Questions were circulated by an Italian psychological society among psychologists, professors, and others concerning antipathy, its relation to other antagonistic states, its description and analysis, its various forms, its course and transformations. Something over a hundred replies were received, and many are here reproduced. They are often interesting and suggestive, but, as might be expected, sometimes contradictory. Gambara and others consider antipathy fundamental and instinctive. Stepanoff, on the other hand, who regards antipathy as chronic opposition, argues that acute opposition arises earlier than the chronic form, which is not known in young children, and presupposes so considerable a social education that it is not one of the first even of chronic psychic states. Assagioli regards it as a reaction of defence, derived from the instinct of conservation, and not easily distinguished from other states of opposition. Foà, however, believes that the oppositional states are easily determined, and are aversion, hate, repugnance, and antipathy; he regards antipathy as fundamental and primitive. Boncinelli and others believe that antipathy is simply a complex result of many mental states, and that it has no special function, while Vacca regards it as a purely artificial conception, and mainly negative.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.