History Of Social Psychology: Phases Of Development And Main Authors
Roughly Social psychology is responsible for studying the relationships between the individual and society That is, it is interested in explaining and understanding the interaction between people and groups, produced in social life.
At the same time, social life is understood as a system of interaction, with particular communication mechanisms and processes, where the needs of each other create explicit and implicit norms, as well as meanings and structuring of relationships, behaviors and conflicts (Baró, 1990).
These objects of study could be traced back to the most classical philosophical traditions, since the interest in understanding group dynamics in relation to individual dynamics has been present even before modern times.
Nevertheless, The history of social psychology is usually told from the first empirical works since these are what allow it to be considered a discipline with sufficient “scientific validity”, in contrast to the “speculative” character of philosophical traditions.
Having said this, we will now see a tour of the history of social psychology, starting with the first works of the late 19th century, until the crisis and contemporary traditions.
Social psychology began its development in the course of the 19th century and was permeated by a fundamental question, which had also permeated the production of knowledge in other social sciences. This question is the following: What is it that keeps us united within a certain social order? (Baró, 1990).
Under the influence of the dominant currents in psychology and sociology, fundamentally based in Europe, the answers to this question were found around the idea of a “group mind” that keeps us with each other beyond individual interests and our differences.
This occurs alongside the development of the same disciplines, where the works of different authors are representative. In the psychological field, Wilhelm Wundt studied mental products generated in community and the links they produced. For his part, Sigmund Freud maintained that the bond is sustained by emotional ties and collective identification processes, especially in relation to the same leader.
From sociology, Émile Durkheim spoke about the existence of a collective consciousness (normative knowledge) that cannot be understood as individual consciousness but as a social fact and a coercive force. For his part, Max Weber suggested that what keeps us together is ideology since from this the interests become values and specific objectives.
These approaches started from considering society as a whole, from which it is possible to analyze how individual needs are linked to the needs of the whole itself.
Second stage: social psychology at the turn of the century
Baró (1990) calls this period, which corresponds to the beginning of the 20th century, “the Americanization of social psychology,” as the center of its studies ends moving from Europe to the United States. In this context, the question is no longer so much what keeps us united in a social order (in the “whole”), but what initially leads us to integrate into it. In other words, the question is How does an individual harmoniously integrate into this social order?
The latter corresponds to two problems in the American context of the moment: on the one hand, growing immigration and the need to integrate people into a certain scheme of values and interactions; and on the other, the demands of the rise of industrial capitalism
At a methodological level, the production of data supported by the criteria of modern science, beyond theoretical production, takes on special relevance here, with which the experimental approach that had already been developing begins its rise.
Social influence and individual focus
It was in 1908 that the first works in social psychology emerged. Its authors were two North American academics named William McDougall (who placed special emphasis on the psychological) and Edmund A. Ross (whose emphasis was more focused on the social). The first of them maintained that the human being has a series of innate or instinctive tendencies that psychology can analyze from a social approach That is, he maintained that psychology could account for how society “moralizes” or “socializes” people.
On the other hand, Ross considered that beyond studying the influence of society on the individual, social psychology should address the interaction between individuals. That is, he suggested studying the processes through which we influence each other, as well as differentiating between the different types of influences we exert.
An important connection between psychology and sociology emerges at this time. In fact, during the development of symbolic interactionism and the works of George Mead, a tradition often called “Sociological Social Psychology” emerged, which theorized about the use of language in interaction and the meanings of social behavior.
But, Perhaps the most remembered of the founders of social psychology is the German Kurt Lewin The latter gave a definitive identity to the study of groups, which was decisive for the consolidation of social psychology as a discipline with its own object of study.
Development of the experimental approach
As social psychology consolidated, it was necessary to develop a study method that, under the positivist canons of modern science, would definitively legitimize this discipline. In this sense, and along with “Sociological Social Psychology”, a “Psychological Social Psychology” was developed. more linked to behaviorism, experimentalism and logical positivism
Hence, one of the most influential works of this time is that of John B. Watson, who considered that for psychology to be scientific, it had to be definitively separated from metaphysics and philosophy, as well as adopt the approach and methods of the “hard sciences” (physicochemistry).
From this, behavior begins to be studied in terms of what is possible to observe. Forks psychologist Floyd Allport who in the 1920s ended up transferring the Watsonian approach to the practice of social psychology.
In this line, social activity is considered as the result of the sum of individual states and reactions; question that ends up moving the focus of study towards the psychology of individuals, especially under laboratory space and controls
This model, of an empicist nature, was concentrated mainly on the production of data, as well as on obtaining general laws under a model of “the social” in terms of pure interaction between organisms studied within a laboratory; which ended up distancing social psychology from the reality it was supposed to study (Íñiguez-Rueda, 2003).
The latter will be criticized later by other approaches to social psychology itself and other disciplines, which, combined with the following political conflicts, will lead the social sciences to an important theoretical and methodological crisis
After the Second World War
The Second World War and its consequences at the individual, social, political and economic level brought with it new issues that, among other things, relocated the work of social psychology.
The areas of interest at this time were mainly the study of group phenomena (especially in small groups, as a reflection of large groups), the processes of formation and change of attitudes, as well as the development of personality as a reflection and driving force of society (Baró, 1990).
There was also an important concern to understand what lay beneath the apparent unity of groups and social cohesion. And on the other hand, interest in the study of social norms, attitudes, and conflict resolution was growing; and the explanation of phenomena such as altruism, obedience and conformism
For example, the works of Muzafer and Carolyn Sheriff on conflict and social norm are representative of this time. In the area of attitudes, the studies of Carl Hovland are representative, and accordingly the experiments of Solomon Asch are classic. In obedience, Stanley Milgram’s experiments are classics
On the other hand, there was a group of psychologists and social theorists concerned about understand what elements had unleashed the Nazi regime and World War II. Among others Here the Frankfurt School and critical theory emerge, whose greatest exponent is Theodore W. Adorno. This opens the way to the next stage in the history of social psychology, marked by disenchantment and skepticism towards the same discipline.
Third stage: the crisis of social psychology
Not without the previous approaches having disappeared, the decade of the 60’s opened new reflections and debates on the what, how and why of social psychology (Íñiguez-Rueda, 2003).
This occurs within the framework of the military and political defeat of the North American vision, which among other things showed that The social sciences were not immune to historical conflicts and to power structures, but on the contrary (Baró, 1990). Consequently, different ways of validating social psychology emerged, which developed in constant tension and negotiation with traditional, more positivist and experimentalist approaches.
The crisis was not only caused by external factors, which also included protest movements, the “crisis of values”, changes in the global productive structure and questions about the models that dominated the social sciences (Iñiguez-Rueda , 2003).
Internally, the principles that sustained and legitimized traditional social psychology (and social sciences in general) were strongly questioned. They arise like this new ways of seeing and doing science and producing knowledge Among these elements were mainly the imprecise nature of social psychology and the tendency towards experimental research, which began to be considered very far from the social realities that he studied.
In the European context The works of psychologists such as Serge Moscovici and Henry Tajfel were key and later the sociologists Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, among many others.
From here, reality begins to be seen as a construction. Furthermore, there is growing interest in a conflictive approach to social order, and finally, a concern for the political role of social psychology and its transformative potential (Baró, 1990). In contrast to sociological social psychology and psychological social psychology, a critical social psychology emerges in this context.
To give an example and following Iñiguez-Rueda (2003), we will see two approaches that emerged from contemporary paradigms of social psychology.
The professional approach
In this approach, social psychology is also called applied social psychology and even may include community social psychology Broadly speaking, it is about the professional inclination towards intervention.
It is not so much about “applying the theory” in the social context, but rather about valuing the theoretical and knowledge production that was carried out during the intervention itself. It acts especially under the premise of seeking solutions to social problems outside the academic and/or experimental context, and the technologization that had gone through much of social psychology.
Transdisciplinary approach
It is one of the paradigms of critical social psychology, where beyond constituting an interdisciplinary approach, which would imply the connection or collaboration between different disciplines, it is about maintain this collaboration without the strict division between one and the other
These disciplines include, for example, psychology, anthropology, linguistics, and sociology. In this context, it is of special interest to develop reflective practices and research with a sense of social relevance.
