Aristotle observed that man is a social animal and proposed social influence principles; however, as Elliot Aronson (1972; 2008) observed, Aristotle was not likely the first person to observe and comment on human social nature. Philosophy, religion, and conventional wisdom developed almost unlimited perspectives on the human as a social being before the field of social psychology emerged in the early 1900s. Observation and experience serve as the foundation for traditional views of social behavior. These perspectives propagate through family, tribe, and culture, resulting in a diverse array of disparate religious and philosophical perspectives.

As a discipline, social psychology emerged to explore social phenomena to find truth scientifically. However, the truths in social psychology seem as disparate as those that drive countless ideological perspectives in the traditional realm. In his book The Social Animal, Joshua Aronson (1972) declared, “There are almost as many definitions of social psychology as there are social psychologists” (p. 4). To the outsider, the field of social psychology may seem to be little more than people with competing perspectives applying fancy words to truths that have been known throughout history.

How others influence you

A classical definition of social psychology proposed by field pioneer Gordon W. Allport (1954) is that

 “Social psychology is the scientific attempt to explain how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of other human beings" (Allport, 1954a, p. 5).

By “implied presence,” Allport referred to behavior people exhibit because of their roles in society and their membership in cultural groups. Fiske (2010) summarized this classical definition as a formula that depicts others influencing the individual, as follows:

Actual, imagined, or implied presence of Others > Individual thoughts, feeling, and behavior (p. 5). [Emphasis added]

This definition's foundation is the influence of others on the individual, implying that the “others” influence “individual” to do something they would not have done alone. Influence from others' presence “enormously powerful” (Fiske, 2010, p. 4). Even the imagined or implied presence of others can influence individuals. Differentiating between thoughts, feelings, and behaviors help to identify three key variables that explain social psychology phenomena: cognition, affect, and action, as follows:

• Cognition represents thought
• Affect means feelings
• Action is behavior.

From Allport’s definition, social psychology attempts to explain how interaction influences the way people think and behave. Key questions social psychologists explore from this definition are

• How do others influence us?
• Why do we allow others to influence us?
• What impacts the effectiveness of social influence?
• Is social influence permanent or temporary?
• Why do we like or dislike others?
• Why does prejudice develop?

A fundamental limitation of Allport’s definition is that it shows human social interaction as a unidirectional process. However, this perspective remains influential. For example, social psychologists Kenrick, Neuberg, and Cialdinia (2007) built their textbook on the definition that social psychology is “the scientific study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by other people” (p. 5). Using Allport’s model, the Kenrick, et al. (2007) definition shows

people <  other people

Aronson (2008; 1972) expanded on these definitions by suggesting that influence is not only from others to individuals but can also be from group to group. Offering a definition of social psychology as “the influences that people have upon the beliefs, feelings, and behavior of others” (p. 6), this also represents a one-way interaction:

people > others

While establishing “influence” as a common theme throughout all definitions of social psychology, these classical definitions are insufficient for understanding the dynamic and reciprocal process of human interaction. David Meyers (2008) approached a more feasible description by defining social psychology as “the scientific study of how people think about, influence, and relate to one another” (p. 4). Meyers’ description provides a two-way interaction, as follows:

people <> others

How we dynamically interact in context

 In his later works, Aronson (2008) considered a contextual dimension to his definition. He proposed that the situation—time, history, and culture—also influences individual and group social behavior. Research from field pioneers like Zimbardo (1972; 2007) and Milgram (1963) went beyond offering context as a dimension in human social behavior to inferring that the context is the behavior. This “extreme situational determinism” (Reicher & Haslam, 2006, p. 3) holds that the social context contains powerful forces that overwhelm the individual's power to exercise free will. Individuals become the groups to which they belong and the roles that they fill.

From outside the social psychology field, Ludwig Von Bertalanffy (1969) offered the biological system as a metaphor that provides a dynamic perspective for understanding humans as social beings. Through the systems theory framework, a living organism is a complex open system. It maintains itself and the environment by continuously exchanging matter with the environment (p. 156). Metabolism, growth, development, and survival of an organism result from a dynamic interaction between a system and its environment (p. 149).

The dynamical systems model, also known as complexity theory, allows psychologists to interpret the dynamically interacting individual and social environment in context. Internal forces influence how the individual chooses to interpret, behave, and adapt in a social context; simultaneously, individuals change the social context (Kenrick, Maner, Buner, Li, Becker, & Schaller, 2002).

<----CONTEXT---->
People <> Others

The open systems framework would become an “anchor” for applying social psychology applications in organizations (McShane & Von Glinow, 2005). For example, adapting the organism metaphor from dynamical systems theory as the basis for explaining the social psychology of organizations, Katz and Kahn (1966; Jex, 2002) would propose that individuals and groups dynamically interact within the boundaries of the organization to ensure mutual and organizational survival by exchanging resources with, adapting to, and influencing the competitive environment.

Synthesis

Within the competing definitions, the following vital elements emerge:

• individual
• others
• context
• dynamics
• influence
• adaptation
• science

Integrating these elements suggest a definition that is inclusive of most perspectives, as follows:

Social psychology is the scientific study of how individuals and others dynamically and continuously interact and adapt over time.

As with any attempt to define a dynamic process, even this more expansive definition is insufficient. Still, it provides a fuller understanding of social psychology than unilaterally static definitions like in the “others > individual” framework. Then again, dynamic or not, it is just another definition through the eyes of a beholder.