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
Why does pUo imply oUp, but it pLo does not imply oLp?
Another example would be the tendency to admire loved persons and to love admired persons.
Although love and admiration are two different things, they are both positive. That is what creates a balance in these attitudes. This is important to the history of psychology to help show a deeper understanding of how different emotions can hold the same attitudes. This allows psychologist to take a deeper dive into what attitudes are considered negative and what attitudes are considered positive and to develop a better understanding of how these attitudes can impact relationships with people or events when they coexist at the same time.
pproach 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
The three cases of inner conflict
If a change is not possible, the state of imbalance will produce tension.
How long can this produce tension for?
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 if all three possible relations are positive in all respects.
So does this new hypothesis infer that when there are two entities a balanced state is present if both entities have a mutual relation whether that be positive or negative, while if there are three entities a balanced state will only exist if the relations are only mutually positive? Why can it be both positive and negative with two entities, but it has to be only positive with one entity?
n 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.
It is important to not this to refer back to for statements further in the article. This will give a good insight into how this hypothesis is tested and it will make understanding examples easier. It is important to have this to understand how attitudes can be connected to people and or events.
) A balanced state exists if all parts of a unit have the same dynamic character
Another section of the hypothesis-
though the case with three negative relations does not seem to constitute a good psychological balance, since it is too indetermined.
So when there are three entities with a negative relation, it creates an unfavorable psychological balance.- this answers some questions I had in the previous paragraph.
s to be expected, it plays a role contrary to that of pLp. Examples: if p has low self regard he might reject a positive x as too good for him; if p has guilt feelings he will think he ought to be punished; if his friend admires his product he will think it only politeness. A negative action attributed to himself will produce p ~ Lp, etc.
It is interesting to see the difference when it comes to self regard. So if there is a negative attitude towards self, it can create an underlying negative attitude about other things. This negative attitude is not particularly expressed, but more internal?
. An attitude towards an event can alter the attitude towards the person who caused the event
So if an event is an unfavorable one, will this lead to an unfavorable attitude towards an individual who was present in the event? Or would it lead to an unfavorable attitude only towards the individual who caused the event? For example say you are at a party and someone spills a drink on you to embarrass you in front of everyone, would you only have a negative attitude or perception of the person who spilt a drink on you, or would you hold that attitude for everyone there subconsciously?
n the case of three entities, a balanced state exists if all three relations are positive in all respects, or if two are negative and one positive.
So as long as there is at least partial positive in a case of three entities there will be a balanced state-
This fact also throws light on the problem of the understanding of behavior.
This is one of the greatest contributions this has to the history of psychology. Understanding how attitudes can be impacted can lead to a better understanding of how behavior can be developed. This is not only behavior towards other people, but this can also be about behavior an individual has about themselves. This allows for more space to investigate what leads to certain decisions that are made due to behaviors that are held and influenced by attitudes.