SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY. — It is the branch of general psychology that studies primarily two classes of phenomena: 1) the interference and conflicts between social groups; 2) the behavior of the individual insofar as it is stimulated and conditioned by the behavior of other persons and of various social groups. The development and autonomous affirmation of social psychology have not been easy, since a clear differentiation from both sociology and psychology was necessary. With the founding of the German periodical *Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft* (1860), M. Lazarus and H. Steinthal attempted an initial systematization of philological, historical, and psychological data outside the traditional sociological framework, and from that point social psychology would present itself for many years as a genuine psychology of peoples (of capital importance is Wundt’s *Völkerpsychologie*, 1900).
A more precise rapprochement with psychology occurred following studies devoted to the dynamics of crowds. This orientation began in Italy (G. Sergi, *Psicosi epidemiche*, 1889; S. Sighele, *La folla delinquente*, 1891) and continued in France with Le Bon (his *Psychologie des foules* appeared in 1895). Almost all authors emphasized the negative character of the crowd (paroxysmal and criminal aspects) and contrasted the value of the individual with the uniform leveling of the masses, which undermines and degrades intelligence and moral sentiment. Continuing the natural process of differentiation, social psychology sought to free itself from related disciplines. Thus, reference was made to collective psychology, which studies the manifestations of unstable and accidental groups or aggregates (such as crowds), while the psychic manifestations of stable and organized groups would belong in their own right to social psychology. This distinction must be rejected, for it is both impossible and useless to create new disciplines for every type of more or less organized structure. The same observation applies to more recent designations, such as psychology or socio-psychology. Social psychology is an autonomous science and naturally occupies a place between psychology (v.) and sociology (v.): it forms a connecting link between the two disciplines.
Research must proceed in three directions: a) analysis of the social conditions that influence the mental and affective life of the individual; b) analysis of the reactions that the individual manifests in response to social phenomena; c) analysis of the final outcome of this process, which may culminate in adaptation or opposition to the group.
Social psychology has suffered from the pretension of many authors, more or less imbued with positivism, to present overly broad and definitive schemas (for example, research on the existence of typical social instincts that would explain the reality of collective life). The most notable attempt was made by the Anglo-American psychologist W. McDougall, the American sociologist L. F. Ward, and, with less precise formulations, earlier by the French scholars Tarde (imitation as the basis of social relations) and Fouillée (idea-forces that periodically modify the structures of social groups). Psychoanalysis (v.) has framed this entire theme on new foundations: for Freud, the bond uniting the members of a group or the components of a crowd is always libido, the fundamental psychic energy. There would always be a typical identification of the members with the leader, but in collective phenomena libido would be diverted from its normal sexual aims. This is an uncertain and obscure thesis that cannot be presented as a fruitful working hypothesis. The same may be said of C. G. Jung’s thesis on the collective unconscious, which would contain the experience of all past generations and would revive in a particular way in collective manifestations. Psychoanalysis has sought to apply its basic concepts to social psychology (regression, identification, frustration, sublimation, repression, etc.). The Russian school, on the other hand, has emphasized the value of conditioned reflexes, which should explain the social behavior of the individual (from Pavlov to Drabovic and Cikotin): a thesis undoubtedly valid in certain respects, but impossible to accept in its generalizations.
Social psychology began to gain recognition when it adopted a rigorous experimental approach and addressed concrete and well-defined topics (v. the themes of political propaganda or advertising with statistical surveys of public opinion, etc). First, it was necessary to specify the various types of environment with which the individual actually comes into contact; these are classified as cosmic, organic, social, and psychological environments (Miotto). Next, it was necessary to demonstrate experimentally the influence that environmental conditions exert on the psychic processes of the individual, and so the field moved from the theoretical views of the French sociologist Durkheim and the French psycho-pathologist Ch. Blondel to the concrete investigations of modern social psychology in the United States (Sherif, Moreno on sociometry, K. Lewin on the extension of social fields, etc.). As might be expected, statistical-mathematical evaluation (i.e., the quantitative criterion) has become increasingly prevalent, and in recent years mental tests have been routinely used in the study of the social components of human personality. It is obvious that modern social psychology has abandoned the theme of the so-called collective soul as inconclusive. Instead of speculating on this illusory entity, which, detached from the psyches of individuals, would read the minds of communities or nations, it is more appropriate to focus on the psychology of the individual who, under particular circumstances, adopts the ideo-affective orientations of other equally concrete individuals. We may conclude by saying that the old notions of a collective soul or similar concepts simply indicate the more or less lasting agreement among the intentions and actions of the individuals composing a given social group. Accepting this criterion makes it possible to direct research along experimental lines, and this is certainly the greatest achievement of modern social psychology.
In conclusion: social psychology studies the relationships between the individual and the social group in the broadest sense of the term (from the crowd to the strongly organized group) and the relationships of harmony, tension, or conflict among the various social groups. It is not a normative discipline, but it is certain that a better understanding of social relationships could make a valid contribution to the normalization of these relationships, both at the level of small groups (from the family to the nation) and at the international level.