History of social psychology: stages of development and main authors

Roughly social psychology is responsible for studying the relationships between the individual and society. That is, he is interested in explaining and understanding the interaction between people and groups, produced in social life.

In turn, social life is understood as an interaction system, with particular communication mechanisms and processes, where 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 from the most classical philosophical traditions, since the interest to understand the group dynamics in relation to the individual has been present even before the time modern.

Nevertheless, the history of social psychology is usually told from the first empirical works, since these are the ones that allow it to be considered as a discipline with sufficient "scientific validity", in contrast to the "speculative" character of philosophical traditions.

That said, we will now see a journey through the history of social psychology, beginning with the first works of the late nineteenth century, up to the crisis and contemporary traditions.

• Related article: "What is social psychology?"

First stage: society as a whole

Social psychology begins its development in the course of the nineteenth century and is permeated by a fundamental question, which had also permeated the production of knowledge in other sciences social. This question is the following: What is it that holds us together within a particular social order? (Baró, 1990).

Under the influence of the dominant currents in psychology and sociology, mainly 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 community-generated mental products and the links they produced. For its part, Sigmund Freud He argued that the bond is sustained by affective ties and collective identification processes, especially in relation to the same leader.

From sociology, Émile Durkheim spoke about the existence of a collective conscience (a knowledge normative) that cannot be understood as individual consciousness but as a social fact and a force coercive. For its part, Max Weber suggested that what holds us together is ideology, since from this the interests become values ​​and concrete objectives.

These approaches started from considering society as a whole, from where it is possible to analyze how individual needs are linked to the needs of the same whole.

• You may be interested: "Wilhelm Wundt: Biography of the Father of Scientific Psychology"

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 the social psychology ”, while the center of his studies ends moving from Europe to the United States. United. In this context, the question is no longer so much what it is that keeps us united in a social order (in the “whole”), but what it is that leads us to integrate ourselves into it at first. In other words, the question is how is it that an individual integrates harmoniously into this social order.

The latter corresponds to two problems in the American context of the moment: on the one hand, the growing immigration and the need to integrate people into a scheme of values ​​and interactions determined; 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 science takes on special relevance here modern, beyond theoretical production, with which, the experimental approach that had already been developed begins its boom.

• Related article: "History of Psychology: main authors and theories"

Social influence and individual approach

It is in the year 1908 when the first works in social psychology appear. 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 argued that the human being has a series of innate or instinctive tendencies that psychology can analyze from a social perspective. That is, he argued 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 attend to the interaction between individuals. That is, he suggested studying the processes by which we influence each other, as well as differentiating between the different types of influences that we exert.

An important connection between psychology and sociology emerges at this time. In fact, during the development of the symbolic interactionism and the works of George Mead, emerges a tradition often referred to as "Social Psychology Sociológica ”, which theorized about the use of language in interaction and the meanings of behavior Social.

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 for its own study.

• You may be interested: "Kurt Lewin and the Theory of the Field: the birth of social psychology"

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 the "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 adopting the approach and methods of the "hard sciences" (the physicochemical).

From this, behavior begins to be studied in terms of what it is possible to observe. And it is psychologist Floyd Allport who in the decade of the 20's ends up transferring the Watsonian approach to the exercise 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 empicist model was mainly focused on the production of data, as well as on obtaining laws general 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 that it was supposed to study (Íñiguez-Rueda, 2003).

The latter will be criticized later by other approaches from social psychology itself and from other disciplines, which, together with the following political conflicts, will lead the social sciences to a major 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 them new questions that, among other things, repositioned the work of psychology Social.

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 motor of society (Baró, 1990).

There was also an important concern to understand what was under 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 conformity.

For example, the works of Muzafer and Carolyn Sheriff in conflict and social norm are representative of this time. In the area of ​​attitudes the studies of Carl Hovland are representative, and accordingly they are classics Solomon Asch's experiments. In obedience, Stanley Milgram's experiments are classics.

On the other hand, there was a group of psychologists and social theorists concerned with understand what elements had triggered the Nazi regime and World War II. Among others here arises the Frankfurt School and critical theory, whose maximum exponent is Theodore W. Ornament. 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 opens new reflections and debates about the what, how and why of social psychology (Íñiguez-Rueda, 2003).

This occurs within the framework of the military and political defeat of the American vision, which among other things showed that the social sciences were not alien to historical conflicts and to power structures, but to the contrary (Baró, 1990). Consequently, different ways of validating social psychology emerged, which was developed in constant tension and negotiation with the traditional approaches of a more positivist and experimentalist.

Some characteristics of the crisis

The crisis was not only caused by external factors, among which were also the protest movements, the “crisis of the values ​​”, the changes in the world production structure and the questions about the models that dominated the social sciences (Iñiguez-Rueda, 2003).

Internally, the principles that sustained and legitimized traditional social psychology (and the social sciences in general) were strongly questioned. Arise like this new ways of seeing and doing science and of producing knowledge. Among these elements were mainly the imprecise nature of social psychology and the tendency to experimental research, which began to be seen as far removed from the social realities it studied.

In the European context the works of psychologists such as Serge Moscovici and Henry Tajfel were key, and later sociologists Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, among many others.

From here, reality begins to be seen as a construction. In addition, there is growing interest in a conflictive approach to the social order, and finally, a concern for the political role of social psychology and its transformative potential (Baró, 1990). Faced with 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 the 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 the professional inclination towards intervention.

It is not so much about “applying the theory” in the social context, but about assessing 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 out of context academic and / or experimental, and of the technologization that had gone through much of psychology Social.

• Related article: "The 5 differences between social psychology and community 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, between psychology, anthropology, linguistics, sociology. In this context, it is of special interest to develop reflective practices and research with a sense of social relevance.

Bibliographic references:

• Baró, M. (1990). Action and ideology. Social Psychology from Central America. UCA Editores: El Salvador.
• Íñiguez-Rueda, L. (2003). Social Psychology as Criticism: Continuism, Stability and Effervescences. Three Decades after the "Crisis". Inter-American Journal of Psychology, 37 (2): 221-238.
• Seidmann, S. (S / A). History of Social Psychology. Retrieved September 28, 2018. Available in http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/obligatorias/035_psicologia_social1/material/descargas/historia_psico_social.pdf.