Fritz Heider
ATTITUDES AND COGNITIVE ORGANIZATION
(1946)
First published in The Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-112.
Attitudes towards persons and causal unit formations influence each other. An
attitude towards an event can alter the attitude towards the person who caused
the event, and, if the attitudes towards a person and an event are similar, the
event is easily ascribed to the person. A balanced configuration exists if the
attitudes towards the parts of a causal unit are similar. [1]
It is tempting to generalize from this statement and to omit the restriction to
causal unit formation. Do units in general interact with attitudes in a similar
way?
In trying out this hypothesis we shall understand by attitude the positive or
negative relationship of a person p to another person o or to an impersonal
entity x which may be a situation, an event, an idea, or a thing, etc. Examples
are: to like, to love, to esteem, to value, and their opposites. A positive
relation of this kind will be written L, a negative one ~L. Thus, pLo means p
likes, loves, or values o, or, expressed differently, o is positive for p.
The relation "unit" will be written U. Examples are: similarity, proximity,
causality, membership, possession, or belonging. pUx can mean, for instance, p
owns x, or p made x; p ~ Ux means p does not own x, etc. Other relations which,
in many ways, seem to function like units are: p is familiar with, used to, or
knows well o or x, and p is in situation x. In lumping together all these
relations we are, of course, aware of the dissimiarities between them. Only in a
first approximation can they be treated as belonging to one class.
The hypothesis may be stated in greater detail thus: (a) A balanced state exists
if an entity has the same dynamic character in all possible respects (e.g., if p
admires and at the same time likes o) ; in other words, if pLo or p ~ Lo is true
for all meanings of L. (We may anticipate here that the analogous statement for
pUo does not seem to hold in a general way.) (b) A balanced state exists if all
parts of a unit have the same dynamic character (i.e., if all are positive, or
all are negative), and if entities with different dynamic character are
segregated from each other. If no balanced [p. 108] state exists, then forces
towards this state will arise. Either the dynamic characters will change, or the
unit relations will be changed through action or through cognitive
reorganization. If a change is not possible, the state of imbalance will produce
tension.
The first part of the hypothesis refers to influence of dynamic relations or
attitudes on each other. Since the different dynamic relations are not included
in each other logically ("p likes o" does not imply "p admires o"), the same o
or x can be positive in one respect and negative in another. An example in point
is the conflict between duty and inclination. A tendency exists to make the
different dynamic relations agree with each other by means of cognitive
restructuring (excuses or rationalizations). Another example would be the
tendency to admire loved persons and to love admired persons.
More numerous are the possibilities to which the second part of the hypothesis
refers. They can be grouped according to the entities making up the
configurations: (a) person and non-person (p, x) ; (b) two persons (p, o); (c)
two persons and a non-person (p, o, x); (d) three persons (p, o, q). Many of the
examples seem to substantiate the hypothesis. Examples which do not fit may
eventually lead to greater insight into the nature of the dynamic characters and
of the unit relations. All examples refer to p's life space. This is true even
of oLp which therefore means: p thinks that o likes or admires p.
(a) p and x. Since the own person (p) is usually positive, a balanced state will
exist if p likes what he is united with in any way, or if he dislikes the x he
is segregated from. The cases (pLx) + (pUx) and (p ~ Lx) + (p ~ Ux) are
balanced. Examples: p likes the things he made; p wants to own the things he
likes; p values what he is accustomed to.
(b) p and o. Analogously, the two balanced states for p and o will be: (pLo) +
(pUo) and (P ~ Lo) + (p ~ Uo). Examples: p likes his children, people similar to
him; p is uneasy if he has to live with people he does not like; p tends to
imitate admired persons; p likes to think that loved persons are similar to him.
pUo is a symmetrical relation, i.e., pUo implies oUp. That they belong to a unit
is true for p and o in the same way, though their roles in the unit may be
different (for instance, if U is a causal unit). However, pLo is non-symmetrical
since it does not imply oLp. It is in line with the general hypothesis to assume
that a balanced state exists if pLo and oLp (or p ~ Lo and o ~ Lp) are true at
the same time. Attraction or repulsion between p and ~o are then two-way
affairs; the relation is in symmetrical harmony. pLo is a non-symmetrical
relation logically, but psychologically it [p. 109] tends to become symmetrical.
Examples: p wants to be loved by an admired o; p dislikes People who despise
him. oLp is similar to pLo admire him to pUo. Examples: p likes to meet people
who, he is told, admire him.
(c)p, o, and x. The combinations become more numerous with three entities making
up the configurations. Only a few possibilities can be mentioned. We shall
always give the balanced state in symbols before stating the examples which
refer to it.
(pLo) + (pLx) + (oUx). Both o and x are positive and parts of a unit. Examples:
p admires clothes of loved o; p wants to benefit his friend o; p likes to think
that his friend benefits him. A seeming exception is the case of envy. If o owns
x (oUx) and p likes x (pLx), p ~ Lo may often follow. This exception can be
derived from the fact that ownership is a one-many relation. A person can own
many things but each thing can, ordinarily, be owned only by one person.
Therefore "o owns x"excludes "p owns x," or oUx implies p ~ Ux. Since pLx may
tend toward pUx, conflict is introduced.
Implications between unit relations often lead to conflict. Lewin's three cases
of inner conflict rest on implications. Approach to a positive valence may imply
withdrawal from another positive valence. Withdrawal from a negative valence may
imply approach to another negative valence. Finally, approach to a positive
valence may imply approach to a negative valence if both are located in the same
region. Analogously, one can talk of three cases of outer conflict between
persons. pUx may imply o ~ Ux (for instance, if U means ownership), and if both
want x, conflict (competition) will arise. In the same way conflict appears if p
and o want to get away from x but only one of them can do so (if p ~ Ux implies
oUx and vice versa). Lastly, it may happen that p likes x and o hates it, but p
and o have to move together (pUx implies oUx, e.g., in marriage). They either
can both have x, or both not have it.
Trying out variations of the triad (pLo) + (pLx) + (oUx), we find that (pLo) +
(pLx) + (oLx) also represents a balanced case. Examples: P likes what his friend
o likes; p likes people with same attitudes. This case is not covered by the
hypothesis unless we treat L as equivalent to U. Actually, in many cases the
effects of L and U in these configurations seem to be the same. Furthermore,
this case shows the psychological transitivity of the L relation. A relation R
is transitive if aRb and bRc imply aRc. Thus, p tends to like x if pLo and oLx
hold. As in the case of the symmetry of the pLo relation, we again have to
stress the difference between logical and psychological aspect. Logically, L is
not transitive but there exists a psychological tendency to make it transitive
when implications between [p. 110]U relations do not interfere with
transitivity. The relation U, too, seems (oUx) can lead to be in this sense
psychologically transitive. (PUO) + pUx; p feels responsible for what people
belonging to him do.
Taking into account these considerations, we can reformulate the hypothesis: (a)
In the case of two entities, a balanced state exists if the relation between
them is positive (or negative) in all respects, i.e., in regard to all meanings
of L and U. (b) In the case of three entities, a balanced state exists ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go to the beginning of the document
Go to previous page
Go to next page
Go to the end of document
