The not-so-forbidden triad: Evaluating the assumptions of the Strength of Weak Ties

Abstract The Strength of Weak Ties is among the most influential social theories of the past 50 years. However, its prediction that weak ties are especially useful for obtaining novel information is sometimes not supported. To understand why, I investigate whether social networks typically satisfy the theory’s assumptions, and whether the theory’s prediction is robust to violations of its assumptions. First, examining a diverse corpus of 56 empirical social networks, I show that empirical social networks (nearly) satisfy some but not all of the theory’s assumptions. Second, using a simulation of information diffusion, I show that the predicted utility of weak ties is not robust to violations of these assumptions. When the assumptions of the theory are violated, as is common in social networks, access to novel information depends on bridging ties, regardless of their strength. Moreover, when they exist, strong bridges (i.e., bridges with high bandwidth) are more useful than weak bridges (i.e., bridges with low bandwidth). I conclude by recommending that research applying this theory should first consider whether its assumptions are satisfied, and that a tie’s strength and bridgeness should be measured and modeled independently.