1962
DOI: 10.1177/001872676201500306
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Structural Factors in Cognitive Balancing Behavior

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1967
1967
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Another possibility (e.g., Zajonc & Burnstein, 1965a, 1965b) is to see whether subjects learn hypothetical situations that are balanced more easily than situations that are not balanced. In a third widely used paradigm (e.g., Shrader & Lewit, 1962), subjects are asked to add relations to incomplete or unsatisfactory structures. Our procedure, asking subjects to identify causes for sentiments, belongs to the third paradigm, with the important difference that the situations are not hypothetical, but are drawn by subjects from their memory of real-life instances.…”
Section: Study 2: Cognitive Balance In the Explanations Writtenmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another possibility (e.g., Zajonc & Burnstein, 1965a, 1965b) is to see whether subjects learn hypothetical situations that are balanced more easily than situations that are not balanced. In a third widely used paradigm (e.g., Shrader & Lewit, 1962), subjects are asked to add relations to incomplete or unsatisfactory structures. Our procedure, asking subjects to identify causes for sentiments, belongs to the third paradigm, with the important difference that the situations are not hypothetical, but are drawn by subjects from their memory of real-life instances.…”
Section: Study 2: Cognitive Balance In the Explanations Writtenmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Zajonc and Burnstein (1965a: 154-155) pointed out that, 'The theories of balance (Cartwright and Harary, 1956; Heider, 1946; Newcomb, 1953), congruity (Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955), and dissonance (Festinger, 1957), which deal with the problems of relational consistencies, all assume that balance, congruity, and consonance are the "normal", "expected", and "desired" state of affairs, while imbalance, incongruity, and dissonance are the "unexpected" and the "undesired" states, producing strain and discomfort'. Specifically, because balance is the 'expected' and 'desired' state and because imbalance is the 'unexpected' and the 'undesired' state, one group of studies investigating balance has used a dependent variable tapping the expectancy construct (e.g., Zajonc and Burnstein, 1965a and b;Morisette, 1958;Shrader and Lewit, 1962), whereas another group has used a dependent variable tapping the desirability construct (e.g., Jordan, 1953: Hershkowitz, 1954Rodrigues, 1966;etc.). ' In general, the common dimension underlying operationalizations of the expectancy construct appears to be perceived probability of occurrence (cf.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, the four balance studies (Zajonc and Burnstein, 1965a and b;Morisette, 1958;Shrader and Lewit, 1962) explicitly testing hypotheses based on the expectancy aspects of balance theory seem to be employing dependent variables that are related to a perceived probability of occurrence dimension. Morisette (1958) and Shrader and Lewit (1962) asked subjects to predict whether a positive or a negative relation existed between positions in the structure, given the signs for the relationships between the other positions in the structure. Thus, the subjects' task was to select the relation that had the highest probability of Occurrence given the existing aspects of the structure.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%