Strategies for linking individual psychology and social structure: Interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary social psychology

1986 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marylee C. Taylor ◽  
Michael P. Johnson

Every region and people has peculiar economic characteristics and these features largely have roots in that region‟s social structure, social psychology and its dynamics. The capitalist economy of the United States has roots in individualismand Protestant Work Ethic, influenced both by Protestant religion and the social character of the Americans; the Client Economy of Saudi Arabia has deep linkages to its tribal social structure and the so-called Bazaar Economy of Afghanistan is profoundly embedded in the Pakhtun social structure of the country. The Pakhtuns of Pakistan have a peculiar social structure and social psychology thereof having profound and extensive influence on the region‟s economy particularly its largely underdevelopedcondition. The paper explores the characteristics of Pakhtun social structure and the interactive linkages between the social edifice and economic development or lack of it.


Author(s):  
Miranda Mowbray

This chapter is concerned with how to design an online learning community in such a way as to encourage cooperation, and to discourage uncooperative or antisocial behavior. Rather than restricting design to visual and interface issues, I take a wide view, touching on aspects of the governance, social structure, moderation practices, and technical architecture of online learning communities. The first half of the chapter discusses why people behave antisocially in online learning communities, and ways to discourage this through design. The second half discusses why on the other hand people behave cooperatively in online learning communities, and ways to encourage this through user-centered design, applying some results of experiments in social psychology. The chapter is intended to be of practical use to designers of online learning communities.


Author(s):  
Ю.В. Ковалева

Представлено продолжение историографического и психолого-исторического анализа научных представлений о больших социальных группах в соответствии с этапами развития социальной психологии и статуса таких групп в различные исторические периоды жизни страны. Начало этого анализа представлено в публикации (Ковалева, 2020), в которой была реализована первая задача исследования по определению исторических рамок, в которые понятие «большие социальные группы» получило свое развитие. Также было показано решение второй задачи, а именно была дана характеристика общественно-политическим условиям и уровню гуманитарного знания для двух первых из выделенных периодов - становления социально-психологического направления исследований в России (вторая половина ХIХ - начало ХХ вв.) и развития социальной психологии в 1920-е и до середины 1930-х гг. Продолжение статьи посвящено решению второй задачи для трех последующих периодов - латентного этапа в становлении социальной психологии (середина 1930-х - 1950-е гг.), возрождения отечественной социальной психологии (1960-е - середина 1970-х гг.) и оформления современной отечественной социальной психологии в систему научного знания (середина 1970-х - 1980-е гг.). Описаны масштабные события, приводившие к значительным и очень разнородным трансформациям общественной структуры в изучаемые годы, приведены редко публикуемые данные о социальной динамике в стране в годы Великой Отечественной войны, а также об усложнении социальной структуры и общественных настроений после Победы. В связи с этим отмечаются упущенные возможности по социально-психологическому исследованию больших социальных групп, но одновременно подчеркивается высокий прогресс в накоплении теоретического и эмпирического материала после восстановления социальной психологии как научной отрасли. The continuation of historiographic and historical-psychological analysis of scientific ideas about large social groups in accordance with the stages of development of social psychology and the status of such groups in various historical periods of the country's life was presented. The beginning of this analysis is presented in a publication (Kovaleva, 2020), in which the first task of the study was realized to determine the historical framework in which the concept of «large social groups» was developed. The solution of the second problem was also shown, namely, the characterization of socio-political conditions and the level of humanitarian knowledge was given for the first two of the selected periods - the formation of the socio-psychological direction of research in Russia (second half of the XIX - beginning of the XX centuries) and the development of social psychology in the 1920s. The continuation of the article was devoted to solving the second problem for three subsequent periods - the latent stage in the formation of social psychology (1930-50s), the revival of domestic social psychology (1960s) and the design of modern domestic social psychology into the system of scientific knowledge (1970-80s). Large-scale events leading to significant and very heterogeneous transformations of the social structure in the studied years are described, rarely published data on the social dynamics in the country during the Great Patriotic War, as well as on the complication of the social structure and public sentiments after the Victory. In this regard, there are lost opportunities for socio-psychological research of large social groups, but at the same time high progress in the accumulation of theoretical and empirical material after the restoration of this scientific industry is emphasized.


2021 ◽  
pp. 90-109
Author(s):  
Tomer Broude

A significant insight of behaviouralism and social psychology, well-established through experimental research, is that actors display ‘social preferences’, other-regarding or non-self-interested decision-making. Contrary to rational choice assumptions, people may have only ‘bounded selfishness’ in decisions, caring not only about their own payoffs, but about those of others. This chapter provides a broad framework for assessing the relevance of prosociality to international law, discussing the levels of analysis problem that inheres in any shift from individual psychology to corporate actors such as states. The chapter focuses on one area in which prosociality may enrich discussion of a contested issue in international law and the problems it raises—humanitarian intervention. How can motivation and personality—the main variables of prosociality—apply to international actors? Is the ‘bystander effect’ prevalent in international relations? Which other areas of international law relate to prosociality? And can (or should) international law encourage prosociality?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document