Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T07:18:33.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Study of Symbolic Interactionism and Communication from the Perspective of American Social Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2022

Lihui Wang Open the ORCID record for Lihui Wang [Opens in a new window]
Lihui Wang*
Affiliation:
Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 1166 Liutai Road, Chengdu 611131, People’s Republic of China.
*
Email: li-huiemail@163.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept of ‘symbolic interactionism’ has been particularly compelling since its inception as a method for studying human group life and human behaviour. Symbolic interactionism represents one of the most sociological reserach projects in social psychology, and the founders of communication, such as Lazarsfeld, Lewin, and Hovland, are all related to social psychology. Therefore, this article will attempt to answer the following questions through a historical review of the development of social psychology in the United States: symbolic interactionism is so closely related to communication studies, but why is it gradually missing in the establishment of communication studies? Can symbolic interactionism have a new academic resonance with contemporary communication research?

Type
Article
Information
European Review , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , June 2023 , pp. 213 - 226
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Academia Europaea

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Axelrad, S (2015) Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 1(4), 388–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azarian, R (2021) Analytical sociology and symbolic interactionism: bridging the intra-disciplinary divide. The American Sociologist 52(3), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, D (2007) Forum: on the history of communication studies. Quarterly Journal of Speech 93(3), 344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumer, H (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Carter, MJ and Alvarado, AM (2018) Symbolic interactionism as a methodological framework, In P Liamputtong (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Casino, VJ and Thien, D (2020) Symbolic Interactionism. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Second Edition). California: SAGE Publications, pp. 177–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, Q (2018) Symbolic Interactionism: The Basics. Vernon Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, L and Novak, K (2014) Individual and Society: Sociological Social Psychology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Curtis, R (1956) Social psychology: the revised edition. American Catholic Sociological Review 17(3) 269.Google Scholar
Czitrom, DJ (1982) Media and the American Mind: From Morse to McLuhan. Wilmington: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Huang, CJ (2003) Transitional media vs. normative theories: Schramm, Altschull, and China. Journal of Communication 53(3), 444–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, D and Li, J (2006) The lost landing pot – symbolic interactionism and communication research in the view of social psychology. Journalism & Communication 13(3), 14–19.Google Scholar
Fernback, J (2019) A critical discourse analysis of the human flesh search engine. Media Asia 46(1-2), 18–34. doi: 10.1093/obo/9780199756841-0232.Google Scholar
Fisher, A (1978) Perspectives on Human Communication. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fishman, JA (2016) History of American psychology. Jewish Education 25(3), 72. doi: 10.1080/00216429.1954-55.11492962 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabatz, R, Schwartz, E and Milbrath, VM (2017) Attachment theory, symbolic interactionism and grounded theory: articulating reference frameworks for research. Texto contexto – enferm 26, 1–8.Google Scholar
Gao, S and Xing, L (2021) On theoretical psychology and its scientific mission and historical fate. Journal of Central China Normal University (Humanities and Social Sciences) 60(3), 182–188.Google Scholar
Green, CD (2017) History of psychology publish and perish: psychology’s most prolific authors are not always the ones we remember. The American Journal of Psychology 130(1): 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, P (1992) Socialization by way of symbolic interactionism and culture theory: a communication perspective. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association (1), 2–30.Google Scholar
Hewitt, JP (1976) Self and Society: A Symbolic Interactionist Social Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Google Scholar
Larsen, VW and Wright, HC (1986) Symbolic interaction theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Educators and Scholars, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
Lee, SF (2020) Society for the history of psychology news. History of Psychology 23(1), 99.Google Scholar
Low, J and Thomson, L (2021) Symbolic interactionism and the myth of a structural bias: a textual defense and illustrative advice. Canadian Journal of Sociology 46(2), 97–119.Google Scholar
Löblich, M and Scheu, AM (2011) Writing the history of communication studies: a sociology of science approach. Communication Theory 21(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S (1975) Reply to a critical note on two studies of minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology 5(2), 261–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, JE and Petras, JW (1976) Symbolic interactionism: genesis, varieties and criticism. Contemporary Sociology 5(6), 828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remmling, GW (2020) Towards the Sociology of Knowledge (RLE Social Theory): Origin and Development of a Sociological Thought Style. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Ritzer, G (ed) (2000) Contemporary Sociology Theory and its Classical Roots: The Basics. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Rogers, EM (2012) A History of Communication Study: A Bibliographical Approach. Translated by Ying XR. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House, pp. 3–6.Google Scholar
Sandstrom, K and Fine, GA (2003) Triumphs, emerging voices, and the future. In Reynolds, LT and Herman-Kinney, NJ (eds), Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Lanham: AltaMira Press, pp. 1041–1057.Google Scholar
Simonson, K and Park, GA (2017) The international history of communication study. European Journal of Communication 32(3), 289–290.Google Scholar
Stagner, R (1950) Social psychology of modern life (revised edition). Psychological Bulletin 47(2), 162–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stats, AW (1991) Unified positivism and unification psychology. American Psychologist 46, 899–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasi, L (2019) The Tradition of the Chicago School of Sociology (Hardback). Contemporary Sociology 29(4), 674.Google Scholar
Turner, JH (2002) The Structure of Sociological Theory, 4th Edn. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.Google Scholar
Wahl-Jorgensen, K (2012) The Chicago School of Sociology and mass communication research. In Mastro D and Tukachinsky R (eds), The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Watkins, DB (1997) The twenty statements test. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 28, 626–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar