Download The Three Faces of Social Psychology

The Three Faces of Social Psychology
Author(s): James S. House
Source: Sociometry, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Jun., 1977), pp. 161-177
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3033519 .
Accessed: 28/09/2011 12:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Sociometry.
http://www.jstor.org
Sociometry
1977, Vol. 40, No. 2, 161-177
The Three Faces of Social Psychology*
JAMES S. HOUSE
Duke University
The current"crisis" of social psychologylargely reflectsthe division of thefield into three
increasinglyisolated domains or faces: (1) psychological social psychology, (2) symbolic
interactionism,and (3) psychological sociology (or social structureand personality).A sociology of knowledgeanalysis suggests that the distinctivesubstantiveand methodologicalconcerns of each face reflectthe intellectualand institutionalcontexts in which it developed.
Psychological social psychology has increasinglyfocused on individualpsychological proon
cesses in relation to social stimuliusing laboratoryexperiments;symbolicinteractionism,
face-to-faceinteractionprocesses usingnaturalisticobservations;and psychologicalsociology,
on therelationof macrosocial structuresand processes to individualpsychologyand behavior,
most often using survey methods. Brief critical discussion of the faces indicates that the
strengthsof each complementweaknesses in the others, highlightinga need for more interchange among them.Psychological sociology receives special emphasis because it currently
lacks thecoherenceand clear identityof theotherfaces, yetis essential to a well-roundedsocial
psychology since it balances the increasinglymicrosocial emphases of the otherfaces. Althoughdiagnosis does not guarantee cure, thispaper aims to promotemodificationof the very
faces and trendsit depicts.
The expansion of the Handbook of Social Psychology fromone volume in 1935
to twovolumesin 1954and fivevolumes
by 1968-69reflects
therapidgrowth
ofthe
broadinterdisciplinary
fieldof socialpsychology(Murchison,1935;Lindzey,1954;
Lindzeyand Aronson,1968-69).Yet this
quantitativesuccess has been accompaniedbygrowing
dissatisfaction
withthe
stateof thefield,thoughthereasonsfor
such dissatisfaction
vary. Some, mainly
psychologicalsocial psychologists,
have
worriedthat social psychologicalwork
has become too narrowand specialized
(cf. Katz, 1972;McGuire,1973;and the
respectto someportionofthetotalfieldof
social psychology. However, these
analysesare themselvesillustrative
of a
largerand more seriousproblemwhich
willbe thefocusof thispaper-the fractionationof social psychologyintothree
increasingly
distinct
and isolateddomains
orfaces, here termed:(1) psychological
social psychology,(2) symbolicinteractionism,and (3) psychologicalsociology
(or social structure
and personality).
Psy-
chological social psychologyrefersto the
of social psychologywithin
mainstream
the disciplineof psychology,whichhas
increasinglyfocused on psychological
Personalityand Social PsychologyBulle- processes in relationto social stimuli,
tin, 1976a, 1976b),whileothers,mainly usinglaboratory
and which
experiments,
sociological social psychologists,have is embodiedinstitutionally,
forexample,
worriedthat social psychologyhas be- in the AmericanPsychologicalAssociacometoo widelydiffused
and hencedissi- tion's Division 8 and Journalof Personalpated(cf.Liska, 1977a,1977b;Archibald, ity and Social Psychology. Symbolic in1977; Burgess, 1977; Hewitt,1977; and teractionism, often considered the
Hill, 1977).
sociologicalvariantof social psychology,
Each of these concernsis valid with is characterized
by the studyof face-toface social interaction
obvia naturalistic
servation.Psychological sociology refers
$ For theirreadingand constructive
critiquesof
earlierdrafts,I am indebtedto KurtBack, Philip to anothersociologicalvariantof social
Brickman,RichardCohn, WendyFisher House, psychologywhich relates macrosocial
RosabethMoss Kanter,AlanKerckhoff,
Lawrence phenomena
(e.g., organizations,
societies,
R. Landerman,JeanneMcGee, TheodoreNew- and aspects of the social structures
and
comb, MorrisRosenberg,and EdwardTiryakian;
to individuals'psychoand to the editor and anonymousrefereesof processesthereof)
and behavior,usually
I am also grateful
Sociometry.
to ValerieHawkins logical attributes
and Louise Rochelleforpreparing
themanuscript. using quantitativebut nonexperimental
161
162
SOCIOMETRY
(oftensurvey)methods.Except for the rent"crisis" of social psychologyis not
topicstheyresearchandteach,psycholog- so muchthateach face has itsflaws,but
ical sociologistsand symbolicinterac- thateach is at presentlargelyunawareof,
in, the concernsof the
tionistsare largelyindistinguishable
from or uninterested
impedes
insularity
mutual
Their
others.
sociologistsin general.1However,symdevelopment
scientific
and
the
intellectual
bolic interactionists
have informally
constituteda relativelycohesiveintellectual of each, and of social psychologyas a
group,have been disproportionately
rep- whole. Thus, one majorpurposeof this
resentedin the contentsand editorial paper is to facilitategreaterinterchange
boardsofcertain
journals(e.g.,Sociologi- amongthethreedomains,firstby merely
cal Quarterly,Social Problems), and re- makingeach moreawareoftheexistence
centlyhaveorganizeda formalSocietyfor and natureof the others,and secondby
specificwaysinwhichsuchinsuggesting
the Studyof SymbolicInteraction.2
beneficial.
wouldbe mutually
Thispaperseeksbriefly
toestablishthat terchange
A secondmajorpurposeis to utilizea
thereare indeedthreeidentifiable
anddisof
tinctive
facesof socialpsychology
(which sociology(or reallysocial psychology)
how
understand
to
perspective
knowledge
constitutea reasonablyexhaustiveand
mutually
exclusiveset),to showthateach social psychologycame to have three
has its distinctive substantive and faces,and whyeach has developedas it
methodological
foci,to critically
discuss has. This perspectivesuggeststhatboth
thestrengths
andweaknessesofeach,and the divisionsbetweenthe faces and the
and methodological
substantive
to showthatone domain'sweaknessesare particular
theintelcomplemented
by the strengthsof an- natureofeachfacelargelyreflect
in which
contexts
institutional
and
lectual
other.Our analysissuggeststhatthecureach developed,ratherthanpurelyintellectualor scientificimperatives.Special
I The AmericanSociologicalAssociationhas a
sociolis givento psychological
singleSocial PsychologySectionwhichdisbanded attention
onceforlackofmember
interest
andcommitment.
It ogybothbecause it lacks thewidelyrecalso has a singlemajorsocialpsychological
journal, ognized identityand associated instituthe contentof whichhas recentlybe- tional structures
Sociometry,
whichcharacterizethe
comeincreasingly
indistinguishable
fromtheJournal
because itsfocuson
and
two
faces,
other
of Personalityand Social Psychology. That is, work
macrosocial
between
relation
the
exemplifying
symbolicinteractionism
and psychopsychologyis
logicalsociologyusuallyappearsin generalsociol- phenomenaand individual
ogy journals (e.g., the American Sociological Renecessarytobalancetheincreascritically
view),rather
thaninSociometry
orotherspecifically inglymicrosocialemphasesof the other
socialpsychological
journals.
2 Institutional
or professional
affiliation
and even twofaces. Thus,thepresentpaperseeks
of work
personalself-definition
are useful,but imperfect, to promotegreateridentification
guidesforclassifying
personsorworksas socialpsy- and workersin psychologicalsociology
chologicalor forcategorizing
themin termsof the withone anotherand withthefieldof sothreefaces of social psychologydelineatedhere. cial psychology
as a whole.
do reSome membersof psychology
departments
The forcescreatingthreeisolated,at
searchthatis reallypsychological
sociology,and
faces of social psyconversely
somenominalsociologists
arereallypsy- times antagonistic,
chologicalsocial psychologists.
Any workwhich chologyhave been operativeforover 50
examinesthe relationship
betweenindividualpsy- years. The currentfractionation
and
chologicalattributes
and social structures,
situations,and/or
environments
constitutes,
in myview, "crisis" of social psychologyis, therethanthe wholeness
socialpsychology.
Thus,a gooddeal of socialpsy- fore,less surprising
chologyis donebypersonswhoidentify
themselves and great progresswhich characterized
as psychologists
or sociologistsbut not as social social psychology
in theperiodfromjust
and also by personsidentified
with
psychologists,
II to the early1960s.
War
World
before
the othersocial sciencedisciplines.The emphasis
a coalescenceand
II
War
produced
World
hereis on typifying
threebroadareasof socialpsychologyand assigningpeople or worksto each in accelerationof certaintrendsin social
termsof theirintellectual,
ratherthantheirinstitu- psychology
of
a largenumber
byinvolving
tional,positions.It maybe notedthatBack quite social psychologists
in trulyinterdiscipliindependently
arrivedat an anologoustrichotomy
and
ofresearchon military
for classifying
social science methodologies
(cf., naryprograms
civilianbehaviorand moraleutilizinga
Back, unpublished).
THREE FACES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
163
as the "subdisciplineof psywiderangeof methods.One productwas psychology
theseminalmulti-volume
seriesofStudies chologythatespeciallyinvolvesthescien-
in Social Psychology in World War II tificstudyof thebehaviorof individualsas
(Stoufferet al. 1949-50); anotherwas the a function of social stimuli" (Jones and
psycreationimmediately
afterWorldWar II Gerard,1967:1). Methodologically,
embodiesthe
of majorcentersof graduatetrainingin chologicalsocialpsychology
social psychologywhichwere interdisci- traditionof experimental,behavioral replinaryin theirformalorganization
(e.g., search which has increasinglycharat Michiganand Harvard)or in theirin- acterized all of psychologysince the
formalstructure
and orientation
(e.g., at 1920s.Jonesand Gerard(1967:58)aptly
Yale, Berkeley,andColumbia).Beginning describetheconceptualparadigmof such
as S-[O]-R: stimuli(S) are
in the 1950sand culminating
in the late experiments
responses(R) are
1960s,however,theforcestending
tofrac- varied and behavioral
tionatesocialpsychology
cameto thefore observed in order to make inferences
once more.This trend,we will see, has about the psychologicalnatureand prohaddeleterious
consequencesnotonlyfor cesses of the "organism"(0) or person.
socialpsychology
as a wholebutalso for
Thesebasic emphaseson psychological
developmentswithineach of its three processesand experimental
methodcharfaces.Social psychology
is unlikely
to re- acterizedtheworkofKurtLewin,whoby
capturethe (perhapssomewhatillusory) virtueof the influenceof his ideas and
wholenessofthedecadeor so afterWorld students
of
theleadingfounder
constitutes
War II; whatis now neededis balanced modernpsychologicalsocial psychology.
development
of each ofthethreefacesto However, Lewin's work was also aniwhichwe turn,and moresatisfactory
to thesocialrelein- matedby commitments
terchange
betweenthem.
vance and applicability
of social psychological theories and experimentsexpressedin his conceptionof "action
PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
research'-and to the study of small
The label "social psychology"is most groupdynamics
as a crucialmediating
link
commonly
appliedto, and probablymost between individualsand larger social
semantically
appropriate
for,thetradition environments
(e.g., Lewin, 1947).These
of social psychologywithinpsychology, latteremphasesin Lewin's work made
the emphasesof which are closely in- psychologicalsocial psychologyduring
tertwined
withthose of its parentdisci- the 1940sand 1950smuchmore"social"
pline. The substantivefocus is on indi- thanit was in FloydAllport'sday or has
vidual
psychological processes- been in recentyears,and hencealso less
perception,cognition,motivation,
learn- clearlydistinctfromthe bodies of social
ing, attitude formationand change, psychological
workdiscussedbelow. But
etc.-as theyoperatein relationto social sinceLewin's immediate
influence
began
stimuliand situations.This primaryem- to wane in thelate 1950s,social psycholphasis on psychologicalprocessesis re- ogywithin
increashas drifted
psychology
flectedin definitions
of thefieldin social inglyawayfromconcernwithreal-life
setpsychologytextsauthoredby psycholo- tingsand problems,and even away from
gists at least fromthe time of Floyd the study of groups (Steiner, 1973),
Allport(1924):
towardincreasingly"basic" laboratory
I believethatonlywithintheindividual
can researchon psychologicalprocesses of
social
ofteninminimally
we findthebehaviormechanisms
and con- collegestudents,
sciousnesswhichare fundamental
in theinteractions
betweenindividuals
. . . Thereis
no psychology
ofgroupswhichis notessentiallyand entirely
a psychology
of individuals . . . Psychologyin all its branchesis a
scienceof theindividual.(pp. vi, 4)
More recently,a definitiveand sophisticated text of this traditiondefines social
situations.3
3 Lewinwas nottheonlyforcemaking
psychologicalsocialpsychology
moresocialduring
thisperiod.
GardnerMurphyat Columbiaimparteda broad
interdisciplinary
orientation
andconcernforapplicationof social psychology
to a numberof students
whotookdegreeswithhiminthelate1920sandearly
1930sand wenton to have a majorimpacton the
164
SOCIOMETRY
This drifthas been clearlyevidentin tool, but not the only one. The recent
social
contentanalysesofmajorjournalsofpsy- bodyof researchon psychological
chologicalsocialpsychology-the
Journal psychologyclearlyneglectsthe ongoing
of Personality and Social Psychology social contextin which all humanbe(JPSP), the Journal of ExperimentalSo- havioroccurs. The commonand continand
populations
cial Psychology (JESP), the Journal of ued use ofcollegestudent
resampling
Personality, and even the Journal of thetotalabsenceofscientific
thattheresponsesand
Applied Social Psychology (JASP) which flectan assumption
processesbeingstudiedare
was createdto counterthe trendaway psychological
hence
from socially relevant research. For universalhuman characteristics;
as goodas
example, reviewingand extendingthe anyhumanbeingis presumably
workof Fried,et al. (1973), Helmreich any otherfor such research.However,
by studies
is contradicted
(1975)showsthatlaboratory
experiments thisassumption
constitute
a large,and perhapsstillgrow- showingmarkedvariationin psychologing, proportion
of all researchin JPSP, ical processesacross social groups(e.g.,
JESP, and JASP-84%, 85% and 63% re- Converse,1964). Further,althoughthis
couldbe testedeveninlaboraspectivelyby 1974; and the majorityof assumption
nonlaboratory
studieswere stillfieldex- torystudies,itseldomis-even theeffects
thecollege
within
differences
periments.Similarly,college students ofindividual
traits,sex,
(e.g., inpersonality
werethesubjectsin 87%,74% and62% of population
all studiesappearingin 1974 in JESP, place of residence)are generallyignored
orviewedas nuisancefactors(cf.Carlson,
JPSP,and JASP,respectively.
This expandingbody of researchhas 1971; Levenson et al., 1976). Further,
been increasingly
criticizedby somepsy- while real-world social actors are
chologicalsocial psychologists
as often enmeshedin ongoingnetworksof social
narrow,trivial,and oflimitedscientific
as relations and positions, experimental
acquaintances
well as social value (e.g., Ring, 1967; " subjects" are first-time
and/oreach other)
Katz, 1972;McGuire,1973;Gergen,1973; (of the experimenter
roles
Helmreich,1975). The criticsgenerally behavingin novel, oftenartificial,
In sum,theproblemofexrecommend
greateruse ofnonexperimen-and situations.
tal methodologies
to studymoreapplied ternalvalidity-theabilityto generalize
and
to otherpersons,situations,
and/or"real-life"phenomena.The valid- findings
ityofthesecriticisms
andproposedreme- times-is ignoredwhilegreateffortand
dies has been extensively
debatedwithin resourcesare expendedto enhanceinterthis face of social psychology,but the nal validity-theabilityto drawcausal inifany,ofthisdebateare ferencesaboutwhathappenedin theparconcreteeffects,
ticularstudysituation.4
still unclear (cf. Personality and Social
Such a body of knowledgewill be of
PsychologyBulletin, 1976a, 1976b).
Knowledge of basic psychological little ultimatevalue unless it can be
processesin relationto social stimuliis provenrelevantto social psychological
clearlynecessaryto adequateunderstand- phenomenaoutsidethe laboratory.Such
ingofall socialpsychological
phenomena; relevance need not be immediately
but it is not sufficient.
Similarly,
experi- demonstratedfor every experimental
ofstudies,butitmustbe
mentsare one important
methodological studyorprogram
periodicallyexplored and tested. A
field,e.g., TheodoreNewcomb,RensisLikert,and
whichwas
MuzaferSherif.Evenat Yale University,
approach,
a bastionof theexperimental-behavioral
Carl I. Hovlandemphasizedthe relevanceof exresearchto each
and nonexperimental
perimental
otherand of bothto appliedproblems(e.g., Hovland, 1959). But fromthe late 1950son, Lewin's
and his studentsat departstudentLeon Festinger
Stanford,
andNorthCarolina
mentslikeMinnesota,
thisfaceandturnitinincreasingly
cametodominate
and behavioraldirecexperimental,
psychological,
tions.
4 McGuire(1973),Rosenthaland Rosnow(1969)
with
and othersalso suggestthatthepreoccupation
self-defeating.
maybe paradoxically
validity
internal
in theexperimental
Theone "real" socialrelationship
mayaffectthe resituation(experimenter-subject)
sultsas muchor morethanthe oftenelaborately
and stimuli,as subjects
contrivedsocial situations
whomay
hindertheexperimenter
tryto helpand/or
the
influencing
butunknowingly
be simultaneously
behaviorof the subjectin subtleand unintended
ways.
THREE FACES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
165
hallmarkof the Lewinianheydayof the more fullybelow, social psychologicalis1940sand 1950swas thecontinualinter- sues were central to the concerns of the
play betweenlaboratoryand field(both leading early sociologists in both Europe
experimentaland nonexperimental)
re- and America, beginningwith Durkheim
search.For example,principlesof group manysociologistsfeltcompelled tojustify
dynamicsderived from laboratoryre- the existence of sociology as a separate
searchwereexploredandtested,oftenby academic disciplineand hence to emphathe same researchers,
in real lifegroups size how sociological concerns were
withinschools, work organizations,
the differentand distinctfromthose of psyetc. (cf. Cartwright
and Zander, chology. This sociologism has not only
military,
1960). Such cross-fertilization
of "basic reinforcedthe naturaldesire of social psyand applied" (or laboratory
and field)re- chologistswithinsociologyto differentiate
searchwas stimulating
for themselves and theirwork frompsychoandproductive
both. Such cross-fertilization
is increas- logical social psychology; it has also
inglyinfrequent,
however,as psycholog- forcedthemto defendthemselvesagainst
ical social psychology
becomesmoreand the charge of not being really, or suffimoreisolatedboth fromthose areas of ciently,"sociological. " 5
A potentsociological social psychology
withless emphasison laborapsychology
toryexperiments
(e.g., clinical,personal- emerged duringthe 1920s and 1930s as a
ity, developmental,organizational)and more " social" alternative to the quite
fromthe other,largelynonexperimental,psychological and experimental social
social sciences.Thisisolationis reflected psychologyof Floyd Allport and others.
in the relativelylimitedknowledgethat George HerbertMead, theleadingtheorist
even those self-critical
psychologicalso- of the symbolic interactionistvariant of
cial psychologistshave of otherareas, sociological social psychology, was
especiallythose outside of psychology. endeavoringto providejust such an alterThus, they are prone to believe their native:
''crisis" can be solvedby adoptinga few
We are notin socialpsychology
building
up
techniques
(e.g., pathanalysis)fromother thebehaviorofthesocialgroupin termsof
disciplines and taking up "applied"
the behaviorof the separate individuals
composing
it,rather
we are starting
outwith
topics.Withothers,I am dubiousof the
a givensocial wholeof complexgroupaclikely success of such efforts(e.g.,
tivity,intowhichwe analyze(as elements)
Proshansky, 1976; Altman, 1976;
the
behaviorof each of the separateindiThorngate,1976), unless they involve
vidualscomposingit. (Mead, 1934:7)
reallycomingto gripswiththefullrange
For a time the symbolicinteractionism
of substantiveand methodological
concernsofotherdisciplines
andapproaches. of Mead and others like Charles Horton
Cooley and W. I. Thomas constitutedthe
core of a somewhat unifiedand cohesive
THE TWO FACES OF
sociological social psychology which,
SOCIOLOGICAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
especially in its analysis of the natureand
Social psychology
has longconstituted development of the self, intersected in
a majorarea of specializationwithinthe significantand fruitfulways with both
disciplineofsociology,butone whichhas psychologicalsocial psychologyand other
been less intellectuallyand organ- segmentsof sociology. Symbolic interacizationallysecure and coherentthanits tionism became the theoreticalperspecwithinthe disciplineof psy- tive not only of Mead's students (who
counterpart
chology. Whereas psychologicalsocial
psychologygraduallydifferentiated
itself 5 Tiryakian (1962:11) offersthe followingdefinias a subfieldwithinan alreadyfairly-well tion of "sociologism" (taken from the 1933
establisheddiscipline,the genesis and Larousse) whichis consistentwiththeunderstanding
growthof sociologicalsocial psychology of the term here: ". . . the view point of those
who, makingsociology a science comhas been inextricably
linkedwith,and sociologists
pletely irreducible to psychology, consider it as
henceaffected
by,thegenesisandgrowth necessary and sufficientforthe total explanationof
ofsociologyitself.Although,
as discussed social reality."
166
SOCIOMETRY
the"Chicagoschool"discussedin WilliamJames and JohnDewey and was
formed
some detailbelow) but also of sociologists constitutedas a sociological social psysuch as ManfordKuhn (e.g., 1964) at the chology mainlyby George HerbertMead
Universityof Iowa, and Arnold Rose (1934), who was himselfa pragmaticphi(e.g., 1962) at the Universityof Min- losopher at the University of Chicago.
nesota. Its influencewas also apparent Mead especially influenceda groupof colamong more psychologicalsocial psy- leagues and students from the Chicago
chologists(e.g., Newcomb, 1950) and Sociology Department (e.g., Blumer,
(e.g., Sullivan,1953). Thomas, EverettHughes) who, withtheir
amongpsychiatrists
However,in the periodfromthe late students,have since become identifiedas
1940s to the early 1960s, sociologism the "Chicago school" of symbolicinteracmark,at least in tionism.6This face derives its name from
reachedits highwater
Americansociology.This development its emphasis on understandinghow indion viduals interact with each other using
put sociologicalsocial psychologists
thedefensiveand producedtwo kindsof symbols. Blumer, followingMead, idenreactions.Some, especiallythedominant tifiesthe essential elements of symbolic
interactionistsinteractionism:
Chicagoschoolofsymbolic
(e.g., Blumer, 1956), responded by
(T)hathumansocietyis madeup ofindividuor
in mainstream
developments
criticizing
als who have selves (thatis, makeindica"structural"(Stokes and Hewitt,1976)
tionsto themselves);
thatindividual
actionis
boththe distinc- a constructionand nota release,beingbuilt
sociologyand affirming
up by theindividual
through
notingand intivenessand validityof theirsocial psyinwhich
ofthesituations
terpretingfeatures
chologicalapproachto sociology.In conhe acts; thatgroupor collectiveactioncontrast,others(e.g., Inkeles,1959)triedto
socialpsycholog- sists of the aligningof individualactions,
theinherently
document
aboutbyindividuals'
or
brought
interpreting
sociology taking
ical natureofmuchmainstream
into account each other'sactions.
to
fromDurkheimonward,and hence
(Blumer,1962:184;emphasisadded)7
socialpsychologand stimulate
legitimate
sociolical concernswithinmainstream
6
is
interactionism
Chicagoschool'ssymbolic
ogy. This second reactionrepresentsa nowThe
clearlythe dominantversionof thisface of
ofwhatis heretermed"psy- social psychology(cf., Meltzerand Petras,1970),
reemergence
chologicalsociology"as a thirdface of thoughas notedabove Kuhnand Rose wereother
social psychologywith substantiveand majorfiguresin thisdomainduringtheirlifetimes.
from Thoughtheworkof Kuhn,Rose, and someothers
emphasesdifferent
methodological
(e.g., Schwartz
(1965)or Stryker
suchas Rosenberg
andpsycho- and
bothsymbolicinteractionism
in
interactionist
1971)maybe symbolic
Stryker,
at leastas these substance,itdiffers
logicalsocialpsychology,
fromthatoftheChicagoschool
empiricalmethodsand
quantitative
fromthelate 1950s in emphasizing
facesweredeveloping
onward.In sum,just at thetimethatpsy- deductivetheoreticalprocessesas opposedto the
methodsand inductive
"qualitative"observational
was becom- theoretical
chologicalsocial psychology
approachstressedbytheChicagoschool.
and moreinsular,sociologi- The generaldominanceof membersof theChicago
ingnarrower
cal social psychologydividedinto two schoolis reflectedin theirgreaternumbers,occuquite distinctdomainswhichhave also pancy of prestigiouspositionsin the profession,
ofthemajor
andauthorship
isolatedfromeach quantityofpublication,
become increasingly
textbooks(i.e., Shibutani,
symbolicinteractionist
social 1961;Lindesmith,
otheras wellas frompsychological
et al., 1975a).Even theChicago
psychology.Let us turnnow to a more schoolis somewhatdiverseinitsviews,butBlumer
detailed discussion of the nature, constitutesprobablythe mostcentralfigureafter
andis usedas a keysourceherealong
and weaknessesof these two Mead himself
strengths,
textbook
with the major symbolicinteractionist
sociologicalfaces.
et al., 1975a). Symbolicinteraction(Lindesmith,
withthe new sociologicalarea
ism has affinities
but Lindesmithet al.,
of "ethnomethodology,"
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
(1975a:20-25)quiteproperlystressthatthesetwo
of vieware by no meansidentical.
The term "symbolic interactionism"points
7 The term
is notintrinsically
"makeindications"
usedbyHerbertBlumer(1937)to clear. Blumer
was first
(1962:181)discussesthe idea as folwhichorigi- lows: "in declaringthatthehumanbeinghas a self,
describethebodyofthought
suchas Mead had in mindchieflythatthehumanbeingcan
natedwithpragmatic
philosophers
THREE FACES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
167
This briefsummaryclearlysuggeststhe Turner,1964). These topics essentially
thecontentsofmajorsymbolic
majorsubstantive
emphasesof symbolic constitute
textsand readers,withthe
interactionist
interactionism.
emphasisin all cases on face-toFirst, people interpret the world to primary
themselves:
Meaningis notinherent
inthe face interactionand socialization(e.g.,
1961;ManisandMeltzer,1972;
peopleor objectsthata humanbeingcon- Shibutani,
frontsand perceives,but rathermeaning Lindesmithet al., 1975a, 1975b; and
is givento thesepeopleandobjectsbythe Hewitt,1976).
In theirempiricalwork symbolicinperson perceivingthem. Similarly,beof the Chicagoschool have
havior is not an automaticreactionto teractionists
givenstimuli,but rathera creativecon- reliedalmostexclusivelyon the method(and sometimesnonstructiongrowingout of a person's in- ologyof participant
observationcoupledwithinterpretation
of thesituationand othersin participant)
while activelyesthereis a considerableand ir- formalinterviewing,
it. Further,
and/orquantitative
or un- chewingexperimental
reducibleamountofindeterminacy
predictability
in humanbehaviorbecause nonexperimentalmethods. Although
see quanhumanbeingscreatemeaningand action these symbolicinteractionists
andnonexperimental
experimental
in ways thatcan neverbe perfectly
pre- titative
dicted from knowledgeof antecedent methodsas usefulforsomepurposes,they
ofthepersonand/orsitua- clearlyfeelthesemethodsare notapprocharacteristics
tion. Finally,the interpretation
of situa- priateto the centralissues of symbolic
whichare, in theirview,
tionsand theconstruction
ofbehaviorare interactionism
processes occurring in the context of also the centralissues in any adequate
humaninteraction,
whichmustbe studied social psychologyof human life (e.g.,
as such and notreducedto a set of rela- Blumer, 1956; Lindesmith, et al.,
vari- 1957a:31-59):
tionshipsbetweenstaticstructural
ables. Thus,to understand
sociallifeis to
re... theprocessof symbolicinteraction
understandthe processes throughwhich
individuals interpret situations and construct theiractionswithrespectto each
quiresthe studentto catch the processof
which[people] conthrough
interpretation
structtheiractions.This processis nottobe
other.
caught merelyby turningto conditions
totheprocess.... Nor
whichare antecedent
Symbolicinteractionist
theoryand recan one catchthe processmerelyby infersearchhave focusedon aspectsof social
ringitsnaturefromtheovertactionwhich
life wherethis process of cognitiveinthestudent
terpretation
and behavioralconstruction is itsproduct.To catchtheprocess,
musttaketheroleoftheactingunitwhosebeare mostevidentand important.
Theseinheisstudying.
(Blumer,1962:188;emcludeprocessesofface-to-face
interaction havior
phasisadded)
(e.g., Goffman,1959; 1971; Glaser and
Strauss, 1964), socializationand especiallythe developmentof the self (e.g.,
Cooley,1902;Kinch,1963;Turner,1962),
thelearningand definition
of deviantbehavior throughinterpersonal
processes
(e.g., Becker,1953;Scheff,1966),andcollective behavior (e.g., Blumer, 1951;
be theobjectofhisownactions.He can act toward
himselfas he mightact toward others .
. .
. This
Thus, thereis a strongtendencyto discountandhenceignoreon methodological
the
groundsmuchoftheworkconstituting
othertwo faces of social psychology.
and weaknessesof
Both the strengths
stemfromitshavinteractionism
symbolic
with,andparingdevelopedconcurrently
tiallyin reactionto, themoreradicaltendencies towardbehaviorismin psychology since the 1920s and sociologismin
sociology since Durkheim.For many
years symbolic interactionistshave
and someprovidedeloquent,convincing,
timeslonely,critiquesof the view that
humansocial life(1) couldbe adequately
in termsof stimulus-response
understood
enablesthehumanbeingtomakeindicamechanism
andthus
inhissurroundings
ofthings
tionto himself
of
to guidehis actionsby whathe notes.Anything
whicha humanbeing is consciousis something
to himself. ... The key
whichhe is indicating
pointsare thatthe personcan take himselfas an
andperceiveandinterwithhimself,
object,interact
theobjectsandeventsinhisenvironpretto himself
ment.
relationshipsinvolvinglittleor no cogni-
168
SOCIOMETRY
tive mediation(behaviorism)and/or(2) workcan be macrosocial,it largelyhas
could be understood
withouteven taking notbeen-the contentof majortextsand
intoaccounttheintentions,
needs,or be- readers,forexample,hardlystraysfrom
liefs of individuals(sociologism).How- microsocialprocessesof face-to-face
inever, in rejectingtheseintellectual
posi- teraction,
thoughsomeofthisis ofcourse
tions symbolicinteractionism
has also relevantto more macrosocialstructures
tendedto reject,or at leastneglect,a vari- and processes(e.g., Manis and Meltzer,
etyofotherideas (e.g., quantification
and 1972; Lindesmith et al., 1975a, 1975b).
otheraspectsof"scientific
method"such Naturalisticobservationof real-lifemias causal theorizing;macrosocialcon- crosocial processes, like experimental
cepts and phenomena)whichhave been analysis of psychologicalprocesses, is
temporallyassociated, but not inextrica- clearlyan essentialpartofsocialpsycholbly or causally linked, with these posi- ogy, but it becomes insularand sterile
tions.In so doing,it has becomeisolated withoutinterchange
withthe othersubfrommanyparalleldevelopments
in other stantiveand methodological
positions.
areas of social psychology.
psychoDespitetheirwidedivergences,
For example,
Lewin'sfieldtheory
anditsantecedents
andsymbolicinin logicalsocialpsychology
Gestaltpsychologystrongly
emphasized teractionismshare a common flawtheroleofcognitive
orinterpre- neitheradequately considers how and
mediation
tationin humansocial behavior,though whymacrosocialstructures
andprocesses
Lewin preferred
by,psychological
quantitative
and experi- affect,and are affected
mental methods for studying these processes and face-to-faceinteraction.
phenomena(cf. Deutsch and Krauss, Thislackofattention
to moremacrosocial
1965:14-77). Similarly, "structurally" issues is perhapsthethecruxof thecurand quantitatively
orientedsociologists rent"crisis" in thesemorewidelyrecog(e.g., Inkeles, 1959, 1963) have argued nized faces of social psychology.Yet
focusofa
that Durkheim'sassertion theseissuesare thesubstantive
convincingly
of researchand theorythathas
thatsocial factscan be explainedonlyin tradition
as,
termsofothersocialfactsis notonlygen- untilnow been onlylooselyidentified
erallyfallacious
butalso is beliedby Durk- or with,social psychology.
heim's own work. Thus both behaviorismandsociologism
havebeenrejectedby
PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIOLOGY
majorfiguresin theotherdomainsof so(OR SOCIAL STRUCTURE
cial psychology,yet symbolicinteracAND PERSONALITY)
tionistwritingstake littlenote of these
muchless oftheirimplica- A major purpose of this paper is to
developments,
tions for symbolicinteractionist
thata largebody of theory
theory demonstrate
and methods.
and researchon therelationof macrosooccuIn essence,symbolic
(e.g., organizations,
interactionism
has cial structures
thrownoutthebabywiththebathwater. pations,"social classes," religion,
typeof
In rejectingradical behaviorismand community)
and processes(urbanization,
social mobility)to insociologismfor good reasons, symbolic industrialization,
interactionists
have also largelyforsaken dividual psychological attributesand
quantitativemethodology
and macroso- behavior constitutesan importantand
cial phenomenawithout
goodreason.Le- coherentthirdface of social psychology.
win's field theoreticaltraditionclearly This tradition
of social psychology
crossdemonstrates
thatmany,ifnotall, of the cutsall ofthesocial sciences,butis espeofcentralinterest
in sociologyand is hence
phenomena
to symbolic ciallyimportant
interactionism
can be studiedwith the termedpsychological
sociology(whichis
theoreticaland methodological
tools of analogous to what othersterm"social
moreconventional
science.Similarly,
itis structureand personality").This third
possibleto studymacrosocialstructural face sharesthe"real-world"concernsof
but puts much
phenomenaand processes withoutem- symbolicinteractionism
bracingsociologism.Yet althoughsym- greateremphasis on both macrosocial
embolic interactionists
conceptsand quantitative
profess that their structural
THREE FACES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
169
piricalmethods;it shares psychological same way as the naturalsciences, thatis,
social psychology'semphasison "scien- expressed in probabilisticcausal theories
tific" and quantitativemethodsbut fo- and developed and verifiedthroughmany
cuses on more macrosocial,"real-life" formsof empiricalresearch-not onlyparphenomenausing, of necessity,largely ticipant observation, but also experiments, and qualitative and quantitative
nonexperimental
methods.
Whateverits intellectual
merits,how- nonexperimentalprocedures:
ever, psychologicalsociologylacks the
Sociology. . . is a sciencewhichattempts
symbolic and institutionalattributes the interpretive
of social acunderstanding
whichgiveidentity
to socialpsychology's tionin orderthereby
to arriveat a causalexotherfaces-it has neithera widelyacplanationof its courseand effects.... For
verifiable
accuracyofthemeaningofa pheceptedname,nortextbookswhichcoheitis a greathelpto be able to put
nomenon,
rently
presentitssubstantive
andmethodone's selfimaginatively
in theplace of the
ological concerns,nor institutional
emactor
and
thus
to participate
sympathetically
bodiment
inprofessional
associationsand
inhisexperiences,
butthisis notan essential
journals. Thus, this body of work and
conditionof meaningful
interpretation....
workershas suffered
froman "identity [Empirical]
Verification
is feasiblewithrelacrisis,"unableto adequatelydifferentiate tiveaccuracyonlyin the fewveryspecial
itselffromthe identityof its "parent"
cases susceptible to psychologicalexdiscipline(sociology)or to develop its
perimentation.
The approachto a satisfacownidentity
torydegreeof accuracyis exceedingly
as a thirdface of socialpsyvarious,evenin thelimitednumberofcasesof
chology.Psychologicalsociologyhad its
originsin the developmentof modern mass phenomenawhichcan be statistically
describedand unambiguously
interpreted.
sociologyduringthe late nineteenth
and
For the rest there remains only the
early twentieth
centuries,but its develofcomparingthelargestpossible
possibility
opmentwas severelystuntedduringthe
numberof historicalor contemporary
properiod(about1910-1960)in whichsociolcesses which,whileotherwise
differ
similar,
ogy was firmly
establishedas a separate in theone decisivepointoftheirrelationto
discipline.Since the 1940s a varietyof
the particularmotiveor factorthe role of
forceshavefostered
a resurgence
ofwork
whichis beinginvestigated.... Actionin
in thisarea, whichdeservesto be recogthe sense of subjectively
understandable
orientationof behaviorexistsonlyas the
nizedas a reemerging
thirdface of social
behaviorof one or moreindividual
human
psychology.
beings.
(Weber,1964:88,90i 97, 101)
Althoughtheir work constitutesthe
foundationof modernsociology,social
Weber (e.g., 1964:101-107) specifically
was a central,ifnotthe cen- characterized functionalanalyses which
psychology
tralconcernof Karl Marx, Emile Durk- treated social collectivitiesas units withheim,and Max Weber. This has often out referenceto theindividualscomposing
been lost sightof due to tendenciesof themas usefulbut incomplete.But he also
thesewriters,oftenaccentuatedby later feltthatmeaningfulsocial action occurred
interpreters,
to stressthe difference
be- only in social contexts, and his interests
tweentheirsociologicalapproachandthat were in understandingsocial action in
ofpsychologists
oftheirday. Max Weber quite macrosocial contexts via interespeciallyarticulated
quiteearlywhatare societal comparisons. His most famous
stillthecentralorientations
ofpsycholog- work-The ProtestantEthic and theSpirit
ical sociology,buthis impactin America of Capitalism (Weber, 1958)-is a classic
was somewhatdiminishedby delays in of psychological sociology which has
translating
hisworkintoEnglish.Like the stimulateda varietyof modern work on
symbolic interactionists,
Weber (e.g., the role of individualvalues and motives
1964:88-115)stressed the necessityof (religiouslyderived or otherwise)in ecounderstanding
the subjectiveinterpreta-nomic behavior and social change (cf.
tions of situations(or meanings)which McClelland, 1961; Lenski, 1963; Brown,
underlieindividuals'behavior;buthe felt 1965:Ch.,9).
thatsuch "interpretive
understanding
of
Recognitionof Karl Marx as a psychosocial action" could be scientific
in the logical sociologist has also been impeded
170
SOCIOMETRY
by delays in the publicationand then theirfunctional
explanationin termsof
translation
ofhisearliestwork,especially othersocial phenomena:
The Economic and Philosophical ManuThe
... atthefollowing
principle:
Wearrive
scriptsof 1844in whichMarxfirstdevel- determining
cause ofa socialfactshouldbe
oped his concept of "alienation," or
soughtamongthesocialfactsprecedingit
alienatedlabor (cf. Fromm,1961). Like
and notamongthestatesof theindividual
consciousness. . . Thefunctionof a social
Durkheim'sconceptof anomie,Marx's
conceptofalienationhas "multiplerefer- factoughtalwaystobe soughtinitsrelation
1950:110to some social end. (Durkheim,
ence to: (1) social phenomena(statesof
society,itsinstitutions,
rulesand norms); 111)
(2) individualstatesof mind(beliefs,de- His most widelyknownwork,Suicide,
sires,attitudes,
etc.); (3) a hypothesized soughtto demonstrate
thatratesofan inempirical
individual
behaviorcan and must
relationship
between(1) and (2); herently
and (4) a presupposedpictureofthe'nat- be explainedin social termsand without
ural' relationship
between(1) and (2)" recourseto psychologicalfactors:"The
(Lukes, 1967:140).Thus, Marx saw the social suicideratecan be explainedonly
structuralposition of workersin the sociologically"(Durkheim,1951:299).In
capitalisteconomicsystemas incompati- fact,almostall of Durkheim'swork,insocial psyble withtherealizationof humanbeings' cludingSuicide, is inherently
basic productivenatures; the conse- chological(cf. Inkeles,1959,1963;Tiryrecoghimself
quences of thiswere bothpsychological akian,1962);andDurkheim
and social malaiseand discontent.Erich nizedthisexplicitly
as well as implicitly.
that
Fromm (1961:69-79) effectively
pagesafterasserting
argues Less thanfifteen
that a varietyof sources, fromSoviet he had explainedsuicidepurelysociologito Americansociologists,
ideologists
have callyhe notes: "We see no objectionto
erredin suggesting
thatthesesocial psy- callingsociologya varietyofpsychology,
ofthe"young"Marx ifwe carefully
chologicalinterests
add thatsocialpsychology
wereleftbehindand even repudiatedby has its own laws which are not those
the"old" Marxin favorof a morestruc- of individualpsychology"(Durkheim,
turalanalysispresentedin Capital. The 1951:312). His studies of religionand
Frankfurt
Schoolin Germany,
whichalso morality(e.g., Durkheim,1948), which
providedthestimulus
foran Americanso- werethecentralcore ofhiswork,consticial psychological classic-The Au- tuteclassicinitialcontributions
topsycho1962).
thoritarianPersonality (Adorno et al., logicalsociology(cf. Tiryakian,
1950),had earliernotedand defendedthe
Thus Durkheim,the originatorof
ofsocialpsychological
centrality
concerns sociologism,
reallysoughtonlyto ensure
throughout
Marx'sthought.
In thefifteen that social facts were recognizedand
or so yearssincethetranslation
ofMarx's treatedas thingssui generis and not rederivedfrompsychological
earlyworkintoEnglish,his social psy- ductionistically
thewidechological concerns have received in- factsand principles.In battling
of his timehe often
creasingtheoretical(e.g., Etzioni, 1968; spreadpsychologism
Israel,1971)and empirical
(e.g., Blauner, espoused a radical sociologism(cf. In1964)attention,
thoughempirical
research keles, 1959),buthe also fullyrecognized
has often reflectedMarx's theoretical thatthephenomenawhichinterested
him
concernsveryimperfectly,
if at all (cf. could be adequatelyunderstoodonlyby
sociolwhatis heretermedpsychological
Horton,1964).
Durkheimhad the greatestimpacton ogy.In theirefforts
to establishsociology
of sociologyas a as a disciplinein its own right,however,
the earlydevelopment
discipline,and his ambivalencetoward manysuccessorsto Durkheimtook his
and sociological sociologismtoo literally.
mixingthepsychological
Thus, sociology
is the sourceof the majorforceswhich came to be dominated
in theperiodfrom
stunted the growth of psychological 1920to about1960byformsofstructuralsociology. Durkheimis probablybest functional
analysis(e.g., in humanecolon thedistinctive ogy, formalorganizations,
knownforhisinsistence
stratification)
natureof sociologicalphenomenaand on which ruled psychologicalphenomena
THREE FACES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
171
outside the purviewof sociology.The theoriesand data "to improvethe scope
sociologisticDurkheim,the later Marx, and adequacy of sociological analysis."
he attempts
to do this
and Weberthe studentof authority
and And significantly,
bureaucracywere rememberedand re- by example(1959, 1963)and in his own
vered,whilethesocialpsychological
either
Durk- research(e.g., 1960,1969)utilizing
heim, the early Marx, and Weber the ad hoc, commonsense psychologyor
advocate of "interpretive
understandingFreudiantheorywhichby thattimewas
ofsocialaction"werelargelyignored,
and littleutilizedin otherdomainsof social
alongwiththemthefundamental
concerns psychology.Thus, Inkeles' heraldingof
the reemergence
of psychologicalsociolof psychological
sociology.8
By the late 1940s,however,sociology ogy did littleto relatethisthirdface of
was moresecurelyestablishedas a disci- social psychologyto the othertwo, but
itas a compline.Sociologistshad beendrawnduring rathertriedmoreto legitimate
sociology.
WorldWar II into studying
a varietyof ponentof mainstream
Research on personalityand social
social psychological problems (e.g.,
or psychological
sociologyover
Stouffer
et al., 1949-50),and a newmeth- structure
odology developed-survey research- thepasttwodecadeshas largelytakenthe
closely integrated
whichallowedthestudyofthepsycholog- same tack, remaining
ical attributes
oflargepopulations
in rela- with mainstreamsociology and only
relatedto the otherfaces of
tion to macrosocialstructures
and pro- tangentially
cesses. Thesefactorsstimulated
a gradual social psychology.This orientationhas
and its
resurgence
duringthe 1950sand 1960sof beena sourceofbothitsstrengths
socialpsychological
researchin sociology weaknesses.On the positiveside, it has
using quantitative(generally survey) keptpsychologicalsociologyfocusedon
methods.By 1959Inkeles(1959and also the quantitativestudy of macrosocial
1963)couldpublishtheclosestthingto an phenomena-usually those of current
extantprogrammatic
statementfor the interest to more purely sociological
studyof "personalityand social struc- sociologists-inrelationto psychological
ture." Interestingly,
however, Inkeles attributesand behaviorof individuals.
(1959:250,emphasisadded) directedhis Thus, majorexamplesof recentresearch
sociologyincludestudies
statementtoward using psychological inpsychological
8
BothTalcottParsonsand RobertMerton,prob- of: (1) the impactof "social class" (and
ablythemostinfluential
structural-finctionalists
and also "status" mobility
and inconsistency)
indeedsociologists
of thisformative
period,resem- on self-image,personality,and values
bledDurkheim
inbeingmoreheavilysocialpsychologicalthanis oftenrecognized.Bothdidimportant (e.g., Rosenberg,1965; Kohn, 1969); (2)
workin psychological
sociologyas wellas in purer the reciprocalrelationof "modernizasociology.Merton's(e.g., 1957)workon bothrefer- tion" to individualpersonality
and beencegroupsand"anomie"aremajorcontributions
to havior(e.g., Inkeles,1969;Portes,1973);
psychologicalsociology(cf. Deutschand Krauss, (3) the effectof urbanresidenceon indi1965),as are Parsons'introduction
of Weberianaction theoryinto sociologyand his contributions vidual personalityand behavior (e.g.,
towardinterdisciplinary
studyofsocialstructure
and Fischer,1976); (4) the role of individual
personality
(e.g.,Parsons,1937;1964;andParsonset motivations
and aspirations
(andparental,
al., 1953).YetI suspectthatParsonsandMerton
have peer,andteacherinfluence
inthe
thereon)
always been most widely recognizedfor their
status-attainment
process
(e.g.,
Feather"sociological"work,especiallytheircontribution
to
" Mertonand especially man, 1972; Sewell and Hauser, 1974;
"structural-functionalism.
Parsonsalso contributed
to another
1974);(5) therelationbetween
trendofthelate Kerckhoff,
1940sto early1960swhichmilitated
againstsocial personality
andtheperformance
oforganpsychological
workin sociology-theemphasison izationalroles(e.g., Merton,1957;Kohn,
basictheory
andresearch
witha consequent
devaluationof"applied"work(e.g., on education,
thefam- 1969);and (6) the place of psychological
ily,etc.),muchof whichtends,of necessity,
to in- factors in the political process (e.g.,
clude a healthybalanceof bothpsychological
and Sears, 1969).
sociologicalconcerns.As notedabove the applied
Butwhiletheisolationofpsychological
workdoneduring
WorldWarII was a majorstimulus
fromthe otherfaces of social
sociology
to thedevelopment
of social psychology,
and such
has strengthened
its sociologworkwillbe notedbelowas onepotential
mechanism psychology
forinterfacing
thethreefacesofsocialpsychology. ical component,
it has also tendedto im-
172
SOCIOMETRY
theextentoftheirinfluence-a
The social mayaffect
poverishit psychologically.
structuralpositionsof individualsare gen- topicstudiedingreatdetailbypsychologpsycholoerallyseen to "determine"or "shape" ical social (and developmental)
personality
and behaviorrathermechan- gists. The chaotic state of researchon
urbanismand perLittleor no at- statusinconsistency,
ically(and mysteriously).
interper- sonality,and manyotherareas, some of
tention
is paidto themicrosocial
reflects
to be clarified,
pro- whicharebeginning
sonal relationsand/orpsychological
to thecrucialincesses throughwhichmacrosocialstruc- similarlack of attention
processesofinpsychological
turescome to have such effects.Such terpersonal
analysisis necessarynot onlyto under- fluence.
standmorefullyhowand whysuchinflu- In sum,theessentialconcernsof psyence occurs, but also, equally impor- chologicalsociologyremainthosedefined
and reafthe social and psy- byWeber,Marx,and Durkheim
tantly,to understand
whichmayintensifyfirmedby Inkeles (1959, 1963): underchologicalconditions
quantitative
or mitigate(even nullify)such influence standingthroughultimately
comesto
and whichmayalso serveas mechanisms research(1) howsocialstructure
(cf.Elder,1973);(2)
personality
and influence
through
whichindividualpersonality
comand socialstructure
behaviorreactbackonthesocialstructure howpersonality
sociallyconsequential
bine to determine
(cf. Levinson,1959).
sociologists
arebeginning behaviors;and (3) howthe"fit"between
Psychological
needsor abilitiesand structural
totakemoreseriously
thetaskofexplicat- individual
ing the relationshipbetween structural demands affectsindividualand social
(cf. Etzioni,1968).Adequate
and functioning
positionsand individualpersonality
of such phenomenarebehavior(cf. Elder,1973),butsuchwork understanding
bothof social structhepar- quiresunderstanding
haslargelyconsistedofspecifying
proticularaspects of a broad macrosocial tureand of microsocialinteraction
and
or process such as "class" or cesses (i.e., symbolicinteractionism)
structure
individual
relevant
psychology
socially
on
the
which
"modernization"
impinge
social psychology).
usefulandgen- (i.e., psychological
individual.
Thisis a highly
endeavour(cf.Inkeles,
erallyenlightening
1974,for
1969; Kohn, 1969; Kerckhoff,
INTERFACING THE THREE FACES?
examples),butit leaves theinterpersonal
and psychological
processesof influence To thispointthispaperhas argued:(1)
stilllargelyunanalyzed.The mostegregi- thatin thelast20 yearsthebroadfieldof
has developedthreeinous exampleofthisis themoribund
status socialpsychology
of "role theory"'-onceviewed as the creasinglyseparatefaces; (2) that this
weakenseach ofthesefacesas
and separation
cruciallinkbetweenthepsychological
as a whole;(3)
sociologicallevels of analysis(cf. Par- well as social psychology
sons, 1951; Rommetviet,1955). Role thattheweaknessesofeach faceare comofone or both
bythestrengths
because(despitenumer- plemented
theorystagnated
ous taxonomiesof the nature,compo- oftheothers;andhence(4) thateach face
as a whole,
ofroles)thekey as well as social psychology
nents,and interrelations
and
issueofwhenandhowsocialrolesdo and standsto benefitboth substantively
and methodologicallyfrom greater interdo not affectindividualpersonality
behavior(or viceversa)has notbeencon- changebetweenthe faces. Yet whether
can be achieved
addressed.A andhowsuchinterchange
certedlyand systematically
more specificexamplecomes fromthe remainsquiteproblematic.
to the
status-attainment
area. A sizeable litera- To thisend, renewedattention
ture(e.g., Sewell and Hauser, 1974)has conditionswhich prevailedduringand
afterWorldWar II maybe
pro- immediately
developedon the statusattainment
others(e.g., instructive.As noted earlier,the war
cess andtheroleofsignificant
parents,peers,and teachers)in it, yetI broughtthe skillsof social psychologists
and (indeed, social scientists)froma wide
knowof onlyone study(Kerckhoff
to
and backgrounds
rangeofperspectives
which
considers
how
the
qualHuff,1974)
withtheseothers bear on commonphenomena orproblems,
ityof the relationships
THREE FACES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
173
all of whichwere seen as havingsome tentoftheirmutualrelevanceoughtto be
consideredon bothsides. Simiultimate
appliedvalue. A similarorienta- carefully
tion,whichspilledoverintograduateedu- lar exampleshave been notedin thediscation,characterized
majorresearchtop- cussionof each of thethreefacesabove.
oflivingincitieson
Studyoftheeffects
ics in theimmediate
post-war
periodsuch
as authoritarianism
(Adornoet al., 1950), individual psychology and behavior
conformity
(e.g., Asch,1958),communica- providesan exampleofhowall threefaces
tionand influence(Katz and Lazarsfeld, can contributeto, and benefitfrom,
1955; Hovland, 1959), group dynamics analyzingthe same problemor phenom(Cartwright
and Zander,1960),and race enon. Engagingin what is here termed
relations(e.g., Williams,1964).More re- psychologicalsociology, Wirth (1938)
thaturbanresidenceprofoundly
cently,each faceofsocialpsychology
has suggested
turnedin upon itself,oftenbeingmore affectedpatternsof social organization
"segmen(e.g., increasing
in advancingitsparticular
interested
sub- andinteraction
and
stantive and/or methodologicalcon- talization"of humanrelationships),
and behavior
psychology
cernsthanin understanding
majorsocial henceindividual
indifference
interpersonal
orproblems.Thus,a firststep (e.g., increasing
phenomena
may be for social psychologistsof all and personalloneliness).Populationsize,
and heterogeneity
wereforWirth
typesto thinkless about the relationof density,
of citieswhichprotheirworkto otherworkwithintheirown the crucialattributes
Wirth'sideas and redomainof social psychology
and to think ducedtheseeffects.
more about how theirworkcontributes lated theoriesaboutthe consequencesof
modand/or
a specificsocial citylifehavebeenchallenged
toward understanding
problemor phenomenon(cf. McGuire, ified,on both empiricaland theoretical
grounds,by bothsymbolicinteractionists
1973).
Thereis no lackofsocialphenomena
socialpsyor (Gans, 1962)and psychological
problems
whichmeritinvestigation
froma chologists
1975).Bothim(e.g.,Freedman,
variety
ofperspectives.
The true"crisis" plicitlyor explicitlycriticizeWirthand
of social psychologybecomes glaringly othersforfailing
and
toadequately
consider
manifest
wheretwoor morefacesare al- specifythe microsocial
and psychological
readyworking
on thesameorveryclosely processesthrough
whicha cityas a socialor
relatedissues, yet each is relatively
un- ecologicalstructure
comes to impingeon
awareof,and/or
unconcerned
with,work individuals-afailing
whichresultsin misin theothers.For example,symbolicin- takenassumptions
aboutthenatureand/or
teractionists
have studiedthe"labelling" effects
of theseprocesses.
of deviance (e.g., Scheff,1966) largely Froma symbolic
interactionist
perspecwithout
reference
to thesimultaneous
de- tive,Gans has arguedthatwherever
they
velopmentby psychologicalsocial psy- live,peopleconstruct
socialenvironments
chologistsof attribution
theory,the cen- and networksfor themselvesand that
tralfocusof whichis to specifywhenre- similartypesof people (in termsof life
sponsibility
for,or causes of, behavior cyclestage,education,ethnicity,
etc.) are
willbe attributed
to thepersonversusex- likelyto constructsimilartypesof netternalor environmental
otherseven though
factors(cf.Jones worksof significant
and Davis, 1965;Kelley,1967).Similarly, theyliveindifferent
or ecologresidential
attribution
theorists
havepaid littleatten- ical settings.Thus, the crucialdetermitionto labellingtheory.Whereasattribu- nantsof individualpsychologyand betion theory has looked at the char- haviorare networksof significant
others
of who
ofthebehaviorand situation
acteristics
as whichare muchmorea function
the primary
determinants
of externalvs. people are than of the populationsize,
internalattribution,
labellingtheoryhas density,or heterogeneity
(or othercharstressedtheimportance
ofthesocialchar- acteristics)
of theplaces wheretheylive.
acteristics
of theactorsand observersin Gans, however,providesno directsupdetermining
labelling.Thus,insomeways portforhis viewsbeyondimpressionistic
the theoriesmay be complementary;
in observationsof city life, thoughsubIn anycase, theex- sequentanalysesusingsurveydata supothers,contradictory.
174
SOCIOMETRY
port many of his conclusions(Fischer, need for,and potentialgains from,greater
1976). Similarly,Freedman(1975) has interchangebetweenthe threefaces of soshown experimentallythat physical cial psychology.Such interchange
is escrowding
failsto producemanyof theef- sentialforfullyadequatesocialpsychologfectsthatWirthand othersposited,and ical analysesof the effectsof ecological
suggests that people respond quite and residential
environments
on theindiadaptivelyto such conditions.
vidual. Further,such interchangewill
We are just beginningto understand help: (1) to providepsychological
sociolhow and whenlivingin citiesvs. other ogy withnecessarymicrosocialand psyplaces affectsindividualpsychologyand chological sophistication,(2) to opbehavior,and cannotexploreall thecom- erationalizeand test aspects of symplexitieshere (cf., Fischer,1976).Cities bolicinteractionism
and to relatethemto
do have effectson individualpsychology relevantstructural
andpsychological
conandbehavior,buttheseeffects
are neither ceptsor theories,and (3) to enhancethe
as simplenor as dramaticas Wirthand externalvalidityand relevanceof current
othershaveimplied.Whatis important
for workwithinpsychological
socialpsycholour purposesis thatthe threefaces of ogy whilealso openingnew avenuesfor
social psychology
have all contributed
to experimental
investigation.
our currentunderstanding
In manywaysthedevelopment
ofthree
of this issue
and can do so further.What is also distinctfaces of social psychologyis a
noteworthy,
however,are the ways in naturaland even beneficialphenomenon
whichtheinsularity
ofthethreefacesre- and, in fact,thispaperseeksto stimulate
mainsapparenteven in thisarea of com- more distinctdevelopmentof the third
mon concern.Thus, the developingex- face(psychological
sociology).ButdifferperimentalliteratureincludingFreed- entiation
and specialization
neednot,and
man's(1975)work,oftenevincesmorere- shouldnot,mean isolation.The intelleclationto theparallelliterature
on animals tual strengthsand weaknessesof each
thanto the relevantliterature
frompsy- domain,and of social psychologyas a
chologicalsociologyandsymbolic
interac- whole, clearly compel the three faces
tionism.Further,thereis a strongten- towardgreaterinterchange.
Butthepeculdencyforcrowding,
whichcan be easily iar currentand past intellectualand instudiedin thelaboratory,
to be takenby stitutionalcontextswithinwhich each
psychologicalsocial psychologists
as the existsand developedoftenhavemitigated
essentialfactordifferentiating
citiesfrom against such interchange.By clarifying
whencrowd- theirnature,theforcesthatshapedthem,
otherresidential
communities,
ing is obviouslyonly one small aspect and theactualand potentialrelationsbeof broadecologicalor environmental
so- tweenthem,thispaperseeks to facilitate
cial psychology (cf. Altman, 1976; individual
andperhapsinstitutional
efforts
betweenthe
Proshansky,1976). Analogously,survey to establishnew interfaces
analyses by psychologicalsociologists threefacesof social psychology.
generallydo little more than assess
urban-surburban-rural
differences on
REFERENCES
somedependent
variablewithcontrolsfor
a few basic demographicfactors(e.g., Adorno, T. W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik,Daniel J.
age, education,race)-thus exemplifying Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford
1950 The AuthoritarianPersonality.New York:
all that Blumer(1956) criticizedabout
Harper.
"variableanalysis."Meanwhile,Goffman
Solomon E.
(1971) and othershave been developing Asch,
1958 "Effects of group pressure upon the modsymbolicinteractionist
analyses of beificationand distortionofjudgements." Pp.
havior in differentsituations and
174-183 in Eleanor E. Maccoby, T. M.
Newcomb, and E. L. Hartley (eds.),
but these analyses interenvironments,
Readings in Social Psychology. New
sect hardlyat all withthepotentially
reYork:Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
lated work of psychologicalsocial psy- Allport,Floyd
chologistsand psychological
sociologists. 1924 Social Psychology.Boston:HoughtonMifflin.
In sum, this area well illustratesthe
THREE FACES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
175
Altman,Irwin
Elder, Glen
1976 "A responseto Epstein,Proshansky,
1973 "On linkingsocial structureand personaland
ity." American Behavioral Scientist 16:7Stokols." Personality
and Social Psychol22.
ogyBulletin2:364-69.
Etzioni, Amitai
Archibald,
W. Peter
1968 "Basic human needs, alienation,and inau1977 "Misplaced concretenessor misplaced
abstractness?:
Somereflections
onthestate
thenticity."AmericanSociological Review
of sociologicalsocialpsychology."
33:870-885.
AmeriFeatherman,David L.
can Sociologist12:8-11.
1972 "Achievement orientationsand socioecoBack, KurtW.
nomic career attainments." American
Un- "Psychologism,
and interacstructuralism,
Sociological Review 37:131-143.
publ. tionism."Presidential
address,Sectionon
Methodology, American Sociological Fischer, Claude
Association,New Orleans,1972.
1976 The Urban Experience. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Becker,HowardS.
1953 "Becominga marijuanauser." American Freedman, Jonathan
1975 Crowding and Behavior. San FrancisJournal
of Sociology59:235-42.
co:Freeman.
Blauner,Robert
1964 Alienation
and Freedom.Chicago:Univer- Fried,StephenB., David C. Gumper,and J. Charles
Allen
sityof ChicagoPress.
1973 "Ten years of social psychology:Is therea
Blumer,Herbert
growing commitmentto field research?"
1937 "Social psychology." Pp. 144-198 in
American Psychologist28:155-156.
EmersonP. Schmidt(ed.), Man and SociErich
Fromm,
ety.New York:Prentice-Hall.
1961 Marx's Concept of Man. New York:Fred1951 "Collective behavior." Pp. 167-223 in
erich Ungar.
AlfredMcClungLee (ed.), Principlesof
Gans, HerbertJ.
York:Barnes
and
Noble.
New
Sociology.
1962 "Urbanism and suburbanismas ways of
1956 "Sociologicalanalysisand the variable."
life: A re-evaluation of definitions." Pp.
AmericanSociologicalReview21:683-90.
625-648 in Arnold M. Rose (ed.), Human
1962 "Society as symbolicinteraction."Pp.
Behavior and Social Processes. Bos179-92in ArnoldM. Rose (ed.), Human
ton:HoughtonMifflin.
Behavior and Social Process. BosGergen, Kenneth J.
ton:Houghton
Mifflin.
1973 "Social psychologyas history."Journalof
3rown,Roger
Personality and Social Psychology 26:
1965 Social Psychology.New York:TheFree
309-20.
Press.
Glaser, Barney, and Anselm L. Strauss
Burgess,Robert
1964 "Awareness contexts and interaction."
1977 "The withering
away of social psycholAmericanSociological Review 29:669-79.
ogy," AmericanSociologist12:12-13.
Goffman,Erving
1959 The Presentationof Self in Everyday Life.
Carlson,Rae
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
1971 "Where is the personin personality
re1971 Relations in Public. New York:Basic
85:203-219.
search?"Psychological
Bulletin
Books.
andAlvinZander
Cartwright,
Dorwin,
Helmreich,Robert
1960 Group Dynamics. 2nd edition. New
1975 "Applied social psychology:The unfulfilled
York:McGraw-Hill.
promise." Personalityand Social PsycholConverse,PhilipE.
ogy Bulletin 1:548-560.
inmasspub- Hewitt, John
1964 "The natureofbeliefsystems
lics." Pp. 206-61in David E. Apter(ed.),
1976 Self and Society. Boston:Allynand Bacon.
Ideologyand Discontent.New York:Free
1977 "Comment: The dissipationof social psyPress.
chology." American Sociologist 12:14-16.
Hill, Richard J.
Cooley,CharlesHorton
1977 "Reply to Professor Liska." American
1902 HumanNatureand theSocial Order.New
Sociologist 12:17-18.
York:Scribner'
s.
Horton, John
Deutsch,Morton,
andRobertM. Krauss
1964 "The dehumanizationofanomie and aliena1965 Theories in Social Psychology.New
tion: A problem in the ideology of sociolYork:BasicBooks.
ogy." BritishJournalof Sociology 15:283Emile
Durkheim,
300.
[1895]The Rules of SociologicalMethod.Tr. by Hovland, Carl I.
New
1950 SarahA. SolovayandJohnH. Mueller.
1959 "Reconciling conflictingresults derived
Press.
York:Free
from experimentaland survey studies of
andGeorge
attitude change." American Psychologist
[1897]Suicide.Tr.byJohnA. Spalding
New York:Free
1951 Simpson.
Press.
14:8- 17.
Life.Tr. Inkeles, Alex
FormsofReligious
[1912]TheElementary
WardSwain.NewYork:Free
Press.
1948 byJoseph
1959 "Personality and social structure." Pp.
176
SOCIOMETRY
249-276 in Robert K. Merton, Leonard
Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell,Jr.(eds.),
Sociology Today. New York:Basic Books.
1960 "Industrial man: The relation of status,
experience, and value." AmericanJournal
of Sociology 66:1-31.
1963 "Sociology and psychology." Pp. 317-87 in
Sigmund Koch (ed.), Psychology: The
Study of a Science (Vol. 6). New
York:McGraw-Hill.
1969 "Making men modern: On the causes and
consequences of individual change in six
developing countries." American Journal
of Sociology 75:208-25.
Israel, Joachim
1971 Alienation: From Marx to Modern Sociology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Jones, Edward E., and Keith Davis
1965 "From acts to dispositions:The attribution
process in person perception." Pp. 212-266
in Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2).
New York: Academic Press.
Jones, Edward E., and Harold Gerard
1967 Foundations of Social Psychology. New
York:Wiley.
Katz, Daniel
1972 "Some final considerations about experimentationin social psychology." Pp.
549-561 in Charles G. McClintock (ed.),
Experimental Social Psychology. New
York:Holt, Rinehart,and Winston.
Katz, Elihu, and Paul Lazarsfeld
1955 Personal Influence: The Part Played by
People in the Flow of Mass Communications. New York:Free Press.
Kelley, Harold H.
1967 "Attributiontheoryin social psychology."
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation
14:192-241.
Kerckhoff,Alan C.
1974 Ambition and Attainment. Washington,
D.C.:American Sociological Association,
Arnold and Caroline Rose Monograph
Series.
Kerckhoff,Alan, and JudithHuff
1974 "Parental influenceon educational goals."
Sociometry37:307-27.
Kinch, John
1963 "A formalizedtheoryof the self-concept."
American Journalof Sociology 68:481-86.
Kohn, Melvin
1969 Class
and Conformity. Homewood,
Ill.:Dorsey Press.
Kuhn, ManfordH.
1964 "Major trends in symbolic interaction
theory in the past twenty-fiveyears."
Sociological Quarterly5:61-84.
Lenski, Gerhard
1963 The Religious Factor. Garden City,
N.Y.:Doubleday Anchor.
Levenson, Hanna, Morris J. Gray, and AnnetteIngram
1976 "Research methods in personality five
years after Carlson's study." Personality
and Social PsychologyBulletin 2:158-161.
Levinson, Daniel J.
1959 "Role, personalityand social structurein
the organizationalsetting." Journalof Abnormaland Social Psychology58:170-180.
Lewin, Kurt
1947 "Group decision and social change." Pp.
330-344 in Theodore M. Newcomb and
Eugene L. Hartley (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology. New York:Henry Holt.
Lindesmith,AlfredR., Anselm L. Strauss, and Norman K. Denzin
1975a Social Psychology (4th ed.). Hinsdale,
Ill.:Dryden Press.
1975b Readings in Social Psychology (2nd ed.).
Hinsdale, Ill. :Dryden Press.
Lindzey, Gardner
1954 The Handbook of Social Psychology (2
vols.). Cambridge, Mass.:Addison-Wesley.
Lindzey, Gardner, and Elliot Aronson
196869 The Handbook of Social Psychology (2nd
ed.; 5 vols.). Reading, Mass. AddisonWesley.
Liska, Allen E.
1977a "The dissipationof sociological social psychology." American Sociologist 12:2-8.
1977b "The dissipationof sociological social psychology: A replyto my critics." American
Sociologist 12:19-23.
Lukes, Steven
1967 "Alienation and anomie." Pp. 134-156 in
Peter Laslett and WilliamRunciman(eds.),
Philosophy, Politics and Society (3rd
series). Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Manis, JeromeG., and Bernard Meltzer
1972 Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social
Psychology (2nd ed.). Boston:Allyn and
Bacon.
McClelland, David C.
1961 The Achieving Society. Princeton, N.J.:
Van Nostrand.
McGuire, William J.
1973 "The yin and yang of progress in social
psychology:Seven Koan." Journalof Personalityand Social Psychology26:446-456.
Mead, George Herbert
1934 Mind, Self and Society. Edited by Charles
Morris. Chicago:University of Chicago
Press.
Meltzer, Bernard, and JohnW. Petras
1970 "The Chicago and Iowa Schools of symbolic interactionism."Pp. 3-17 in Tamotsu
Shibutani(ed.), Human Nature and Collective Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Merton, Robert K.
1957 Social Theory and Social Structure(Rev.
ed.). New York:Free Press.
Murchison,Carl A. (ed.)
1935 Handbook of Social Psychology. Worcester, Massachusetts:ClarkUniversityPress.
Newcomb, Theodore
1950 Social Psychology. New York:Holt,
Rinehart,Winston.
THREE FACES OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
177
Parsons, Talcott
Handbook of Social Psychology (2nd ed.,
vol. 5). Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley.
1937 The Structure of Social Action. New
Sewell, William H., and Robert M. AHauser
York:McGraw-Hill.
1974 Education, Occupation and Earnings. New
1951 The Social System. New York:Free Press.
York:Academic Press.
1964 Social Structure and Personality. New
Shibutani,Tamotsu
York:Free Press.
1961 Society and Personality.Englewood Cliffs,
Parsons, Talcott, R. F. Bales, and E. A. Shils
N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
1953 Working Paper in the Theory of Action.
New York:Free Press.
Steiner, Ivan D.
Personalityand Social PsychologyBulletin
1973 "Whatever happened to the groupin social
psychology." Journalof ExperimentalSo1976a Volume 2 (Spring). Washington,D.C.:Soccial Psychology 10:94-108.
ietyforPersonalityand Social Psychology.
1976b Volume 2 (Fall). Washington,D.C. :Society
Stokes, Randall, and JohnP. Hewitt
1976 "Aligningactions." AmericanSociological
for Personalityand Social Psychology.
Review 41:838-49.
Portes, Alejandro
Stouffer,Samuel A., et al.
1973 "The factorialstructureof modernity:Em1949- Studies in Social Psychologyin World War
pirical replicationsand a critique." Ameri50 II (4 volumes). Princeton, N.J.:Princeton
can Journalof Sociology 79:15-44.
UniversityPress.
Proshansky,Harold M.
1976 "Comment on environmentaland social
Sullivan, Harry Stack
1953 The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry.
psychology." Personalityand Social PsyNew York:Norton.
chology Bulletin 2:359-63.
Thorngate,Warren
Ring, Kenneth R.
1976 "Ignorance, arrogance,and social psychol1967 "Experimental social psychology: Some
sober questions about frivolous values."
ogy: A reply to Helmreich." Personality
and Social PsychologyBulletin2:122-126.
Journalof ExperimentalSocial Psychology
Tiryakian,Edward A.
3:113-23.
1962 Sociologism and Existentialism. EngleRommetviet,Ragnar
wood Cliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
1955 Social Norms and Roles: Explorations in
the Psychology of Enduring Social Pres- Turner,Ralph
1962 "Role-taking:Process versus conformity."
sures. Minneapolis:University of MinPp. 22-40 in ArnoldRose (ed.), Human Benesota Press.
havior and Social Processes. BosRose, Arnold M. (ed.)
1962 Human Behavior and Social Processes.
ton:HoughtonMifflin.
1964 "Collective behavior." Pp. 382-425 in
Boston:Houghton Mifflin.
Robert E. L. Faris (ed.), Handbook of
Rosenberg, Morris
1965 Society and the Adolescent Self-Image.
Modern Sociology. Chicago:Rand-McNally.
Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Weber, Max
Rosenthal, Robert, and Ralph Rosnow (eds.)
[1927] The Theory of Social and Economic Orga1969 Artifact in Behavioral Research. New
York:Academic Press.
1964 nization. Tr. by A. M. Henderson and
Talcott Parsons. New York:Free Press.
Scheff,Thomas
1966 Being MentallyIll: A Sociological Theory.
[1904- The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
05] Capitalism. Tr. by Talcott Parsons. New
Chicago:Aldine.
1958 York:Scribner's.
Schwartz, Michael, and Sheldon Stryker
Williams,Robin M.
1971 Deviance, Selves, and Others. Arnold and
1964 Strangers Next Door. Englewood Cliffs,
CarolynRose MonographSeries. WashingN.J.:Prentice-Hall.
ton:AmericanSociological Association.
Wirth,Louis
Sears, David
1938 "Urbanism as a way of life." American
1969 "Political behavior." Pp. 315-548 in GardJournalof Sociology 44:3-24.
ner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson (eds.).