Theories of Attitude Balance Theory

1. The Balance theory was first developed by Fritz Heider. 2. This theory suggests that we want to have balance in our lives. 3. When two attitudes collide we must strive to strike a balance between the two
attitudes. 4. Balance exist when you like a person you are associated with (+1 x +1), or dislike a person you are not associated with (-1 x -1). 5. Imbalance exists when you dislike a person you are associated with (+1 x -1) or like a person with whom you are not associated with (-1 x +1) 6. Imbalance is stressful and you will tend to change one of the cognitive components.

Description
If we feel we are 'out of balance', then we are motivated to restore a position of balance. Analytically, Balance Theory can be described as follows: P: the a person to analyse O: A comparison person (O) X: A comparison 'thing', such as a impersonal entity, which could be a physical object, an idea or an event. This may also be a third person. The goal is now to understand the relationships between each pair (P-O, P-X, O-X), in terms of: L: liking, evaluating and approving, or U: A more general cognitive unit that is formed, such as similarity or belonging. This can be written in notation to show negative or positive relationship such as PLX (P Likes X) and P~UO (P does not have relationship U, or has negative relationship U, with X). Where just one relationship is being studied, it can also be written P+X and P-O to show positive and negative relationships. The 'balance' of balance theory considers the consistency of logic between each relationship and the triangle set of pairs can be in balance or out of balance. There are four sets of relationships that are usually balanced: P+O, P+X, O+X P-O, P-X, O+X P-O, P+X, O-X P+O, P-X, O-X

There are also four typically unbalanced relationships, that are likely to be turned into the above balanced relationships in order to restore balance:

P+O, P-X, O+X P+O, P+X, O-X P-O, P+X, O+X P-O, P-X, O-X

Heider (1958) illuminated this thus: my my my my friends friend is my friend friends enemy is my enemy enemys friend is my enemy enemys enemy is my friend

Newcombe (1953) added a third state of 'non-balance' and showed how the model can be used to highlight inconsistency in communication between three people. He talked about the 'strain toward symmetry' where both O and P tend towards the same attitude towards X.

Example
Balanced: P+O, P+X, O+X: Jim likes Jane, Jim likes skiing, Jane likes skiing. Unbalanced: P+O, P-X, O+X: Jim likes Jane, Jim does not like skiing, Jane likes skiing.

Congruity Theory
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. This theory was developed by Osgood and Tannenbaum. It deals with attitudes (evaluations) and relationships Attitudes are measured on a 7 point scale from +3 to -3. Attitudes are always toward some object. Objects may become linked in our mind, that is form a bond. There are two types of bonds: o Associative (positive link between objects) o Dissociative (negative link between objects) o These links are similar to unit formation in the Balance model of Heider. 6. Congruity exists when our evaluation of (attitude toward) two objects that are associatively bonded are identical in magnitude and direction. We like the Democratic Party, and we like National Health Insurance and we learn that the Democratic Party endorses National Health Insurance (Associative Bond). 7. Congruity also exists when our evaluation of (attitude toward) two objects that are dissociatively bonded are identical in magnitude and opposite in direction. We like the Democratic Party, and we dislike Multinational Companies and we learn that the Democratic Party rejects Multinational Companies (Dissociative Bond). 8. Incongruity exists when our evaluation of (attitude toward) two objects that are associatively bonded are not identical in magnitude. We like the Democratic Party, and we like Election Reform and we learn that the Democratic Party criticize Election Reform. 9. Incongruity also exists when our evaluation of (attitude toward) two objects that are dissociatively bonded are not identical in magnitude. We like the Democratic Party, and we dislike Continuation of Tax Advantages and we learn that the Democratic Party supports Continuation of Tax Advantages. 10. When there is incongruity people feel the effects and are motivated to change their attitudes to make them congruent. Both attitudes change. The weaker attitude changes more, the stronger attitude changes less. Attitudes do not change direction (sign).

Dissonance Theory
This theory was proposed by Leon Festinger.

Cognitive dissonance theory is based on three

fundamental assumptions. 1. Humans are sensitive to inconsistencies between actions and beliefs.

According to the theory, we all recognize, at some level, when we are acting in a way that is inconsistent with our beliefs/attitudes/opinions. In effect, there is a built in alarm that goes off when we notice such an inconsistency, whether we like it or not. For example, if you have a belief that it is wrong to cheat, yet you find yourself cheating on a test, you will notice and be affected by this inconsistency.

2. Recognition of this inconsistency will cause dissonance, and will motivate an individual to resolve the dissonance.

Once you recognize that you have violated one of your principles,you will feel some sort of mental anguish about this. The degree of dissonance, of course, will vary with the importance of your belief/attitude/principle and with the degree of inconsistency between your behavior and this belief. In any case, according to the theory, the greater the dissonance the more you will be motivated to resolve it.

3. Dissonance will be resolved in one of three basic ways: a. Change beliefs

Perhaps the simplest way to resolve dissonance between actions and beliefs is simply to change your beliefs. You could, of course, just decide that cheating is o.k. This would take care of any dissonance. However, if the belief is fundamental and important to you such a course of action is unlikely. Moreover, our basic beliefs and attitudes are pretty stable, and people dont just go around changing basic beliefs/attitudes/opinions all the time, since we rely a lot on our world view in predicting events and organizing our thoughts. Therefore, though this is the simplest option for resolving dissonance its probably not the most common.

b. Change actions

A second option would be to make sure that you never do this action again. Lord knows that guilt and anxiety can be motivators 3

for changing behavior. So, you may say to yourself that you will never cheat on a test again, and this may aid in resolving the dissonance. However, aversive conditioning (i.e., guilt/anxiety) can often be a pretty poor way of learning, especially if you can train yourself not to feel these things. Plus, you may really benefit in some way from the action thats inconsistent with your beliefs. So, the trick would be to get rid of this feeling without changing your beliefs or your actions, and this leads us to the third, and probably most common, method of resolution. c. Change perception of action

A third and more complex method of resolution is to change the way you view/remember/perceive your action. In more colloquial terms, you would "rationalize" your actions. For example, you might decide that the test you cheated on was for a dumb class that you didnt need anyway. Or you may say to yourself that everyone cheats so why not you? In other words, you think about your action in a different manner or context so that it no longer appears to be inconsistent with your beliefs. If you reflect on this series of mental gymnastics for a moment you will probably recognize why cognitive dissonance has come to be so popular. If youre like me, you notice such post-hoc reconceptualiztions (rationalizations) of behavior on the part of others all the time, though its not so common to see it in ones self.