1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Sociology
  4. Volume 49, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Sociology

Volume 49, 2023

What Makes Weak Ties Strong?

Abstract

We raise two challenges concerning the validity of arguments underlying Granovetter's strength of weak ties (SWT) thesis: () whether weak ties are actually bridges, i.e., they help reach more socially distant actors than strong ties, and () whether weak ties transmit information effectively enough so that weak ties’ alleged structural properties make them more useful than strong ties. In the course of reviewing subsequent research that has made progress in addressing these challenges, we identify both potential limits and possibilities for the SWT thesis. We argue for the importance of identifying how actors’ agency—i.e., the way people use their ties—may affect social networks’ value. We conclude by summarizing some outstanding questions that progress on the SWT thesis has generated.

Keyword(s): bridging ties, computational social science, diffusion, social networks, strength of weak ties, structure versus agency
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-030921-034152
2023-07-31
2024-04-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/49/1/annurev-soc-030921-034152.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-030921-034152&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abraham M. 2020. Gender-role incongruity and audience-based gender bias: an examination of networking among entrepreneurs. Adm. Sci. Q. 65:1151–80
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Adut A. 2005. A theory of scandal: Victorians, homosexuality, and the fall of Oscar Wilde. Am. J. Sociol. 111:1213–48
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Almeling R. 2007. Selling genes, selling gender: egg agencies, sperm banks, and the medical market in genetic material. Am. Sociol. Rev. 72:3319–40
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Aral S. 2016. The future of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 121:61931–39
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Aral S, Van Alstyne M. 2011. The diversity-bandwidth trade-off. Am. J. Sociol. 117:190–171
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Aven B, Morse L, Iorio A. 2021. The valley of trust: the effect of relational strength on monitoring quality. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 166:179–93
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Aven BL. 2015. The paradox of corrupt networks: an analysis of organizational crime at Enron. Organ. Sci. 26:4980–96
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Baker WE, Faulkner RR. 1993. The social organization of conspiracy: illegal networks in the heavy electrical equipment industry. Am. Sociol. Rev. 58:6837–60
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Baker WE, Faulkner RR. 2003. Diffusion of fraud: intermediate economic crime and investor dynamics. Criminology 41:41173–206
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bearman P, Parigi P. 2004. Cloning headless frogs and other important matters: conversation topics and network structure. Soc. Forces 83:2535–57
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bian Y. 1997. Bringing strong ties back in: indirect ties, network bridges, and job searches in China. Am. Sociol. Rev. 62:3366–85
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Blau PM, Schwartz JE. 1984. Crosscutting Social Circles: Testing a Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations New York: Academic
  13. Boissevain J. 1968. The place of non-groups in the social sciences. Man 3:4542–56
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bond BM, Labuzova T, Fernandez RM. 2018. At the expense of quality. Sociol. Sci. 5:380–401
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Brands RA, Kilduff M. 2014. Just like a woman? Effects of gender-biased perceptions of friendship network brokerage on attributions and performance. Organ. Sci. 25:51530–48
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Brands RA, Mehra A. 2019. Gender, brokerage, and performance: a construal approach. Acad. Manag. J. 62:1196–219
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Brashears ME. 2011. Small networks and high isolation? A reexamination of American discussion networks. Soc. Netw. 33:4331–41
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Brashears ME, Quintane E. 2018. The weakness of tie strength. Soc. Netw. 55:104–15
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Bruggeman J. 2016. The strength of varying tie strength: comment on Aral and Van Alstyne. Am. J. Sociol. 121:61919–30
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Burt RS. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. , 1st ed..
  21. Burt RS. 2002. Bridge decay. Soc. Netw. 24:4333–63
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Centola D. 2015. The social origins of networks and diffusion. Am. J. Sociol. 120:51295–338
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Centola D, Macy M. 2007. Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. Am. J. Sociol. 113:3702–34
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Centola D, Willer R, Macy M 2005. The emperor's dilemma: a computational model of self-enforcing norms. Am. J. Sociol. 110:41009–40
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Chan CS-C. 2009. Invigorating the content in social embeddedness: an ethnography of life insurance transactions in China. Am. J. Sociol. 115:3712–54
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Child C. 2021. How to sell a friend: disinterest as relational work in direct sales. Sociol. Sci. 8:1–25
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Chwe MS-Y. 2003. Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  28. Cingano F, Rosolia A. 2012. People I know: job search and social networks. J. Labor Econ. 30:2291–332
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Coleman JS. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 94:S95–120
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Coleman JS, Katz E, Menzel H. 1966. Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. , 1st ed..
  31. Davis JA. 1963. Structural balance, mechanical solidarity, and interpersonal relations. Am. J. Sociol. 68:4444–62
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Fernandez RM. 2021. Strength in weak ties in the labor market: an assessment of the state of research. Personal Networks: Classic Readings and New Directions in Egocentric Analysis B Pescosolido, EB Smith 251–64. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Fischer CS. 1982. To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  34. Friedkin N. 1980. A test of structural features of Granovetter's strength of weak ties theory. Soc. Netw. 2:4411–22
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Gee LK, Jones JJ, Burke M. 2017a. Social networks and labor markets: how strong ties relate to job finding on Facebook's social network. J. Labor Econ. 35:2485–518
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Gee LK, Jones JJ, Fariss CJ, Burke M, Fowler JH. 2017b. The paradox of weak ties in 55 countries. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 133:362–72
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Granovetter M. 1978. Threshold models of collective behavior. Am. J. Sociol. 83:61420–43
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Granovetter M. 1983. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociol. Theory 1:201–33
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Granovetter M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 91:3481–510
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Granovetter M. 1995. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. , 2nd ed..
  41. Granovetter M, Soong R. 1983. Threshold models of diffusion and collective behavior. J. Math. Sociol. 9:3165–79
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Granovetter MS. 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78:61360–80
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Greenberg J, Fernandez RM. 2016. The strength of weak ties in MBA job search: a within-person test. Sociol. Sci. 3:296–316
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Griswold W. 1994. Cultures and Societies in a Changing World Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. , 4th ed..
  45. Guhin J, Calarco JM, Miller-Idriss C. 2021. Whatever happened to socialization?. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 47:109–29
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Hagan JM. 1998. Social networks, gender, and immigrant incorporation: resources and constraints. Am. Sociol. Rev. 63:155–67
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Hansen MT. 1999. The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Adm. Sci. Q. 44:182–111
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Hansen MT. 2002. Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organ. Sci. 13:3232–48
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Harary F, Norman RZ, Cartwright D. 1965. Structural Models: An Introduction to the Theory of Directed Graphs New York: Wiley. , 1st ed..
  50. Heider F. 1946. Attitudes and cognitive organization. J. Psychol. 21:1107–12
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Holland PW, Leinhardt S. 1971. Transitivity in structural models of small groups. Comp. Group Stud. 2:2107–24
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Horváth G. 2014. Occupational mismatch and social networks. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 106:442–68
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Ibarra H. 1992. Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Adm. Sci. Q. 37:3422–47
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Ingram P, Zou X. 2008. Business friendships. Res. Organ. Behav. 28:167–84
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Iorio A. 2022. Brokers in disguise: the joint effect of actual brokerage and socially perceived brokerage on network advantage. Adm. Sci. Q. 67:3769–820
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Jahani E, Fraiberger SP, Bailey M, Eckles D. 2022. Origins and consequences of long ties in social networks. SocArXiv g2nkq. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/g2nkq
  57. Kim M, Fernandez RM. 2017. Strength matters: tie strength as a causal driver of networks’ information benefits. Soc. Sci. Res. 65:268–81
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Kim M, Zuckerman E, Hahl O, Poskanzer E. 2022. When truth trumps facts: five studies on partisan moral flexibility in American politics Work. Pap. Rice Univ. Houston, TX:
  59. Kleinbaum AM. 2012. Organizational misfits and the origins of brokerage in intrafirm networks. Adm. Sci. Q. 57:3407–52
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Kleinbaum AM. 2018. Reorganization and tie decay choices. Manag. Sci. 64:52219–37
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Kneeland MK, Kleinbaum AM. 2021. On agency and its limits: the asymmetric effects of offsites on network tie formation Work. Pap. 3520640 Tuck Sch. Bus., Dartmouth Univ. Hanover, NH:
  62. Kossinets G, Watts DJ. 2009. Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. Am. J. Sociol. 115:2405–50
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Krackhardt D. 1987. Cognitive social structures. Soc. Netw. 9:2109–34
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Krackhardt D. 1988. Predicting with networks: nonparametric multiple regression analysis of dyadic data. Soc. Netw. 10:4359–81
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Krackhardt D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape: structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 35:2342–69
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Krackhardt D. 1992. The strength of strong ties: the importance of philos in organizations. Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action N Nohria, RG Eccles 216–39. Boston: Harvard Bus. Sch. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Krackhardt D 2003. Constraints on the interactive organization as an ideal type. Networks in the Knowledge Economy R Cross, A Parker, L Sasson 324–35. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Kuttner R. 1997. Everything for Sale: The Virtues and Limits of Markets New York: Knopf
  69. Levin DZ, Cross R. 2004. The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Manag. Sci. 50:111477–90
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Li JB, Piezunka H. 2020. The uniplex third: enabling single-domain role transitions in multiplex relationships. Adm. Sci. Q. 65:2314–58
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Lin N. 2000. Inequality in social capital. Contemp. Sociol. 29:6785–95
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Lin N, Ensel WM, Vaughn JC. 1981. Social resources and strength of ties: structural factors in occupational status attainment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 46:4393–405
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Liu WT, Duff RW. 1972. The strength in weak ties. Public Opin. Q. 36:3361–66
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Luo X, Chung C-N. 2005. Keeping it all in the family: the role of particularistic relationships in business group performance during institutional transition. Adm. Sci. Q. 50:3404–39
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Marin A. 2012. Don't mention it: why people don't share job information, when they do, and why it matters. Soc. Netw. 34:2181–92
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Marsden PV, Campbell KE. 1984. Measuring tie strength. Soc. Forces 63:2482–501
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Marsden PV, Campbell KE. 2012. Reflections on conceptualizing and measuring tie strength. Soc. Forces 91:117–23
     [Google Scholar]
  78. McAdam D, Paulsen R. 1993. Specifying the relationship between social ties and activism. Am. J. Sociol. 99:3640–67
     [Google Scholar]
  79. McDonald S. 2011. What you know or who you know? Occupation-specific work experience and job matching through social networks. Soc. Sci. Res. 40:61664–75
     [Google Scholar]
  80. McPherson JM, Smith-Lovin L. 1982. Women and weak ties: differences by sex in the size of voluntary organizations. Am. J. Sociol. 87:4883–904
     [Google Scholar]
  81. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:415–44
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Milgram S. 1967. The small world problem. Psychol. Today 2:60–67
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Mitchell JC. 1969. Social Networks in Urban Situations: Analyses of Personal Relationships in Central African Towns Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press
  84. Moore G. 1990. Structural determinants of men's and women's personal networks. Am. Sociol. Rev. 55:5726–35
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Mouw T. 2003. Social capital and finding a job: Do contacts matter?. Am. Sociol. Rev. 68:6868–98
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Mouw T. 2006. Estimating the causal effect of social capital: a review of recent research. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 32:79–102
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Neal ZP. 2022. Sometimes weak ties are just weak. Science 377:66121304–10
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Obukhova E. 2012. Motivation versus relevance: using strong ties to find a job in urban China. Soc. Sci. Res. 41:3570–80
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Obukhova E, Kleinbaum AM. 2022. Scouting and schmoozing: a gender difference in networking during job search. Acad. Manag. Discov. 8:2203–23
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Obukhova E, Lan G. 2013. Do job seekers benefit from contacts? A direct test with contemporaneous searches. Manag. Sci. 59:102204–16
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Onnela J-P, Saramäki J, Hyvönen J, Szabó G, Lazer D et al. 2007. Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks. PNAS 104:187332–36
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Park PS, Blumenstock JE, Macy MW. 2018. The strength of long-range ties in population-scale social networks. Science 362:64211410–13
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Portes A, Sensenbrenner J. 1993. Embeddedness and immigration: notes on the social determinants of economic action. Am. J. Sociol. 98:61320–50
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Rajkumar K, Saint-Jacques G, Bojinov I, Brynjolfsson E, Aral S. 2022. A causal test of the strength of weak ties. Science 377:66121304–10
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Reagans RE, McEvily B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm. Sci. Q. 48:2240–67
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Reagans RE, Zuckerman EW. 2008. Why knowledge does not equal power: the network redundancy trade-off. Ind. Corp. Change 17:5903–44
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Rossman G. 2014. Obfuscatory relational work and disreputable exchange. Sociol. Theory 32:143–63
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Schilke O, Rossman G. 2018. It's only wrong if it's transactional: moral perceptions of obfuscated exchange. Am. Sociol. Rev. 83:61079–107
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Smith SS. 2005.. “ Don't put my name on it”: social capital activation and job-finding assistance among the Black urban poor. Am. J. Sociol. 111:11–57
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Szulanski G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 17:Suppl. 227–43
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Tian FF, Lin N. 2016. Weak ties, strong ties, and job mobility in urban China: 1978–2008. Soc. Netw. 44:117–29
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Uzzi B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Adm. Sci. Q. 42:135–67
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Watts DJ. 1999. Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon. Am. J. Sociol. 105:2493–527
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH. 1998. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393:6684440–42
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Weeden KA, Cornwell B. 2020. The small-world network of college classes: implications for epidemic spread on a university campus. Sociol. Sci. 7:222–41
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Weeden KA, Cornwell B, Park B. 2021. Still a small world? University course enrollment networks before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sociol. Sci. 8:73–82
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Willer R, Kuwabara K, Macy MW. 2009. The false enforcement of unpopular norms. Am. J. Sociol. 115:2451–90
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Winship C. 2004. Veneers and underlayments: critical moments and situational redefinition. Negot. J. 20:2297–309
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Wrong DH. 1961. The oversocialized conception of man in modern sociology. Am. Sociol. Rev. 26:2183–93
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Wu L, Waber B, Aral S, Brynjolfsson E, Pentland S. 2008. Mining face-to-face interaction networks using sociometric badges: predicting productivity in an IT configuration task. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2008) Atlanta, GA: Assoc. Inf. Syst.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Yakubovich V. 2005. Weak ties, information, and influence: how workers find jobs in a local Russian labor market. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70:3408–21
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Zelizer VA. 1978. Human values and the market: the case of life insurance and death in 19th-century America. Am. J. Sociol. 84:3591–610
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-030921-034152
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error