Re-visiting an Old Gem

A few years ago, I came across an article* from 1939 written by the core founder of Social Psychology -- Dr. Kurt Lewin. On later thought, I felt it would be a disservice to humanity if these ideas weren't shared again in the new world with a general scientifically minded audience. In light of several new developments in psychology and other sciences, these ideas may resonate well with ongoing relevant work. Therefore, I'll attempt to share some of the main insights from this article, preceded by a summary. This work was also discussed as part of an undergraduate social psychology lab taught by me in 2023.

Field Theory and Experiment in Social Psychology: Concepts and Methods

Kurt Lewin (1939)

Summary

Social and cultural settings matter in how a person responds. Physiological facts about persons were considered more scientifically certain at the time compared to social facts. Psychology, including social psychology, had to regularly sharpen ways of measurement to make social facts as robust as those found in the other sciences. Though there was evidence in experimental psychology revealing person-environment interactions (e.g., emotional reactions to failure depending on praise or change in the social setting, aspiration for goals depending on competitive or non-competitive situations), the methods in psychology still needed to catch up to be able to show these interactions effectively, not as mere observation or theory. (Note. Given what was possible at the time, social shifts could be captured and measured much more accurately. Over multiple decades, the interactions became much more visible due immense improvement in measures used in social and personality psychology). In this article, a comparison is made with similar fields such as Sociology in grappling with some of the same issues. Behaviorism was the prevalent method of study in Lewin's time, but the problems and questions that were being asked by social psychologists then weren’t much different or less complex than what we find today. How we are able to measure several social and personality aspects now differs greatly though, compared to nearly a hundred years ago.

Kurt Lewin (1890-1947) was the founder of social psychology and was best known for work of group dynamics and organizational psychology. He popularized social psychology in the

early 20^th century and pioneered some major ideas that still impact social-personality psychology today.

During a time when the nature versus nature debate was still pervasive in the understanding social psychological experiences, he had the interactionist insight from the get-go. In a nutshell, in such an approach, our genes and learning experiences often interact to produce an adaptive response. This is best represented in the Lewin’s formula according to which B= f (P, E) or behavior is a function of person and environmental experiences. 

Social psychologists don’t just examine the influence of social and environmental shifts on a person’s behavior. Behavior is an outcome of a person responding in an environment. For example, different responses to war, failure, change, etc., depending on if the experience, is taken as a character-building challenge or as a confirmation of already held pessimistic beliefs. Recognizing such intricacies can make social psychology a useful science because then the opportunity arises for real-world applications that can bring good change through chosen behaviors and responses. Such an interactionist approach also had several implications for how treatment and therapy was handled years later, particularly for mood and behavioral disorders in which appraisal of beliefs and events mattered much more.

In 1939, Lewin considered social psychological problems in light of the difference between the social sciences and the physical sciences. According to Lewin (see page 872 in the original article),

a) science needed to be considered a realm of problems rather than a realm of material

b) different realms of problems could then generate or require different constructs and laws (as was found in the other sciences)

c) the problems could be still relevant to the general realm or same matters of study

Many psychologists, even today, argue similarly when questions about what is (or is not) science arise. For example, what may be accurate and best for measuring social behavior cannot be fairly and absolutely compared with what is best for understanding gravity. Nevertheless, how the scientific process develops can still remain the same for varied questions across the sciences. In addition, precursors, conditions, and consequences vary greatly in the sciences, which governs what matters as the subject of study eventually when asking a scientific question. Even in sciences that are closely related may have this difference. For example, when a machine is not working well, a reasonable solution by an engineer could be to remove parts entirely and replace them with new ones. A biologist may not always be able to have the same choices given the ethical and complex aspects that revolve around saving life. As the sciences become farther apart in their matters and questions of study, such dilemmas increase. Other times, what can or cannot be studied closely is hindered due to practical limitations.

Kurt Lewin uses two examples (adolescence and the idea of social groups) to illustrate how social situations are best understood in relation to all the forces present in it.

a) The social aspect of adolescence: Though marked by similar physical similarities in changes, the social expectation during adolescence varies depending on different societies. Adolescence is a time of transition, during which group belongingness shifts, called ‘social locomotion’, by Lewin. Also, the types of groups the person may find changes, a shift from childhood to an adult life takes place. Lewin compares this transition as similar to moving to a new town (from child to adult). The norms of social locomotion would vary culturally, and the behavioral boundaries may be different, as would be argued by psychologists who study culture even today. Eventually, the resulting tendency, regardless of culture, is supposed to be social adaptation. Behaviors that are encouraged and make such adaptations easier would be seen more readily in a culture. The degree of balance expected between individual versus societal aspirations is also part of this dynamic. Depending on culture, individual expression may be given greater priority compared to an individual being seen an instrument or expression of the larger society which makes maintaining roles far more important. Lewin expressed this notion using the formula here:

Behavior = Function of person and environment = Function of life-space (Be = F [P, E] = F [L Sp])

b) Adolescence as a time of shifting social space and change: Time-perspectives also change from childhood to adulthood. Life-space of a child differs from the life-space of an adult due to time perception. (These early ideas may seem theoretical at best here but were revealed as scientifically sound in much of developmental research in later decades). Time perspectives have implications for the kind of decisions and behaviors we choose.

c) Adolescence being experienced as the marginal man: In the original article, this was one of the conclusive descriptions of Lewin’s conceptualization. Today, this might apply to various other social categories and groups that undergo social locomotion for geographic or identity reasons.

Kurt Lewin Thoughts Regarding Social Groups Still Relevant Today

Kurt Lewin reminded us of the terminological disagreements about the term ‘group’ itself (for example, if there is a group-mind or not, and if that makes the group above the individual). Later research findings in social psychology introduced us to several social processes such as groupthink and coercive persuasion that did not exist in the literature at the time of this article. The group was then best understood as the sum of parts, and Lewin stated clearly that it was not sufficient to just perceive groups in this manner because the various parts may have different properties (i.e., social groups comprise of individuals and constantly changing norms in relation to shared and interactive social experiences). Moreover, certain social constructs are more closely related than others despite being found in the same context.

A promising idea by Lewin: "A group, on the other hand, does not need to consist of members which show great similarity.” (see page 886 of the original article)

In other words, a group is a group, as long as members share similar norms and expectations. Preexisting groupings may influence how initial communication and perceptions get formed. However, it is possible to set strong enough norms in newly formed groups to bring about unanimously agreed upon decisions successfully. Level of interdependence, motivations and interests, proximity, economic reasons, etc. matter in group formation. Identities, in this regard, change slightly after we join groups as our preexisting and new role-based identities interact.

Main Conclusions

1.    Interaction between individual and social psychology is inevitable.

2.    Using constructs that study interdependence rather than phenotypical similarities or dissimilarities can help recognize this interaction better.

3.    Systematic study is often easier by the way of classification. However, a constructive or derivation approach may add further. In other words, it is easier to study how groups differ, how some factor is affected by others versus how an object or event affects a situation. Interrelated constructs are more difficult to study.

4.    Taking both general and specific trends into consideration, and a synthesis approach rather than isolated facts building science is key (Note. This was seen in social psychology and emotion research later on when both universals and specific experiences were recognized; culture, personality, and life experiences were seen mas matters of study).

5.    Taking number of facts into consideration is crucial.

6.    In a social context, the level of differentiation, fluidity, and the atmosphere needs to be considered. (Note. This essentially captures the importance of variability in behavior which may occur due to personality, normative, or cultural reasons).

7.    Considering both usual and exceptional cases is important and is made possible by considering sociopsychological factors.

8.    As long as artificial or experimental conditions capture the general pattern of social psychological behavior of interest, the results should be relevant.

9.    The need for logical mathematical-interrelations or some kind of geometry that can help show social psychological dynamics matters (e.g., topology that can capture structure and position in a psychological field; even more specific is what he described as ‘hodological space’, see page 891, which can capture changes in differences and distances more accurately). (Note. Lewin is getting at the idea of linear and non-linear nature of social processes here as in different geometries may be relevant depending on the nature of what we are studying).

10.  Taking historical problems of origin are important when taking new solutions into account. For example, what may have been a consistent theme or difficulty in examining certain constructs.

*Lewin, K. (1939). Field Theory and Experiment in Social Psychology: Concepts and methods. American Journal of Sociology, 44(6), 868–896. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2769418