Measuring Tie Strength

Little attention has been given to the measurement of the concept of tie strength. Using survey data on friendship ties, we apply multiple indicator techniques to construct and validate measures of tie strength. We conclude that: (1) there may be two distinct aspects of tie strength, having to do with the time spent in a relationship and the depth of the relationship; (2) a measure of "closeness" or intensity is the best indicator of strength; (3) there are difficulties with frequency and duration of contact as indicators of strength; (4) predictors of strength (e.g., kinship, neighboring) are not especially strongly related to the concept; and (5) the constructed measures of strength, particularly the one of "time spent," are valid in that they are related to predictor variables in anticipated irections. Tie strength is probably the network concept that has attracted the most research attention and the one that has led to the most in the way of substantive contributions. Research using the concept was initiated by the publication of Granovetter's (a) paper entitled "The Strength of Weak Ties," and Granovetter (c) has recently provided an overview of many of the studies that have invoked the concept. Substantive successes have been especially visible in the literature on the process of social mobility, where variations in tie strength have been shown to be systematically related to the outcomes of job search efforts, but there have been applications to other substantive concerns as well. These accomplishments based on the tie strength concept are notable ones. We find, however, an important gap in this literature. Little sustained attention has been given to the measurement of the concept of tie strength, and the (presumably differential) accuracy of the different mea*This paper was presented at the 1983 annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, session on Network Analysis. We thank Lois Verbrugge for help in understanding nuances of the data sources, and Mark Granovetter, Edward 0. Laumann, and Rachel Rosenfeld for helpful comments. Address correspondence to Peter V. Marsden, Department of Sociology, Hamilton Hall 070A, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27514. C) 1984 The University of North Carolina Press