Search

George Herbert Mead's social psychology went off in two different directions; one explained the social world in terms of language, the other in terms of (individual) biology. This paper addresses the latter approach, in Mead's early social psychology in terms of instincts and in his later social psychology in terms of fundamental impulses. The approach derives from William McDougall's An Introduction to Social Psychology in 1908 and changed in response to criticism of instincts following World War I by John Dewey, Ellsworth Faris, Floyd Allport, and Luther Bernard, among others. The paper argues that such an approach was a dead end and had to be rejected to allow for a scientific social psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper looks at the program for social psychology presented by Floyd Allport in his Social Psychology of 1924. It contextualizes Allport's program in terms of intellectual currents of the time and the views of his teachers at Harvard University, specifically the philosopher Ralph Barton Perry and the psychologists Edwin B. Holt and Hugo Münsterberg. Finally, the paper analyzes responses to Allport's program at the time and later, retrospective responses. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper an attempt is made to specify the original conception of the social dimensions of cognition, emotion and behavior—and of a distinctively social psychology—that was held by early American social psychologists, but abandoned by later generations of social psychologists committed to Floyd Allport's individualistic experimental program. Two influential forms of “individualism” in the work of Floyd Allport are distinguished and detailed. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines Floyd and Gordon Allport's early work on “personality” psychology. In the early 1920s, personality was an unorthodox topic, and for the Allports it initially served as an intellectual and personal bond. Floyd proposed the subject to his brother as a dissertation topic, and the two worked closely on developing personality tests. By 1924, however, “personality” had become the site of a dispute between the two brothers over the intellectual and methodological character of American psychology. The present study examines the origins of this dispute, while gauging the personal and professional ramifications of the dispute. On a larger level, this essay explores the role and meaning of “personality” in the academic culture of 1920s America. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]