Strong-Ties and Weak-Ties Rationalities: Toward an Expanded Network Theory

Abstract

This article introduces the expanded network theory and demonstrates the heuristic value of its construct of strong-ties and weak-ties rationalities. This construct is derived from the network theory of Granovetter and corroborated with evolutionary biology and psychological studies on group processes. This construct has wide-ranging implications and applications for cultural and cross-cultural psychology. It informs our efforts toward cultural sensitivity in theory and research design and offers a new tool for cultural analysis. In particular, it can serve as a useful framework to investigate cultures in transition in the globalizing era. Insights into strong-ties and weak-ties rationalities may even contribute to shaping the future of the human society.

Cultural Responses to Covid-19 Pandemic: Religions, Illness Perception, and Perceived Stress

“…Based on Granovetter (1973) network theory, there are two fundamental social networking types-strong-and weak-tie-based relationships. Expanding on network theory and evolutionary sciences (Todd and Gigerenzer, 2012), Sundararajan (2015Sundararajan ( , 2020 proposed a culture-cognition scheme-the ecological rationality framework, where (a) strong-ties societies, referring to communities with lower relational mobility and based on small, intimate connections with kinship and close friends would adopt a more holistic mode of rationalities, thus orienting them to the external environment and (b) weak-ties societies referring to communities with higher relational unfamiliar or mobility that rely on cooperation with unrelated others, engaging in networking and association with acquaintances and strangers. Weak-ties societies privilege an analytic mode of rationality, thus orienting them to the internal mental space.…”

Strong Ties and Weak Ties Rationality: Theory and Scale Development

“…Informed by Shweder (1991), Sundararajan (2020) defines rationality as "the assumptions of what is good, right, and beautiful, and the reasoning behind these assumptions" (p. 136). She further situates rationality in the context of ecological rationality (Todd et al, 2012) which in combination with evolutionary psychology suggest that our rationality and its ecological niche have coevolved in the evolutionary deep time.…”

“…More specifically, Sundararajan (2020) has proposed two different sets of logic behind ST or WT ontological framing that impact on how one reasons about the world. ST versus WT logic can be examined along the following dimensions: First, the difference in logic between ST and WT can be conceptualized in terms of two mental spaces: shared private space (inhabited by related, familiar others) versus public space (inhabited by unrelated others or total strangers).…”

“…H1: The participants can differentiate the STWTRS items in accordance with their implicit ST and WT logic/rationality. Due to the wide margins of overlap and affinity (Sundararajan, 2020) between the measures of collectivism/ individualism and ST/WT, beliefs and values of collectivism/ individualism may be considered downstream correlates of ST/WT ontological priming. From this premise flows one testable prediction: H2: ST versus WT ontological framings, as encoded in the STWTRS items, have correlates in beliefs and values that are conventionally associated with collectivism versus individualism, respectively, such as loyalty/obligation versus justice/ fairness in morality; and belief in just world versus belief in unjust world.…”

Hegemonic categorization of the other contributes to epistemological violence

“…According to the network theory of Granovetter (1973), strong ties refers to networking with related others such as kith and kin, whereas weak ties refers to networking with unrelated others, such as acquaintances and strangers. Extending Granovetter’s (1973) theory, Sundararajan (2015b, 2020, in press) proposed a construct of strong-ties and weak-ties rationalities. Rationalities may be understood as rules of the language game that are differentially privileged by different cultures.…”