can also make people disappear.
Your friends, neighbours or extended family members are probably not producing content designed to keep you engaged. They may simply be less interesting to the algorithm.
In that sense, the modern social circle is partly curated by actors whose objective is to keep users disengaged from personal relationships.
If our capacity for relationships remains as limited as Dunbar suggested, something has to give.
The losers may be neighbours, extended family, older friends, community groups, local nonprofits and casual acquaintances: relationships that once benefited from simple proximity.
Someone consuming hours of podcasts, videos and social feeds each week has fewer hours available for other humans. Platforms may promise to create community, but much of what they have actually done is temporarily replicate feelings that come from real relationships.
That leaves an updated question for Dunbar’s theory: If the research were conducted again today, how many of those 150 slots would be occupied by people we have never met? And as that number grows, how much room is left for everyone else?
Listen to a 2018 TNKR Media podcast episode with political commentator Jen Gerson about how mental health may be negatively impacted by parasocial relationships.
Photo by Shannia Christanty / Unsplash
