The discipline of social psychology, which explores the intricate interplay between individuals and the social world, has witnessed remarkable growth in its relatively short history. With its roots extending back just over a century, social psychology has evolved significantly, primarily during the past six decades. This historical overview will primarily focus on the psychological branch of social psychology, while acknowledging the existence of sociological social psychology, emphasizing their distinct orientations and the challenges associated with merging them into a single field.
A Tale of Two Social Psychologies
Within the broader landscape of social psychology, two distinct branches have emerged: psychological social psychology and sociological social psychology. The former, psychological social psychology, centers its attention on understanding how individuals respond to social stimuli. This branch delves into the intricate processes of perception, cognition, and emotion that govern human interactions within social contexts. On the other hand, sociological social psychology adopts a broader lens, focusing on larger group and societal variables. It explores factors such as socioeconomic status, social roles, cultural norms, and their impact on human behavior and society as a whole.
The Divide Persists
Efforts have been made to bridge the gap between these two branches, with calls for a merger into a unified field of social psychology. In fact, from 1946 to 1967, the University of Michigan offered a joint psychology-sociology doctoral program in pursuit of this goal. However, the distinct orientations and research agendas of the two branches have posed formidable challenges to the realization of this merger. The emphasis on individual-level processes in psychological social psychology and the examination of broader societal factors in sociological social psychology have created a division that remains in place today. The unique perspectives of each branch have proven difficult to reconcile.
The Focus on Psychological Social Psychology
This historical overview will predominantly highlight the psychological branch of social psychology, as it is the larger and more widely recognized of the two. Within psychological social psychology, scholars have explored a wide array of topics, including attitudes, stereotypes, prejudice, conformity, obedience, aggression, interpersonal relationships, and social influence. Groundbreaking research by luminaries such as Solomon Asch, Stanley Milgram, and Leon Festinger has significantly contributed to our understanding of how individuals navigate the complex terrain of social interactions.
In conclusion, social psychology has evolved over the past century, with distinct branches—psychological and sociological—emerging to explore different facets of human behavior in social contexts. While calls for integration persist, the divergent orientations of these branches have thus far precluded a unified field. Nevertheless, both branches have made invaluable contributions to our comprehension of the intricate interplay between individuals and the social world, ensuring that social psychology continues to be a dynamic and evolving discipline.
Individualism as a Cultural Belief System Shaping Social Psychology
Central to the landscape of social psychology is the pervasive influence of individualism—an ideological belief system that has profoundly shaped the field’s development. This cultural perspective posits that society comprises a multitude of distinct individuals who autonomously pursue their personal goals and interests, striving for a degree of independence from external influences. Individualism directs attention to the individual, prioritizing personal needs over group needs. In contrast, collectivism, an opposing belief system, contends that individuals attain their humanity when integrated into a group, emphasizing the primacy of collective needs over individual ones. While roughly 70% of the global population resides in cultures with a collectivist orientation, social psychology has primarily evolved within individualist societies, resulting in a distinct individualist orientation within the discipline.
The Individualist Ideology
At the heart of individualism lies a profound emphasis on the autonomy and uniqueness of individuals. This ideology fosters a cultural climate where personal freedom, self-expression, and the pursuit of individual goals are cherished values. Within individualist societies, the focus shifts to the person as the primary unit of analysis, with individual needs and desires taking precedence over communal interests. The individualist perspective views interpersonal relationships as predominantly voluntary associations, often guided by self-interest and personal fulfillment.
The Collectivist Counterpart
In stark contrast, collectivism champions the importance of community and shared identity. In collectivist cultures, individuals are considered fully human when they are seamlessly integrated into a collective, and the collective’s needs are deemed superior to individual desires. Interdependence among group members is a hallmark of collectivist societies, with individuals willingly subordinating their personal goals for the greater good of the group. Social bonds in collectivist cultures are often deep-rooted and enduring, prioritizing harmony, cohesion, and communal welfare.
The Dominance of Individualism in Social Psychology
While collectivist perspectives are prevalent in a substantial portion of the world’s cultures, social psychology has predominantly developed within individualist societies. Consequently, the discipline has been profoundly influenced by the values, assumptions, and conceptual frameworks associated with individualism. Research in social psychology often reflects an inherent focus on the individual as the locus of analysis, emphasizing personal motivations, cognitive processes, and behavioral patterns. Concepts such as self-concept, self-esteem, and self-efficacy are emblematic of this individualist orientation.
Implications and Challenges
The predominance of individualism in the development of social psychology raises important questions about the universality and generalizability of psychological theories and findings. It underscores the need for cultural sensitivity and awareness within the discipline, acknowledging that the cultural lens through which research is conducted can profoundly shape the questions asked and the interpretations made.
In conclusion, the cultural belief system of individualism has exerted a formidable influence on the trajectory of social psychology. While it has enriched our understanding of individual behavior and cognition, it also necessitates a recognition of the diverse cultural contexts in which psychological phenomena are situated. As social psychology continues to evolve, a critical exploration of the interplay between cultural beliefs, societal values, and psychological research remains an essential endeavor.
Dawning of a Scientific Discipline: 1862-1895
The emergence of social psychology as a distinct field of study owes much to the pioneering efforts of Wilhelm Wundt, the renowned German psychologist often credited as the founder of psychology itself. This formative period, spanning from 1862 to 1895, witnessed the dawning of social psychology as a recognized discipline, shaped by the contributions of both European and North American scholars who journeyed to the University of Leipzig to explore Wundt’s groundbreaking research on the intricacies of the conscious mind.
Wilhelm Wundt envisioned psychology as a multifaceted discipline, dividing it into two distinct branches: physiological psychology and social psychology, which he termed “Volkerpsychologie.” Wundt’s rationale for this division stemmed from his belief that the experimental methods used to study individual psychology within the laboratory setting could not adequately capture the complexities of higher mental processes manifesting during social interactions. He contended that social behavior, despite being composed of individual actors, resulted in outcomes that surpassed the sum of individual mental activities. Consequently, Wundt classified physiological psychology as a natural science akin to biology while situating social psychology within the realm of social science, rooted in philosophy. He argued that experimental methods were appropriate for physiological psychology, whereas nonexperimental methods better suited the intricate study of social interactions.
Wundt’s Contributions and Influence
During the latter phase of his career, Wundt dedicated himself to the study of social psychology, with a particular focus on language and the group mind. His work laid the foundation for future collaborations between psychologists and social anthropologists. Notably, Wundt’s influential writings and the contributions of philosophers like Moritz Lazarus and humanist thinker Heymann Steinthal led to the prolific growth of social psychology in Germany, with the annual bibliography of psychological literature listing over 200 articles annually under the category “social psychology” by the turn of the century.
Despite the intellectual impact of Wundt’s work in Europe, his ideas remained largely inaccessible to American social scientists due to the absence of English translations. Additionally, Wundt’s strong support for German nationalism before and after World War I distanced him from his American students and hindered his influence in the United States. Furthermore, young American scholars were more inclined to align themselves with the natural sciences than with philosophy, making it challenging for Wundt’s ideas to take root.
The Rise of Behaviorism and Logical Positivism
The emergence of behaviorism in the early 20th century, underpinned by logical positivism’s emphasis on empirical verification and direct observation, diverged significantly from Wundt’s vision of social psychology. Behaviorism prioritized experimental methods and focused on observable behaviors. While American sociological social psychology was indirectly influenced by Wundt’s Volkerpsychologie through figures like George Herbert Mead, American psychological social psychology, which became the heart of the discipline, developed largely independently. This marked the emergence of a distinct American brand of social psychology rooted in behaviorist principles and experimental methodologies.
Legacy and Continuation
Today, George Herbert Mead’s symbolic interactionist perspective, inspired by Wundt’s ideas, remains an active area of theory and research within American sociology. The complex interplay of cultural and intellectual influences during this formative period underscores the multifaceted evolution of social psychology as it matured into a thriving scientific discipline, both in Europe and North America.
The nascent years of social psychology, spanning from 1895 to 1935, were marked by pivotal developments and the emergence of key figures who played crucial roles in defining and shaping this burgeoning discipline.
Norman Triplett’s Landmark Study
In 1895, Norman Triplett, an American psychologist at Indiana University, conducted a groundbreaking study that is widely regarded as the first empirical investigation in the field of social psychology. Triplett’s research sought to explore how the presence of others influences an individual’s performance of a task. In his study, children were asked to rapidly wind a line on a fishing reel either in solitude or in the company of other children engaged in the same task. As anticipated, Triplett observed that children wound the line more quickly when in the presence of peers. This pioneering study, published in 1897, marked a historic moment by formally introducing the experimental method into the social sciences. However, despite its significance, Triplett’s work did not explicitly establish social psychology as a distinct subfield of psychology.
The Founding Texts
Credit for solidifying social psychology as a legitimate scientific discipline is often attributed to the authors of the first textbooks bearing that title. In 1908, English psychologist William McDougall and American sociologist Edward Ross independently published separate texts on social psychology. These seminal works laid the foundation for the field’s development.
William McDougall’s Individual-Centric Approach
William McDougall’s perspective in his textbook aligned with the contemporary view in psychological social psychology. He identified the individual as the primary unit of analysis, emphasizing the role of instincts and Darwinian evolutionary processes in shaping social behavior. However, McDougall’s theoretical stance, rooted in evolutionary explanations, soon faced opposition from the emerging behaviorist perspective. Behaviorism emphasized learning and the immediate environment’s influence on behavior, relegating McDougall’s social psychology to a position of limited influence among American psychologists.
Edward Ross and the Sociological Perspective
Edward Ross, on the other hand, advanced a sociological social psychology perspective in his textbook. Ross’s focus on groups and the societal structure aligned with earlier work on crowd psychology by French social scientist Gustave Le Bon. While Ross’s approach resonated with sociological perspectives, it faced its own set of challenges and debates within the evolving discipline.
Floyd Allport’s Individualist Perspective
Floyd Allport, in his 1924 publication, significantly contributed to establishing a distinct identity for psychological social psychology in the United States. His work championed an individualist perspective that would come to dominate the psychological branch of the field. Allport emphasized that social behavior was rooted in the individual, asserting, “There is no psychology of groups which is not essentially and entirely a psychology of individuals…Psychology in all its branches is a science of the individual.” These words exemplified the emerging individualist orientation within psychological social psychology.
Gordon Allport’s groundbreaking conception of social psychology emerged on the psychological landscape approximately 11 years after John Watson’s behaviorist era had ushered in a new era of American psychology. Allport’s brand of social psychology brought forth a fresh perspective that emphasized the individual’s response to stimuli within the social environment, with the group being just one of numerous such stimuli. This perspective marked a shift toward individualism and behaviorism in American social psychology.
One of Allport’s major contributions was his advocacy for the experimental method in studying various aspects of social behavior, such as conformity, nonverbal communication, and social facilitation. This emphasis on carefully controlled experimental procedures set him apart from earlier scholars like Ross and McDougall, who had taken a more philosophical approach to social psychology. Allport’s approach allowed researchers to systematically examine the effects of single variables, either in isolation or in selected combinations, while keeping other variables constant. This methodological rigor was a significant advantage for the field.
However, a notable drawback of Allport’s experimental focus was its tendency to downplay or even disregard cultural and historical aspects of social reality. Instead, it emphasized how individuals react to the presentation of social stimuli. In this context, individuals were often studied as passive objects influenced by external social forces, without much consideration for the possibility that people’s social behavior could be actively shaped by their interpretations of the situation based on their prior social and cultural experiences. In contrast, American sociological social psychology at the time was more inclined to consider the cultural and historical context of social behavior.
During the 1920s, social psychology made strides towards legitimacy within the broader discipline of psychology. A significant milestone was Morton Prince’s decision in 1921 to rename the “Journal of Abnormal Psychology” to the “Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology” and to include Floyd Allport as a cooperating editor. This change signaled the acknowledgment within American psychology that a more comprehensive understanding of human interaction required the study of both personality and situational factors. It also solidified the behaviorist influence on American psychology, as Allport’s brand of social psychology became aligned with clinical and abnormal psychology.
As Allport’s conception of social psychology gained traction, one of his fundamental assumptions about social groups faced challenges. In the early 1930s, Muzafir Sherif, originally from Turkey, conducted research on social norm development in response to his disagreement with Allport’s view that a group was merely a collection of individuals. Sherif argued that a group possessed qualities beyond those of its individual members. Inspired by his collectivist cultural background, Sherif conducted laboratory experiments to study how norms developed within groups. His autokinetic experiments revealed crucial social dynamics related to socialization and the broader process of social influence. A decade later, Theodore Newcomb extended Sherif’s work by conducting longitudinal field studies of reference group influence at Bennington College. Sherif’s research was pivotal as it demonstrated how complex and realistic social situations could be studied in a laboratory setting.
Across the Atlantic, German social psychology was being influenced by the Gestalt perspective, which rejected both the European notion of a group mind and the American individualist view that groups lacked inherent reality. Instead, Gestalt social psychologists argued that the social environment consisted not only of individuals but also of the relationships between them, and these relationships had significant psychological implications. Consequently, Gestalt social psychologists promoted the concept of groups as genuine social entities, laying the groundwork for the ongoing traditions of group processes and group dynamics.
These distinct schools of thought in psychological social psychology, one in America and the other in Germany, developed independently. However, they would soon converge due to global events that would reshape the course of psychology and social psychology on the world stage.
The Coming of Age: 1936-1945
The initial three decades of the 20th century witnessed Gordon Allport’s conception of social psychology primarily focusing on basic research, with limited attention given to addressing specific social issues or broader matters related to societal reform. However, as the mid-1930s dawned, social psychology found itself on the cusp of a transformative period. This pivotal era was marked by two major events that would leave a profound impact on the field: the Great Depression in the United States and the social and political upheavals in Europe spurred by World Wars I and II.
In the aftermath of the 1929 stock market crash, many young psychologists struggled to secure employment. This generation of psychologists directly experienced the consequences of societal forces, leading them to adopt various ideological perspectives. Some embraced the liberal ideals championed by the Roosevelt New Dealers, while others espoused more radical left-wing political views, often affiliating with socialist and communist parties. In 1936, these social scientists united to form the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI). This organization aimed to facilitate the scientific examination of crucial social concerns and promote progressive social action. SPSSI counted among its members numerous social psychologists who were eager to apply their theories and political activism to real-world problems. An essential contribution of SPSSI to social psychology was its infusion of ethics and values into discussions of social life. During the 1930s, this infusion of values led to a shift toward more applied research, resulting in the exploration of new areas such as intergroup relations, leadership, propaganda, organizational behavior, voting behavior, and consumer behavior.
Meanwhile, events abroad contributed to the differentiation of American social psychology from its international counterparts. For instance, the communist revolution in Russia following World War I led to a suppression of individualist-oriented research and theorizing, in stark contrast to the growing emphasis on individualism in American social psychology. In 1936, the Soviet Union’s Communist Party even prohibited the use of psychological tests in various applied settings, effectively stifling the study of individual differences. Simultaneously, the rise of fascism in countries like Germany, Spain, and Italy created an anti-intellectual and anti-Semitic atmosphere. In response to this persecution, many prominent European social scientists, including Fritz Heider, Gustav Ichheiser, Kurt Lewin, and Theodor Adorno, sought refuge in the United States.
With the United States entering World War II, both American and European social psychologists found themselves applying their knowledge of human behavior in various wartime endeavors. This included selecting officers for the Office of Strategic Services (the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency), influencing housewives to make do with less desirable meat products, and crafting propaganda to undermine enemy morale. The collaborative work undertaken during the war demonstrated the practical utility of social psychology to government and philanthropic organizations that would later become major sources of research funding.
Notably, Kurt Lewin, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, emerged as one of the most influential figures in social psychology during this period. He played a pivotal role in founding SPSSI and served as its president in 1941. Lewin firmly believed that social psychology need not choose between being purely theoretical or purely applied. His famous maxim, “No research without action, and no action without research,” continues to inspire social psychologists interested in applying their knowledge to contemporary social issues. Lewin’s impact on the field was profound, and his legacy endured even after his death in 1947.
Following the war, social psychology in North America was poised for growth. Social psychologists, now with enhanced scientific standing, established new research facilities, secured government grants, and played a crucial role in training the next generation of scholars. These future social psychologists were primarily white, male, and middle class. Many of them were returning veterans whose education was funded through the GI Bill. Growing up during the Great Depression and influenced by the politics of New Deal Democrats, they held liberal values that would shape their research and theories. Their mentors often included European scholars who had sought refuge in America. This alignment of liberal values and European mentorship may explain why it was challenging to establish robust social psychology programs in the Old South, where deeply entrenched social conservatism and segregationist policies clashed with liberal social reform.
While social psychology thrived in America, the discipline faced significant challenges overseas, especially in Germany, where the devastation of the war had taken a heavy toll. During this postwar period, the United States emerged as a global superpower, exporting not only its material goods but also its brand of social psychology. In addition to reflecting the liberal leanings of its members, this American strain of social psychology mirrored the political ideology and social issues within the United States, further distinguishing it from its international counterparts.
Rapid Expansion: 1946-1969
The post-World War II period witnessed the rapid expansion and maturation of social psychology, fueled by the infusion of European intellectuals and a new generation of American social psychologists. This era saw the field diversify its theoretical perspectives and research endeavors, exploring a wide array of social phenomena.
One of the prominent inquiries during this period aimed to understand how a civilized society like Germany could succumb to the influence of a ruthless demagogue like Adolf Hitler. Theodor Adorno and his colleagues delved into the authoritarian personality, a concept that analyzed how personality traits and factors emerging during childhood contribute to adult obedience and intolerance of minority groups. Building on this foundation, Stanley Milgram conducted his renowned obedience experiments, which probed the situational factors that lead people to obey destructive authority figures. This line of research shed light on the complex interplay between personality and situational influences on behavior.
Drawing inspiration from Kurt Lewin’s interpretation of Gestalt psychology, other social psychologists directed their attention toward the dynamics of small groups. This emphasis on understanding group processes and interpersonal dynamics contributed to the development of theories and research on topics like leadership and group decision-making.
At Yale University, Carl Hovland and his colleagues employed behaviorist principles to investigate the power of persuasive communication. This research was driven in part by concerns arising during World War II about propaganda, military morale, and the integration of ethnic minorities into the armed services. The broader context of the international conflict with the Soviet Union and the fear of communism also shaped social psychology’s focus on social influence and social dilemmas during the 1950s.
Addressing societal prejudice remained a central concern in social psychology during this period. For instance, the landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision to end racially segregated education drew upon the research of Kenneth Clark and Mamie Phipps Clark, who demonstrated that segregation had detrimental effects on the self-concept of Black children. In the same year, Gordon Allport outlined a theoretical framework for how desegregation might reduce racial prejudice, known as the contact hypothesis. This perspective aimed to reduce intergroup hostility by manipulating situational variables, aligning more closely with the behaviorist tradition of American social psychology than the earlier authoritarian personality approach.
The 1950s also saw the emergence of Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance, which posited that people are motivated to maintain cognitive consistency in their thoughts and actions. The theory’s simplicity and its often surprising findings generated significant interest both within and beyond the field of social psychology. However, by the late 1960s, the sheer volume of research on cognitive dissonance had waned, largely because its core propositions had been extensively validated through numerous studies.
The 1960s were a period of profound social upheaval in the United States, marked by political assassinations, urban unrest, social protests, and the Vietnam War. People sought constructive ways to bring about societal change, prompting social psychologists to investigate a range of topics such as aggression, helping behavior, attraction, and love. The groundbreaking research of Elaine Hatfield and Ellen Berscheid on interpersonal and romantic attraction, for example, expanded the scope of social psychological inquiry. However, it also stirred controversy outside the field, with some public officials and citizens questioning whether social scientists should delve into the mysteries of romance. In contrast, the bystander intervention research conducted by Bibb Latane and John Darley, inspired by the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese in New York City, focused on understanding factors that influence people’s willingness to assist others in emergency situations, with less controversy but significant societal relevance.
Crisis and Reassessment: 1970-1984
The 1960s marked a period of substantial growth in social psychology, with an influx of new scholars, including a rising number of women and, to a lesser extent, individuals from minority backgrounds. This expansion led to a diversification of research interests, with increasing attention to the interplay between the social situation and personality traits. This interactionist perspective is now evident in the titles of social psychology’s premier journals: the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
However, this period of growth also raised ethical concerns in the realm of research. Controversial studies, notably Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments from the 1960s, raised questions about the potential psychological harm to participants. In these experiments, volunteers were ordered to administer apparent electric shocks to another person, although no real harm was inflicted. Nonetheless, the stress experienced by participants was real. These ethical concerns prompted significant debate and led to the development of regulations in 1974 that required institutions seeking federal funding to establish institutional review boards to ensure the health and safety of human participants.
Simultaneously, social psychologists began to question the validity of their scientific methods and the relevance of their discipline. Initial post-World War II expectations that social psychologists could collaborate with organizations to solve societal problems had not been fully realized by the 1970s, leading to a crisis of confidence. Kenneth Gergen argued that social psychology should be viewed as a historical discipline rather than a purely scientific enterprise because the psychological principles underlying social behavior could change over time and across cultures. Criticism emerged, with claims that past research and theories reflected the biases of a White, male-dominated perspective. This criticism prompted a reassessment of the field’s foundational premises and ultimately led to a more inclusive and diverse social psychology, both in terms of scientific methods and the composition of its members.
The 1970s marked a theoretical shift in a longstanding debate regarding the nature of human behavior. Some social psychologists had traditionally emphasized that people are primarily driven by their needs, desires, and emotions, adopting a “hot” approach that prioritized emotional impulses over rational planning. In contrast, the “cold” perspective argued that people’s actions are primarily influenced by rational analysis of choices within specific situations. While the “hot” perspective held sway in the 1950s and 1960s, the “cold” perspective gained dominance in the 1980s, driven by the infusion of cognitive psychology ideas and the rise of social cognition.
Attribution theory emerged as an early attempt to test models in which social judgments were thought to result from rational cognitive processes. These theories drew inspiration from the work of social psychologists Gustav Ichheiser and Fritz Heider. Heider’s contributions have long been recognized, but it’s worth noting that Ichheiser’s work is only recently gaining recognition. The emphasis on social cognition brought fresh insights to areas such as attitudes, persuasion, prejudice, intimacy, and aggression and remains the prevailing perspective in contemporary social psychology.
Alongside the social cognitive focus and the growing interactionist orientation of research, interest in the concept of the self experienced a resurgence. Previously, the study of the self had been primarily within the domain of sociological social psychology. While the concept of the self had implicitly influenced attitude research and other areas of social psychology, the dominance of behaviorism since 1913 had relegated it to relative obscurity. As behaviorism waned in influence, psychological social psychologists revisited the insights of founding social scientists like William James, John Dewey, Charles Horton Cooley, and George Herbert Mead. This renewed focus on the self was a fulfillment of a wish expressed by Gordon Allport in his 1943 presidential address to the American Psychological Association, where he lamented the neglect of the self as a central concept. Three decades after Allport’s address, the concept of the self was making a comeback and becoming a central focus within psychological social psychology.
The resurgence of interest in the self during this era was not only a theoretical shift but also a methodological one. Researchers increasingly employed experimental methods to investigate self-concept, self-esteem, and self-perception. The self became a central focus for understanding various aspects of social behavior, including social influence, attitude change, and interpersonal dynamics. This renewed emphasis on the self had a profound impact on the field and contributed to a richer understanding of how individuals perceive and interact with the social world.
The 1970s also saw a growing awareness of the need for greater diversity and inclusivity within social psychology. Scholars began to challenge the field’s traditional reliance on research conducted primarily with White, Western, and male participants. This led to a more concerted effort to incorporate diverse perspectives and populations in research, recognizing that social psychology needed to be more representative of the broader human experience.
Additionally, the feminist movement of the 1970s had a significant influence on social psychology. Feminist scholars within the field critiqued the gender bias present in much of the existing research and advocated for a more inclusive and gender-sensitive approach to studying social behavior. This led to a wave of research on topics such as gender roles, sexism, and gender-based discrimination, enriching our understanding of how gender dynamics shape social interactions.
The cognitive revolution, which emphasized the importance of mental processes in understanding behavior, continued to reshape social psychology during this period. The study of cognitive processes such as memory, judgment, and decision-making became increasingly central to the field. Researchers explored how individuals process and store information about the social world, shedding light on the mechanisms underlying social perception and social cognition.
One notable development in the 1970s was the growth of social neuroscience, a field that investigates the neural underpinnings of social behavior. Researchers began to use neuroimaging techniques to study how the brain responds to social stimuli, providing valuable insights into the biological basis of social processes such as empathy, social decision-making, and social perception.
The 1970s and 1980s also witnessed the emergence of social psychology as an interdisciplinary field. Social psychologists increasingly collaborated with researchers from other disciplines, such as sociology, anthropology, economics, and political science, to address complex social issues from multiple perspectives. This interdisciplinary approach enriched the field and expanded its relevance beyond traditional psychological boundaries.
Expanding Global and Interdisciplinary View: 1985-Present
As we progress into the late 20th century and beyond, social psychology has undergone significant transformations, expanding its horizons on a global scale and embracing interdisciplinary perspectives.
By the 1970s, social psychology had gained traction not only in the United States but also in Europe and Latin America, leading to the establishment of regional social psychological associations. Notably, in 1995, the Asian Association of Social Psychology was founded. These international developments brought new insights and perspectives to the field. Overseas social psychology placed a greater emphasis on intergroup dynamics and societal variables in explaining social behavior compared to its American counterpart.
For instance, French social psychologist Serge Moscovici explored how shared cultural experiences shape individuals’ social perceptions and how minority groups can trigger social innovation and change. Similarly, Henri Tajfel and John Turner’s work on group processes and social perception emphasized the importance of analyzing the relations between groups and how group life influences an individual’s social identity and thinking. Tajfel’s research on categorization contributed to our understanding of the stereotyping process. The contributions of these European social psychologists can be traced back to the intellectual heritage of scholars like Durkheim and Wundt from the 19th century and, more directly, to the insights of early 20th-century Gestalt psychology.
By the mid-1980s, the global influence of social psychology had begun to reshape the discipline significantly. Scholars from diverse cultural backgrounds actively exchanged ideas and collaborated on multinational studies. This cross-cultural research challenged previously held assumptions about universal social beliefs and behaviors, revealing that some aspects of human behavior were culturally specific, while others were influenced by shared evolutionary heritage.
This era witnessed a resurgence of interest in examining the evolutionary underpinnings of social behavior. Researchers began to explore how evolutionary forces might have endowed humans with specific capacities and how current social and environmental factors interact with these capacities. This approach sought to bridge the gap between evolutionary psychology and sociocultural explanations, recognizing that both perspectives could contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of social behavior.
Despite the dominance of social cognition in the 1980s, concerns arose about the relative neglect of emotions and motives in explaining social thinking. Critics argued that reducing motives and affect to end products of a central processing system dehumanized social psychology. In response, in the early 1990s, social psychologists sought a more balanced view by integrating the traditional “hot” and “cold” perspectives into what became known as the “warm look.” This approach posited that people employ multiple cognitive strategies based on their goals, motives, and needs. Theorists developed dual-process models, where social thinking and behavior are influenced by two distinct ways of processing information: one involving deliberate, reflective thought and another characterized by impulsive, emotion-driven responses. The choice between these modes of information processing depends on the individual’s current cognitive state, a topic of ongoing research.
The renewed emphasis on both explicit and implicit cognition has prompted social psychologists to explore the neural underpinnings of various social psychological processes. This includes investigating how brain activity relates to self-awareness, self-regulation, attitude formation and change, group dynamics, and prejudice. While the number of researchers pursuing this line of inquiry remains relatively small, their work holds the potential to reshape existing theories and deepen our understanding of the biological foundations of social behavior.
In addition to advancing theoretical knowledge, contemporary social psychologists have continued to apply their insights to a wide range of real-world contexts. This includes fields such as law, health, education, politics, sports, and business. This applied focus aligns with the field’s longstanding tradition of using scientific principles to address practical societal challenges. However, some social psychologists have engaged in a debate over whether the discipline has disproportionately emphasized negative social behaviors and human flaws at the expense of studying human strengths. While opinions on this matter vary, those advocating for a focus on understanding social problems argue that it will lead to more lasting societal benefits.
In summary, as we assess the journey of social psychology from 1985 to the present, we find a discipline in its young adulthood within the social sciences. While still relatively youthful compared to more established sciences, social psychology stands as a vibrant field that welcomes new ideas, incorporates interdisciplinary perspectives, and continually questions the societal implications of its findings. Social psychologists are confident that their evolving science will continue to illuminate essential insights into how humans function as social beings, addressing both the challenges and strengths of our shared social experience.
- Allport, F. H. (1924). .Socialpsychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
- Farr, R. M. (1996). The roots of modern social psychology: 1872-1954. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
- Smith, M. B. (2005). “Personality and social psychology”: Retrospections and aspirations. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 9, 334-340.