Harold H. Kelley

Bio: Harold H. Kelley is an academic researcher from University of California, Los Angeles. The author has contributed to research in topics: Attribution & Social relation. The author has an hindex of 43, co-authored 67 publications receiving 34599 citations. Previous affiliations of Harold H. Kelley include University of Michigan.

The social psychology of groups

Abstract: This landmark theory of interpersonal relations and group functioning argues that the starting point for understanding social behavior is the analysis of dyadic interdependence. Such an analysis portrays the ways in which the separate and joint actions of two persons affect the quality of their lives and the survival of their relationship. The authors focus on patterns of interdependence, and on the assumption that these patterns play an important causal role in the processes, roles, and norms of relationships. This powerful theory has many applications in all the social sciences, including the study of social and moral norms; close-pair relationships; conflicts of interest and cognitive disputes; social orientations; the social evolution of economic prosperity and leadership in groups; and personal relationships.

The Social Psychology of Groups.

Abstract: This landmark theory of interpersonal relations and group functioning argues that the starting point for understanding social behavior is the analysis of dyadic interdependence. Such an analysis portrays the ways in which the separate and joint actions of two persons affect the quality of their lives and the survival of their relationship. The authors focus on patterns of interdependence, and on the assumption that these patterns play an important causal role in the processes, roles, and norms of relationships. This powerful theory has many applications in all the social sciences, including the study of social and moral norms; close-pair relationships; conflicts of interest and cognitive disputes; social orientations; the social evolution of economic prosperity and leadership in groups; and personal relationships.

The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing

Abstract: Relationship marketing—establishing, developing, and maintaining successful relational exchanges—constitutes a major shift in marketing theory and practice. After conceptualizing relationship marke...

A Theory of Social Comparison Processes

Abstract: Hypothesis I: There exists, in the human organism, a drive to evaluate his opinions and his abilities. While opinions and abilities may, at first glance, seem to be quite different things, there is a close functional tie between them. They act together in the manner in which they affect behavior. A person’s cognition (his opinions and beliefs) about the situation in which he exists and his appraisals of what he is capable of doing (his evaluation of his abilities) will together have bearing on his behavior. The holding of incorrect opinions and/or inaccurate appraisals of one’s abilities can be punishing or even fatal in many situations. It is necessary, before we proceed, to clarify the distinction between opinions and evaluations of abilities since at first glance it may seem that one’s evaluation of one’s own ability is an opinion about it. Abilities are of course manifested only through performance which is assumed to depend upon the particular ability. The clarity of the manifestation or performance can vary from instances where there is no clear ordering criterion of the ability to instances where the performance which reflects the ability can be clearly ordered. In the former case, the evaluation of the ability does function like other opinions which are not directly testable in “objective reality’. For example, a person’s evaluation of his ability to write poetry will depend to a large extent on the opinions which others have of his ability to write poetry. In cases where the criterion is unambiguous and can be clearly ordered, this furnishes an objective reality for the evaluation of one’s ability so that it depends less on the opinions of other persons and depends more on actual comparison of one’s performance with the performance of others. Thus, if a person evaluates his running ability, he will do so by comparing his time to run some distance with the times that other persons have taken. In the following pages, when we talk about evaluating an ability, we shall mean specifically the evaluation of that ability in situations where the performance is unambiguous and is known. Most situations in real life will, of course, present situations which are a mixture of opinion and ability evaluation. In a previous article (7) the author posited the existence of a drive to determine whether or not one’s opinions were “correct”. We are here stating that this same drive also produces behavior in people oriented toward obtaining an accurate appraisal of their abilities. The behavioral implication of the existence of such a drive is that we would expect to observe behaviour on the part of persons which enables them to ascertain whether or not their opinions are correct and also behavior which enables them accurately to evaluate their abilities. It is consequently

An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust

Abstract: Scholars in various disciplines have considered the causes, nature, and effects of trust. Prior approaches to studying trust are considered, including characteristics of the trustor, the trustee, and the role of risk. A definition of trust and a model of its antecedents and outcomes are presented, which integrate research from multiple disciplines and differentiate trust from similar constructs. Several research propositions based on the model are presented.

The psychology of interpersonal relations

Abstract: The psychology of interpersonal relations , The psychology of interpersonal relations , کتابخانه دیجیتال و فن آوری اطلاعات دانشگاه امام صادق(ع)

Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.

Abstract: Evidence is reviewed which suggests that there may be little or no direct introspective access to higher order cognitive processes. Subjects are sometimes (a) unaware of the existence of a stimulus that importantly influenced a response, (b) unaware of the existence of the response, and (c) unaware that the stimulus has affected the response. It is proposed that when people attempt to report on their cognitive processes, that is, on the processes mediating the effects of a stimulus on a response, they do not do so on the basis of any true introspection. Instead, their reports are based on a priori, implicit causal theories, or judgments about the extent to which a particular stimulus is a plausible cause of a given response. This suggests that though people may not be able to observe directly their cognitive processes, they will sometimes be able to report accurately about them. Accurate reports will occur when influential stimuli are salient and are plausible causes of the responses they produce, and will not occur when stimuli are not salient or are not plausible causes.