Social Balance: A Literature Review Paper Example

The relationships among humans often determine the kind of social interactions that exist in the society. Khanafiah and Situngkir (2015) identify sentiment as an essential aspect of social beings as they relate to one another. According to the authors, sentiments create a social subdivision that results in the emergence of two distinct groups. Subsequently, the general sentiments among the different social groups reveal the social system in balance. The balance mainly emanates from the interaction of three components namely; a personality, a perceiver and an object which may sometimes also be a person.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Mostly, sentiment interactions occur in two distinct categories: the positive and the negative. That is to say that one can analyze the relationship between two people based on the sentiments that they have for each other. Accordingly, a balance exists only if the social agents both like or dislike each other (Heider, 1946). If one party has a positive sentiment whereas the other has a negative sentiment, then a state of imbalance manifests.

Heider's balance theory presents premises that have been useful in understanding the concept of social balance. First, the theory hinges on the naive theory of action which is a theoretical outline by which individuals comprehend and predict the behavior of others (Heider, 1946). Mostly, social agents aim for a state of balance in interpersonal relationships (Insko, Songer, & McGarvey, 1974). That is, at any given point of imbalance people will revert to a state of balance. Hummon and Doreian (2003) add that the state of imbalance causes internal pressure that compels an agent to adjust their sentiment relationship to a positive or negative state.

Bosworth, Singer, and Snower (2016) introduce the idea of cooperation and motivation to the concept of social balance. Their views are based on the proposition that people mostly have several, distinct and context-oriented motives. Also, there is a variation of cooperation amongst people in various contexts. Furthermore, the context is predefined before the social agents enter and operate in them. As an example, the same way a football match regulates the relationship between participants so does the wages, and team bonuses invoke varying motivational drives among personnel.

To understand how cooperation and motivation affect social balance, the authors identify two motives namely; self-interested wanting and Caring motive (Bosworth, Singer, & Snower, 2016). Another important factor to note here is that the propensity of individuals to act in either a Self-interested or Caring way depends on what the authors call dispositional traits. Roberts and Pomerantz (2004) also agree that the motives of individuals are influenced by the interactions between social settings and the personality traits. Now, the two types of social settings include the competitive and the cooperative setting. Generally, self-interested people tend to thrive in competitive environments whereas the caring people excel in collaborative settings.

Taking the views of both authors above, one can establish the link between cooperation and motive and social balance. Within each of the settings, social balance occurs when a person interacts with another who shares the same motive (Roberts & Pomerantz, 2004). For instance, if an individual with a self-interested wanting disposition meets a social agent with the same traits, social balance occurs. Likewise, the interaction between an agent with caring motive and another with a similar attribute culminates in a state of social balance. On the contrary, an imbalance occurs when people with different traits relate. Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin and Joireman (1997) refer to the state of social balance or cooperation as prosocial and that of imbalance as individualistic or competitive.

Antal, Krapvisky, and Redner (2005) also present alternative views that are integral to the concept of social balance. In their work, they introduce the idea of the development of social networks as an important indicator of social stability. Friendship and enmity are identified as opposing forces that determine the dynamics of social relationships between different members of the society. It follows that the relationship between close acquaintances represents a state of social balance whereas that of enemies a state of social imbalance.

The dynamic relationship extends beyond two friends or enemies and often incorporates third parties. This relationship hinges on the assumption that; (a) the friend of a friend is a friend, (b) the enemy of a friend is an enemy and (c) the friend of an enemy is an enemy. The main point expressed here is that social balance results only if the dynamic relationship conditions above are fulfilled (Aronson & Cope, 1968). That is to say, for instance, that if the enemy of a social agent forms a partnership with the friend of the agent, then there is a breach of the dynamic conditions and a state of imbalance manifests.

The addition of many members to a given network of social agents presents a challenge to the dynamic relationships and by extension to the status of social balance. According to Antal, Krapvisky, and Redner (2005), large networks always operate in a state of social imbalance. However, there is always the tendency of the social agents to resolve into states of balance as they discover the friendship-enmity status of the different members of the network (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008).

References

Antal, T., Krapivsky, P. L., & Redner, S. (2005). Dynamics of social balance on networks. Physical Review, 62-72.

Aronson, E., & Cope, V. (1968). My enemy's enemy is my friend. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8-12.

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. (2008). Social psychology and human nature, brief version. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.

Bosworth, S. J., Singer, T., & Snower, D. J. (2016). Cooperation, motivation and social balance. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 72-94.

Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 107-112.

Hummon, N. P., & Doreian, P. (2003). Some dynamic of social balance processes: Bringing heider back into balance theory. Social Network, 17-49. Elsevier Science.

Insko, C. A., Songer, E., & McGarvey, W. (1974). Balance, positivity, and agreement in the Jordan paradigm. A defense of balance theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53-83.

Khanafiah, D., & Situngkir, H. (2004). Social balance theory: Revisiting heider's balance theory for many agents. Journal of Social Complexity, 50-62.

Roberts, B. W., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2004). On traits, situations, and their integration: a developmental perspective. Perpectives on Social Psychology, 402-416.

Van Lange, P. M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E. N., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Perspectives in Social Psychology, 733-746.