The Field of Social Psychology
Kimball Young
University of Wisconsin
What is social psychology? What are its scope and method? These are perennial questions which appear on the horizon of both psychology and the social sciences. Social psychology still remains a somewhat amorphous subject touching the social sciences, on the one hand, and physiology and psychology, on the other. If one were to distinguish present trends in the field from previous ones, he might say that the shift is distinctly toward the emphasis upon the individual in his social environment, indicating both the effect of the social milieu upon the personality and also the effect of cultural pressures which are a part of this social interaction. The sociological field approaches an inevitable rapport with the anthropological. This means it will phrase its materials in terms of culture traits, culture areas, cultural inventions, convergences and diffusions, and discontinue the bad practice of psychologizing group phenomena. And yet there is still considerable attention to the psychology of group life in spite of this trend.
The present review, which goes over the publications since Allport's article (4)will not attempt to cover material from the field of personality, which has been adequately summarized by May and Hartshorne (161,162), Allport (10), Watson (245), Young (269), and Roback (198), except to indicate social conditioning of certain personality trends. Measures of character and personality must necessarily also deal with factors of social conditioning. The field of moral and social traits has received particular attention in recent years. With few exceptions we have avoided any overlapping with
( 662) these other reviews. It is unavoidable, however, that we treat, in part, the problems of social environment as it affects social behavior. Likewise, the psychological phases of cultural anthropology which have been reviewed by Willey and Herskovits (258) and papers on racial psychology, at least, as it touches intelligence measurements, which have been summarized by Garth (107a) will not be discussed.
We shall concern ourselves rather, first, with theoretical and historical aspects of the field, secondly, with the biological roots of social behavior. Finally, we shall examine the literature of social psychology as it touches the field of social attitudes, social distance and the whole scope of inter-relations of group life and personality.
I. Historical and Theoretical Phases of Social Psychology.
A. Historical.—In the past three years a number of writers have traced the history of social psychology for us. This is itself indicative of an effort to frame the field in a more consistent and scientific manner. Dennes (79) traces the development of social psychology from Lazarus and Steinthal, through Wundt, Tarde, Durkheim, Windelband, and Rickert, to the modern period. He is particularly concerned with the cultural approach to social psychological data. The cultural products of historical societies comprise the subject matter of this field. Young's short history of social psychology (266), especially with reference to American developments, indicates the shift of interest from psychological sociology of Ellwood, Giddings, Small and others, with their curious mixture of sociological and psychological concepts, to the present emphasis on habits and attitudes which goes back, in turn, to the influence of Thomas, Dewey and the functional and behavioristic psychology. Karpf (136) describes the development of psychological sociology and then latterlythe development of the individualistic emphasis in the field, first through the work of McDougall and the school of instinct and latterly through the emphasis on interaction, in terms of attitudes and habits. Sprowls (220) gives a good perspective to the whole field in the first chapter of his work, tracing out the philosophical, historical and psychological backgrounds of social psychology. Duprat (87) and Essertier (94) trace the development of social psychology, especially in France, as it has latterly developed away from the Durkheim school.
B. Theoretical Treatises.—The psychology of group life in terms of culture is ably presented by Dennes (79). Znaniecki (277) very
( 663) clearly distinguishes cultural data from that of individual psychology, and points out that social science can draw very little from laboratory psychology. In his monograph on the laws of social psychology (276) he indicates that social psychology must be a closed system of concepts independent of individual psychology and apparently somewhat independent of culture as described in his earlier book, Cultural Reality. He believes the behavioristic psychology of America has a limited contribution to make to social science, just as he is critical of the overemphasis upon quantitative analyses alone. Bernard has set forth his position in comprehensive form (29). For him social psychology concerns the individual in his social environment, both of other persons and of culture content which is carried in the psycho-social milieu, found in traditions, mores, folkways, institutions, and the like. Dunlap (84) posits a list of desires in place of instincts as basic to social behavior, but most of his book is given over to a psychologizing of social institutions without always giving an adequate cultural setting to his discussions. Thouless (235), although unduly influenced by McDougall, has written a valuable general treatise employing many concepts from dynamic psychology and yet recognizing the importance of environmental pressures as they affect personality. Young (271) in the introductory sections of his book outlines a three-dimensional approach to social behavior : that of culture, which is the scope of the social sciences proper, that of behavior mechanisms which is the field of psychology, and thirdly, the field of interaction which deals with the personality in his social environment which is the scope of social psychology. The study of per-sons in interaction, however, can not be understood without attention to the cultural backgrounds, on the one side, and the physiological-psychological mechanisms, on the other. Hart (121) has built his thesis largely around conflict both in the individual and within the group.
Weiss (252, 253) has attempted to link up the treatment of social psychology to his theoretical analysis of behavior. He postulates for social psychology ten distinct features : movement continuum, organism, speech, sensorimotor interchangeability, social organization, social evolution, civilization, methodology and applied social psychology. Ellwood's most recent contribution to theoretical social psychology (91, 92) is an attempt to formulate the field in recognition of both the mental and cultural factors which interplay in group behavior, for it is the group rather than the individual with which we
( 664) have to deal in social psychology. Barnes' own standpoint is some-what revealed by his hearty approval of Ellwood (22). Judd, in contrast to Allport's view, very distinctly would found social psychology on institutional concepts (133, 134). In fact, he suggests re-naming the field to fit his own favorite phrase, Psychology of Social Institutions. If his standpoint is sound, one wonders why he does not deal with the family, property, the state and other institutions rather than to confine himself to art, number, punctuality, precision, etc., as phases of the psychology of institutions.
Kantor (135) has restated his point of view that social psychology should deal largely with social and cultural (that is, institutional) formulations described in terms of stimulus-response. Faris (95, 98) presents a clear case for considering social psychology as the subjective aspect of culture in which the personality may be considered both as producer of culture and as product. Wallis (243) discusses the whole relation of social psychology to individual psychology, pointing out in incisive manner the need to take into account cultural factors in describing men's lives in groups. For him social psychology may be quite independent of other sciences and gets nowhere by attempting to build on purely biological mechanisms. Thurnwald (237) and Roffenstein (200) discuss the relations of social psychology to cognate subjects. The former shows that the individual can not be separated from his group life. He does, however, strongly advocate giving up all such concepts as group mind and folk soul, which can only have a symbolic meaning and which easily mislead us. The personality as the carrier of associative life is the core of his scheme. The latter points out that social psychology has particularly to examine the " emotionalen Sachverhalte " of behavior and the field of suggestion which is so important in social interaction. Schneersohn (203) points out that social psychopathology is an important empirical science having no relation to normative matters. It is concerned with individual behavior as determined by psychic structures and group or social standards. Bagby (18) outlines the field of social psychology under four rubrics : psychology of crowds, reactions to persons as stimuli and the social experience factor, reactions to complex situations involving other persons as parts of general stimulus, and reactions and psychological phenomena of whatever type which have some relation to the problem of social welfare. To Allport (7) the field is very largely that of interstimulation of persons, taking the whole social situation into account. He is especially critical of
( 665) all group mind theories, but seems a little less opposed to the concepts of culture and group life than he was some years ago. For Park (184) society is not a static aggregation of units but a working organismic pattern of persons acting in corporate capacity. Kulp (140) holds that psychology has to do with the nervous system as it operates in reference to the physical world, social psychology studies social processes or interaction, and sociology deals with the products of social processes, viz., organizations and structures. Shonle (214) points out the value of the concepts of sociology and social psychology in the field of religious education.
Adler (3) indicates the growing inter-relation of psychiatry and social psychology and other social sciences, while Eliot (90) and Ogburn (180) point out certain contributions of psychiatry to systematic social psychology. Perhaps the most comprehensive attempt to link psychiatry to social psychology is to be found in the work of Burrow. In a series of papers (48, 49, 50, 51, 52,53) he has shown how man's behavior is affected by social images quite as unconsciously formulated as individual unconscious images may be. We evade organic reality wherever possible, we show in our group life many of the neurotic strains of the individual when insane, we worship our heroes in the infantile manner and so on. The whole point of view is more fully set forth in his recent book (54). The reviewer confesses that he does not yet understand the contrast of organic reality versus social reality which Burrow stresses.
Rivers (197) reveals a keen appreciation of the close relation of psychology and ethnology and Malinowski (157) actually demonstrates this by his study of the mental life of primitive peoples. Goldenweiser (111) points out that in last analysis culture rests on the individual who, however, does not produce culture de novo from original nature but from this in combination with historical or cultural content brought him by his society. White (256) also stresses the cultural influences on personality, hence no mere biological analysis is sufficient to account for personality.
North's study of social differences (178) is a valuable compendium and analysis in terms of biological, psychological and sociological factors. Lumley (153) has made a beginning in analyzing psychological factors in social control. Lipsky (152) attempts to expose how man as an emotional, irrational being is everywhere under the domination of class, person or custom. A well written popular treatise is Overstreet's (182) who presents in lucid style the technics
( 666) of control through attention, habit, rationalization, and other unconscious mechanisms. Bernard (30) has made a brief analysis of the psychological foundations of society. Gault in his review (108) of recent developments in social psychology has given chiefly researches on intelligence differences, mental disorders and delinquents along with rather general discussion of leadership, progress and sense of social unity. Dunlap (86) expresses some hesitation on the applications of psychology to social problems although he deals freely with institutional questions in his book (84). Barnes (21) has made an invaluable contribution in his indication of the possible contribution of psychology to the analysis of historical data.
Closely related to these systematic attempts are the treatises bearing on the field from philosophy and biology. Simmel's contribution to social theory has been presented by Spykman (221) and his sections on social psychology, on submission and opposition and on the individual and the group are of value for psychologists. Bentley's book (26) in its emphasis on social relativity is of systematic importance for the field. And Wheeler's discussion of the place of social phenomena in the philosophic scheme of emergent evolution is invaluable (255). Kluver reviews the theory of types in "culture-science psychology" (138) from Spranger and Dilthey. Mead (164) contributes another valuable paper pointing out the relation of social consciousness to social objects and to mechanisms of social control.
Dowdall (82) points out that society is essentially a matter of human interrelations, but modified by institutional factors, dispositional forces and the dictations by men of each other. Likewise Hayes (123) indicates the threefold nature of social situations: physiological conditionings, conscious analysis, and overt behavior. He also points out the psychological aspects of institutions (124), giving especial attention to the rational elements in their formation. Markey (158) and Gillette (109) attempt definitions of social phenomena, the former in terms of relations of organisms to each other, human and infra-human, through a study of all ecological and environmental factors in collective behavior, and the latter in regard to direct (primary) and indirect (secondary) contacts.
There is always some attempt to make analogy between animal organism and social phenomena. Thus Lindsay (149) would draw a comparison between the cell life of the organism and the social inter-actions in groups. So, too, Child (66) in spite of his important contributions (see below) has attempted to define social phenomena
( 667) in terms of his own biological concepts. One may legitimately raise the question as to whether this adds anything to the analogies common to the Spencer or Schaeffle schools of a half century ago. More significant are the growing emphases by Alverdes (12,13), Schjelderup-Ebbe (205), Markey (158), and Wheeler (255) on the need to develop a comparative sociology by a study of social inter-action among the lower forms of animal life. Especially valuable are Kohler's observations on the social life of chimpanzees (139).
C. Methodology.—For keen analysis of difficulties in social re-search and for a clear presentation of the need of a methodology divergent from that of natural science, Cooley's article (70) is excellent. Sprowls (220) ably reviews the methods of natural science, of historiography, of statistics and various combinations of these. Park (13), Bogardus (36) and Poole (190) have discussed the methods of employing the concept social distance. Zwonitzka, following Bekhterev, suggests studying personality in its social setting by the objective methods of reflexology (278). On the side of case methods Shaw (208) has shown the advantage of full steno-graphic reports of family conflicts, personality stories in interviews, etc., and Bogardus (38) has suggested a method of group interview. On the statistical: side Chapin (65) has proposed a method of measuring the volume of social stimuli, while Thurstone (238) has cleverly proposed to apply the method of paired comparisons to the study of social valuations. Clark (69) discusses the problem of measuring attitudes, while Bain (20) questions the entire approach through attitudes. Young (270) has contrasted the statistical and structural method with the historico-genetic and has attempted a synthesis of the two. English (93) suggests two experimental approaches, one by a study of voting and one by a study of wishes and preferences. Snow (217) urges more concrete studies of social motivations and points out, further, the need of statistical analysis in social data. Bernard (27) suggests a number of valuable problems for study in the social psychology of rural life.
Other methodological suggestions may be found in many of the papers cited below, especially those of statistical, experimental, or historical nature.
II. The Biological Foundations of Social Behavior.
A. Heredity and Environment.—Of interest to social psychology is the present trend in the treatment of heredity and environment.
( 668) To-day many writers realize that to attempt to segregate sharply in the adult individual the factors of heredity from environment is not only foolish but misleading. Jennings (127) discusses the whole problem of environmental determination of the developmental stages of the individual, giving the lie to the easy assumption of sharp distinction between heredity and environment. Carmichael (58) in particular, reviews the literature on heredity and environment with distinct appreciation of the balance of the factors. Bernard (28, 29), Faris (95, 98), Young (271) and others in social psychology take precisely this view in regard to social behavior. And of profound influence on some recent writers on social psychology, particularly Bernard and other members of the Chicago school, has been the work of Child (66, 67) who has stressed the environmental determination of structure. His concepts of dominance, polarity, physiological gradient have not only indicated more clearly the features of physiological growth but have come to be used in interpretations by both sociologists and social psychologists.
B. The Instincts and Emotions.—There is still some tendency to employ the term instinct in a very loose manner as in the somewhat fanciful article by Thompson (234) who attempts to explain racial and cultural differences in terms of primitive hunting patterns. And Cadoux (56) points out previous useless efforts to explain war by instincts only. But the American writers have largely divided them-selves into two camps on the whole question of the instincts, one favoring the use of the term, led by McDougall, the other for abolishing the term or, at least, restricting it very much, led by Bernard, Kuo, Watson and Faris. Some five years ago the controversy was at its height, but even within the past three years there has been much discussion of the problem. Shonle (213) takes the instinct school to task for arm-chair procedures rather than dependence on concrete studies. Eggen (88) shows the "egregious lack of unity" among the writers who use the term instinct and calls for complete abandonment of the concept. Laing (141, 142) in two articles criticized McDougall for postulating instincts as social forces and for stating that writers before him ignored the importance of instinctive or emotional nature in social behavior. Certainly Hume stressed these very influences. Wyatt (263) and Woodworth (262) both point out, however, that to completely abolish the concept of instinctive tendencies would be to ignore certain fundamental features of behavior. Weber (251) also criticizes the behaviorists for reducing the concept to a nonentity.
( 669) This is also the standpoint of Eldridge (89) who steers a middle course between the extremists. Schoen (204) boldly tries to reunite the opposing forces by recognizing levels of behavior in terms of its variability. And Tolman (239) does much the same thing by positing his two levels of drives, one fundamental to the other.
Dunlap (85), who has been charged with substituting desire for the concept of instinct, defends himself against the accusation by restating his position that though desire has an organic basis, it also is conscious and introspectively known to the subject.
De Saussure (80) traces out the various theories of instinct, intelligence, and the unconscious as found in modern writers. His own view is distinctly Freudian. House (125) traces out the place which the concept of instinct has played as a social force in sociological theory of the past.
Mursell (175) attacks the psychoanalytic position that sex is the driving instinct of the infant. He believes that a better case can be made out for nutritional drives as fundamental in the relation of child to mother and later 'of child to other adults. And Faris (97) discusses the concept of imitation which has been so frequently called an instinct, showing how varied and inconsistent many of the uses of this word have been.
The actual amount of experimental data on original nature has been very meagre. Watson (247, 249) has become increasingly certain in defending the abandonment of the concepts of any innate traits, although his own experimental work has ceased. In a study of 365 babies of both sexes and of different races and nationalities, Jones (132) has presented data on the early behavior patterns with special attention to smiling, eye-coördinations, blinking, opposition of the thumb, reaching, etc. Also of interest to social psychology as regards original nature, is the brief report on the " wolf children " of India (222).
Emotional factors in social behavior and in the make-up of personality are becoming more universally recognized. This is evidenced by the number of tests of emotional traits cited in the reviews of literature on personality (10, 161, 162,245,269). Of the writers in social psychology more particularly Moore (169), Read (192), Root (201), Overstreet (182), and Young (271) give an important place to the emotions as factors in social behavior. Watson (248) reviews the recent contributions on emotional conditioning, while Marston (159) attempts a restatement of the theory of emotions
( 670) based on a new terminology centering around dominance, compliance, submission and inducement.
III. Social Behavior and the Social Environment.
In the field of general discussion Bartlett (23) shows the relations of group organization to the types of behavior of the group members. And Bernard's paper (28) on the place which the psycho-logical factors of language, thought processes, inventions and the psychosocial environment play in social evolution gives a good perspective to social behavior. Finney (100) points out how the entire scope of the folkways rests in the field of the unconscious mechanisms which are socially predetermined. Park (184), Faris (98), Hart (121), Young (271) and others already mentioned discuss the problem of social conditioning in its wider aspects. In the present section, however, we shall confine ourselves to more particular aspects of the situation, dealing with social attitudes and social distance, with the relation of intelligence, of home, of occupation, of childhood groupings, collective formations, and political and other social con-figurations to social behavior of persons in their group life.
A. Social Attitudes and Social Distance.—Faris, who has taken the term social attitude over from Thomas, has traced its usage (96) and Symonds (228), although having used the term himself in questionnaire studies (227), has now developed great skepticism regarding the term and suggests abolishing it. A number of measuring scales have been constructed and used on the basis of attitudes as fundamental units of behavior. Hart's test (119, 120) was one of the earliest. Sturges (225) proposes methods of determining the validity, reliability, the diagnostic and prognostic value, of tests of attitudes. And May and Hartshorne (160) describe how they went about making a scale to measure moral attitudes and moral knowledge. They report (122) some of their findings based on an extensive statistical treatment of test materials. Bain has shown that there is a decrease in extent of religious attitudes since Leuba's investigation of ten years ago (19). Neumann (176) has devised a test on international attitudes for high school pupils, while Frederick (103) reports a study of national and international attitudes over a considerable section of our own country. Davis' study (76) contrasting the attitudes of children in governmental schools of Russia with those of American children regarding occupational valuations is interesting. With the former, proletarian vocations rate higher than banker,
( 671) doctor or professor. The Cavans show (61) the effect of conservative, stable home attitudes upon the attitudes of young business women toward the home and married life. Winter (261) discusses the "bad" effects of college traditions about Freshmen on the attitudes of the Freshmen.: Thomas (233) treats in a qualitative, but effective manner, some of the relations between social attitudes of urban populations and the type of life and institution there. Morris (170) exposes the origin and nature of the social attitudes of beggars.
Prejudice is a type of social attitude expressed as social distance. Kershner (137) maintains that prejudice arises where group division-lines conjoin with racial ones. Busch analyzes the effect of parental prejudices on these of their children (55). G. B. Watson (244, 246) has made the most useful researches on prejudice and social attitude generally on a rather objective basis, with his test of fair-mindedness, while Rice's experiment on "stereotypes" reveals still another way of uncovering the sources of prepossession (194). Duffus (83) describes in popular language some of G. B. Watson's work.
Related to attitudes are opinions. Zeleny has a test of fairly high reliability for checking upon alterations in student opinions before and after courses in the social sciences (273). Jones (131), however, reveals how little college training affects opinions on economic, religious and social questions. Abel reports (2) differences among Polish, Czech, French and American students in beliefs and superstitions. Nixon (177), and Garrett and Fisher (107) reveal the extent of misconceptions in psychology and belief in current superstitions even among educated classes. They attribute these misconceptions to ignorance rather than to intelligence as measured by tests.
Closely related to the work on social attitudes has been the development of the concept of social distance by Park (183) who apparently has been influenced by Simmel (cf. 221). While Sorokin (219) has used the term in treating social mobility, it is Bogardus who has made the most extensive use of the concept to study prejudices and conflicts (35, 36,42,43), to study changes in attitudes (41) and to examine human relations in the city environment (40). Binneweis (32) applies the concept in a study of rural life. Poole (189) contrasts personal and social norms by it, and in another article treats the concept historically and systematically (190).And the Pooles together (191) attempt to formulate the laws of social distance.
( 672)
B. The Conditioning of Social Behavior.
1. Intelligence and Social Conditioning.—The first burst of enthusiasm for intelligence tests has now given way to a much more cautious approach. As an editorial writer (279) remarks, we are passing to-day into researches on the effects of emotions on social lifeand into studies on the factors which condition intelligence. Almack (11) points out that the group is necessary for socialization while mere intelligence does not account for it. Pihlblad (188) criticizes the intelligence testers for neglecting factors of cultural and social backgrounds. Weston and English (254) reveal the beneficial effect of working at psychological tests in the group rather than alone. Sengupta and Sinha (207) report facilitations in work in a group situation. Allport's earlier research on social facilitation is severely criticized by Williamson (260). Whittemore 's study (257) of work under competition Aufgabe shows the effects produced by autosuggestion and the rivalry situation. Courtis (73) made a statistical analysis of the marked variability in test scores in the Stanford Achievement Tests in various eighth grade groups. He attributes the differences to home influences, especially to religious training. Brill (46) indicates the effect of higher intelligence on misconduct, showing that more motives are necessary to drive the brighter children into delinquency. Ross (202), in a learning experiment, has also shown that brighter pupils respond to motivations such as knowledge of results achieved better than do dull ones. These both suggest further questions of the relation of differences of intelligence to socialmotivation and social participation. The measurement of the effect of intelligence on social adaptation is shown by De Greef (77) in his study of the time taken by defective children to adjust themselves in foster homes.
2. Family Influences.—The effect of the home life upon the individual has been recently investigated from a number of angles. Jones and Carr-Saunders (130) show that the intelligence quotients of children of the lower classes improved on residence in orphanages, while the reverse was true of children of the upper classes. Sutherland and Thomson (226) report a low negative correlation between the size of family and group intelligence test scores. Arthur (17) has shown that the younger sibs of immigrant families outshine their older brothers and sisters in intelligence. She attributes this to change in diet, but the reviewer suggests that the regularity of school attendance, as well as the rise in economic status may have something
( 673) to do with this change. Griffits (114) indicates that school grades are conditioned by size of family, children of smaller families being superior. Lentz (148) has shown that intelligence quotients correlate negatively with size of family and things this augurs ill for society, since lower classes have largest families. Clark (68) analyzes the family backgrounds of college students to find that the grades of students of immigrant families are superior to those of children of two native-born parents. Also that sibs correlated higher than non-sibs in grades, while there was some inverse relationship in grades and attendance of parents at college. Slawson (215) shows that the number of children in a family has a low correlation with delinquency. Other factors must be taken into account. Blanchard and Paynter (34) point out that while children of marginal families were lower in intellectual status that their percentage of behavior difficulties was small. Foster (101), Goodenough and Leahy (112), and Harper (118) trace out some of the effects of family life on personality, the first and third by case study, the second by ratings on traits. Groves (116) shows influence of parents on marriage and parental attitudes of next generation. Young (268) reveals the mechanism of projection of ambitions of parents on their children. Williams (259) also discusses the effect of neurotic parents on children. In a historical study (199) Robin traces out intra-family hatreds. This should prove valuable to students of social interaction in the family group.
3. Children Groups.—Shevaleva and Ergolska (212) studied the social reaction of 708 children in recitation groups, using Bekhterev's method of " social reflexology." Studencki (224), in a study of the interplay of group pressures and personal strivings in personality growth, holds that up to thirteen years the home and school pre-dominate, after fourteen years the ego-demands and the demands of the larger society become dominant. Macaulay (155) attempted to study social, age and sex differences in children's moral attitudes and ideas by questions, a list of wicked things and lists of historic persons who might be thought ideals. Tanaka (231) reports a questionnaire study of children's values on family, school, and personal conduct. Meltzer (166) has made a valuable study of how concepts of social meaning arises. He has also contrasted talkativeness about social concepts to knowledge of these concepts on the part of children (167). Both talkativeness about and knowledge of the concepts increased with school grades. But the correlation of one with the other was
( 674) negative (–.31). Schwesinger (206) in a study of children's social-ethical vocabulary, finds it related to social experience, to intelligence and to social status of parents. Lehman and Witty (147) by using a check list of 200 questions on about 6,000 children, have made a most exhaustive study of the play activities of children comparing the play of town and country children, of gifted and normal children, and of negro and white children. They note the compensatory functions of the movies, and the Sunday comic sections, and further report the changes of play activities with age.
Thrasher (236) made a study of 1,313 gangs in Chicago, revealing both the ecological and the psychological backgrounds of gang behavior, while Furfey's book (104) deals with the whole problem of the gang age in its psychological and social connotations. His study of factors influencing the choice of companions (105) makes a statistical analysis of the old saw that "birds of a feather flock together."
4. Occupational Groups.—Counts (71) found that the social position accorded certain vocations gave them high ratings and often caused a problem of fitting the individual into the field he desired. That school administration is in the hands of the dominant economic classes is revealed by another study of his of the composition of school boards (72). Groves (115) holds that the married woman who works, where it is from choice, not economic necessity, pro-motes attitudes of freedom. Bogardus (43a) relates personality to occupational backgrounds showing how distinctly occupational attitudes dominate much of our behavior. Zimmerman and Black (274) and Zimmerman (275) from an extended study of the marketing and . other social attitudes of Minnesota farmers, report that the overt, objective attitudes are distinctly related to the farmers' daily experience, while the ideational (subjective) attitudes depend on custom, hearsay and the whole ideological matrix in which the individual has grown up. Smith (216) discusses the rural mind as it reflects occupation.
5. Political Groups and Public Opinion.—Studies in public opinion have been made by Lippmann (150) who has grown more skeptical of the older formulations of public opinion. He points out that special interests are constantly at work and that the public only becomes aroused at crises and then likely in a purely emotional way, unless it can hold in check by those elements which will bend public action to ethical ends. Dewey's analysis of the public and its problems (81) is a philosophical and psychological analysis of the falsity
( 675) of earlier and current beliefs on the nature of the state and the public. It is a plea for an objective approach. Merriam (168) reveals considerable faith in the contribution which psychology can make to political science. Angell (14) makes a scathing analysis of public opinion showing its irrationality, its emotionality during the very crises when it ought to be calm. He berates the professors and leaders for their incapacity .to do more than follow the same emotional trend of the masses in these times. Allport (8, 9) has analyzed the psychological nature of political structures showing what he calls the institutional fallacies of the nationalistic state. We should avoid thinking of the nation, the state, the public, etc., as entities. Rather they are attitudes and reaction systems which may be modified by social conditioning. How the sentiment of patriotism arises from distinctly cultural factors is shown by Garnett (106). And the bureau of international education (47) has prepared a questionnaire for the study of patriotic attitudes and ideas. On the side of public opinion proper, Bogardus (37), using his social distance concept, has made a study of how opinions on races were changed, and Allport and Hartman (5, 6) have attempted a statistical analysis of group opinion through the mathematics of probability. Lumley (153) presents valuable material on gossip, propaganda and other factors which contribute to the formation of opinions. Ellwood (91) retains his ancient conception of public opinion as a rational factor in control. The place of word formulae leadership in the formation of opinion is discussed by Lipsky (152). Armstrong and Eliot discuss the effect of the physical arrangements of an audience on their behavior (15).
On the side of organs of opinion, Abbot (1) discusses the influence of the press on character traits of the individual with special reference to newspaper sensationalism. Orton (181) treats qualitatively the problem of unbiased newspapers and opinion. Bird (33) reports a valuable analysis of the effect of newspaper reading on accuracy of report, showing that inaccuracies may easily be stimulated by fallacious 'news stories. Lundberg (154), on the basis of a concrete analysis of a campaign, holds that newspapers rather reflect than " make" public opinion, that only for distinctly homogeneous groups, who have their own papers, do we find a close parallel of the newspaper which is read and the opinion held by the readers. The radio as an organ of public opinion has distinct limitations as con-
( 676) -trasted with the leader, the theater, the church, and the press, according to Beuick (31).
Lasswell (145) has succinctly analyzed the psychological factors in political propaganda, and his book on world war propaganda (146) is a contribution of the first order in revealing the play of psychological factors in the determination of morale, opinion, and action of belligerents.
Gosnell (113) has made an analysis of why people vote and of the techniques and effects of "getting out the vote." Meier (165) has studied the motives in voting in the 1920 election, showing the important place which the motives for sanity, safety and security played in people's voting. Rice (193), on the basis of a questionnaire, has made a statistical analysis of changes of opinions on Coolidge, Davis, and La Follette in the 1920 campaign. He has also (194) made a clever study of stereotypes showing how people's judgments are affected by the images and attitudes which are brought them through the press, through education, etc. Lippmann (151) analyzes the psychological roots of censorship in fear and defense mechanisms. He also discusses the decay of political interest. And Moore (169) has studied the innate factors in radicalism and conservatism, while Root (201) analyzes radicalism more in terms of differences in emotionality and experience. Shepard (211) has traced out the historic roots of the bi-party political system in the United States and indicated how it is related to our culture and to our national psychology. Sorokin (218) has analyzed political revolutions largely in terms of instincts. Yoder (265) reviews current definitions of revolution pointing out the we need to study revolutions in the light of full cultural and psychological factors, especially changes in attitudes. Payne (185) has used the Freudian terminology to analyze international conflicts.
6. Collective Behavior.—McDougall (156) takes Freud to task for his atavistic thesis that social groupings grow out of the primitive domination of the father over the group of subordinates, male and female. This type of analysis hardly accounts for the wide ramifications of collective behavior. Catlin believes that our society finds itself in much friction because of the moral infancy of the mass of mankind (60).
Armstrong-Jones discusses the place of suggestion in social life examining various situations in which suggestion plays a rôle (16). Bekhterev attempts an explanation of social suggestion and collective
( 677) hallucinations in terms of his "reflexology" (25). Cason (59) studied the effect of suggestion on the imagery type when persons were examined in a group situation. There was some shifting of imagery under suggestion, women being about one-fifth more suggestible than men. The students in the center of the room were slightly more suggestible than those on the margins. Suggestibility has no correlation with class standings. Travis (241) shows that the hand-eye coördination called for in his experiment is somewhat superior under group stimulation of an audience than when per-formed alone.
7. Leadership: —Bowman (44) suggests the study of the motives of the leaders and their work always upon the background of the social group concerned. Bartlett (24) discusses leadership through social prestige, through personal domination and through personal persuasion. Ogburn (179) indicates clearly the need to study both hereditary and environmental factors in the production of great men. Although Cox (74) has not always given adequate weight to the possible environmental forces, her analysis of the historical leaders of thought (geniuses) is most interesting and unique. Fearing (99) reviews the literature, though inadequately, on psychological studies of historical leaders. Tralle's book (240) is a popular, impressionistic description of factors in leadership. Chapin (63) discusses leadership in terms of socialization and in relation to group membership. Leadership to-day tends to follow socialized ideals rather than personal domination. Zeleny (272) discusses the relation of leaders to group morale, while Craig (75) suggests methods of studying morale and leadership in industry in terms of such objective things as per capita output, quality of work and labor stability. Strow (223) indicates the changes in types of leadership which have gone on with increasing mobility. Bowden (45), Caldwell (57) and Chapin (64) have investigated the qualities of leaders in educational institutions. The first study was made by a modification of Allport's rating scale. The second dealt with junior high school leaders, the third with the correlations of grades, physical health, and extra-curricular activities. Bogardus (39) discusses the relation of leader-ship to boys' clubs and to the problem of boy conduct. Munro's study (173) of political leadership is indicative of present tendencies in political science to attempt psychological analyses of political leaders. Lippmann (151) analyzes the place of Bryan, Al Smith, and others as leaders to-day. Weatherley in his discussion of social
( 678) progress (250) treats in Part II of the influence of pessimists, conservatives, radicals, utopians, and others on social thought and social progress. Tait (229, 230) discusses the relation of leadership to democratic social organization and warns us of the danger of reformers. Neither of these articles contribute anything to an understanding of leadership, however. Root (201) has an incisive analysis of two types of leaders : the scientific persons who may be radical in a distinctly valid sense and the emotionally-toned person who goes off into various isms, conservative or radical.
C. Miscellaneous Studies : Language, Social Tests, Nationalistic Differences, etc.
Valuable contributions to the field of language as it relates to social life have come from Piaget (186, 187), who shows the ego-centric, autistic nature of early language which is followed by its more social characteristics as the child develops, from Mead (163), who gives a naturalistic account of the rise of language out of group life, and from De Laguna (78), whose recent book treats language both in its psychological and sociological settings.
Moss, Hunt, and others (171, 172) have developed a social intelligence test in six parts : Judgment of social situation, memory for names and faces, recognition of mental states from facial expressions, observation of human behavior, social information, and recognition of the mental state of a speaker. There are norms based on 7,000 cases, but no information is given on reliability or validity. Wyman (264) reports tests and ratings on social traits of gifted children as a part of Terman's study of so-called geniuses. Gilliland and Burke (110) have attempted a test of sociability with ratings as a check on validity, and Sheldon (209) has found some positive correlations between aggressiveness, leadership and sociability ratings and the factor of general bigness and slight correlations with other morphologic traits.
Riddle (195, 196) has studied forms of aggressiveness, first through an experimental situation of bluffing in a poker game, and, secondly, in regard to stealing. Shen (210) reports the influence of intimate friendship upon the rating of certain traits in the case of a group of men who were well known to each other, but some of whom were very close friends.
Certain sex and nationalistic differences in conversations are revealed by the studies of Landis and Burtt (143) and Landis (144). Women are more personal, men more impersonal in their conver-
( 679) -sation. In England men adapt their conversation with women more to the latter's direction than do American men. Tao (232) has made a statistical analysis of Chinese words expressing virtues and vices as an index, in part, of the relation of language to culture norms, and Chang has made a rather ingenious study of mercantile advertising in Peking as a revelation of Chinese merchant psychology (62). Hoyland (126) contrasts questionnaire results in 1,164 Hindoo children on social and moral traits with a former study of American children by Earl Barnes. Hindoo children are more susceptible to religious and ethical ideals and less to materialistic considerations. The influence of long-standing superstitions on the advancement of health programs among the American negroes is shown by Frazier (102), while Johnson (128) shows the continuance of various superstitions through a study of advertisements in the negro press.
The carry-over from one culture to another of words without consideration to their meaning in the original setting is shown in Johnson's analysis (129) of the negro meaning of popular negro blues in contrast to white conceptions. Young'sstudy (267) of over three thousand Protestant hymns indicates the persistence of a great many infantile and childhood wishes projected into an accepted religious form.
Murchison's statistical analysis of intelligence tests of criminals reveals the influence of social mobility, of sex and race upon extent and types of crime (174). Sorokin's treatise on social mobility (219) deals, in part, with the psychological influences of increased mobility in modern times.
Haines (117) shows the effects of defective hearing upon the social participation of the deaf. Vinchon (242) discusses the social life of unbalanced personalities suggesting that by proper treatment they might be made socially useful.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. ABBOT, W.J., Character Building Through the Press. Relig. Educ., 1927, 22, 737-741.
2. ABEL, T. M., National Differences and Preferences in Beliefs—a Statistical Study. J. Comp. Psychol., 1926, 6, 21-41.
3. ADLER, H. M., The Relation Between Psychiatry and the Social Sciences. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1927, 6, 661-669.
4. ALLPORT, F. H., The Psychological Bases of Social Science. Psychol. Bull., 1925, 22, 561-574.
( 680)
5. ALLPORT, F. H., and HARTMAN, D. A., The Measurement and Motivation of Atypical Opinion in a Certain Group. Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev., 1925, 19, 735-760.
6. ALLPORT, F. H., and HARTMAN, D. A., A Technique for the Measurement and Analysis of Public Opinion. Pub. Am. Sociol. Society, 1926, 20, 241-244.
7. ALLPORT, F. H., The Present Status of Social Psychology. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1927, 21, 372-383.
8. ALLPORT, F. H., The Psychological Nature of Political Structure. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev., 1927, 21, 611-618.
9. ALLPORT, F. H., The Psychology of Nationalism. Harpers, 1927, 155, 291-301.
10. ALLPORT, G. W., Concepts of Trait and Personality. Psychol. Bull., 1927, 24, 284-303.
11. ALMACK:, J. C., Efficiency in Socialization. Amer. J. Sociol., 1925, 31, 241-249.
12. ALVERDES, F., The Social Life of Man from the Standpoint of Animal Psychology. Psyche, 1926, No. 26, 73-80.
13. ALVERDES, F., Ueber vergleichende Soziologie. Ztsch. f. Volkerpsychol. f. Soziol., 1925, 1, 21-33.
14.ANGELL, N., The Public Mind. New York : Dutton, 1927.
15. ARMSTRONG, J. W., and ELIOT, T. D., External Conditioning Factors in Public Behavior. Social Forces, 1927, 5, 583-590.
16. ARMSTRONG-JONES, R., Suggestion in Social Life. Lancet, 1925, Vol. I for 208, 705-710.
17. ARTHUR, G., The Relation of I.Q. to Position in Family. J. Educ. Psychol., 1926, 17, 541-550.
18. BAGBY, E., The Field of Social Psychology. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1926, 20, 384-390.
19. BAIN, R., Religious Attitudes of College Students. Amer. J. Sociol., 1927, 32, 762-770.
20. BAIN, R., A New Attitude on Attitude Tests. Proc. Amer. Sociol. Society, 1928, 22 (in press).
21. BARNES, H. E., Psychology and History. New York. Century, 1925. Pp. 195.
22. BARNES, H. E., Sanity in Social Psychology. J. Appl. Sociol., 1927, 11, 240-246.
23. BARTLETT, F. C., Group Organization and Social Behavior. Int. J. Ethics, 1925, 35, 346-367.
24. BARTLETT, F. C., The Social Psychology of Leadership. J. Nat. Inst. Indus. Psychol., 1926, 3, 188-193.
25. BECHTEREV, V. M., Mutual Social Suggestion and Collective Hallucinations. (Russian) Scientific News, 1926, No. 6, pp. 6.
26. BENTLEY, A. F., On Relativity in Man and Society. New York: Putnam, 1926.
27. BERNARD, L. L., Research Problems in the Psychology of Rural Life. J. Social Forces, 1925, 3, 446-453.
( 681)
28. BERNARD, L. L., The Interdependence of Factors Basic to the Evolution of Culture. .Amer. J. Social., 1926, 32, 177-205.
29. BERNARD, L. L., An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: Holt, 1926.
30. BERNARD, L. L., The Psychological Foundations of Society, in Introduction to Sociology (Ed. Barnes, H. E., and Davis, J.). New York: Heath, 1927. Part III, pp. 397-491.
31. BEUICK, M. D., The Limited Social Effect of Radio Broadcasting. Amer. J. Sociol., 1927, 32, 615-622.
32. BINNEWIES, W. G., A Method of Studying Rural Social Distance. J. Appl. Sociol, 1926, 10, 239-242.
33. BIRD, C., The Influence of the Press upon the Accuracy of Report. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1927, 22, 123-129.
34. BLANCHARD, P., and PAYNTER, R. H., Socio-psychological Status of Children from Marginal Families. Family, 1927, 8, 3-10.
35. BOGARDUS, E. S., Social Distance and Its Origin. J. Applied Sociol., 1925, 9, 216-226.
36. BOGARDUS, E. S., Measuring Social Distance. J. Applied Sociol., 1925, 9, 299-308.
37. BOGARDUS, E. S., Analyzing Changes in Public Opinion. J. Appl. Sociol., 1925, 9, 372-381.
38. BOGARDUS, E. S., The Group Interview. J. Applied Sociol., 1926, 10, 372-382.
39. BOGARDUS, E. S., Leadership and the Boy. J. Appl. Sociol., 1926, 10, 577-586.
40. BOGARDUS, E. S., Social Distance in the City. Am. J. Sociol., 1926, 32, No. 1, part 2, 40-46. (Pub. Am. Sociol. Society, Vol. 20.)
41. BOGARDUS, E. S., The Mutations of Social Distance. J. Applied Sociol., 1926, 11, 77-84.
42. BOGARDUS, E. S., The Personality Clash and Social Distance. Jr. Appl. Sociol, 1926, 11, 166-174.
43. BOGARDUS, E. S., Race Friendliness and Social Distance. J. Appl. Sociol., 1927, 11, 272-287.
43a. BOGARDUS, E. S., Personality and Occupational Attitudes. Sociology & Social Research, 1927, 12, 73-79.
44. BOWMAN, L. E., An Approach to the Study of Leadership. J. Appl. Sociol., 1927, 11, 315-321.
45. BOWDEN, A. O., A Study of the Personality of Student Leaders in Colleges of the United States. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1926, 21, 149-160.
46. BRILL, M. S., Motivation of Conduct Disorders. J. Delinq., 1927, 11, 5-22.
47. Bureau Internationale d'Education. Enquête sur le Patriotisme. Arch. de Psychol., 1926, 20, No. 78, 167-170.
48. BURROW, T., The Heroic Rôle: An Historical Retrospect. Psyche, 1926, No. 25, 42-54.
49. BURROW, T., Our Social Evasion. Med. J. & Rec., 1926, 123, 793-796.
50. BURROW, T., Die Gruppenmethode in der Psychoanalyse. Imago, 1926, 12, 211-223.
51. BURROW, T., Our Mass Neurosis. Psychol. Bull., 1926, 23, 305-312.
( 682)
52. BURROW, T., Insanity a Social Problem. Am. J. of Social., 1926, 32, 80-87.
53. BURROW, T., An Ethnic Aspect of Consciousness. Social. Rev., 1927, 19, 69-76.
54. BURROW, T., The Social Basis of Consciousness. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1927.
55. BUSCH, H. M., Race Attitudes of Children. Relig. Educ., 1926, 21, 277–281.
56. CADOUX, A. T., The Combative Instinct and the Abolition of War. Contemp. Rev., 1925, 128, 592-600.
57. CALDWELL, O. W., and WELLMAN, B., Characteristics of School Leaders. J. Educ. Res., 1926, 14, 1-13.
58. CARMICHAEL, L., Heredity and Environment: Are They Antithetical? J. Abn. & Soc. Psych., 1925, 20, 245-260.
59. CASON, H., Influence of Suggestion on Imagery in a Group Situation. J. Abn. & Soc. Psych., 1925, 20, 294-299.
60. CATLIN, G. E. G., The Like-minded Group. Phil. Rev., 1927, 36, 237–252.
61. CAVAN, R. T., and CAVAN, J. T., The Attitudes of Young Business Women Toward Home and Married Life. Relig. Educ., 1927, 22, 817–820.
62. CHANG, Y. C., Psychology of Chinese Merchants as Seen from Their 5,000 Signboards. Chinese J. Psychol., 1925, 3, 4.
63. CHAPIN, F. S., Socialized Leadership. J. of Social Forces, 1924, 3, 57-60.
64. CHAPIN, F. S., Extra-curricular Activities of College Students: A Study in College Leadership. Sch. & Soc., 1926, 23, 212-216.
65. CHAPIN, F. S., Measuring the Volume of Social Stimuli: A Study in Social Psychology. Social Forces, 1926, 4, 479-495.
66. CHILD, C. M., Physiological Foundations of Behavior. New York: Holt, 1924.
67. CHILD, C. M., The Individual and Environment from a Physiological Standpoint, in The Child, the Clinic and the Court. New York: New Republic Co., 1925. Pt. II, pp. 126-155.
68. CLARK, E. L., Family Background and College Success. Sch. & Soc., 1927, 25, 237-238.
69. CLARK, W. W., The Measurement of Social Attitudes. J. Applied Social., 1924, 8, 345–354.
70. COOLEY, C. H., The Roots of Social Knowledge. Am. J. Social., 1926, 32, 59–79.
71. COUNTS, G. S., The Social Status of Occupations Problem in Vocational Guidance. School Review, 1925, 33, 16-27.
72. COUNTS, G. S., The Social Composition of Boards of Education: A Study in the Social Control of Public Education. Sup. Educ. Monog., 1927, No. 33. Pp. 100.
73. COURTIS, S. A., The Influence of Certain Social Factors upon Scores in the Stanford Achievement Tests. J. Educ. Res., 1925, 13, 311–324; 14, 33–42.
74. COX, C. M., Genetic Studies of Genius. The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses. Stanford Univ. Press, 1926.
( 683)
75. CRAIG, D. R., Measuring Morale and Leadership Ability. Personnel Journal, 1927, 6, 155-160.
76. DAVIS, J., Testing the Social Attitudes of Children in the Government Schools in Russia. Amer. 1. Social., 1927, 32, 947–952.
77. DE GREEFF, ET., Le Temps d'Adaptation du débile mentale à un milieu nouveau. Sa Mesure, sa signification. J. Neur. et,Psychiat., 1926, 26, 476–488.
78. DE LAGUNA, G. A., Speech: Its Function and Development. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1927. Pp. xii, 363.
79. DENNES, W. R., The Method and Presuppositions of Group Psychology. Univ. of California Pub. in Philosophy, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-182. Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1924.
80. DE SAUSSURE, R., Evolution de la notion d'instinct.. L'evolution psychiatrique. Psychanalyse. Psychologie clinique, Tome 2. Paris : Payot (Bibliothèque scientifique), 1927. Pp. 90-129. (Cf. Psychol. Abstr., 1927, 1, 347, No. 1492.)
81. DEWEY, J., The Public and Its Problems. New York: Holt, 1927.
82. DOWDALL, H. C., What Is Society? Proc. Aristotelian Soc., 1925, 25, 19-40.
83. DUFFUs, R. L., Where Do We Get Our Prejudices? Harpers, 1926, 153, 503-508.
84. DUNLAP, K., Social Psychology. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1925. Pp. 261.
85. DUNLAP, K., Instinct and Desire. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1925, 20, 170-173.
86. DUNLAP, K., The Applications. of Psychology to Social Problems. Ped. Sem., 1925, 32, 523-549.
87. DUPRAT, G. L., La psycho-sociologie en France. Arch. f. Gesch. d. Phil. (n.f.), 1925, 30, Heft. 1 u. 2, pp. 133-160.
88. EGGEN, J. B., 'Is Instinct an Entity? J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1926, 21, 38-51.
89. ELDRIDGE, S., Instinct, Habit and Intelligence in Social Life. J. Abn. Psychol. & Soc. Psychol., 1924, 19, 142–154.
90. ELIOT, T. D., The Use of Psychoanalytic Classification in the Analysis of Social Behavior : Identification. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1927, 22, 67-81. (Also summary in Pub. Amer. Social. Soc., 1927, 21, 185–190.)
91. ELLWOOD, C. A., The Psychology of Human Society. New York: Appleton, 1925. Pp. xvi+495.
92. ELLWOOD, C. A., Die Beziehungen der Soziologie zur Sozialpsychologie. Jahrb. f. Soziol., 1925, 1, 53-63.
93. ENGLISH, H. B., TWO Suggestive Experimental Approaches to Social Psychology. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1927, 22, 170-171.
94. ESSERTIER, D., Psychologie et Soziologie. Paris: Alcan. Pp. 234.
( 684)
95. FARIS, E., The Subjective Aspect of Culture. Pub. Amer. Social. Soc., 1925, 19, 37-46.
96. FARIS, E., The Concept of Social Attitudes. J. Appl. Social., 1925, 9, 404-409.
97. FARIS, E., The Concept of Imitation. Amer. J. Social., 1926, 32, 367–378.
98. FARIS, E., The Nature of Human Nature. Amer. J. Social., 1926, 32, Pt. II, Pub. Amer. Sociol. Soc., 1926, 20, 15-29.
99. FEARING, F., Psychological Studies of Historical Personalities. Psychol. Bull., 1927, 24, 521-539.
100. FINNEY, R. L., The Unconscious Social Mind. J. Appl. Social., 1926, 10, 356-365.
101. FOSTER, S., Personality Deviations and Their Relation to the Home. Mental Hygiene, 1925, 9, 735-742.
102. FRAZIER, E. F., Psychological Factors in Negro Health. Social Forces, 1925, 3, 488-490.
103. FREDERICK, R., An Investigation into Some Social Attitudes of High School Pupils. Sch. & Soc., 1927, 25, 410-412.
104. FURFEY, P. H., The Gang Age. New York, 1926.
105. FURFEY, P. H., Some Factors Influencing the Selection of Boys'Chums. J. Appl. Psychol., 1927, 11, 47-51.
106. GARNETT, J. C. M., The Psychology of Patriotism. Rep. Brit. Ass. Adv. Sci., 1926, 400-401.
107. GARRETT, H. E., and FISHER, T. R., The Prevalence of Certain Popular Misconceptions. J. Appl. Psychol., 1926, 10, 411-420.
107a. GARTH, T. R., A Review of Racial Psychology. Psychol. Bull., 1925, 22, 343-364.
108. GAULT, R. H., Recent Developments in Psychology Contributory to Social Explanation, in Recent Developments in the Social Sciences. Philadelphia : Lippincott, 1927. Chap. 3.
109. GILLETTE, J. M., Nature and Limits of Social Phenomena. Social Forces, 1927, 5, 561-571.
110. GILLILAND, A. R., and BURKE, R. S., A Measurement of Sociability. J. Appl. Psychol., 1926, 10, 315-326.
111. GOLDENWEISER, A. A., Psychology and Culture. Pub. Amer. Sociol. Society, 1925, 19, 15-23.
112. GOODENOUGH, F. L., and LEAHY, A. M., The Effect of Certain Family Relationships Upon the Development of Personality. Ped. Sem., 1927, 34, 45-71.
113. GOSNELL, H., An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting. Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev., 1926, 20, 869-874.
114. GRIFFITS, C. H., The Influence of Family on School Marks. Sch. & Soc., 1926, 24, 713-716.
115. GROVES, E. R., The Psychology of the Woman Who Works. Family, 1927, 8, 92-97.
116. GROVES, E. R., Influence of Parents on Marriage and Parenthood Attitudes. Relig. Educ., 1927, 22, 814-817.
117. HAINES, C. M., The Effects of Defective Hearing Upon the Individual as a Member of the Social Order. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1927, 22, 151-156.
118. HARPER, E. B., Influence of Family Life Upon Character Development. Relig. Educ., 1927, 22, 840-845.
119. HART, H., A List of Social Attitudes and Interests. Univ. of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 1923, 2, No. 4, pp. 40.
( 685)
120: HART, H., Research Possibilities with a Socialization Text. J. Appl. Social., 1923, 7, 163-166.
121. HART, H., The Science of Social Relations. New York: Holt, 1927.
122. HARTSHORNE, H., MAY, M. A., ET AL., Testing the Knowledge of Right and Wrong. The Religious Education Assn. Monograph No. 1, July, 1927, pp. 72. (Also in Relig. Educ., 1926, 21, 63-76, 239-252, 413-421, 539-554, 621-632, and 1927, 22, 523-532.
123. HAYES, E. C. Three Aspects of a Social Situation. J. Social Forces, 1925, 3, 405-408.
124. HAYES, E. C., What Is an Institution? Scien. Mon., 1926, 23, 556-557.
125. HOUSE, F. N., The Concept " Social Forces" in American Sociology. Sec. 4: Instincts as Social Forces. Amer. J. Social., 1925, 31, 357-365.
126. HOYLAND, J. S., An Inquiry into the Comparative Psychology of Indian and Western Childhood. Indian J. Psychol., 1926, 1, 45-47. (Cf. Psychol. Abstr., 1927, 1, 98, No. 427.)
127. JENNINGS, H. S., Heredity and Environment. Scien. Mon., 1924, 19, 225-238.
128. JOHNSON, G. B., Newspaper Advertisements and Negro Culture. J. Social Forces, 1925, 3, 706-709.
129. JOHNSON, G. B., Double Meaning in the Popular Negro Blues. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1927, 22, 12-20.
130. JONES, D. C., and CARR-SAUNDERS, A. M., The Relation Between Intelligence and Social Status Among Orphan Children. Brit. J. Psychol. (Gen. Sect.), 1927, 17, 343-364.
131. JONES, E. S., The Opinions of College Students. J. Appl. Psychol., 1926, 10, 427-436.
132. JONES, M. C., The Development of Early Behavior Patterns in Young Children. Ped. Sem., 1926, 33, 537-585.
133. JUDD, C. H., The Psychology of Social Institutions. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1925, 20, 151-156.
134. JUDD, C. H., The Psychology of Social Institutions. New York: Macmillan, 1926. Pp. ix+346.
135. KANTOR, J. R., Die Sozialpsychologie als Naturwissenschaft. Ztsch. f. Völkerpsycholcgie u. Soziol., 1925, 1, 113-128.
136. KARPF, F. B., The Development of Social Psychology. Pub. Amer. Social. Soc., 1927, 21, 71-81.
137. KERSHNER, J. H., Race Prejudice as a Form of Group Prejudice. J. Appl. Sociol., 1927, 11, 446-452.
138. KLÜVER,' H., The Problem of Type in "Culture-Science Psychology." J. Phil., 1925, 22, 225-234.
139. KÖHLER, W., The Mentality of Apes. New York: Harcourt, 1925.
140. Kum', D. H., The Inter-relations of Social Psychology and Sociology. J. Social Forces, 1925, 3, 260.
141. LAING, B. M., The Contemporary Theory of Instinct. Monist, 1925, 35, 49-69.
142. LAING, B. M., Hume and the Contemporary Theory of Instinct. Monist, 1926, 36, 645-666.
( 686)
143. LANDIS, M. H., and BURTT, H. E., A Study of Conversations. J. Compar. Psycho!., 1924; 4, 81-89.
144. LANDIS, C., National Differences in Conversation. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1927, 21, 354-357.
145. LASSWELL, H. D., The Theory of Political Propaganda. Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev., 1927, 21, 627-631.
146. LASSWELL, H. D., Propaganda Technique in the World War. New York: Knopf, 1927.
147. LEHMAN, H. C., and WITTY, P. A., The Psychology of Play Activities. New York : Barnes, 1927. Pp. xxviii+242.
148. LENTZ, T., Relation of I.Q. to Size of Family. J. Educ. Psychol., 1927, 18, 486-496.
149. LINDSAY, R. B., Physical Laws and Social Phenomena. Seien. Mon., 1927, 25, 127-132.
150. LIPPMANN, W., The Phantom Public. New York: Harcourt, 1925.
151. LIPPMANN, W., Men of Destiny. New York: Macmillan, 1927.
152. LIPSKY, A., Man the Puppet. New York: Frank-Maurice, 1925.
153. LUMLEY, F. E., Means of Social Control. New York: Century, 1925.
154. LUNDBERG, G. A., The Newspaper and Public Opinion. Social Forces, 1926, 4, 709-715.
155, MACAULAY, E.,`Some Social, Age and Sex Differences Shown in Children's Choice of Ideals. Forum of Educ., 1925, 3, 105-114.
156. McDOUGALL, W., Professor Freud's Group Psychology and His Theory of Suggestion. Brit. J. Med. Psycho., 1925, 5, 14-28.
157. MALINOWSKI, B., The Father in Primitive Psychology. New York: Norton, 1927.
158. MARKEY, J. F., A Re-definition of Social Phenomena. Amer. J. Sociol., 1926, 31, 733-743.
159. MARSTON, W. M., Primary Emotions. Psychol. Rev., 1927, 34, 336-363.
160. MAY, M. A., and HARTSHORNE, H., First Steps Toward a Scale for Measuring Attitudes. J. Educ. Psychol., 1926, 17, 145-162.
161. MAY, M. A., and HARTSHORNE, H., Personality and Character Tests. Psycho!. Bull., 1926, 23, 395-411.
162. MAY, M. A., HARTSHORNE, H., and WELTY, R. E., Personality and Character Tests. Psychol. Bull., 1927, 24, 418-435.
163. MEAD, G. H., A Behavioristic Account of the Significant Symbol. J. Phil., 1922, 19, 157-163.
164. MEAD, G. H., The Genesis of the Self and Social Control. Int. J. of Ethics, 1925, 35, 251-277.
165. MEIER, N. C., Motives in Voting : A Study in Public Opinion. Amer. J. Sociol., 1925, 31, 199-212.
166. MELTZER, H., Children's Social Concepts. A Study of Their Nature and Development. New York: Teachers College Contrib. to Educ., 1925, No. 192. Pp. vii+91.
167. MELTZER, H., Talkativeness About in Relation to Knowledge of Social Concepts in Children. Ped. Sem., 1926, 33, 497-507.
168. MERRIAM, C. E., New Aspects of Politics. Univ. of Chicago Press, 1925.
( 687)
169. MOORE, H. T., Innate Factors in Radicalism and Conservatism. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1925, 20, 234-244.
170. MORRIS, A., Some Social and Mental Aspects of Mendicancy. Social Forces, 1927, 5, 605-613.
171. MOSS, F. A., HUNT, T., OMWAKE, K. T., and BONNING, M. M., Social Intelligence Test. Washington : Center for Psychological Service. Pp. 8.
172. MOSS, F. A., and HUNT, T., Ability to Get Along with Others. Industr. Psychol., 1926, 1, 170-178.
173. MUNRO, W. B., Personality in Politics. New York: Macmillan, .1924. Pp. 114.
174. MURCHISON, C., Criminal Intelligence. Worcester: Clark University, 1926. Pp. 291.
175. MURSELL, J. L., Contributions to the Psychology of Nutrition. III. Nutrition and the Family. Psychol. Rev., 1925, 32, 457-471.
176. NEUMANN, G. B., A Study of International Attitudes of High School Pupils. Teachers College Contrib. to Educ., 1926, No. 239.
177. NIXON, H. K., Popular Answers to Some Psychological Questions. Amer. J. Psychol., 1925, 36, 418-423.
178. NORTH, C. C., Social Differentiation. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1926.
179. OGBURN, W. F., The Great Man Versus Social Forces. Social Forces, 1926, 5, 225-231.
180. OGBURN, W. F., The Contributions of Psychiatry to Social Psychology. Pub. Amer. Sociol. Society, 1927, 21, 82-91.
181. ORTON, W., News and Opinion. Amer. J. Sociol., 1927, 33, 80-93.
182. OVERSTREET, H. A., Influencing Human Behavior. New York: Norton, 1926. Pp. 194.
183. PARK, R. E., The Concept of Social Distance. J. Appl. Sociol., 1924, 8, 339-344.
184. PARK, R. E., Human Nature and Collective Behavior. Amer. J. Social., 1927, 32, 733-741.
185. PAYNE, C. E., The Neurosis of the Nations. London: Allen and Unwin, 1925. Pp. 468.
186. PIAGET, J., The Language and Thought of the Child. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1926. Pp. xxiii+246.
187. PIAGET, J., La Réprésentation du Monde Chez les Enfants. Comme Suite de ses Etudes Precedéntes sur la Pensée des Enfants. Paris: Allan, 1926.
188. PIHLBLAD, C. T., Mental Tests and Social Problems. Social Forces, 1926. 5, 237-243.
189. POOLE, W. C., Social Distance and Personal Distance. J. Appl. Sociol., 1926, 11, 114-120.
190. POOLE, W. C., Distance in Sociology. Amer. J. Sociol., 1927, 33, 99-104.
191. POOLE, W. C., and H. K., Laws of Social Distance. J. Appl. Sociol., 1927, 11, 365-369.
192. READ, C., Man and His Superstitions. London : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1925. Pp. 294.
193. RICE, S. A., Differential Changes of Political Preference Under Campaign Stimulation. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1926, 21, 297-303.
( 688)
194. RICE, S. A., " Stereotypes ": A Source of Error in Judging Human Character. J. Personnel Research, 1926, 5, 267–276.
195. RIDDLE, E. M., Aggressive Behavior in a Small Social Group. Arch. Psychol., 1925, 12, No. 78. Pp. 196. RIDDLE, E. M., Stealing as a Form of Aggressive Behavior. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1927, 22, 40–51; 157-169.
197. RIVERS, W. H. R. (Ed. G. E. Smith), Psychology and Ethnology. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1926. Pp. xxviii+324.
198. ROBACK, A. A., A Bibliography of Character and Personality. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1927.
199. ROBIN, G., Les Haines Familiales. Les Documents Bleus, No. 30, Paris: Gallimard, 1926. Pp. 256. (Cf. Psychol. Abstr., 1927, 1, 261.)
200. ROFFENSTEIN, G., Der Gegenstand der Sozialpsychologie und der Soziologie. Arch. f. d. ges. Psychol., 1925, 50, 399-454.
201. ROOT, W. T., The Psychology of Radicalism. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1925, 19, 341-356.
202. Ross, C. C., An Experiment in Motivation. J. Educ. Psychol., 1927, 18, 337–346.
203. SCHNEERSOHN, F., Zur Grundlagung einer Völker- und Massenpsychologie (Soziopsychopathologie). Ethos, 1925, 1, 81–120.
204. SCHOEN, M., Instinct and Man (A Preliminary Note on Psychological Terminology). Psychol. Rev., 1927, 34, 120-125.
205. SCHJELDERUP-EBBE, T., Soziale Verhältnisse bei Säugetieren. Ztsch. f. Psychol., 1925, 97, 145.
206. SCHWESINGER, G. C., The Social-Ethical`Significance of Vocabulary. Teachers College Contrib. to Educ., 1926, No. 211. Pp. 73.
207. SENGUPTA, N. N., and SINHA, C. P. N., Mental Work in Isolation and in Group. Indian J. Psychol., 1926, 1, 106-110. (Cf. Psychol. Abstr., 1927, 1, 73, No. 292.)
208. SHAW, C. R., Case Study Method. Pub. Amer. Sociol. Soc., 1927, 21, 149–157.
209. SHELDON, W. H., Social Traits and Morphologic Types. Person. Journal, 1927, 6, 47-55.
210. SHEN, E., The Influence of Friendship Upon Personal Ratings. J. Appl. Psychol., 1925, 9, 66-68.
211. SHEPARD, W. J., The Psychology of the Bi-Party System. Social Forces, 1926, 4, 795-804.
212. SHEVALEVA, E., and ERGOLSKA, O., Children's Collectives in the Light of. Experimental Reflexology. Bekhterev 40th Anniv. Commemorative Volume, 1926, 147-182. (Cf. Psychol. Abstr., 1927, 1, 610-611, No. 2486.)
213. SHONLE, R., Social Psychologists and the Method of the Instinctivists. Social Forces, 1927, 5, 597-600.
214. SHONLE, R., Social Psychology, Sociology, and Religious Education. Relig. Educ., 1927, 22, 65-73.
215. SLAWSON, J., Size of Family and Male Juvenile Delinquency. J. Crim. Law & Criminal., 1925, 15, 631-640.
( 689)
216. SMITH, W. C., The Rural Mind : A Study in Occupational Attitude. Amer. J. Sociol., 1927, 32, 771–786.
217. SNOW, A. J., An Approach to the Psychology of Motives. Amer. J. Psychol., 1926, 37, 129-131.
218. SOROKIN, P. A., The Sociology of Revolution. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1925. Pp. 428.
219. SOROKIN, P. A., Social Mobility. New York : Harper, 1927.
220. SPROWLS, J. W., Social Psychology Interpreted. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Co., 1927. Pp. xii+268.
221. SPYKMAN, N. J., The Social Theory of Georg Simmel. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1925. Pp. xxix+297.
222. SQUIRES, P. C., " Wolf Children" of India. Amer. J. Psychol., 1927, 38, 313-315.
223. STROW, C. W., The Turnover of Leadership in the Community. J. Appl. Sociol., 1925, 9, 366-371.
224. STUDENCKI, S. M., Children's Relations to Themselves. Ped. Sem., 1926, 33, 61–71.
225. STURGES, H. A., The Theory of Correlation Applied in Studies of Changing Attitudes. Amer. J. Sociol., 1927, 33, 269-275.
226. SUTHERLAND, H. E. G., and THOMSON, G. H., The Correlation Between Intelligence and Size of Family. Brit. J. Psychol. (Gen. Sect.), 1926, 17, 81–92. ,
227. SYMONDS, P. M., A Social Attitudes Questionnaire. J. Educ. Psychol., 1925, 16, 316-322.
228. SYMONDS, P. M., What Is an Attitude? Psychol. Bull., 1927, 24, 200-201.
229. TAIT, W. D., The Menace of the Reformer—A Psychological Study. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1927, 21, 343-353.
230. TAIT, W. D., Psychology, Leadership and Democracy. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1927, 22, 26-32.
231. TANAKA, S., A Study of Moral Evaluation by Boys and Girls. Jap. J. Psychol., 1926, 1, 81-99. (Cf. Psychol. Abstr., 1927, 1, 93, No. 399.)
232. Two, T. Y., A Statistical Study of Chinese Words Expressing Virtues and Vices. Chinese J. Psychol., 1924, 3, 33 and 44. (Cf. Psychol. Abstr., 1927, 1, 606-607, Nos. 2475, 2476.)
233. THOMAS, W. I., The Problem of Personality in the Urban Environment. Pub. Amer. Sociol. Soc., 1926, 20, 30-39. (Cf. Amer. J. Sociol., 1926, 32, Part II.)
234. THOMPSON, R. L., Hunting and Thinking. Psyche, 1926, No. 24, 2–20.
235. THOULESS, R. H., Social Psychology: A Text Book for Students of Economics. London : University Tutorial Press, 1925. Pp. vii+376.
236. THRASHER, F. M., The Gang. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1927.
237. THURNWALD, R., Probleme der VÖlkerpsychologie und Soziologie. Ztsch. f. Völkerpsychologie u. Soziologie, 1925, 1, 1–20.
238. THURSTONE, L. L., The Method of Paired Comparisons for Social Values. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1927, 21, 384-400.
239. TOLMAN, E. C., The Nature of Fundamental Drives. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1926, 20, 349–358.
240. TRALLE, H. E., Psychology of Leadership. New York: Century, 1925.
( 690)
241. TRAVIS, L. E., The Effect of a Small Audience upon Eye-Hand Co-ordination. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1925, 20, 142-146.
242. VINCHON, J., Les desequilibres et la vie sociale. Paris: Marcel Rivière, 1926. Pp. 265.
243. WALLIS, W. D., The Independence of Social Psychology. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1925, 20, 147-150.
244. WATSON, G. B., The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness. Teachers College Contrib. to Educ., 1925, No. 176. Pp. 97.
245. WATSON, G. B., The Measurement of the Less Tangible Qualities. Vocational Guidance Magazine, 1926, 4, 281-289.
246. WATSON, G. B., A Test of Fairmindedness. Indust. Psychol., 1927, 2, 84-92.
247. WATSON, J. B., What the Nursery Has to Say about Instincts. Ped. Sem., 1925, 32, 293-326.
248. WATSON, J. B., Recent Experiments on How We Lose and Change Our Emotional Equipment. Ped. Sein., 1925, 32, 347-371.
249. WATSON, J. B., The Behaviorist Looks at Instincts. Harpers, 1927, 155, 228-235.
250. WEATHERLY, U. G., Social Progress. Philadelphia : Lippincott, 1926. Pp. xviii+388.
251. WEBER, C. O., Simplicity versus Adequacy in the Definition of Instinct. J. Phil.; 1927, 24, 141-148.
252. WEISS, A. P., A Theoretical Basis for Human Behavior. Columbus: Adams, 1925.
253. WEISS, A. P., A Set of Postulates for Social Psychology. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1926, 21, 203-211.
254. WESTON, S. B., and ENGLISH, H. B., The Influence of the Group on Psychological Test Scores. Amer. J. Psychol., 1926, 37, 600-601.
255. WHEELER, W. M., Emergent Evolution and the Social. Science (n.s.), 1926, 64, 433-440. (Also in Psyche, Jan., 1927, No. 27.)
256. WHITE, L. A., Personality and Culture. Open Court, 1925, 39, 145-149.
257. WHITTEMORE, I. C., The Competitive Consciousness. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1925, 20, 17-33.
258. WILLEY, M. M., and HERSKOVITS, M. J., Psychology and Culture. PSYCHOL. BULL., 1927, 24, 253-283.
259. WILLIAMS, F. E., What are Parents For? Survey, 1926, 57, 307-309, 335.
260. WILLIAMSON, E. G., Allport's Experiments in Social Facilitation. Psychol. Monog., 1926, 35 (No. 163), 138-143.
261. WINTER, J. E., The Psychology of Freshman Rules. Sch. & Soc., 1927, 25, 323-326.
262. WOODWORTH, R. S., A Justification of the Concept of Instinct. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1927, 22, 3-11.
263. WYATT, H. G., The Recent Anti-Instinctivistic Attitude in Social Psychology. Psychol. Rev., 1927, 34, 126-132.
264. WYMAN, J. B., Tests of Intellectual, Social and Activity Interests in Genetic Studies in Genius (by Terman et al.). Stanford Univ. Press, 1925, Vol. I, Chap. 16.
( 691)
265. YODER, D., Curre.it Definitions of Revolution. Amer. J. Sociol., 1926, 32, 433-441.
266. YOUNG, K., Social Psychology in The History and Prospects of the Social Sciences (ed. by Barnes). New York: Knopf, 1925, Chap. 4.
267. YOUNG, K., The Psychology of Hymns. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1926, 20, 391-406.
268. YOUNG, K., Parent-Child Relationship: Projection of Ambition. Family, 1927, 8, 67-73.
269. YOUNG, K., Personality Studies. Am. J. Social., 1927, 32, 953-971.
270. YOUNG, K., The Measurement of Personal and Social Traits. Pub. Amer. Sociol. Soc., 1927, 21, 92-105.
271. YOUNG, K., Source Book for Social Psychology. New York: Knopf, 1927.
272. ZELENY, L. D., Morale and Leadership. J. Appl. Sociol., 1925, 9, 207-215.
273. ZELENY, L. D.; A Measure of Social Opinion of Students. J. Appl. Social., 1926, 11, 56-64.
274. ZIMMERMAN, C. C., and BLACK, J. D., The Marketing Attitudes of Minnesota Farmers. Univ. of Minn, Agric. Expt. Station, Technical Bull., No. 45, Dec., 1926.
275. ZIMMERMAN, C. C., Types of Farmers' Attitudes. Social Forces, 1927, 5, 591-596.
276. ZNANIECKI,. F., The Laws of Social Psychology. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1925. Pp. 320.
277. ZNANIECKI, F., The Object Matter of Sociology. Amer. J. Sociol., 1927, 32, 529-584.
278. ZWONITZKA, A., Reflexology and the Problem of Personality. Bekhterev 40th Anniv. Commemorative Volume, 1926, 95-104. (Cf. Psychol. Abstr., 1927, 1, 590, No. 2419.)
279. ANON., Social Science and Psychology. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1925, 20, 225-226.
