Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:00:00 IST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         AVISHAI ANTONOVSKY <KPUAV@HUJIVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      social psychology vs. sociology - more thoughts

Greetings to all (especially Monika, Gerri & Stephanie, whose postings
I'm responding to). Sorry if this a bit late; I chose to wait until
things quiet down a bit b/c people were becoming annoyed (Rich, the
debate matters as long as its participants think so and it is relevant
to psycgrad contents; you may delete this message, that's what subject
lines are for).

I think the differences between social psychology and sociology are
mainly in content, or, when there is an overlap of content, in the focus
of each field. It is the latter, I assume, which has brought up this
fruitful  discussion. The following, although based on a number of
scholarly sources (mostly in psychology), remain my personal views.

A.   The main difference between the fields is in the object of
analysis. Psychology's (including social psychology) unit of analysis is
the human being, while sociology's unit of analysis is a group, usually
what is referred to as "society". Even in social psychology's so-called
small group research, the analysis is at the individual level, b/c the
interest lies in the ways that (1) the individuals in the group
influence one another to act in a certain way (for example, to vote for
someone, to contribute/not contribute to the group's pool, or to reach
a decision in a jury), and (2) the resulting "group action" influences
individual belief and behavior in and out of the group (this, Monika, is
where the group IS considered, and see also Remo's house analogy).
Generalizing, sociologists would study the effects that groups and the
individuals within them may have on the society as a whole, i.e. on it's
laws, economy, traditions, language etc., being elements which are
widespread in the society under question. A good example of the same
phenomenon studied by both disciplines would be leadership: The inter-
*personal* processes between the leader and the led would be social
psychology; the processes which cause change or action on the part of
the whole community led by this leader, without focusing on the effects
of these changes or actions on individuals, would be sociology.

B.   If I am not mistaking, in an earlier comment of yours you said that
not all psychology is about human beings. Using the same logic as above,
let me disagree with you. I assume you were referring to comparative
and/or neuropsychology. In comparative psychology, when we study
different species, it is usually done to compare findings to those found
in humans, or to generalize from findings in animals to humans b/c to
perform certain experiments on humans is seen as less moral than using
rats. The study of differences between species at the **group** level of
organisms is actually sociobiology, not psychology. Neuropsychology,
too, is a field of psychology as long as it pertains to behavior of a
*human being*, not a neuron or a specific organ of the body. In other
words, when we study neurology in order to explain or predict behavior
of the *person*, it is psychology. If the object of analysis becomes the
brain itself, or the axon, or (in a slightly different area) a gland,
isn't that already biology/medicine/physiology etc.? Is it your opinion
that, as you implied in one of your postings (22 Sept., 21:46 EDT),
molecular biologists and neuropsychologists study the same objects,
however they  differ enough to be called seperate fields (23 Sept.,
12:48 EDT)?
Another example is psycholinguistics. It is psychology as long as it's
linked to human behavior - psychological developmental processes,
thought patterns etc.; it is more (not wholly; it's as matter of focus)
linguistics when its objective is the study of differences in phrasing
and verbal complexity between men and women.

C.   Of course, there are overlaps between subfields of psychology and
other fields in the social and natural sciences, today more than ever.
There are also overlaps within psychology, needles to say.
Interdisciplinary research is one of the most important (and
inescapable) consequences of modern science. I personally don't care
that much about the terms, as long as they are understood and represent
the same things to everyone who uses them. One can make more and more
distinctions (I/O psychology has once been part of social; physiological
and neurological were both biological; the list is long). It is fun and
important to step outside of our narrow niche and look at the
everchanging organization of psychological domains (Matthew's image of
a honeycomb is useful if we allow cells to move around once in a while),
as long as we remember that the painting (whatever it is) is more
important than the frame.

Gerri: An area of social psychology which is hardly of relevance to
sociologists is interpersonal relations (e.g., Harold Kelley) or
interpersonal attraction. An area which is relevant to both groups of
researchers but was studied in very different settings is obedience
(e.g., Milgram, who studied individuals but whose findings were most
alarming when linked to mass behavior). Nevertheless, the latter has
different implications for each perspective.

Stephanie: Reading the above I think I've reiterated some of your ideas.
As to the US-UK debate, about social psychology in general or
specifically about intergroup prejudice, I think the US-UK differences
in your lab may be due to chance. Israeli social psychologists differ in
there views on many topics in social psychology, b/c after all we are
individual researchers, like everywhere else, and I don't see a cross-
cultural (or in this case a cross-national, within Western culture)
distinction in basic ideas of what social psychology is. It seems to me
that the differences are on a personal level.

Avishai Antonovsky <KPUAV@HUJIVM1.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU