Marsden & Campbell 1984 (Social Forces) — closeness is the best tie-strength indicator, NOT frequency or duration
Claim: Marsden and Campbell (1984), "Measuring Tie Strength," found that "a measure of 'closeness' or intensity is the best indicator of strength" and that "there are difficulties with frequency and duration of contact as indicators of strength."
Source: Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). "Measuring Tie Strength." Social Forces 63(2), 482–501. https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/63/2/482/1925765
Confidence: Verified.
For Candid: Cuts against the naive assumption that "saw them weekly at the supply counter" = strong tie. It may not be. The contractor who has lunch with another contractor twice a year and considers him a peer is in a stronger tie than the contractor who exchanges nods with a lumber-yard rep weekly. Operational implication: a sales motion that scores prospects by frequency-of-touch metrics will systematically underestimate the trust available from infrequent-but-close ties (e.g., peer-coaching cohort alumni who met monthly two years ago, now meet quarterly but consider each other confidants).
Referenced by (2)
- reference Levin & Cross 2004 (Mgmt Sci) — competence- and benevolence-based trust mediate tie-strength → useful knowledge transfer; once trust is controlled for, weak ties re-emerge as valuable relates-to
- reference Warm-intro hierarchy — 8 levels from cold inbound to family-equivalent referral; closest tie ≠ best referrer unless it carries domain-competent trust depends-on