|[For example, two terrorists might have a formal tie (one is foot-]soldier / newly recruited person in terrorist cell and reports to the other, who is the cell leader) and an affective tie (they are friends) and proximity tie (they are residing in the same apartment and their flats are two doors away on the same floor).
Network researchers have made a difference between strong ties (such as wife and husband) and weak ties such as colleagues met at a conference (Granovetter, 1973, 1982). This distinction includes affect, mutual obligations, reciprocity, and intensity. Strong ties become valuable when an individual pursues socio-emotional support and should be trustworthy. On the other hand, weak ties become valuable when individuals pursue varied or unique information from external outside their routine contacts.
As per study of the literature, this study found that the ties may be
non-directional (Atta attends meeting with Nawaf Alhazmi) or differ in direction (Bin Laden gives advice to Atta vs. Atta gets advice from Bin Laden). They may differ in content (Atta talks with Khalid about the trust of his friends (to be used as human bombs for 9/11) and Khalid about his meeting with Bin Laden), frequency (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.), and medium (frontal conversation, written memos, email, fax, instant messages, live chat, Skype or Facebook messages, etc.). Finally ties may differ in sign, ranging from positive (Iraqis like Zarqawi) to negative (Jordanians dislike Zarqawi).
For example, two academic colleagues might have a formal tie (one is an assistant professor and reports to the other. who is the department chairperson)
and an affective tie (they are friends) and a proximity tie (their offices are two doors away).
Network researchers have distinguished between strong ties (such as family and friends) and weak ties (such as acquaintances) (Granovetter, 1973. 1982). This distinction can involve a multitude of facets, including affect, mutual obligations, reciprocity, and intensity. Strong ties are particularly valuable when an individual seeks socioemotional support and often entail a high level of trust. Weak ties are more valuable when individuals are seeking diverse or unique information from someone outside their regular frequent contacts. [...]
Ties may be nondirectional (Joe attends a meeting with Jane) or vary in direction (Joe gives advice to Jane vs. Joe gets advice from Jane). They may also vary in content (Joe talks to Jack about the weather and to Jane about sports), frequency (daily. weekly, monthly, etc.), and medium (face-to-face conversation, written memos, e-mail, instant messaging, etc.). Finally, ties may vary in sign, ranging from positive (Joe likes Jane) to negative (Joe dislikes Jane).