Directions, tasks and methodology of social psychology. Social Psychology

1.1. Subject and structure social psychology

1.1.1. Subject of social psychology

Modern ideas about the subject of social psychology are extremely differentiated, that is, different from each other, which is typical for most borderline, related branches of science, to which social psychology belongs. She studies the following phenomena:

Psychological processes, states and properties of an individual, which manifest themselves as a result of his inclusion in relationships with other people, in various social groups (family, educational and work groups, etc.) and in general in the system of social relations (economic, political, managerial , legal, etc.). The most frequently studied manifestations of personality in groups are: sociability, aggressiveness, compatibility with other people, conflict potential, etc.

The phenomenon of interaction between people, in particular, the phenomenon of communication, for example: marital, child-parent, pedagogical, managerial, psychotherapeutic and many other types. Interaction can be not only interpersonal, but also between an individual and a group, as well as intergroup.

Psychological processes, states and properties of various social groups as integral entities that differ from each other and cannot be reduced to any individual. The greatest interest of social psychologists is in studies of the socio-psychological climate of a group and conflict relations (group states), leadership and group actions (group processes), cohesion, harmony and conflict (group properties), etc.

Mass mental phenomena, such as: crowd behavior, panic, rumors, fashion, mass enthusiasm, jubilation, apathy, fears, etc.

Uniting different approaches To understand the subject of social psychology, we can give the following definition:

Social psychology studies psychological phenomena (processes, states and properties) that characterize the individual and group as subjects of social interaction.

1.1.2. Main objects of research in social psychology

Depending on one or another understanding of the subject of social psychology, the main objects of its study are identified, that is, the carriers of socio-psychological phenomena. These include: a person in a group (system of relationships), interaction in the “person - personality” system (parent - child, leader - performer, doctor - patient, psychologist - client, etc.), small group (family, school class , work brigade, military crew, group of friends, etc.), interaction in the “person - group” system (leader - followers, leader - work collective, commander - platoon, newcomer - school class, etc.), interaction in the “group-group” system (team competition, group negotiations, intergroup conflicts, etc.), a large social group (ethnicity, party, social movement, social strata, territorial, religious groups, etc.). The most complete objects of social psychology, including those that have not yet been sufficiently studied, can be presented in the form of the following diagram (Fig. I).

Interaction

Interaction

Rice. I. Objects of research in social psychology.

1.1.3. The structure of modern social psychology

1.2. History of Russian social psychology

The traditional view was that the origins of social psychology go back to Western science. Historical and psychological research has shown that social psychology in our country has a distinctive history. The emergence and development of Western and domestic psychology occurred as if in parallel.

Domestic social psychology arose at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. The path of its formation has a number of stages: the emergence of social psychology in the social and natural sciences, the spin-off from parent disciplines (sociology and psychology) and transformation into an independent science, the emergence and development of experimental social psychology.

The history of social psychology in our country has four periods:

I - 60s of the XIX century. - beginning of the 20th century,

II - 20s - first half of the 30s of the XX century;

III - second half of the 30s - first half of the 50s;

IV - second half of the 50s - second half of the 70s of the XX century.

First period (60s of the 19th century - beginning of the 20th centuries)

During this period, the development of Russian social psychology was determined by the peculiarities of the socio-historical development of society, the state and specifics of the development of social and natural sciences, the peculiarities of the development of general psychology, the specifics of scientific traditions, culture, and the mentality of society.

The process of self-determination of psychology in the system of sciences about nature, society, and man had a great influence on the development of social psychology. There was an intense struggle for the status of psychology, and the problem of its subject and research methods was discussed. The cardinal question was about who and how to develop psychology. The problem of social determination of the psyche was of significant importance. There was a clash between the infraspectionist and behavioral trends in psychology.

The development of social-psychological ideas occurred mainly within applied psychological disciplines. Attention was paid to the psychological characteristics of people, manifested in their interaction, joint activities and communication.

The main empirical source of social psychology was outside psychology. Knowledge about the behavior of an individual in a group and group processes was accumulated in military and legal practice, in medicine, in the study of national characteristics of command, in the study of beliefs and customs. These studies in related fields of knowledge, in different areas of practice, were distinguished by the richness of the socio-psychological questions posed, the originality of the decisions made, the uniqueness of the socio-psychological material collected through research, observations, and experiments (E. A. Budilova, 1983).

Social-psychological ideas during this period were successfully developed by representatives of the social sciences, primarily sociologists. For the history of social psychology, the psychological school in sociology (P. L. Lavrov (1865), N. I. Kareev (1919), M. M. Kovalevsky (1910), N. K. Mikhailovsky (1906)) is of great interest. The most developed socio-psychological concept is contained in the works of N.K. Mikhailovsky. In his opinion, the socio-psychological factor plays a decisive role in the course of the historical process. The laws operating in social life must be sought in social psychology. Mikhailovsky is responsible for the development of the psychology of mass social movements, one of the varieties of which is revolutionary movements.

The active forces of social development are heroes and the crowd. Complex psychological processes arise during their interaction. The crowd in the concept of N.K. Mikhailovsky acts as an independent socio-psychological phenomenon. The leader controls the crowd. It is put forward by a specific crowd at certain moments of the historical process. It accumulates scattered feelings, instincts, and thoughts that function in a crowd. The relationship between the hero and the crowd is determined by the nature of a given historical moment, a given system, the personal properties of the hero, and the mental mood of the crowd. Public sentiment is a factor that the hero must necessarily take into account in order for the masses to follow him. The function of the hero is to control the mood of the crowd, to be able to use it to achieve set goals. He must use the general direction of the crowd's activity, determined by the awareness of common needs. Socio-psychological problems were especially clearly manifested in N. K. Mikhailovsky’s scientific ideas about the psychological characteristics of a leader, a hero, the psychology of a crowd, and the mechanisms of interaction between people in a crowd. Exploring the problem of communication between the hero and the crowd, interpersonal communication people in a crowd, he identifies suggestion, imitation, infection, and opposition as mechanisms of communication. The main one is the imitation of people in the crowd. The basis of imitation is hypnotism. Automatic imitation, “moral or mental infection,” often occurs in a crowd.

The final conclusion of N.K. Mikhailovsky is that the psychological factors in the development of society are imitation, public mood and social behavior.

Social and psychological problems in jurisprudence are represented by the theory of L. I. Petrazhitsky. He is one of the founders of the subjective school in jurisprudence. L.I. Petrazhitsky believed that psychology is a fundamental science that should become the basis of the social sciences. According to L.I. Petrazhitsky, only mental phenomena really exist, and socio-historical formations represent their projections, emotional phantasms. The development of law, morality, ethics, aesthetics is a product of the people's psyche. As a lawyer, he was interested in the question of the motives of human actions and social norms of behavior. The true motive of human behavior is emotions (L. I. Petrazhitsky, 1908).

V. M. Bekhterev occupies a special place in the pre-revolutionary history of the development of Russian social psychology. He began his studies in social psychology at the end of the 19th century. In 1908, the text of his speech at the ceremonial assembly meeting of the St. Petersburg Military Medical Academy was published. This speech was devoted to the role of suggestion in public life. His work “Personality and the Conditions of Its Development” (1905) is socio-psychological. The special socio-psychological work “The Subject and Tasks of Social Psychology as an Objective Science” (1911) contains a detailed presentation of his views on the essence of socio-psychological phenomena, on the subject of social psychology, and the methods of this branch of knowledge. Ten years later, V. M. Bekhterev published his fundamental work “Collective Reflexology” (1921), which can be considered as the first textbook on social psychology in Russia. This work was a logical development of his general psychological theory, which constituted a specific Russian direction psychological science- reflexology (V. M. Bekhterev, 1917). The principles of reflexological explanation of the essence of individual psychology were extended to the understanding of collective psychology. There has been a lively discussion around this concept. A number of supporters and followers defended and developed it, while others sharply criticized it. These discussions, which began after the publication of Bekhterev's main works, subsequently became the center of theoretical life in the 20-30s. Bekhterev's main merit lies in the fact that he developed a system of socio-psychological knowledge. His “collective reflexology” is a synthetic work on social psychology in Russia at that time. Bekhterev has a detailed definition of the subject of social psychology. Such a subject is the study of the psychological activity of meetings and gatherings made up of a mass of individuals manifesting their neuropsychic activity as a whole. Thanks to the interaction of people at a rally or in a government meeting, a general mood, a cathedral spirit, is manifested everywhere. mental creativity and collective actions of many persons connected with each other by certain conditions (V. M. Bekhterev, 1911). V. M. Bekhterev identifies the system-forming features of a team: a commonality of interests and tasks that encourage the team to unite their actions. The organic inclusion of the individual in the community, in the activity, led V. M. Bekhterev to the understanding of the collective as a collective personality. As social and psychological phenomena, V. M. Bekhterev identifies interaction, relationships, communication, collective hereditary reflexes, collective mood, collective concentration and observation, collective creativity, coordinated collective actions. The factors that unite people in a team are: mechanisms of mutual suggestion, mutual imitation, mutual induction. A special place as a unifying factor belongs to language. V. M. Bekhterev’s position that the team as an integral unity is a developing entity seems important.

V. M. Bekhterev considered the question of the methods of this new branch of science. Just like the objective reflexological method in individual psychology, in collective psychology an objective method can and should also be applied. The works of V. M. Bekhterev contain a description of a large amount of empirical material obtained through the use of objective observation, questionnaires, and surveys. Bekhterev's inclusion of experiment in socio-psychological methods is unique. An experiment conducted by V. M. Bekhterev together with M. V. Lange showed how socio-psychological phenomena - communication, joint activity - influence the formation of processes of perception, ideas, and memory. The work of M.V. Lange and V.M. Bekhterev (1925) laid the foundation for experimental social psychology in Russia. These studies served as the source of a special direction in Russian psychology - the study of the role of communication in the formation of mental processes.

Second period (20s - first half of the 30s of the XX century)

After the October Revolution of 1917, especially after the end of the civil war, during the recovery period, interest in social psychology sharply increased in our country. The need to understand revolutionary changes in society, revitalization of intellectual activity, acute ideological struggle, the need to solve a number of urgent practical problems (organizing work to restore the national economy, combating homelessness, eliminating illiteracy, restoring cultural institutions, etc.) were the reasons for the development of socio-psychological research , holding heated discussions. The period of the 20-30s for social psychology in Russia was fruitful. Its characteristic feature was the search for its own path in the development of world socio-psychological thought. This search was carried out in two ways:

in discussions with the main schools of foreign social psychology;

by mastering Marxist ideas and applying them to understanding the essence of socio-psychological phenomena.

a critical attitude towards foreign social psychologists and domestic scientists who adopted a number of their basic ideas (one should point out the positions of V. A. Artemov),

the tendency to combine Marxism with a number of trends in foreign psychology. This “unifying” trend came from both natural science-oriented scientists and social scientists (philosophers, lawyers). L. N. Voitolovsky (1925), M. A. Reisner (1925), A. B. Zalkind (1927), Yu. V. Frankfurt (1927), K. N. took part in the discussion on the problems of “psychology and Marxism” Kornilov (1924), G. I. Chelpanov (1924).

The construction of Marxist social psychology was based on a solid materialist tradition in Russian philosophy. A special place in the period of the 20-30s was occupied by the works of N. I. Bukharin and G. V. Plekhanov. The latter has a special place. Plekhanov's works, published before the revolution, became part of the arsenal of psychological science (G.V. Plekhanov, 1957). These works were in demand by social psychologists and were used by them for a Marxist understanding of socio-psychological phenomena.

The development of Marxism in the 20-30s was carried out jointly in social and general psychology. This was natural and was explained by the fact that representatives of these sciences discussed a number of fundamental methodological problems: the relationship between social psychology and individual psychology; the relationship between social psychology and sociology; the nature of the collective as the main object of social psychology.

When considering the issue of the relationship between individual and social psychology, there were two points of view. A number of authors argued that if the essence of man, according to Marxism, is the totality of all social relations, then all psychology that studies people is social psychology. There should supposedly be no social psychology along with general psychology. The opposite point of view was represented by those who argued that only social psychology should exist. “There is a unified social psychology,” argued V. A. Artemov, “which is divided into the social psychology of the individual and the social psychology of the collective” (V. A. Artemov. 1927). During the discussions these extreme points visions were overcome. The prevailing views became that there should be an equal interaction between social and individual psychology.

The question of the relationship between individual and social psychology was transformed into the question of the relationship between experimental and social psychology. A special place in discussions on the issue of restructuring psychology on the basis of Marxism was occupied by G. I. Chelpanov (G. I. Chelpanov, 1924). He argued for the need for independent existence of social psychology along with individual, experimental psychology. Social psychology studies socially determined mental phenomena. It is closely related to ideology. Its connection with Marxism is organic and natural. In order for this connection to be productive, G. I. Chelpanov considered it necessary to differently comprehend the scientific content of Marxism itself, to free it from a vulgar materialist interpretation. A positive attitude towards the inclusion of social psychology in the system reformed in new ideological conditions was also manifested in the fact that he proposed to include the organization of research in social psychology in the plan of scientific research activities and for the first time in our country raised the question of organizing the Institute of Social Psychology. In relation to Marxism, the point of view of G.I. Chelpanov is as follows. Specifically Marxist social psychology is social psychology that studies the genesis of ideological forms using a special Marxist method, which consists in studying the origin of these forms depending on changes in the social economy (G. I. Chelpanov, 1924). Sharply polemicizing with representatives of the authoritative psychological direction - reflexology, G. I. Chelpanov argued that the task of psychology reform should not be the organization of dog walkers, but the organization of work on the study of social psychology (G. I. Chelpanov, 1926). K. N. Kornilov (1924) and P. P. Blonsky (1920) also spoke on the issue of science reform.

One of the main directions in social psychology of the 20-30s was the study of the problem of groups. The question of the nature of collectives was discussed. Three points of view were expressed. From the perspective of the first, a collective is nothing more than a mechanical aggregate, a simple sum of the individuals that make it up. Representatives of the second argued that the behavior of an individual is fatally predetermined by the general tasks and structure of the team. The middle position between these extreme positions was occupied by representatives of the third point of view, according to which individual behavior in a team changes, at the same time, the team as a whole is characterized by an independent creative nature of behavior. Many social psychologists participated in the detailed development of the theory of groups, their classification, the study of different groups, and the problems of their development (B.V. Belyaev (1921), L. Byzov (1924), L.N. Voitolovsky (1924), A.S. Zatuzhny (1930), M. A. Reisner (1925), G. A. Fortunatov (1925), etc. During this period, the foundation was essentially laid for subsequent research into the psychology of groups and collectives in domestic science,

In the scientific and organizational development of social psychology in Russia, the First All-Union Congress on the Study of Human Behavior, held in 1930, was of great importance. Personality problems and problems of social psychology and collective behavior were identified as one of three priority areas of discussion. These problems were discussed both methodologically, in connection with the ongoing debate about Marxism in psychology, and in concrete terms. Social transformations that took place in post-revolutionary Russia in ideology, in industrial production, in agriculture, in national politics, in military affairs, according to the participants of the congress, gave rise to new socio-psychological phenomena that should have attracted the attention of social psychologists. The main socio-psychological phenomenon has become collectivism, which manifests itself differently in different conditions and in different associations. Theoretical, methodological, and specific tasks for studying the collective were reflected in a special resolution of the congress. The beginning of the 30s was the peak of the development of socio-psychological research in applied fields, especially in pedology and psychotechnics.

Third period (second half of the 30s - second half of the 50s of the XX century)

In the second half of the 1930s the situation changed dramatically. The isolation of Russian science from Western psychology began. Translations of works by Western authors ceased to be published. Ideological control over science has increased within the country. The atmosphere of decree and administration thickened. This fettered creative initiative and gave rise to a fear of exploring socially pressing issues. The number of studies in social psychology has sharply decreased, and books on this discipline have almost ceased to be published. There came a break in the development of Russian social psychology. In addition to the general political situation, the reasons for this break were the following:

Theoretical justification for the uselessness of social psychology. In psychology, there is a widespread view that, since all mental phenomena are socially determined, there is no need to specifically distinguish social-psychological phenomena and the science that studies them.

The ideological orientation of Western social psychology, discrepancies in the understanding of social phenomena, and psychologization in sociology caused a sharp critical assessment of Marxists. This assessment was often transferred to social psychology, which led to the fact that social psychology in the Soviet Union fell into the category of pseudosciences.

One of the reasons for the break in the history of social psychology was the practical lack of demand for research results. Studying the opinions, moods of people, and the psychological atmosphere in society was of no use to anyone, moreover, it was extremely dangerous.

Ideological pressure on science was reflected in the Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1936 “On pedological perversions in the system of People’s Commissariat of Education.” This decree closed not only pedology, but also had a rebound impact on psychotechnics and social psychology. The break period, which began in the second half of the 30s, lasted until the second half of the 50s. But even at this time there was a complete absence of socio-psychological research. Development of theory and methodology general psychology the theoretical foundation of social psychology was created (B. G. Ananyev, L. S. Vygotsky, A. N. Leontiev, S. L. Rubinstein, etc.) In this regard, ideas about the socio-historical determination of mental phenomena, the development of the principle unity of consciousness and activity and the principle of development.

The main source and scope of social psychology during this period were educational research and teaching practice. The central theme of this period was the psychology of the collective. The views of A. S. Makarenko determined the shape of social psychology. He entered the history of social psychology primarily as a researcher of the team and the education of the individual in the team (A. S. Makarenko, 1956). A. S. Makarenko owns one of the definitions of the collective, which was the starting point for the development of socio-psychological problems in subsequent decades. A team, according to A. S. Makarenko, is a purposeful complex of individuals, organized and possessing governing bodies. It is a contact aggregate based on the socialist principle of unification. A collective is a social organism. The main features of a team are: the presence of common goals serving the benefit of society; joint activities aimed at achieving these goals; a certain structure; the presence in it of bodies coordinating the activities of the team and representing its interests. The team is part of society, organically connected with other groups. Makarenko gave a new classification of groups. He identified two types: 1) primary collective: its members are in a permanent friendly, everyday and ideological association (team, school class, family); 2) secondary collective - a broader association. In it, goals and relationships stem from a deeper social synthesis, from the tasks of the national economy, from socialist principles of life (school, enterprise). The goals themselves differ in the time of their implementation. Close, medium and long-range targets were identified. Makarenko is responsible for developing the issue of the stages of development of a team. In its development, the collective, according to A. S. Makarenko, goes from the dictatorial demand of the organizer to the free demand of each individual about himself against the background of the demands of the collective. Personality psychology occupies a central place in Makarenko’s collective psychology. Criticizing functionalism, which decomposed personality into impersonal functions, negatively assessing the biogenetic and sociogenetic concepts of personality that were dominant at that time, and the individualistic orientation of general psychology, A. S. Makarenko raised the question of the need for a holistic study of personality. The main theoretical and practical task is the study of the individual in a team.

The main problems in the study of personality were the relationship of the individual in the team, the identification of promising lines in its development, and the formation of character. In this regard, the purpose of human upbringing is the formation of the projected qualities of the individual, the lines of his development. For a complete study of personality, it is necessary to study; well-being of a person in a team; the nature of collective connections and reactions: discipline, readiness for action and inhibition; ability of tact and orientation; integrity; emotional and perspective aspiration. The study of the motivational sphere of the individual is essential. The main thing in this area is needs. A morally justified need, according to A. S. Makarenko, is the need of a collective, that is, a person connected with the collective by a common goal of movement, unity of struggle, a living and undoubted sense of his duty to society. We have need as a sister to duty, responsibility, ability; This is a manifestation of non-consumer interest public goods, but a figure of a socialist society, a creator of common goods, argued A.S. Makarenko.

In the study of personality, A. S. Makarenko demanded overcoming contemplation, applying active methods education. Makarenko drew up a scheme for studying personality, reflected in the work “Methodology of Organization educational process" The core idea of ​​the socio-psychological concept of A. S. Makarenko is the unity of the team and the individual. This determined the basis of his practical requirement: the education of the individual in the collective through the collective, for the collective.

The views of A, S. Makarenko were developed by many researchers and practitioners and were covered in numerous publications. Of the psychological works, the doctrine of the collective by A. S. Makarenko is most consistently presented in the works of A. L. Shnirman.

Local socio-psychological research in various branches of science and practice (pedagogical, military, medical, industrial) in the 40-50s maintained a certain continuity in the history of Russian social psychology. At the end of the 50s, its final stage began,

Fourth period (second half of the 50s - first half of the 70s of the XX century)

During this period, a special social and intellectual situation arose in our country. The “warming” of the general atmosphere, the weakening of administration in science, the reduction of ideological control, and a certain democratization in all spheres of life led to a revival of the creative activity of scientists. For social psychology, it was important that interest in man increased, and the task of forming a comprehensively developed personality and his active life position arose. The situation has changed in social sciences. Concrete sociological research began to be conducted intensively. An important circumstance was changes in psychological science. Psychology in the 50s defended its right to independent existence in heated discussions with physiologists. In general psychology, social psychology received reliable support. The period of revival of social psychology in our country has begun. With certain justification, this period can be called a recovery period. Social psychology emerged as an independent science. The criteria for this independence were: awareness by representatives of this science of the level of its development, the state of its research, characterization of the place of this science in the system of other sciences; defining the subject and objects of her research; highlighting and defining main categories and concepts; formulation of laws and patterns; institutionalization of science; training of specialists. Formal criteria include publication of special works, articles, organization of discussions at congresses, conferences, and symposiums. All these criteria were met by the state of social psychology in our country. Formally, the beginning of the revival period is associated with a discussion on social psychology. This discussion began with the publication of A. G. Kovalev’s article “On Social Psychology” in the Leningrad State University Bulletin, 1959. No. 12. Discussions continued in the journals “Questions of Psychology” and “Questions of Philosophy”, at the II Congress of Psychologists of the USSR, at the plenary session and at the first organized within the framework of the All-Union Congresses of the section on social psychology. There was a permanent seminar on social psychology at the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

In 1968, the book “Problems of Social Psychology” was published, ed. V.N. Kolbanovsky and B.F. Porshnev, which attracted the attention of scientists. In a synthesized form, the self-reflection of social psychologists about the essence of socio-psychological phenomena, the subject, the tasks of social psychology, the determination of the main directions of its further development were reflected in textbooks and teaching aids, the main ones of which were published in the 60s - the first half of the 70s (G M. Andreeva, 1980; A. G. Kovalev, 1972; E. S. Kuzmin 1967; B. D. Parygin, 1967, 1971). IN in a certain sense The final work of the recovery period is the book “Methodological Problems of Social Psychology” (1975). It came out as a result of the “collective thinking” of social psychologists, which was carried out at a permanent seminar on social psychology at the Institute of Psychology. The book reflects the main problems of social psychology: personality, activity, communication, social relations, social norms, value orientations, large social groups, regulation of behavior. This book is presented entirely by authors who were among the country's leading social psychologists of the period.

The final stage in the history of domestic social psychology was marked by the development of its main problems. In the field of methodology of social psychology, the concepts of G. M. Andreeva (1980), B. D. Parygin (1971), E. V. Shorokhova (1975) were fruitful. K. K. Platonov (1975), A. V. Petrovsky (1982), L. I. Umansky (1980) made a great contribution to the study of team problems. Research in the social psychology of personality is associated with the names of L. I. Bozhovich (1968), K. K. Platonov (!965), V. A. Yadov (1975). The works of L. P. Bueva (1978) and E. S. Kuzmin (1967) are devoted to the study of problems of activity. The study of the social psychology of communication was carried out by A. A. Bodalev (1965), L. P. Bueva (1978), A. A. Leontyev (1975), B. F. Lomov (1975), B. D. Parygin (1971).

In the 70s, the organizational development of social psychology was completed. It was institutionalized as an independent science. In 1962, the country's first laboratory of social psychology was organized at Leningrad State University; in 1968 - the first department of social psychology at the same university; in 1972 - a similar department at Moscow State University. In 1966, with the introduction of academic degrees in psychology, social psychology acquired the status of a qualifying scientific discipline. Systematic training of specialists in social psychology began. Groups are organized in scientific institutions; in 1972, the country's first sector of social psychology was created at the Institute of Psychology of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Articles, monographs, and collections are published. Problems of social psychology are discussed at congresses, conferences, symposiums, and meetings.

1.3. On the history of the emergence of foreign social psychology

The authoritative American psychologist S. Sarason (1982) formulated the following very important thought: “Society already has its place, its structure and its mission - it is already going somewhere. A psychology that avoids the question of where we are going and where we should go turns out to be a very misguided psychology. If psychology does not concern itself with the question of its mission, it is doomed to be a follower rather than a leader.” We are talking about the role of psychological science in society and in its development, and the above words should be attributed primarily to social psychology, since human problems in society form the basis of its subject. Therefore, the history of social psychology should be considered not simply as a chronological sequence of the emergence and change of certain teachings and ideas, but in the context of the connections of these teachings and ideas with the history of society itself. This approach allows us to understand the process of development of ideas both from the point of view of objective socio-historical requests for science, and from the position of the internal logic of science itself.

Social psychology can be considered, on the one hand, the most ancient field of knowledge, and on the other, an ultra-modern scientific discipline. In fact, as soon as people began to unite into some more or less stable primitive communities (families, clans, tribes, etc.), the need arose for mutual understanding, the ability to build and regulate relationships within and between communities. Consequently, from this moment in human history, social psychology began, first in the form of primitive everyday ideas, and then in the form of detailed judgments and concepts that were included in the teachings of ancient thinkers about man, society and the state.

At the same time, there is every reason to consider social psychology an ultramodern science. This is explained by the undeniable and rapidly growing influence of social psychology in society, which in turn is associated with a deepening awareness of the role of “ human factor» in all areas modern life. The growth of this influence reflects the tendency of social psychology to become a “leading” science, that is, only reflecting the needs of society, explaining, and often justifying the status quo, a “leading” science, oriented towards the humanistic-progressive development and improvement of society.

Following the logic of considering the history of social psychology from the standpoint of the development of ideas, we can distinguish three main stages in the evolution of this science. The criterion for their differences lies in the predominance at each stage of certain methodological principles, and their connection with historical and chronological milestones is rather relative. Based on this criterion, E. Hollander (1971) identified the stages of social philosophy, social empiricism and social analysis. The first is characterized primarily by a speculative, speculative method of constructing theories, which, although based on life observations, does not include the collection of systematized information and relies only on the subjective “rational” judgments and impressions of the creator of the theory. The stage of social empiricism takes a step forward in that to substantiate certain theoretical considerations, not just rational conclusions are used, but a set of empirical data collected on some basis and even somehow processed, at least in a simplified way, statistically. Social analysis means a modern approach, which includes establishing not only external connections between phenomena, but also identifying causal interdependencies, revealing patterns, checking and double-checking the data obtained, and building a theory taking into account all the requirements of modern science.

In chronological space, these three stages can be conditionally distributed as follows: the methodology of social philosophy was predominant from ancient times to the 19th century; The 19th century became the heyday of social empiricism and laid the foundations for the stage of social analysis, which from the beginning of the 20th century to the present day has formed the methodological basis of truly scientific social psychology. The conventionality of this chronological distribution is determined by the fact that today all three named methodological approaches take place in social psychology. At the same time, one cannot unambiguously approach their assessment from the standpoint of what is “better” or “worse.” A deep, purely theoretical thought can give rise to a new direction of research; the sum of “raw” empirical data can become an impetus for the development of an original method of analysis and some kind of discovery. In other words, it is not the methods themselves, but the creative potential of human thought that constitutes the basis of scientific progress. When this potential is absent, and the methodology and methods are applied thoughtlessly, mechanically, then scientific result may turn out to be the same both for the 10th century and for ours - the computer age.

Within the framework of these stages in the development of social psychology, we will get acquainted with individual, most scientifically significant periods and events in the history of this science.

Stage of social philosophy. For ancient times, as well as for thinkers of the Middle Ages, it was common to strive to build global theories that included judgments about man and his soul, about society and its social and political structure, and about the universe as a whole. It is noteworthy that many thinkers, when developing the theory of society and the state, took as a basis their ideas about the soul (today we would say about the personality) of a person and about the simplest human relationships - relationships in the family.

Thus, Confucius (VI-V centuries BC) proposed regulating relations in society and the state according to the model of relations in the family. Both there and there there are elders and younger ones, the younger ones must follow the instructions of the elders, while relying on traditions, norms of virtue and voluntary submission, and not on prohibitions and fear of punishment.

Plato (V-IV centuries BC) saw common principles for the soul and the society-state. The rational of man is the deliberative of the state (represented by rulers and philosophers); “furious” in the soul (in modern language - emotions) - protective in the state (represented by warriors); “desires” in the soul (those are needs) are farmers, artisans and traders in the state.

Aristotle (IV century BC) singled out, as we would say today, the concept of “communication” as the main category in his system of views, believing that this is an instinctive property of a person, constituting a necessary condition for his existence. True, Aristotle’s communication had an obviously broader content compared to this concept in modern psychology. It meant a person's need to live in community with other people. Therefore, the primary form of communication for Aristotle was the family, and highest form- state.

A remarkable property of the history of any science is that it allows you to see with your own eyes the connection of ideas over time and be convinced of the well-known truth that the new is the well-forgotten old. True, the old usually appears at a new level of the spiral of knowledge, enriched with newly acquired knowledge. Understanding this is a necessary condition formation of professional thinking of a specialist. The little that has already been said may be used as simple illustrations. So. The ideas of Confucius are reflected in the moral and psychological organization of modern Japanese society, to understand which, according to Japanese psychologists, it is necessary to understand the connection and unity of relations along the “family - ~ company - state” axis. And the Chinese authorities organized a conference in 1996 to show that the ideas of Confucius do not contradict communist ideology.

Plato's three initial principles can quite justifiably give rise to an association with modern ideas about the three components of a social attitude: cognitive, emotional-evaluative and behavioral. Aristotle’s ideas resonate with the ultra-modern concept of people’s need for social identification and categorization (X. Tezhfel, D. Turner, etc.) or with modern ideas about the role of the phenomenon of “togetherness” in the life of groups (A. L. Zhuravlev, etc.).

The socio-psychological views of ancient times, as well as the Middle Ages, can be combined into a large group of concepts, which G. Allort (1968) called simple theories with a “sovereign” factor. They are characterized by a tendency to find a simple explanation for all the complex manifestations of the human psyche, while highlighting one main, determining, and therefore sovereign factor.

A number of such concepts originate from the philosophy of hedonism of Epicurus (IV-III centuries BC) and are reflected in the views of T. Hobbes (XVII century), A. Smith (XVIII century), J. Bentham (XVIII -XIX century), etc. The sovereign factor in their theories was the desire of people to get as much pleasure (or happiness) as possible and to avoid pain (compare with the principle of positive and negative reinforcement in modern behaviorism). True, in Hobbes this factor was mediated by another - the desire for power. But people needed power only in order to be able to get maximum pleasure. Hence, Hobbes formulated the well-known thesis that the life of society is a “war of all against all” and only the instinct of self-preservation of the race, combined with human reason, allowed people to come to some agreements regarding the ways of distributing power.

J. Bentham (1789) even developed the so-called hedonistic calculus, that is, an instrument for measuring the amount of pleasure and pain received by people. He identified such parameters as: duration (of pleasure or pain), their intensity, certainty (of receiving or not receiving), proximity (or distance in time), purity (that is, whether pleasure is mixed with pain or not), etc. P.

Bentham understood, of course, that pleasure and pain arise from different sources and therefore have different characters. Pleasure, for example, can be simply sensual pleasure, the joy of creativity, satisfaction from friendships, a feeling of power from power or wealth, etc. Accordingly, pain can be not only physical, but also appear in the form of grief for one reason or another . The main thing was that, by their psychological nature, pleasure and pain are the same, regardless of their sources of origin. Therefore, they can be measured based on the fact that the amount of pleasure received, for example, from a delicious meal, is quite comparable to the pleasure from reading good poetry or communicating with a loved one. It is interesting that such a psychologized approach to the assessment of pleasure and pain predetermined complex and far-reaching socio-political assessments. According to Bentham, the purpose of government was to create as much pleasure or happiness as possible for as many people as possible. It should be recalled that Bentham's ideas were formulated in the initial period of the development of capitalism in Europe, which was characterized by the most severe and overt forms of exploitation. Bentham’s hedonistic calculus was very convenient for explaining and justifying the fact why some part of society works 12-14 hours in “sweat shops”, while others enjoy the fruits of their labor. According to Bentham’s method of calculations, it turned out that the “pain” of those thousands of people who work in “sweat squeezers” is in total much less than the “pleasure” of those who use the results of their work. Consequently, the state is quite successful in fulfilling its task of increasing the overall amount of pleasure in society.

This episode from the history of social psychology indicates that in its relations with society it played mainly the role of a “follower”. It is no coincidence that G. Allport (1968), speaking about the psychology of hedonism, noted: “Their psychological theory was intertwined with the social situation of the day and became, to some extent, what Marx and Engels (1846) and Mannheim (1936) ) called ideology."

The ideas of the psychology of hedonism also find their place in later socio-psychological concepts: for Z. Freud it is the “pleasure principle”, for A. Adler and G. Lasswell it is the desire for power as a way of compensating for feelings of inferiority; Behaviorists, as already noted, have the principle of positive and negative reinforcement.

The basis of other simple theories with the sovereign factor is the so-called “big three” - sympathy, imitation and suggestion. Their fundamental difference from hedonic concepts is that they are not taken as sovereign factors. negative traits human nature, such as selfishness and the desire for power, and positive principles in the form of sympathy or love for other people and derivatives from them - imitation and suggestion. Nevertheless, the desire for simplicity and the search for a sovereign factor remains.

The development of these ideas initially took the form of a search for compromises. Thus, even Adam Smith (1759) believed that, despite the selfishness of man, “there are some principles in his nature which give rise to his interest in the well-being of others...” The problem of sympathy or love, or more precisely, benevolent principles in relations between people, occupied a large place in the thoughts of theorists and practitioners of the 18th, 19th and even 20th centuries. Different types of sympathy were proposed based on their manifestation and character. Thus, A. Smith identified reflexive sympathy as a direct internal experience of the pain of another (for example, when seeing the suffering of another person) and intellectual sympathy (as a feeling of joy or grief for events happening to loved ones). G. Spencer, the founder of social Darwinism, believed that a feeling of sympathy was necessary only in the family, since it forms the basis of society and is necessary for the survival of people, and excluded this feeling from the sphere of social relations, where the principle of the struggle for existence and survival of the fittest was supposed to operate.

In this regard, it is impossible not to note the contribution of Peter Kropotkin, who had a significant influence on socio-psychological views in the West.

P. Kropotkin (1902) went further than his Western colleagues and suggested that it is not just sympathy, but the instinct of human solidarity that should determine the relations between people and human communities. It seems that this is very consonant with the modern socio-political idea of ​​universal human values.

The concepts of “love” and “sympathy” are rarely found in modern social psychological research. But they were replaced by very relevant today concepts of cohesion, cooperation, compatibility, harmony, altruism, social mutual assistance, etc. In other words, the idea lives, but in other concepts, including the concept of “joint life activity”, developed at the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences , is one of the most integral and explains phenomena including “sympathy”, “solidarity”, etc.

Imitation became one of the sovereign factors in the socio-psychological theories of the 19th century. This phenomenon was considered as a derivative of feelings of love and sympathy, and the empirical basis was observations in such areas as relations between parents and children, fashion and its spread, culture and traditions. Everywhere one could identify a pattern of views and behavior and see how this pattern was repeated by others. From here all social relations received a fairly simple explanation. Theoretically, these views were developed by G. Tarde in “The Laws of Imitation” (1903), where he formulated a number of patterns of imitative behavior, as well as by J. Baldwin (1895), who identified various shapes imitation. W. McDougall (1908) proposed the idea of ​​“induced emotions,” generated by the desire to repeat the instinctive reactions of others. At the same time, these and other authors tried to identify different levels of awareness of imitative behavior.

Suggestion became the third “sovereign” factor in a series of simple theories. It was introduced into use by the French psychiatrist A. Liebo (1866), and the most precise definition of suggestion was formulated by W. McDougall (1908). “Suggestion is a process of communication,” he wrote, “as a result of which the transmitted statement is accepted with conviction by another, despite the absence of logically adequate grounds for such acceptance.”

At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. under the influence of the works of J. Charcot, G. Le Bon, W. McDougall, S. Siegele and others, almost all problems of social psychology were considered from the standpoint of the concept of suggestion. At the same time, there are many theoretical and empirical research was devoted to issues of the psychological nature of suggestion, which remain relevant today.

Stage of social empiricism. It is easy to see that elements of empirical methodology appeared, for example, already in Bentham in his attempt to connect his conclusions with a specific situation in his contemporary society. This tendency, in explicit or hidden form, was also manifested by other theorists. Therefore, by way of illustration, we can limit ourselves to just one example of such a methodology, namely the works of Francis Galton (1883). Galton is the founder of eugenics, that is, the science of improving humanity, the ideas of which are still proposed in an updated version today in connection with the development of genetic engineering. However, it was Galton who demonstrated the limitations of the methodology of social empiricism. In his most famous study, he tried to find out where intellectually brilliant people come from. Having collected data on outstanding fathers and their children in contemporary English society, Galton came to the conclusion that gifted people give birth to gifted children, that is, it is based on a genetic basis. He did not take into account only one thing, namely, that he studied only very wealthy people, that these people could create exceptional conditions for the upbringing and education of their offspring and that, being themselves “outstanding” people, they could give their children incomparably more than “simple " People.

It is important to remember about Galton’s experience and the methodology of social empiricism in general because even today, especially in connection with the spread of computer data processing technology, random, external relationships (correlations) between certain phenomena are interpreted as the presence of a causal connection between them. Computers, when used thoughtlessly, become, as S. Sarason puts it, “substitutes for thinking.” One could cite examples from domestic dissertations of the 80s, in which, on the basis of “correlations,” it was argued that “sexually unsatisfied girls” tend to listen to the “Voice of America,” that American youth hate their police, and Soviet youth adore the police, etc. d.

Social analysis stage. This is the stage of formation of scientific social psychology, it is closer to current state science, and therefore we will touch only on individual milestones along the path of its formation.

If we pose the question: who is the “father” of modern social psychology, it would be almost impossible to answer it, since too many representatives of different sciences have made a significant contribution to the development of social psychological thought. Nevertheless, one of the closest to this title, paradoxically, could be called the French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857). The paradox is this. that this thinker was considered almost an enemy of psychological science. But in fact, it's the other way around. According to many publications, Comte is known to us as the founder of positivism, that is, external, superficial knowledge, supposedly excluding knowledge of internal hidden relationships between phenomena. At the same time, it was not taken into account that by positive knowledge Comte understood, first of all, objective knowledge. As for psychology, Comte did not oppose this science, but only its name. In his time, psychology was exclusively introspective, that is, subjective and speculative in nature. This contradicted Comte’s ideas about the objective nature of knowledge, and in order to save psychology from the unreliability of subjectivism, he gave it a new name - positive morality (la morale positive). It is not so widely known that, having closed the multi-volume series of his works, Comte planned to develop a “true final science,” by which he meant what we call psychology and social psychology. The science of man as a being more than biological and at the same time more than just a “clump of culture” was supposed to become, according to Comte, the pinnacle of knowledge.

The name of Wilhelm Wundt is usually associated with the history of psychology in general. But it is not always noted that he distinguished between physiological psychology and the psychology of peoples (in modern language - social). His ten-volume collection “Psychology of Nations” (1900-1920), on which he worked for 60 years, is essentially social psychology. Higher mental functions, according to the Bund, should have been studied from the perspective of the “psychology of peoples.”

W. McDougall left a mark on himself with one of the first textbooks on social psychology, published in 1908. His entire system of views on socio-psychological relations in society was built on the theory of instincts, which, taking into account the contribution of Z. Freud, dominated the scientific consciousness in subsequent years. 10-15 years.

At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Social psychology was still in its infancy as an independent science, so many of its problems were reflected in the works of sociologists. In this regard, it is impossible not to note the works of E. Durkheim (1897), who acutely raised questions of the influence of social factors on the mental life of individuals, and C. Cooley, who developed the problem of the relationship between the individual and society.

A large place in the works of sociologists at the end of the 19th century. was occupied with the problem of the crowd, but this issue will be discussed in the appropriate section of this work.

Brief outline of the development of social psychology

Social Psychology- a branch of psychology that studies the patterns, characteristics of behavior and activities of people determined by their social interaction.

Social psychology arose in the second half of the 19th century. at the junction and . Its emergence was preceded by a long period of accumulation of knowledge about man and society. Initially, socio-psychological ideas were formed within the framework of philosophy, sociology, anthropology, ethnography and linguistics. Concepts such as “psychology of peoples”, “instincts of the masses”, etc. were introduced. Certain essentially socio-psychological ideas were already found in the works of Plato and Aristotle, French materialist philosophers, utopian socialists, and then in the works of L. Feuerbach and G. Hegel.

IN mid-19th V. social psychology emerged as an independent, but still descriptive science. Its origin is associated with the creation in Germany in 1859 of G. Steinthal and M. Lazarus of the “Journal of Ethnic Psychology and Linguistics.”

Major representatives of empirical social psychology in Europe were the French lawyer and sociologist G. Tarde, the French sociologist G. Lsbon and the English psychologist W. McDougall. These scientists back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. tried to justify social development society by individual mental properties of a person: Tarde - imitation, Lebon - mental infection, McDougall - instincts.

G. Tarde widely used socio-psychological concepts in his criminological studies.

According to the concept of G. Tarde (1843-1904), social development is determined by factors of interpersonal influence, especially imitation, customs, and fashion. Thanks to imitation, according to Tarde, group and social norms and values ​​arise. By assimilating them, individuals adapt to the conditions of social life. The lower strata are especially diligent in imitating the higher strata. But the inability to achieve the ideal gives rise to social opposition and conflict in social interaction. Tarde was the first to deeply develop the psychology of the crowd as a factor in the suppression of individuality. Under the influence of Tarde's ideas, two types of heredity began to be distinguished - natural and social.

Another French sociologist and social psychologist G. Lebon (1841 - 1931) developed an emotional theory of social processes, introducing the concept of mental infection.

A number of conceptual psychological principles were put forward by the founder of the French sociological school, E. Durkheim (1858-1917). As the main explanatory principle of human behavior, Durkheim put forward phenomenon of “collective ideas”(“Individual and collective ideas” (1898)), which, in his opinion, determine the vision of the world by an individual. The behavior of an individual, according to Durkheim, is determined by the collective consciousness.

In contrast to the “social atomization” of G. Tarde (who considered the individual to be the “cell of society”), E. Durkheim defended the idea unity of society based on generally recognized social values. The social quality of people's behavior, as Durkheim rightly believed, depends on the value-normative integration of society and the development of its social connections. The value-normative crisis of society gives rise to massive legal desocialization, which Durkheim called anomie(French anomie - absence of law). In a state of anomie, the significance of social and, above all, legal norms is lost for many members of society. An individual deprived of standard patterns of behavior sharply reduces the level of self-regulation and goes beyond social control. Anomie, which gives rise to mass deviance, prepares and brings closer, according to Durkheim, socio-economic changes in society.

G. Tarde, G. Le Bon and E. Durkheim provided significant influence on the development of social psychology, confirming the primacy social factor in personality formation.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. English psychologist W. McDougall (1871 - 1938) made an attempt to systematize socio-psychological knowledge. In 1908, his book “Introduction to Social Psychology” was published. This year is considered in the West to be the year of the final formation of social psychology as an independent science.

In the 20s The 20th century, thanks to the works of the German researcher V. Mede, begins new stage development of social psychology - is emerging experimental social psychology. By conducting experiments with one subject and then including him in a group of subjects, Mede established differences in the ability of people to endure pain and perform physical and mental actions in a group and alone. At the same time, Mede established different types of people in their relation to the social group (neutral, positive and negative). He also found that the influence of the group is especially great in the spheres of emotions, will and motor skills. It was found that socio-psychological factors influence all the mental qualities of an individual - perception and thinking, memory and imagination, emotions and will. Later, evaluative deformations were discovered—conformism (the assimilation of an individual’s assessments to generally accepted assessments).

Following V. Mede, the American psychologist G. Allport (1897-1967) improved the methodology of socio-psychological experimental research. Based on his research, practically effective recommendations were made to improve the organization of production, advertising, political propaganda, military affairs, etc. Social psychology began to develop intensively as an applied science. In the USA, extensive research began to be carried out on problems of management, psychological compatibility, reducing tension between entrepreneurs and workers, etc.

Further development of the methodology for socio-psychological research belongs to the American social psychologist and psychiatrist J. (J.) Moreno (1892-1974). Moreno developed sociometry method— a system of methods for identifying and quantitatively measuring interpersonal relationships of people in small groups. Revealing personal likes and dislikes, Moreno graphically displayed these relationships in the form of sociograms (Fig. 96, 97).

Moreno made a significant contribution to the development of social psychology of small groups, expanded the concepts of “group status of the individual”, “intragroup dynamics”, etc., proposed specific methods for mitigating intra-group conflicts, optimizing the socio-psychological climate in small groups. For a long time he was the head of the Institute of Sociometry and Psychodrama, also known as the Moreno Institute, which he created in 1940.

Rice. 96. Sociogram

Using this sociogram, it is possible to identify the core of the group, that is, individuals with stable positive relationships (A, B, Y, I); the presence of other (non-central) local groups (B-P, S-E); a person who enjoys the greatest authority in a certain respect (A); a person who does not enjoy sympathy (L); mutually negative relationships (P-S), lack of stable social connections (K)

Rice. 97. Symbolism of the sociogram

Following Moreno, foreign social psychologists began to consider a small group, a social microenvironment, as the main element, the “cell” of society. In the “society-group-individual” system, the middle link was absolutized. The complete dependence of the individual on the social role he performs, group norms, and group pressure was postulated.

The most significant direction in modern foreign social psychology is interactionism- highlights the problem of social interaction - interaction. This direction is based on the views famous sociologist and social psychologist J. G. Mead (1863-1931). The main categories of this socio-psychological trend are those introduced by Mead in the 1930s. concepts of “social role”, “intragroup interaction” (“interaction”), etc.

Representatives of this direction (T. Kuhn, A. Rose, T. Shibutani, etc.) brought to the fore a complex of socio-psychological problems: communication, communicativeness, social norms, social roles, individual status in the group, reference group, etc. Conceptual the apparatus developed by J. G. Mead and his followers is widespread in social psychological science. The most important achievement in this direction is recognition of the social conditioning of the individual’s psyche. Psychology ceased to be interpreted as the psychology of the individual; general psychology became increasingly integrated with social psychology.

Recently, empirical interactionist studies of “everyday” psychology have become widespread abroad. Similar works by domestic authors have appeared.

The first surge in the development of domestic social psychology occurred in the 20s. XX century. However, against the backdrop of reflexology and reactology, which were then dominant, the interpretation of socio-psychological problems received a biologizing bias. The criticism of this bias turned into a criticism of social psychology. And by the end of the 1920s. social psychology, as something competing with Marxist ideology, ceased to exist.

The intensive development of social psychology in our country began again only in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

A variety of experimental, theoretical and applied socio-psychological research began to be carried out." However, the achievements of domestic social psychology have not yet been consolidated into a coherent system of categories. In a number of cases, researchers remain at the descriptive-empirical level.

Modern social psychology is developing most intensively in the USA. The concept of interactivity and interpersonal interaction has recently become widespread.

Structure of social psychology how science is determined by the system of its main categories:

• the concept of social community;
• features of human behavior in a socially unorganized and in a socially organized community;
• concept of social group, classification of social groups;
• socio-psychological organization of small groups;
• modification of individual behavior in a social group;
• communication as a means of social interaction;
• interpersonal interaction in the process of communication;
• psychology of large social groups;
• psychology of mass communication and mass social phenomena;
• psychology of social management.

Methods of social psychology: natural and laboratory group experiment, content analysis, factor analysis, sociometry, dummy group method, expert assessment method, etc.

The very combination of the words “social psychology” indicates the specific place that this discipline occupies in the system scientific knowledge. Having emerged at the intersection of the sciences - psychology and sociology, social psychology still retains its special status. This leads to the fact that each of the “parent” disciplines quite willingly includes it as an integral part. This ambiguity in the position of a scientific discipline has many different reasons.

The main one is the objective existence of such a class of facts of social life, which themselves can be studied only with the help of the combined efforts of two sciences: psychology and sociology. On the one hand, any social phenomenon has its own “psychological” aspect, since social patterns manifest themselves only through the activities of people, and people act, being endowed with consciousness and will. On the other hand, in situations of joint activity of people, completely special types of connections arise between them, connections of communication and interaction, and their analysis is impossible outside the system of psychological knowledge.

Another reason for the dual position of social psychology is the very history of the formation of this discipline, which matured in the depths of both psychological and sociological knowledge and, in the full sense of the word, was born “at the crossroads” of these two sciences. All this creates considerable difficulties both in defining the subject of social psychology and in identifying the range of its problems.

For social psychology, as perhaps for no other science, the simultaneous solution of two tasks is relevant: and the development of practical recommendations obtained during applied research, and “finishing” its own building as an integral system of scientific knowledge with clarification of its subject, development of special theories and special research methodology.

Social psychology is a scientific discipline that studies the patterns of behavior and activity of people determined by their inclusion in social groups, as well as the psychological characteristics of these groups themselves.

The subject of social psychology is quite broad, and it is possible to move towards its definition from two sides - both from the side of the individual and from the side of mass mental phenomena. Thus, on the issue of the subject of social psychology, three approaches have emerged.

1. The first of them, which became predominantly widespread among sociologists, understood social psychology as the science of “mass phenomena of the psyche.” Within the framework of this approach, different researchers have identified different phenomena that fit this definition: the study of the psychology of classes, other large social communities and, in this regard, on such individual elements, aspects of the social psychology of groups as traditions, mores, customs, etc.; formation of public opinion, such specific mass phenomena as fashion, etc.; study of groups. Most sociologists have definitely treated the subject of social psychology as the study of community psychology.

2. The second approach, on the contrary, sees personality as the main subject of research in social psychology. Shades here appeared only in the context in which the study of personality was intended. On the one hand, greater emphasis was placed on psychological traits, personality traits, and typology of personalities. On the other hand, the position of the individual in the group, interpersonal relationships, and the entire system of communication were highlighted. Later, from the point of view of this approach, the question of the place of “personal psychology” in the system of psychological knowledge turned out to be debatable: is it a section of general psychology, an equivalent of social psychology, or even an independent field of research. This approach has proven to be more popular among psychologists.

The third approach to the question is that with its help they tried to synthesize the previous two. Social psychology was considered here as a science that studies both mass mental processes and the position of the individual in the group. In this case, naturally, the problems of social psychology seemed quite broad; almost the entire range of issues considered in various schools of social psychology were thereby included in its subject. Attempts have been made to provide a complete outline of the problems being studied within this approach. The most extensive list was contained in the scheme proposed by B.D. Parygin, according to whom social psychology studies: 1) social psychology of personality; 2) social psychology of communities and communication; 3) social relations; 4) forms of spiritual activity. According to V.N. Myasishchev, social psychology studies: 1) changes in the mental activity of people in a group under the influence of interaction, 2) characteristics of groups, 3) the mental side of social processes.

There is also the question of understanding the relationship between social psychology and psychology and sociology. Therefore, the question of the “boundaries” of social psychology is being debated relatively independently. There are four positions here:

· social psychology is a part of sociology;

· social psychology is a part of psychology;

· social psychology is a science “at the junction” of psychology and sociology, and the “junction” itself is understood in two ways: social psychology rejects a certain part of psychology and a certain part of sociology; it seizes “no man's land” - an area that does not belong to either sociology or psychology.

All of these positions can be reduced to two approaches: intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary. In other words, one can strive to find the place of social psychology within one of the “parent” disciplines or on the boundaries between them.

Let's try to consider these “borders” from both sides separately. As for sociology, its modern structure is usually characterized by distinguishing three levels: general sociological theory, special sociological theories, and specific sociological research. Consequently, in the system of theoretical knowledge there are two levels, each of which is directly in contact with the problems of social psychology. At the level of general theory, for example, problems of the relationship between society and the individual, social consciousness and social institutions, power and justice, etc. are studied. But these same problems are also of interest to social psychology. Therefore, one of the boundaries lies here. In the field of special sociological theories, you can find several where socio-psychological approaches are also obvious, for example, the sociology of mass communications, public opinion, and the sociology of personality. Perhaps, it is in this area that distinctions are especially difficult, and the very concept of “border” is very conditional. We can say that it is often not possible to detect differences in the subject matter; they can be traced only by highlighting specific aspects of the study, a specific angle of view on the same problem.

Regarding the “border” between general psychology and social psychology, the question is even more complex. If we leave aside the first interpretation of social psychology as a doctrine of the social determination of the human psyche, because in this sense all psychology, oriented towards the cultural-historical tradition, is social, then the specific problems of social psychology are naturally closest to that part of general psychology that is designated as personality psychology. In general psychology, the structure of needs, personal motives, etc. is studied. There remains a class of specific tasks for social psychology. Not to mention those tasks that are simply not solved by general psychology (the dynamics of the development of interpersonal relationships in groups, the very nature of the joint activities of people in groups and the forms of emerging communication and interaction), even regarding personality, social psychology has its own point of view: how exactly a person acts in various real social groups - this is the problem of social psychology. It must not only answer the question of how motives, needs, and attitudes of an individual are formed, but why exactly these and not other motives, needs, and attitudes were formed in a given individual, to what extent all this depends on the group in which this personality acts, etc.

Thus, the sphere of social psychology’s own interests is visible quite clearly, which makes it possible to distinguish it both from the problems of sociology and from the problems of general psychology.

100 RUR bonus for first order

Select type of work Thesis Course work Abstract Master's thesis Practice report Article Report Review Test work Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions Creative work Essay Drawing Essays Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Master's thesis Laboratory work On-line help

Find out the price

The formation of social psychology was influenced by mass psychology (in particular G. Le Bon and G. Tarde). Namely, such fundamental movements as social psychoanalysis of S. Freud, the theory of the collective unconscious of the analytical theory of C. G. Jung, and the theory of social learning of Albert Bandura.

The official date of birth of social psychology is considered to be 1908. It was in this year that two works were published in which the concept of “social psychology” appeared. These are: “Introduction to Social Psychology” by William McDougal; the second is Social Psychology by Edward Ross. The main idea contained in the works of these authors was: “Behavior, thinking, communication, interaction of people - all this happens within the framework of social psychology.”

The greatest influence on the development of social psychology in the 20th century was exerted by such theoretical directions as mass psychology, psychoanalytic theory and behaviorism.

Psychoanalytic theory (S. Freud) Special attention focuses on intrapersonal mental processes that are caused by conflicts between the individual and society. Freud's concept outlined the theory of socialization, including a description of such mechanisms of this process as identification and internalization. Psychoanalysis originated in Europe.

Behaviorism: (John Watson) originated in the USA, focusing on experimental methods for obtaining data. The main incentives were external environment. And any ideas about mental processes- not scientific, they cannot be verified experimentally.

Theory - (from the gr. “research”, “consider”) - an attempt to detect and explain cause-and-effect relationships between events and phenomena of the surrounding world.

If we turn to socio-psychological theories, then no single theory can explain all social phenomena. Each of them can explain local aspects, phenomena, patterns and facts.

Behavioral direction.

Behavioral psychologists focused their main attention on the study of behavior. They set themselves the task of not only learning to understand and predict behavior, but also learning to develop the “necessary” behavior. Hence the name of the theories - learning theories.They analyze the relationship between stimulus and response. Stimulus is any external or internal event that changes the behavior of a person or animal. Reaction- this is a change in behavior that follows in response to a stimulus. Reinforcement- any outcome obtained as a result of a response. Positive reinforcement increases the likelihood that a given response will be repeated. Reactions that have not received positive reinforcement are not reinforced. And reactions that harm the body (negative reinforcement) are rejected.

Reinforcement is the main factor in all learning. For Sr-theorists, human thoughts have no meaning. The body is a kind of “black box” where you can only record what happens at the input and output.

For the first time, the key principle of learning was formulated Thorndike and Pavlov. According to Thorndike this is “ law of effect", and according to Pavlov - " reinforcements».

According to Thorndike and Pavlov, animals and humans learn by trial and error. Required behavior due to repeated repetition, it becomes fixed.

Neobehaviorism

Edward Tolman, who laid the foundations of neobehaviorism, came to the conclusion that immediate reinforcement is not necessary for learning. Tolman, unlike J. Watson, took into account not only the external manifestations of the body, but also internal processes. He introduced the concept "cognitive maps",an idea of ​​some behavior patterns that arise in the central nervous system.

Clark Hull formulated a neo-behavioristic model of behavior, which began to be expressed as STIMULUS - ORGANISM - REACTION.

Hull insisted that without studying unobservable processes occurring in the body, behavior cannot be understood. As driving force behavior he highlighted the need. Therefore, the most effective reinforcement is positive reinforcement.

Burress Skinner. Put forward an idea operant conditioning. Such learning is purposeful. Its essence is that the body acquires new reactions due to the fact that it itself reinforces them, and only after that an external stimulus can cause a response - a reaction.

The main feature of modern learning theories is an interest in intrapsychic processes.

COP theories.

1940 Neil Miller and John Dollard paid attention to imitation in the process of social learning. The process of socialization is largely the result of the fact that children's imitation (imitation) receives reinforcement in any case. (For example, reinforcement for a child is the admiration of peers).

1).Social learning theory.

Albert Bandura- the learning effect can be obtained by observing another person. At the same time, the person whose actions are observed may not set himself the goal of teaching anything. It is simply that the behavior provides a source of meaningful information that the observer can then use.

Reinforcement does not play a decisive role in social learning. Reinforcement can be the process of imitation itself or the fact of successful imitation.

The child, through this learning, can repeat bad habits adults (To look like an adult).

What determines the “attractiveness” of a model? FROM the model itself and from the observer.

The success of imitation is influenced by reinforcement, i.e. whether this behavior is approved or not.

Vicarious learning- learning through observation. Its essence is that the observer adopts or does not adopt the behavior of the model, depending on whether this behavior is encouraged or punished (negatively reinforced).

Social exchange theory

The interaction between people is considered. According to this theory, social communication depends on the costs and rewards that are included in it.

George Homans "Fair Exchange Theory". According to this theory, the reward should be proportional to the investment. When this proportion is violated, a feeling of injustice arises, which can lead to conflicts between people.

3). Interdependence theory . John Thibault and Harold Kelly.It emphasizes the dynamic aspects where one partner influences the other and is himself influenced. Researchers argue that one person's costs and rewards cannot be considered on their own, in isolation from another person's costs and rewards.

Interactionist orientation (role direction)

It arose thanks to the analogy with the theater, where actors play certain roles. This aspect of social relations is emphasized by Herbert Blumer (creator of the school of symbolic interactionism) and Erwin Goffman (author of the theory of social dramaturgy).

1). Role theory.

The concept of “role” can be defined as the role functioning of an individual occupying a certain position in his social environment. Typically, role theories do not include such determinants of behavior as a person's character traits, attitudes, or motivation. Instead, explanations of human behavior in them are based on descriptions of roles in social situations and role expectations of people in various social relationships.

Typically, our role behavior is determined by the social conditions in which we find ourselves and the position we occupy. (It is impossible to play the role of a teacher without sufficient knowledge and skills).

Every person in life has to “play” many roles - daughter, mother, teacher, friend, etc.

Philip Zimbardo's study of Stanford Prison.

The purpose of the study is to study the behavior of normal people in situations that replicate imprisonment. Some participants are prisoners, others are guards.

The hypothesis “under the influence of certain circumstances, any person can reach any state, contrary to his ideas about morality, personal decency and all social principles, values ​​and norms.”

Conclusion: the guards developed a taste for power and tortured prisoners with great pleasure. The prisoners became depressed.

Application of Role Concepts

Charles Cooley George Mead considered the concept of a person’s personality through the prism of his relationships with other people. Our self-image is most often based on how we see ourselves in the eyes of other people. And how we are perceived by others largely depends on what role we play in society.

The modern concept of self-awareness (Self-concept) also makes significant use of role theories.

Cognitivist orientation

Scientists in this theory consider mental activity, its structure, which can serve as the basis for understanding human behavior.

Theoretical origins of cognitivism

One of the directions that rejected the ideas of behaviorism was called Gestalt psychology. His in 1912. Developed and outlined by Max Wertheimer. The most famous representatives of this direction are Kurt Koffka, Wolfgang Keller - in the 20-30s. 20th century created a school of Gestalt psychology. The name of this direction arose from the German “gestalt”, which can be translated as “image”, “form”.

Gestalt psychologists focused their attention on the study of perception and thinking. Based on the position that “ the whole is more than the sum of its parts", the chologists of this orientation went beyond formulas S-P, to which behaviorists were limited when explaining behavior. Gestalt psychologists defined behavior as the implementation of a mental act. Learning occurs not only in the process of “trial and error”, not only through imitation and repetition, but very often through deep experience, through insight, which leads to a comprehensive restructuring of the psyche and thinking. It is internal cognitive processes that are the main thing in mental life.

Another theoretical premise of cognitivism is phenomenological philosophy Edmund Husserl, thanks to which the phenomenological approach was formed in psychology. According to the principles of phenomenology, we are able to understand a person’s behavior only if we know how he himself perceives and understands this world. At the same time, stimulus and reaction also have meaning, but only if and in the case when and how they are represented in the mind of the individual.

Field theory Kurt Lewin's largely reflected the principles phenomenological approach and also served as a prerequisite for the creation of a cognitive orientation.

In 1930 K. Lewin formulated his field theory, in which a formula for social behavior was derived. This model took into account both external and internal factors.

P= f (LO)

Where P is behavior, L is personality, which includes both heredity, abilities, and character traits, and O is the environment. F - a combination of internal, personal and external factors.

For example, the same person behaves differently in different places - at home, at work, in the store. And this despite the fact that the behavior of the same person is carried out. Such differences in behavior are explained by differences in environmental conditions. And at the same time, different people in the same environment can behave differently. The explanation for this lies in the difference in the personal, internal qualities of the individual.

The name “cognitive” itself means from Latin. “to get to know something” or “to know something.”

The cognitive direction was founded George Miller and Jerome Bruner. In 1960 they founded the Center for Cognitive Research.

Cognitive psychology explores

-processes of cognition and thinking, believing that behavior is a consequence of cognitive activity;

Principles, methods and forms of organization and structuring of both the cognitive processes themselves and their results - knowledge, experience, memory.

People do not passively perceive the world around them, including the social world, but creatively organize, build and create it.

Social cognitive psychology differs from general cognitive psychology. The world of people differs in many ways from the world of objects. First of all, social cognition is a two-way process. The object of our perception and knowledge - another person - himself perceives and knows us.

One of the main concepts of cognitive theories is the concept cognitive schema, which denotes a specially organized system of past experience acquired in the process of cognition and with the help of which the experience of present time is explained. This schema shapes past experiences and influences our perceptions and attitudes toward new events.

Well-known theories of cognitivist approaches:

1). Fritz Heider's theory of cognitive equilibrium;

2). Theodore Newcomb's theory of communicative acts;

3). Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance;

4). Charles Osgood's Congruence Theory;

5). Harold Kelly's theory of causal attribution. The structure of self-awareness.

Self-concept- a dynamic, more or less conscious system of a person’s ideas about himself. Self-concept is all the thoughts and feelings of a person regarding his own personality when he becomes an object of study for himself, or when he becomes aware of himself. Answers to the question “Who am I?” will give what is called the self-concept. Elements of the self-concept - beliefs with the help of which a person defines himself, are self-schemas.

Proponents of the role approach consider self-awareness as a reflection of a person’s social roles in the self-concept.

Rada Granovskaya and Irina Nikolskaya divide self-awareness into two spheres - emotional and rational. They designate emotional by the concept of self-image. And only the rational one is called the Self-concept. At the same time, it is assumed that the self-image is formed in a person through education: through imitation, infection, imitation and modeling, that is, by the mechanism of imitation-learning described by Tarde and Bandura. At the same time, the self-concept is the result of purposeful, conscious learning of norms, rules and values. This is the sphere of rational analysis and forecast, possible conscious changes in oneself. The author of the term self-concept is K. Rogers, who views it as a holistic, integral formation that includes the self-image.

Self-concept is a person’s knowledge of himself organized in a special way, which he uses both to explain and understand his life states and experiences, his life experience, and to explain and understand the external, primarily social, world.

Cognitive psychologists consider human self-awareness from the point of view of the functioning of cognitive schemes, where self-awareness itself (self-concept) appears in the form of a complexly organized, structured on the basis of special principles of a person’s cognitive scheme. Typically, self-concept is defined as a generalized cognitive idea of ​​one’s own personality, formed by an individual on the basis of life experience. It collects, accumulates and organizes any information about oneself that a person has. Since the life experience of individuals is always unique, each person’s personality diagram, or self-concept, is unique.

People's self-concepts can also vary in degree of complexity and differentiation. The simplest or even primitive self-concept is formed from just one level - awareness of one’s appearance, one’s physical self, or self-image, as Granovskaya and Nikolskaya call this sphere of self-awareness. The self-image, or physical self, of an individual can be represented by awareness of oneself as attractive/unattractive, beautiful/ugly, strong/weak, and so on. In addition, a person recognizes, often painfully, the conformity or non-compliance of his constitutional characteristics with the existing standard. Any non-compliance with the standard, as a rule, causes increased human concern about this circumstance. If a person has unstable or low self-esteem, lack of self-confidence, high levels of anxiety or other problems, then constitutional or physical “deviations from the standard” that have entered into his self-image can cause painful experiences. But low self-esteem, high anxiety, and so on may already be a consequence of the awareness of the “non-standard” nature of one’s physical self. This situation is most likely in the case when the physical self is given exceptional importance in the individual’s self-awareness. An unsatisfactory self-image for a person is most often formed under the influence of the assessments of others, who are the first to notice “deviations from the norm” in his appearance, focus attention on this, aggressively point out one or another external non-standard of the individual, which encourages him to compare himself too often with others , which can only aggravate the painfulness of his self-awareness. Thus, a child or adolescent develops a self-image that is inadequate to reality. It is in this way that a “stigmatized” self-awareness develops. Those people for whom the physical self plays an important role in their self-concept always have an ideal image of themselves, how they would like to look or who they would like to be like. That is why people remember better those photographs of themselves in which their image more closely matches their imaginary idea of ​​their appearance.

The self-image, like the self-concept as a whole, is a stable formation that is difficult to change. Therefore, the ideal self-image that exists in the individual’s self-consciousness is preserved even when the real image of a person has changed. Preservation of an ideal self-image in the self-concept that does not correspond to the real one is a sign that a person has mental resistance to life changes.

Physical Self- only one of the possible in the personality scheme. In addition to it, the self-concept may also include other levels of self-awareness: social and cognitive-psychic. Moreover, the same pattern works here: the higher the level of self-awareness, the more vague, indefinite concepts a person operates in his self-definitions. This is due to the fact that if there are certain standards for the external appearance, then for the “internal appearance” there are no such objective criteria. A person himself determines what he is like. Although people are able to objectively evaluate both their strengths and weaknesses, they do this quite rarely.

Socio-psychological self of an individual reflects his social characteristics and mental characteristics: lucky/unlucky1, diligent/lazy, neat/sloppy, and so on.

Cognitive-psychic self reflects the mental qualities of a person: smart/slow-witted, capable/incapable, attentive/absent-minded, collected/uncollected, and so on.

A more complex personality scheme may contain 2 more levels of self-awareness: moral-ethical and spiritual-creative. The first reflects both self-awareness of oneself as a whole and one’s actions from the standpoint of justice/injustice, honesty/dishonesty, decency/dishonesty. However, for some people, moral self-awareness simply does not exist: I and my actions are moral and cannot be otherwise. It can be assumed that the level moral and ethical self does not exist in every self-concept. It can be replaced by a simple principle: I do the same as everyone else. And if I don’t always follow the rules, then no one knows about it, no one sees it.

Level spiritual-creative self, which can also be either present or absent in the personality scheme, is an awareness of one’s creative potential, talent, creative abilities. The identification of these levels is nothing more than a theoretical construction, since it is impossible to talk about clear boundaries between the levels of the self-concept, especially since they are all in complex relationships of mutual influence, mutual service and form an integral structure - the self-concept.

The significance of one or another level of self-awareness for different self-concepts is not the same. In one person’s personality scheme, the physical self may come first, and all others may play a subordinate role. In another self-concept, the most significant may be the moral and ethical self, in a third - the social one, and so on. Moreover, any central characteristic of any level of the self-concept (for example, I am honest, I am beautiful, I am independent, and so on) can serve as an organizing principle of one person’s personality scheme and not be important in the self-awareness of another. The way we perceive ourselves affects not only our attitude towards ourselves, but also our attitude towards people. For example, a person whose central characteristic of the self-concept is honesty, other people will be interested in him precisely in this quality - honesty, dishonesty and meanness.

The central characteristic of the self-concept largely determines how we behave and react to events and information. Marcus's research: 3 groups of people: 1 - defined themselves as “very independent”, 2 - “very dependent”, 3 - this characteristic was unimportant; Each person was asked to complete 2 tasks: 1 - remember and describe actions that could indicate independence of behavior, 2 - press buttons indicating Self and non-Self in response to a series of adjectives. “Independents” responded more quickly to adjectives associated with independence than to adjectives associated with dependence. “Dependent” - on “dependent” adjectives. “Neutral” showed no differences in reaction time. This study demonstrated that the central feature of the self-concept influences people's perception and use of incoming information, making it important or unimportant for them. Thus, people perceive the world around them through the prism of their self-awareness.

Self-awareness, in addition to the perception of physical, mental and other personal characteristics, also includes awareness of the social roles that each of us plays. The roles performed by an individual are perceived by him in accordance with role expectations, that is, the meanings that a person and his environment attach to a particular role. That is, a person plays his social roles as he and the people around him understand them. Social roles thus contribute to the manifestation essential characteristics personality. Through roles, both a person’s entire self-awareness and its individual aspects are revealed. Characteristic signs Each role is organized in the self-concept in the form of special independent schemes. The roles constituting the self-concept can be built in a certain hierarchy: some, the most important, come first, others, less important, are relegated to the background. Some aspects of self-awareness turn out to be constant and leading in the thinking and behavior of the individual. While others can emerge into consciousness only in certain situations. More significant aspects of the self-concept that occupy a high level of the hierarchy are more likely to influence what we do and what we are interested in.

The role structure of self-awareness is also quite stable, although not as rigid as the evaluative structure. This is explained by the fact that a person’s social roles can change from time to time. In addition, their status in the role hierarchy may change depending on the situation.

Aspects, levels, roles of self-consciousness are not realized all at once, since the entire Self-concept can be in demand only in exceptional cases, in some extraordinary, crisis periods of life. The mechanism that activates some aspects of the self-concept, focusing on the signs of the situation, is called “priming” - this is a process during which the signs of the situation include our memory and thereby activate some aspect of self-awareness. Through priming, we focus attention on a specific facet of our personality. Certain signs or marks in a certain situation are associated with the performance of a particular role, attract our attention and bring certain aspects of the self-concept to the center of consciousness, activating them. That part of the self-concept that is involved at the moment is called the active, or working, part of self-consciousness. These aspects vary from situation to situation, role to role.

According to Schmidt, for each person there is an optimal number of social roles, the excess of which leads to role overload. The point is not so much that a person begins to perform his roles ineffectively, but rather that the individual’s mental capabilities are exceeded. The consequence of this is a permanent state of inter-role conflict.

A version of self-awareness was also developed in M. Rosenberg’s theory of personality. It stands out

ü real me (how I see myself at the moment)

ü dynamic self (the person I have set myself the goal of becoming)

ü fantastic self (what I would like to be if all my wishes were miraculously fulfilled)

ü ideal self (the person that I am convinced, based on the learned norms and regulations, I should be)

ü future, or possible, self (idea of ​​what I can become in this or that development of events)

ü idealized self (how I like to see myself - aspects of the present self, ideal self, future self can be included here)

In addition, self-awareness, according to Rosenberg, can contain the entire spectrum of demonstrated selves - those images and masks that an individual demonstrates in order to hide behind them some negative, painful or simply intimate features and weaknesses of his actual self. All these aspects of self-awareness are formed as under the influence of a person’s social experience and due to his cognitive activity. The ideal self, for example, may be the result of those norms and rules that are internalized by a person, but it may simply reflect the standards and patterns existing in society. The dynamic self is formed depending on a person’s social position. As for the demonstrated selves, that is, the masks presented to others, they, as a rule, stimulate those qualities that are necessary to fulfill a certain social role, but which the individual does not have. (for example, “puffing out one’s cheeks” - for the importance of one’s own person).

Tory Higgins' concept of intrapersonal discrepancy. It refers to possible selves, but in relation to self-esteem and the emotional states that self-esteem generates. Higgins believes that along with relevant I are also represented in self-awareness ideal self And ought self. The ideal self embodies all the desires, dreams and hopes of a person regarding his own personality; this is the kind of self-awareness that a person dreams of having. The obligatory Self is the totality of all the norms, rules, requirements and regulations included in the self-concept of a person.

The concept of intrapersonal discrepancy states that negative feelings about oneself arise in a person not because he is aware of some of his shortcomings, but because of the discrepancy between the actual Self and the ideal Self, or the ought Self. The discrepancy between the actual Self and the ought one gives rise to feelings of guilt, anxiety, worry. Between the actual self and the ideal, despondency, a feeling of depression, and a depressive state arise. Reducing the discrepancy between the actual self and the ideal self can be a source of positive emotions.

In various self-concepts, both the should self and the ideal self are presented in a wide variety of options. After all, different people different views both about ideals and duty.

Self-esteem is a function of the self-concept, but also the emotional-cognitive state of a person, characterizing his attitude towards himself.

Question 22. Self-awareness and behavior.

Since the self-concept is a person’s social attitude towards himself, then self-awareness, like any other attitude, influences behavior.

People have little control over their behavior when anonymous. This explains the reckless behavior at the carnival when their faces are hidden by masks. It can be assumed that such behavior is possible in those people whose self-concept has either not yet developed, or is weakly expressed, or is generally vague. However, quite a lot of people are not inclined to comprehend themselves and their behavior at all and, thus, their personality traits are in their infancy.

Research by Arthur Beaman, Bonnell Klentz and Edward Diner, which shows how the factor of anonymity can influence the behavior of children, that is, those people whose self-concept is still in the formative stage.

The research was carried out in the form of a game, all children were dressed in fancy dress and masks, that is, they remained anonymous. During the game, the researchers offered the children treats to sweets. Moreover, in some cases, a large mirror was placed in front of a glass ball filled with treats so that the children could see themselves while taking sweets from the ball. In other cases the mirror was missing. A mirror in which subjects see themselves is a classic technique used in laboratory conditions to enhance self-understanding and self-awareness.

A female researcher playing with the children sometimes invited them to help themselves without embarrassment, and sometimes allowed them to take only one piece of candy. But she herself, when the children took sweets, turned away and pointedly looked in the other direction. She asked some children's names, others not, so they remained anonymous.

The results of the study clearly showed the influence of self-attention on children's behavior. If there was a mirror in front of the children in which they saw themselves, and at the same time they were allowed to take only one candy, then disobedience rarely happened. If there was no mirror, then the children disobeyed much more often. But even without a mirror, the children were embarrassed to take more than allowed when they were forced to say their names. Moreover, when children were allowed to take as many sweets as they wanted, as long as they saw themselves in the mirror, they rarely took more than one. Probably, when children saw themselves in him, it forced them to correlate their behavior with accepted norms that prevented greed. It is clear that an adult with an established and stable self-concept does not need to look in the mirror and name himself in order to behave with dignity and not commit reprehensible acts - not to be greedy, deceitful, vile, and so on.

A series of experiments by Jonathan Friedman: Friedman wanted to see if he could stop boys between the ages of seven and nine from playing with an interesting toy, having said 6 weeks earlier that doing so was wrong. The main task, according to the researcher, was for the boys themselves to convince themselves that playing with a forbidden toy is not good.

He used the threat of punishment, that is, with the help of external pressure, the threat was effective only as long as the children believed that they could be caught and punished. After just 6 weeks, when his assistant worked with the children instead of Friedmeng himself, who did not threaten punishment, 77% of the boys wanted to play with the robot, which had previously been “forbidden fruit” for them.

Recruiting another group of boys, Friedman changed tactics. This time he did not intimidate them, but simply told them that it was not good to play with a robot. This was enough to prevent the boys from approaching the robot immediately after the conversation. But this was enough even after six weeks. An amazing thing happened: despite the permission to play with any toy, most of the boys avoided the robot, although it was the most attractive toy. Only 33% of them chose a robot to play. The ban in this case began to act as a social norm that predetermined the behavior of children.

Friedman explains this phenomenon of effective prohibition without threats by the fact that instead of external pressure (threats), boys experienced a kind of internal pressure that prevented them from violating the prohibition. It turned out to be more reliable and more effective than threats, since it “worked” even in the absence of the one who forbade playing with the robot. In other words, the children took personal responsibility for their decision not to touch the attractive toy. They decided that they themselves did not want this, and that someone from outside was forcing them to do this. Consequently, their behavior was influenced by self-awareness, and not by external coercion.

Self-awareness, along with standards of behavior, also includes an assessment of one’s abilities to build one’s behavior in accordance with these standards. Research has shown that for American students, the standard and model is independent, nonconformist behavior. Many of them, in accordance with their self-concept, can resist group pressure. Some, not confident in their ability to resist group pressure, show conformism, although ideally they want to be independent. And if a person is not sure that he is able to achieve compliance with the ideal Self or the ought Self, then he experiences anxiety, anxiety, even depression. Therefore, people who have realized their inability to follow a standard or ideal, as a rule, prefer to avoid awareness of themselves and their behavior altogether. Moreover, they even strive to avoid situations that can activate their self-awareness.

Jennifer Crocker and Brenda Mayor, having reviewed many studies, showed that people who are disfigured, have noticeable deformities, scars, skin pathologies (tigmas), that is, those whom other people treat with disgusting pity and fear, can deliberately expose their deformities to the public. , emphasize them, as if flaunting their mutilation. Researchers believe that this is done for self-confirmation, since for stigmatized people the central aspect of the self-concept may be the awareness of their stigma.

Stigmatized self-awareness can form not only among externally disfigured people, but also among those who are generally different from those around them.

National and racial minorities develop a stigmatized identity from childhood. People belonging to gender and age minorities in some social communities may also experience discrimination and prejudice from the majority of others. As a result, they also develop a stigmatized self-awareness. In addition, individuals with pronounced personality flaws may also have a kind of stigmatized self-awareness and flaunt their mental deformities. We can say that in this case a person, not seeing any merits in himself, is forced to be proud of his own shortcomings.

People's behavior is determined not only by the content of their self-concept, but also by the degree of representation and development of certain functions of self-consciousness. People to varying degrees have the need and, therefore, the ability to become aware of themselves. Some do this all the time, others from time to time, others in exceptional cases, and others, perhaps never at all. And if this is so, then it is clear that the behavior of not always and not all people is determined by their self-awareness. From the point of view of mass psychology, human behavior generally depends little on consciousness and is almost entirely determined by the unconscious.

Self-awareness usually acts on two fronts. On the one hand, a person is aware of “himself for himself”: this function provides a person with the awareness that he needs, so to speak, for “internal use”. On the other hand, a person is aware of “himself for others”: this function gives him knowledge of how he looks in the eyes of others, how they perceive him. Moreover, thanks to this function, he is able to determine how other people would like to see him, what social image they expect from him.

J. G. Mead drew attention to this possible multidirectionality of self-awareness in his theory of personality, highlighting such components of personality as I (I) and Me (me). The first (I) means: “how I am aware of myself,” Me - “I am aware of how others perceive me.” The degree of development of these functions varies from person to person. Some are more capable of realizing “themselves for themselves”, others - “themselves for others”. To determine the development of these functions, American social psychology has developed special tables that consist of a number of affirmative statements.

Alan Fenigstein

The level of self-awareness of “oneself for oneself” is determined in the table according to the following statements:

1. I always strive to understand what I am.

2. I think about myself a lot.

3. I am always attentive to my inner state.

Self-awareness of “oneself for others” is defined through statements:

1. I am concerned about what others think of me.

2. I worry about how I look from the outside and in the eyes of other people.

3. I am concerned about how my behavior is perceived by other people.

People who have little concern about how they are perceived by others are not very interested in external assessments of their personality. People who are very concerned about how they are perceived by others are not indifferent to other people’s assessments; they are more sensitive to social reflection.

How self-awareness “of oneself for others” can influence behavior can be judged from the results of a study by K. von Baeyer, D. Scherk, M. Zanna. Its essence was that women applying for jobs, who had to undergo a pre-employment interview, were informed that a man would be interviewing them. Moreover, to some applicants he was presented in advance as a person who adheres to a traditionalist, patriarchal view of the role of women in society. To other women, he was described as a supporter of gender equality, sympathetic to independent, proactive, career-oriented women. The researchers were interested in what kind of external image they would create - how they would dress, how they would behave, what features they would try to emphasize and demonstrate to the male personnel officer.

It turned out that women created one or another image depending on what views the interlocutor adheres to. Those applicants who expected to meet a traditionalist personnel officer tried to look more feminine. This was evident in their conversation, in their makeup, in their jewelry, and in their demeanor. These women also gave traditional female answers regarding marriage, household chores, and children.

A completely different image was demonstrated by applicants who were hoping to meet with an interlocutor who sympathized with business women. Both in behavior and appearance, and in conversation, they strongly emphasized their efficiency and determination, that is, a departure from the traditional female stereotype.

Similar studies have found that men are just as, and no less than women, able to create an image that matches other people's perceived expectations.

Self-monitoring is the ability to demonstrate an image that would be pleasant to others (Mark Snyder). Self-monitoring, or the ability to be a social chameleon, is not developed to the same degree in all people. For some, it is a way of existence and at the same time a way to succeed in life. For others, it is a manifestation from time to time of an ability that is activated in exceptional situations. But there are also people who do not have this function at all.

To determine the level of self-monitoring, a scale consisting of affirmative judgments has also been developed. People with high levels of self-monitoring agree with the following statements:

1. I act like different people in different situations and with different people.

2. I'm not always the person I appear to be.

3. I can mislead another person, I can pretend to be friendly with someone I really don’t like.

People with low levels of self-monitoring agree with other statements:

1. I have difficulty changing behavior to suit different situations and people.

2. I can only agree with those ideas that correspond to my beliefs.

3. I do not change my way of thinking in order to please people or win their favor.

Individuals with a high level of self-monitoring adapt well to any situations and people, are able to control their behavior and emotions in order to, using this skill, effectively create the desired impression, demonstrating to others an image appropriate to the occasion. Researchers believe that this ability is achieved by borrowing patterns of other people's behavior. When e

Tom goes to great lengths to “read” and copy the behavior of other people. This activity can be compared to how professional actors “enter” a role. People with a high level of monitoring do this involuntarily, mostly unconsciously.

People with low levels of self-monitoring do not strive to take into account, control, or somehow specially organize the impression they make on others. They can see, realize how they are perceived, what impression they make, and at the same time do not try to regulate it or adapt. And although they are able to control the impression they make, they do not do this for one reason or another.

It is easy to find some common points between self-monitoring and being aware of “oneself for others.” True, the similarity here is partial: a person with a developed function of awareness of “himself for others” may be aware of the impression he makes, but not use this knowledge in any way. A person with high self-monitoring, on the contrary, will make maximum use of this knowledge in order to create the impression he needs. Awareness of “oneself for others” is a necessary prerequisite for high self-monitoring. But this function alone is not enough to resort to social mimicry and specially organize the desired impression.

Research by Mike Snyder and Thomas Monson experimentally confirmed the existing differences in the behavior of people with high and low self-monitoring. The study was conducted with two groups of participants, one of which consisted of people who were independent and not prone to conformism, the other, on the contrary, prone to conformism. People with high self-monitoring demonstrated both tendencies. They were conformists in a group of conformists, where conformity was considered the preferred form of interpersonal interaction, and nonconformists, when the norm of the reference group was independence and resistance to social pressure. People with low levels of self-monitoring were less sensitive to differences in social conditions and situations.

In a similar study, individuals with high self-monitoring showed a willingness to cooperate when they expected that they would have to interact with this person again in the future (he seemed “useful” to them). And, conversely, they did not show interest in cooperation when interaction in the future was not expected (then the person seemed “useless” to them). People with low self-monitoring did not change their behavior with their partner regardless of whether future interaction with them was expected or not.

Some types of work activities and certain positions require a person to develop the ability to self-monitor. Basically, this is an activity where a person has to constantly interact with many people and organizations, perform various functions at the same time, and find himself in different situations. This could be work in educational institutions, mass media, the service sector, and so on.

In addition to how the self-concept, being a person’s attitude towards himself, largely predetermines his behavior, influences his well-being towards other people and the world around him. But there is also feedback, namely: behavior affects the content and structure of a person’s self-awareness. How these processes proceed is discussed in the theory of cognitive dissonance by L. Festinger and the theory of self-understanding by D. Boehm.

Self-concept is both the outcome of our social interactions and a factor influencing those interactions and, by extension, human behavior in general.

Object of social psychology– an individual from a group, a small, medium or large social group, interpersonal or intergroup interaction.

Tasks of social psychology

Below is a list of the main tasks of social psychology, but in reality the list is much wider; each individual task contains a number of additional tasks:

• Studying the phenomenon of human interaction, information exchange;
• Mass mental phenomena;
• Socio-psychological characteristics of social groups as integral structures;
• Mechanisms of social influence on a person and his involvement in society as a subject of social life and social interaction;
• Creation of theoretical and practical recommendations for improving the interaction of people and social groups:
  • Further development of social psychology as a multi-level knowledge system;
  • Research and problem solving in small groups (hierarchy, leadership, manipulation, interpersonal relationships, conflicts, etc.);
  • Research and problem solving in large groups (nations, classes, unions, etc.);
  • Study of the socio-psychological activity of the individual in a team.

Problems of social psychology

A short list of the main problems of social psychology:

• Intragroup fluctuations;
• Stages of development of social groups;
• Intragroup and intergroup leadership;
• Psychological characteristics of social groups;
• Communication and interpersonal relationships in a social group;
• Intergroup social relations;
• Psychology of large, medium and small social groups and mass media;
• Mass socio-psychological phenomena (Mass mood, consciousness, mental infection, etc.);
• Human adaptation and its features in social environments;
• Management of socio-psychological processes.

• More details in the article

Methods of social psychology

Social psychology uses methods of general psychology and sociology:

• survey;
• interviewing;
• conversation;
• group experiment;
• studying documents;
• observation (included and not included).

Social psychology also has its own specific methods, for example the method sociometry- measuring the private relationships of people in groups. The basis of sociometry is the statistical processing of test subjects’ answers to questions related to their desire to interact with members of a certain group. The data obtained as a result of sociometry is called sociogram(Fig. 1), which has specific symbolism (Fig. 2).

Rice. 1. Sociogram. Using this sociogram, it is possible to identify the central core of the group, that is, individuals with stable positive relationships (A, B, Y, I); presence of other groups (B-P, S-E); a person who enjoys the greatest authority in a certain respect (A); a person who does not enjoy sympathy (L); mutually negative relationships (M-N); lack of stable social connections (M).

Rice. 2. Sociogram symbols.

History of social psychology

Social psychology as separate area psychology took shape only by the middle of the 19th century, but the period of accumulation of knowledge about society and man in particular began long before that. In the philosophical works of Aristotle and Plato one can find socio-psychological ideas, French materialist philosophers and utopian socialists made significant contributions, and later the works of Hegel and Feuerbach. Until the 19th century, socio-psychological knowledge was formalized within the framework of sociology and philosophy.

The first stage in the formation of social psychology as an independent field of psychological science is considered to be the second half of the 19th century, but it was only a theoretical and empirical science, all activity consisted of describing observed processes. This transition period is associated with the emergence of a journal on linguistics and ethnopsychology in 1899 in Germany, founded by Lazarus Moritz(Lazarus Moritz, philosopher and writer, Germany) and Heyman Steinthal(Heymann Steinthal, philosopher and philologist, Germany).

The first outstanding personalities on the path of development of empirical social psychology are William McDougall(McDougall, psychologist, England), Gustave Le Bon(Gustave Le Bon, psychologist and sociologist, France) and Jean Gabriel Tarde(Gabriel Tarde, criminologist and sociologist, France). Each of these scientists put forward his own theories and justifications for the development of society by the properties of an individual personality: W. McDougall justified instinctive behavior, G. Lebon - from the point of view, G. Tarde - .

1908 is considered the starting point of Western social psychology, thanks to the publication of the book " Introduction to Social Psychology» W. McDougall.

In the 1920s, thanks to the published works of the researcher V. Mede(Walther Moede, psychologist, Germany), who first used mathematical methods analysis, a new stage began in the history of social psychology - experimental social psychology(Experimentelle Massenpsychologie). It was V. Mede who first recorded a significant difference in the abilities of people in groups and alone, for example, pain tolerance in a group, sustained attention, etc. The discovery of the influence of groups in the emotional and volitional spheres of a person is also important.

The next significant step in the development of social psychology was detailing the methodology of a mass socio-psychological experiment an outstanding psychologist Gordon Willard Allport(Gordon Willard Allport, USA). This technique entailed a lot of experimental work, which was based on the development of recommendations for the development of advertising, political propaganda, military affairs and much more.

W. Allport and V. Mede set a point of no return in the development of social psychology from theory to practice. In particular, in the USA, social psychology is closely related to the business sphere and is an applied science. Large-scale studies of professional diagnostics, management problems, manager-employee relations and much more.

A further significant event in the development of the methodological field of social psychology was the development and creation of the method sociometry Jacoba Levi Moreno(Jacob Levy Moreno, psychiatrist and sociologist, USA). According to Moreno's works, the framework of all social groups determines syntony (like/dislike) individual members this group. Jacob Moreno argued that all social problems are solvable with the correct division and unification of individuals into microgroups according to their sympathies, values, behavior and inclinations (if an activity satisfies a person, he does it as well as possible).

In all areas of Western social psychology, the basic element is "cage" of society- microenvironment of society, a small group, that is, the average structure in the standard scheme “Society - Group - Personality”. A person is dependent on his social role in the group, on its standards, requirements, and norms.

In Western social psychology, the field theory Kurt Tzadek Lewin(Kurt Zadek Lewin, psychologist, Germany, USA), according to which the individual is constantly influenced by the field of attraction and the field of repulsion.

The concepts of Western social psychology are based on psychological determinism, unrelated to economic conditions. Human behavior is explained by psychological reasons: aggressiveness, sexuality, etc. All concepts of Western social psychology are divided into four areas:

1. Psychoanalytic;
2. Neo-behaviourist;
3. Cognitive;
4. Interactionist.

Areas of social psychology

Psychoanalytic direction of social psychology based on the concept and socio-psychological views of Sigmund Freud, on the basis of which modern followers have created several theories, one of which has been put forward Wilfred Ruprecht Bayon(Wilfred Ruprecht Bion, psychoanalyst, England), according to which a social group is a macrotype of an individual, that is, the characteristics and qualities of groups, like individual people. Interpersonal needs = biological needs. All people have a need to be liked by other people and desire to join a group (the need to belong). The group leader has the highest regulatory function.

Neo-Freudians of social psychology seek explanations for interpersonal relationships in the subconscious and human emotions.

Neo-behaviourist direction of social psychology is based on observational facts, excluding specific properties of human behavior, theoretical materials, areas of values ​​and motivations. In the concept of the neo-behavioristic direction, behavior directly depends on learning. According to non-behavioristic judgments, the organism adapts to conditions, but the principle of transforming these conditions as a result of human activity is rejected. The main neo-behaviouristic thesis: the genesis of an individual is determined by the random reinforcements of his reactions. One of the main representatives of the neo-behaviouristic direction is Burress Frederick Skinner(Burrhus Frederic Skinner, psychologist and writer, USA), according to his works, the composition of human behavior depends on the consequences of this behavior (operant conditioning).

One of the most famous theories of the neo-behaviorist direction is the theory of aggression, which is based on the “aggression-frustration” hypothesis (1930), according to which an aggressive state is the basis of the behavior of all people.

Neo-Freudians and neo-behaviorists have the same interpretation of human behavior, which is based on the desire for pleasure, and all the needs and environment of a person are not associated with historical conditions.

At the core cognitivist direction of social psychology(cognition) are the features of people’s cognitive processes, which are the basis of socially determined behavior, that is, behavior is based on human concepts (social attitudes, views, expectations, etc.). A person’s attitude towards an object is determined by its categorical meaning. The main cognitivist thesis: consciousness determines behavior.

Interactionist direction of social psychology is based on the problem of interaction between people in a social group - interactions, based on the social roles of group members. The very concept of " social role» entered George Herbert Mead(George Herbert Mead, sociologist and philosopher, USA) in the 1930s.

Representatives of interactionism Shibutani Tamotsu(Tamotsu Shibutani, sociologist, USA), Arnold Marshall Rose(Arnold Marshall Rose, sociologist and political scientist, USA), Munford Kuhn(Manford H. Kuhn, sociologist, leader of symbolic interactionism, USA) and others attached paramount importance to such socio-psychological problems as communication, reference groups, communication, social role, social norms, social status etc. The conceptual apparatus developed by Herbert Mead and other representatives of interactionism is widely widespread in social and psychological science.

Interactionism recognizes the social conditioning of the human psyche as the basis of communication. A number of empirical studies conducted by representatives of interactionism have recorded similar behavioral manifestations in similar social situations. However, social interaction is considered by interactionists without specifics in the content of the process of this interaction.

The problem of social psychology of the USSR and Russia

Research in the field of social psychology in the 1920s was based on biopsychological positions, which was contrary to the ideology of the country. As a result, works in the field of social psychology and many other branches of psychology were prohibited, as they were perceived as an alternative to Marxism. In Russia, the development of social psychology began only in the late 1950s. As a result of this “freeze” in the development of social psychology, a single categorical specificity has not been formed, research is conducted at the level of empirics and description, but despite these difficulties, Russian social psychology has scientific data and applies them in various areas of human activity.

Books on social psychology