Some dynamics of social balance processes: bringing Heider back into balance theory

Structural (or social) balance is regarded as a fundamental social process. It has been used to explain how the feelings, attitudes and beliefs, which the social actors have towards each other, promotes the formation of stable (but not necessarily conflict free) social groups. While balance theory has a rich and long history, it has lost favor in recent times. The empirical work has taken one of two forms. Most empirical work on social balance has focused on dyads and triples, and findings have been inconsistent. The remaining studies focus on the structure of the group as a whole. Results here have been inconsistent also. One major problem is that the first line of work is based only on the source ideas of Heider while the second has been based only on the ideas of Cartwright and Harary. Some of the inconsistencies may be due to this empirical split where the two streams of ideas do not inform each other. We propose a new theoretical model for social balance in the form of an agent-based simulation model. The results we present account for several of the inconsistencies found in the literature. The model simulates distinct but interdependent social actors making positive and negative selections of each other in efforts to reach balanced cognitive states. The design variables for the simulations are group size, degree of contentiousness of a group and the mode of communicating choices regarding the existence and sign of social ties. The group level balance mechanism used by the dynamic model is based on the idea of partition balance, as proposed by Doreian and Mrvar [Soc. Netw. 18 (1996) 149]. Actor selections, over time, generate networks that partition group members into stable, balanced subsets at equilibrium or near equilibrium. The design variables have complicated impacts on the number of actor choices made to reach balance, the level of group imbalance, the number of actors with balanced images and the number of plus-sets formed.

[1]  James A. Davis.  Clustering and Structural Balance in Graphs , 1977 .

[2]  F. Stokman.  Evolution of social networks , 1997 .

[3]  M. A. Anusuya,et al.  Human Intelligence , 1965, Nature.

[4]  M. Moore,et al.  Structural balance and international relations , 1979 .

[5]  Patrick Doreian,et al.  Pre‐transitive balance mechanisms for signed networks , 2001 .

[6]  K. Opp.  Balance Theory: Progress and Stagnation of a Social Psychological Theory , 1984 .

[7]  T. Newcomb.  Reciprocity of Interpersonal Attraction: A Nonconfirmation of a Plausible Hypothesis , 1979 .

[8]  T. Newcomb.  The acquaintance process , 1961 .

[9]  K. Lewin.  Field theory in social science , 1951 .

[10]  W. A. Scott,et al.  Cognitive Complexity and Cognitive Balance , 1963 .

[11]  P. Nordlie,et al.  A longitudinal study of interpersonal attraction in a natural group setting , 1958 .

[12]  Patrick Doreian,et al.  Event sequences as generators of social network evolution , 2002, Soc. Networks.

[13]  R. Kapuściński,et al.  A brief history of balance through time , 1996 .

[14]  Linton C. Freeman,et al.  Words, Deeds and Social Structure: A Preliminary Study of the Reliability of Informants , 1987 .

[15]  Paul M. Baker,et al.  The Development of Mutuality in Natural Small Groups , 1983 .

[16]  L. Freeman,et al.  On human social intelligence , 1988 .

[17]  Norman,et al.  Structural Models: An Introduction to the Theory of Directed Graphs. , 1966 .

[18]  P. Doreian,et al.  A partitioning approach to structural balance , 1996 .

[19]  David Krackhardt,et al.  Cognitive social structures , 1987 .

[20]  L. Freeman,et al.  Cognitive Structure and Informant Accuracy , 1987 .

[21]  C. White,et al.  A limitation of balance theory: The effects of identification with a member of the triad , 1977 .

[22]  B. A. Farbey,et al.  Structural Models: An Introduction to the Theory of Directed Graphs , 1966 .

[23]  F. Heider.  The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .

[24]  Thomas J. Fararo,et al.  Assessing hierarchy and balance in dynamic network models , 1995 .

[25]  M. Truzzi,et al.  An empirical examination of attitude consistency in complex cognitive structures , 1973 .

[26]  S. Feld,et al.  Patterns of Sociometric Choices: Transitivity Reconsidered , 1982 .

[27]  F. Harary,et al.  STRUCTURAL BALANCE: A GENERALIZATION OF HEIDER'S THEORY1 , 1977 .

[28]  F. Heider.  Attitudes and cognitive organization. , 1946, The Journal of psychology.

[29]  C. White,et al.  Factors affecting balance, agreement and positivity biases in POQ and POX triads , 1979 .