Rethinking the Golden Age of Social Psychology

Year 2019, , 195 - 207, 28.06.2019

Onurcan Yılmaz Hasan G. Bahçekapılı

https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2018-0016

Abstract

It is tragic yet curious to realize that a historical period of great human misery can motivate great scientific endeavour. This paper argues that the “golden age” of social psychology was driven by the traumas of fascism. We first trace the roots of the World War II to modernism. We then compare the social psychological studies conducted before and after the World War II in relation to this historical background and the rationality-irrationality debate. Overall, we present a series of examples which purport to show that the “golden age” of social psychology emerged as a response to humans’ violation of different rationality norms. We conclude with a set of proposals for the amelioration of irrationality derived again from social psychological studies.

Keywords

Social psychology, golden age, modernism, history of psychology, rationality

Sosyal Psikolojinin Altın Çağını Yeniden Düşünmek

Abstract

İnsanlığın büyük acılar çektiği tarihsel bir dönemin önemli bilimsel çalışmalara yol açabildiğinin farkına varmak gerek trajik gerekse ilginçtir. Bu yazı sosyal psikolojinin “altın çağı”nın faşizmin yarattığı travmalardan kaynaklandığını savunmaktadır. İlk olarak, İkinci Dünya Savaşı’nın kökenlerini modernizmle ilişkilendiriyoruz. Daha sonra, İkinci Dünya Savaşı öncesi ve sonrası yapılan sosyal psikolojik çalışmaları bu tarihsel dönemle ve rasyonellik-irrasyonellik tartışmasıyla bağlantılı olarak karşılaştırıyoruz. Genel olarak, bu makalede sosyal psikolojinin “altın çağı”nın insanların farklı tipteki rasyonellik normlarını ihlal etmesine bir tepki olarak ortaya çıktığını gösteren bir dizi örnek sunmaktayız. Son olarak gene sosyal psikolojik araştırmalardan yola çıkarak irrasyonelliğin giderilmesine dair bir takım çözüm yolları öneriyoruz.

Keywords

Sosyal psikoloji, altın çağ, modernizm, psikoloji tarihi, rasyonellik

References

• Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sandford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
• Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
• Asch, S. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. H. Guetzkow (Ed.). In Groups, leadership, and men. Pittsburg: Carnegie.
• Asch, S. (1956). Studies on independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70, 1-70
• Baade, H. V. (1961). The Eichmann Trial: Some legal aspects. Duke Law Journal, 421, 400-420.
• Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning theory analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Brehm, S. S., Kassin, S. M., & Fein, S. (1999). Social psychology (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Cartwright, D. (1979). Contemporary social psychology in historical perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 82-93.
• Clark, K. B. (1953). The social scientist as an expert witness in civil right litigation. Social Problems, 1(1), 5-10.
• Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-oedipus, capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Elder, G. H. Jr. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change. Perspectives on the Life Course, 57(1), 4-15.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Freud, S. (1933/ 1959). Why war? In E. Jones (Ed.), The collected papers of Sigmund Freud. New York: Basic Books.
• Hegel, G. W. F. (1837/1956). The philosophy of history (J. Sibree, Trans.). New York: Dover.
• Heidegger, M. (1956). Existence and being. (2nd ed.). London: Vision Press
• Holland, E. W. (2002). Deleuze and Guattari’s anti-oedipus: Introduction to schizoanalysis. London: Routledge.
• Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Jones, E. E. (1998). Major developments in five decades of social psychology. The Handbook of Social Psychology, 1, 3-57.
• Kant, I. (1784/2009). An answer to the question: What is enlightenment? London: Penguin.
• Kukla, A., & Walmsley, J. (2006). Mind: A historical and philosophical introduction to the major theories. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
• Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 269-299.
• Lundgren, D. C. (2004). Social feedback and self-appraisals: Current status of the mead-cooley hypothesis. Symbolic Interaction, 27(2), 267-286.
• McDougall, W. (1908). An introduction to social psychology. London: Methuen.
• Milgram, S. (1963). A behavioural study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. London: Tavistock.
• Pepitone, A. (1981). Lessons from the history of social psychology. American Psychologist, 36, 972-985.
• Reich, W. (1933/1970). The mass psychology of fascism (V. R. Carfagno, Trans.). New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
• Reich, J. W. (1981). A historical analysis of the field. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 2, 45-70.
• Ross, E. (1908). Social psychology. New York: Macmillan.
• Schulweis, H. M. (2010). Conscience: The duty to obey and the duty to disobey. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing.
• Sewell, W. H. (1989). Some reflections on the golden age of interdisciplinary social psychology. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 1-16.
• Sherif, M. (1935). An experimental study of stereotypes. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 29(4), 371-375.
• Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation: Their social psychology. London: Routledge.
• Smith, J. R. & Haslam, S. A., (2017). Social psychology: Revisiting the classic studies. Sage Publications Limited, London.
• Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. E. J. Lawler (Ed.). In Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77-121). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
• Zimbardo, P. G., Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Jaffe, D. (1972). Stanford prison experiment. Stanford, CA: Philip G. Zimbardo, Inc.
• Zimmerman, M. E. (1990). Heidegger’s confrontation with modernity: Technology, politics, and art. Indiana: Indiana University Press.