Editing Balance theory (section)

===Criticism===
Claude Flament<ref>Claude Flament (1963) ''Application of Graph Theory to Group Structure'', translators Maurice Pinard, Raymond Breton, Fernand Fontaine, chapter 3: Balancing Processes, page 92, [[Prentice-Hall]]</ref> expressed a limit to balance theory imposed by reconciling [[weak ties]] with relationships of stronger force such as [[human bonding|family bonds]]:
:One might think that a [[graph (abstract data type)|valued algebraic graph]] is necessary to represent psycho-social reality, if it is to take into account the degree of intensity of interpersonal relationships. But in fact it then seems hardly possible to define the balance of a graph, not for mathematical but for psychological reasons. If the relationship ''AB'' is +3, the relationship ''BC'' is –4, what should the ''AC'' relationship be in order that the triangle be balanced? The psychological hypotheses are wanting, or rather they are numerous and little justified.

At the 1975 Dartmouth College colloquium on balance theory, Bo Anderson struck at the heart of the notion:<ref>Bo Anderson (1979) "Cognitive Balance Theory and Social Network Analysis: Remarks on some fundamental theoretical matters", pages 453 to 69 in ''Perspectives on Social Network Research'', see page 462.</ref>
:In graph theory there exists a ''formal'' balance theory that contains theorems that are ''analytically'' true. The statement that Heider's ''psychological'' balance can be represented, in its essential aspects, by a suitable interpretation of that ''formal balance theory'' should, however, be regarded as problematical. We cannot routinely identify the positive and negative lines in the formal theory with the positive and negative "sentiment relations", and identify the formal balance notion with the ''psychological'' idea of balance or structural tension. .. It is puzzling that the fine structure of the relationships between formal and psychological balance has been given scant attention by balance theorists.