Book contents
- The Psychology of Social Influence
- The Psychology of Social Influence
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Foreword 1
- Foreword 2
- Acknowledgements
- Chapter 1 Modalities of Social Influence
- Part I Recurrent Sources of Populism
- Part II Experimental Paradigms
- Part III Necessary Extensions
- Part IV Theoretical Integration
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2020
Book contents
- The Psychology of Social Influence
- The Psychology of Social Influence
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Foreword 1
- Foreword 2
- Acknowledgements
- Chapter 1 Modalities of Social Influence
- Part I Recurrent Sources of Populism
- Part II Experimental Paradigms
- Part III Necessary Extensions
- Part IV Theoretical Integration
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Psychology of Social InfluenceModes and Modalities of Shifting Common Sense, pp. 271 - 300Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 195–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrams, D., & Levine, J. M. (2012). Norm formation: revisiting Sherif’s autokinetic illusion study. In Smith, J. R. & Haslam, S. A. (eds.), Social Psychology: Revisiting the Classical Studies, (pp. 57–75). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J. & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E. & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In Kuhl, J. & Beckmann, J. (eds.), Action Control: From Cognition to Behaviour (pp. 11–39). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W., & Postman, L. (1947). The Psychology of Rumor. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
Allyn, J., & Festinger, L. (1961). The effectiveness of unanticipated persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(1), 35–40.Google Scholar
Anders, G. (2002). Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen. Ueber die Seele im Zeitalter der zweiten Industriellen Revolution (vol. 2). Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag.Google Scholar
Apfelbaum, E., & McGuire, G. R. (1986). Models of suggestive influence and the disqualification of the crowd. In Graumann, C. F. & Moscovici, S. (eds.), Changing Conceptions of Crowd Mind and Behaviour (pp. 27–50). New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Arendt, H. (1958/2012). Was ist Autoritaet? Zwischen Vergangenheit und Zukunft, Uebungen im politischen Denken I. Munchen: Piper.Google Scholar
Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35, 216–224.Google Scholar
Aron, A., Aron, E. N. & Smollan, D. (1992) Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612.Google Scholar
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M. & Sommers, S. R. (2017). Social Psychology (9th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E. & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small Groups as Complex Systems: Formation, Coordination, Development, and Adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In Guetzkow, H. (ed.), Groups, Leadership and Men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.Google Scholar
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assmann, J. (2008). Communicative and cultural memory. In Erll, A. & Nunning, A. (eds.), Cultural Memory Studies: An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook (pp. 109–118). Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
Atran, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2004). Religion’s evolutionary landscape: counter-intuition, commitment, compassion, communion. Behavioural and Brain Science, 27, 713–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Austin, J. L. (1976). How to Do Things with Words (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In Hunt, J. G., Baliga, B. R., Dachler, H. P. & Schriesheim, C. A. (eds.), Emerging Leadership Vistas (pp. 29–49). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56 , 947–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangerter, A. (2000). Transformation between scientific and social representations of conception: the method of serial reproduction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 521–535.Google Scholar
Bangerter, A. & Heath, C. (2004). The Mozart effect: tracking the evolution of a scientific legend. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 1–37.Google Scholar
Barber, B. (1993) The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Barker, M., Egan, K., Ralph, S. & Phillips, T. (2016). Alien Audiences: Remembering and Evaluating a Classic Movie. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Barley, R. S., & Kunda, G. (1992). Design and devotion: surges of rational and normative ideology of control in managerial discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), 363–399.Google Scholar
Barnett, B. (2002). Tonal organization in seventeenth-century music theory. In Christensen, T. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory (pp. 407–455). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bar-Tal, D. (2000). Shared Belief in a Society: A Social-Psychological Analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bar-Tal, D. (2015). Intractable Conflicts: Socio-Psychological Foundations and Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barthes, R. (1965/1988). The old rhetoric: an aid-memoire. In The Semiotic Challenge (pp. 11–94). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W. (1991). Resistance to change: a monitor of new technology? Systems Practice, 4(3), 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, M. W. (1993). Resistance to Change: A Functional Analysis of Responses to Technical Change in a Swiss Bank, PhD Thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W. (1994). A popularização da ciencia como immunização cultural: a função de Resistencia das representações sociais. In Jovchelovitch, S. & Guareschi, P. (eds.), Textos em representações sociais (pp. 229–260). Petropolis: Vozes.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W. (1995). Towards a functional analysis of resistance. In Bauer, M. W. (ed.), Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology, Biotechnology (pp. 393–418). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W. (2005a). The mass media and the biotechnology controversy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 5–22.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W. (2005b). Distinguishing red from green biotechnology: cultivation effects of the elite press. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, M. W. (2006). The paradoxes of resistance in Brazil. In Gaskell, G. & Bauer, M. W. (eds.), Genomic & Society: Legal, Ethical and Social Dimension, (pp. 228–249). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W. (2012). Public attention to science 1820–2010: a ‘longue duree’ picture. In Rödder, S., Franzen, M. & Weingart, P. (eds.), The Sciences’ Media Connection – Public Communication and Its Repercussions (Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 28) (pp. 35–58). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W. (2013). Social influence by artefacts: norms and objects as conflict zones. In Sammut, G., Daanen, P. & Moghaddam, F. M. (eds.), Understanding Self and Others: Explorations in Intersubjectivity and Interobjectivity (pp. 189–205). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W. (2015a). Atoms, Bytes and Genes: Public Resistance and Techno-Scientific Responses. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W. (2015b). On (social) representations and the iconoclastic impetus. In Sammut, G., Andreouli, E., Gaskell, G. & Valsiner, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W. (2017). Resistance as a latent factor of innovation. In Godin, B. & Vinck, D. (eds.), Critical Studies of Innovation: Alternative Approaches to the Pro-innovation Bias (pp. 159–181). Cheltenham: Elgar Publishers.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W. (2018). UK: trust in science after the BREXIT. In deMarec, J. & Schiele, B. (eds.), Culture of Science (pp. 95–102). Montreal: Acfas.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (1999). Towards a paradigm of research on social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 29, 163–186.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (eds.). (2002). Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (2008). Social representation theory: a progressive research programme for social psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38(4), 327–334.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W., & Glăveanu, V. (2011). Communication as rhetoric and argumentation. In Hook, D., Franks, B. & Bauer, M. W. (eds.), The Social Psychology of Communication (pp. 209–228). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W., Gylstorff, S., Madsen, E. B. & Mejlgaard, N. (2019). The Fukushima accident and public perceptions about nuclear power around the globe: a challenge and response model. Environmental Communication, 13(4), 505–526.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W., Harré, R. & Jensen, C. (eds.). (2013) Resistance and the Practice of Rationality. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W., Pansegrau, P. & Shukla, R. (2019). The Cultural Authority of Science: Comparing across Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas (Routledge Studies of Science: Technology & Society, Vol. 40). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bauer, R. A. (1964). The obstinate audience: the influence process from the point of view of social communication. American Psychologist, 19, 319–328.Google Scholar
Becker, H. S. (1973). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. London: Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bellentani, F., & Panico, M. (2016). The meanings of monuments and memorials: toward a semiotic approach. Punctum, 2(1), 28–46.Google Scholar
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.Google Scholar
Bensaude-Vincent, B., & Blondel, C. (eds.). (2002) Des Savants face à l’Occult 1870–1940. Paris: Edition La Decouverte.Google Scholar
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Berlonghi, A. E. (1995). Understanding and planning for different spectator crowds. Safety Science, 18(4), 239–247.Google Scholar
Bernsdorf, W. (1969). Autoritaet. In Bernsdorf, W. (ed.) Worterbuch der Soziologie. Stuttgart: F. Enke Verlag.Google Scholar
Berridge, K. C. (2018). Evolving concepts of motion and motivation. Frontiers of Psychology. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01647 7 September.Google Scholar
Bessi, A., Colletto, M., Davidescu, G. A., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G. & Quattrociocchi, A. (2015). Science vs Conspiracy: collective narratives in the age of misinformation. PLOS one, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118093 23 February.Google Scholar
Bijker, W. E., Bal, R., & Hendriks, R. (2009). The Paradox of Scientific Authority: The Role of Scientific Advice in Democracies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (1991). Ideology and Opinions: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Blandin, B. (2002). La construction du social par les objects. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 955–978.Google Scholar
Blass, T. (2004). The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Blumenberg, H. (2010). “Lebenswelt und Technisierung under Aspekten der Phenomenologie.” In Theorie der Lebenswelt (pp. 181–223). Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: a meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgement task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111–137.Google Scholar
Bonfadelli, H. (2004). Medienwirkungsforschung I – Grundlagen (3rd ed.). Konstanz: UVK-UTBGoogle Scholar
Bonfadelli, H. (2005). Mass media and biotechnology: knowledge gaps within and between European countries. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 42–62.Google Scholar
Bova, A., & Arcidiacono, F. (2013). Investigating children’s why-questions: a study comparing argumentative and explanatory function. Discourse Studies, 15(6), 713–734.Google Scholar
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss (Vol. 1: Loss). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bowlby, J. (1979). The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. (1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boyer, P. (2003). Cognitive Aspects of Religious Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brandmayr, F. (2017). How social scientists make causal claims in court: evidence from the Aquila trial. Science, Technology and Human Values, 42(3), 346–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brey, P. (2005). Artifacts as social agents. In Harbers, H. (ed.), Inside the Politics of Technology (pp. 61–84). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Briguglio, M. (2015). The bird hunting referendum in Malta. Environmental Politics, 24(5), 835–839.Google Scholar
Broadbent, W. (2017). Interactions with robots: the truth they reveal about ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 627–652.Google Scholar
Brock, T. C. (1965). Communicator-recipient similarity and decision change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(6), 650–654.Google Scholar
Bryant, J., & Zillman, D. (eds.). (2002). Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
Bryant, J., & Oliver, M.B. (eds.). (2009) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Practice (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bucchi, M. (2002). Science in Society: An Introduction to Social Studies of Science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (eds.). (2014) The Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Burger, J. M. (1986). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: the that’s not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 227–283.Google Scholar
Burger, J. M. (1999). The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: a multiple-process analysis and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(4), 303–325.Google Scholar
Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2008). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind (5th ed.). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butter, M. (2018). Nichts ist, wie es scheint – Ueber Verschwoerungtheorien. Berlin: Edition Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Byford, J. (2011). Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E. & Sidera, J. (1982). The effects of a salient self-schema on the evaluation of proattitudinal editorials: top-down versus bottom-up message processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18(4), 324–338.Google Scholar
Calhoun, J. (1962). Population density and social pathology. Scientific American, 206, 139–148.Google Scholar
Calkins, S. D., & Williford, A. P. (2009). Taming the terrible twos: self-regulation and school readiness. In Barbarin, O. A. & Wasik, B. H. (eds.), Handbook of Child Development and Early Education: Research to Practice (pp. 172–198). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. F., & Lewenstein, G. (2002). Behavioural economics: past, present and future. In Camerer, C. F., Lewenstein, G. & Rabin, M. (eds.), Advances in Behavioural Economics (pp. 3–51). New York: Russel Sage.Google Scholar
Campanella, T. J. (2017). How low did he go? City Lab, 9 July. www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/07/how-low-did-he-go/533019 [accessed, 15 April 2019].Google Scholar
Campbell, J. (1949). The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, J. (1992). The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice among the Literary Intelligentsia 1880–1939. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1387–1397.Google Scholar
Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: an integrative review. In Hogg, M. A. & Scott, R. Tindale, (eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes (pp. 376–399). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chiantera-Stutte, P. (2018). Mob, people, crowds, and masses: mass psychology and populism. The Tocqueville Review, 39(1), 157–176.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B, & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Anticipatory opinion effects. In Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M. & Brock, T. C. (eds.), Cognitive Responses in Persuasion (pp. 217–236). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Cacioppo, J. T., Bassett, R. & Miller, J. A. (1978). Low-balling procedure for producing compliance: commitment then cost. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(5), 463–476.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D. & Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: the door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 206–215.Google Scholar
Cirincione, J. (2007). Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512–532.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. (2012). Cognitive dissonance: revisiting Festinger’s end of the world study. In Smith, J. R. & Haslam, S. A. (eds.), Social Psychology: Revisiting the Classical Studies (pp. 42–56). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Corbin, A., & Mayeur, J. M. (eds.). (1996). La Barricade. Actes du colloque organizé, 17–19 May. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO Personality Inventory – Revised (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Cranach, M. von. (1986). Leadership as a function of group action. In Graumann, C. F. & Moscovici, S. (eds.), Changing Conceptions of Leadership (pp. 115–134). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Cranach, M von. (1996). Towards a theory of the acting group. In Witte, E. & Davis, J. (eds.), Understanding Group Behaviour (Vol 2: Small Group Processes and Personal Relations). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cranach, M. von., & Foppa, K. (eds.). (1996). Freiheit des Entscheidens and Handelns. Heidelberg: Asanger.Google Scholar
Cranach, M. von., Ochsenbein, G. & Valach, L. (1986). The group as a self-active system. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 193–229.Google Scholar
Cranach, M. von. & Valach, L. (1983). Die soziale Dimension des zielgerichteten Handelns. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fuer Psychologie, 42 , 160–177.Google Scholar
Cranach, M von., & Valach, L. (1984). The social dimension of goal-directed action. In Tajfel, H. (ed.), The Social Dimension (vol. 1) (pp. 285–299). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daanen, P., & Sammut, G. (2012). G. H. Mead and knowing how to act: practical meaning, routine interaction and the theory of interobjectivity, Theory and Psychology, 22(5), 556–571.Google Scholar
David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Minority dissent, attitude change, and group performance. In Pratkanis, A. R. (ed.), The Science of Social Influence: Advances and Future Progress (pp. 247–270). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Dierkes, M., Hoffman, U. & Marz, L. (1996). Visions of Technology – Social and Institutional Factors Shaping the Development of New Technologies. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
Dittmar, H. (1992). The Social Psychology of Material Possessions: To Have Is to Be. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2009). Collective psychological empowerment as a model of social change: researching crowds and power. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 707–715.Google Scholar
Drury, J., & Stott, C. (2011). Contextualising the crowd in contemporary social science. Contemporary Social Science, 6(3), 275–288.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). Process theories of attitude formation and change: the elaboration likelihood and heuristic-systematic models. In Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S., (eds.), The Psychology of Attitudes (pp. 303–350). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1998) Attitude structure and function. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T. and Lindzey, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., Vol 1) (pp. 269–322). New York: McGrawHill.Google Scholar
Edgerton, D. (1999). From innovation to use: ten eclectic theses on the historiography of technology. History and Technology, 16, 111–136.Google Scholar
Edgerton, D. (2006). The Shock of the Old – Technology and Global History since 1900. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Einsiedel, E. (2014). Publics and their participation in science and technology. In Bucchi, M. & Trench, B. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 125–139). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? an fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302 , 290–292.Google Scholar
Elias, N. (1936/1978). The Civilizing Process: The History of Manners. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Elias, N. (1939/2000). The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.Google Scholar
Entradas, M., & Bauer, M. W. (2019). Kommunikationsfunktionen im Mehrebenensystem Hochschule. In Forschungsfeld Hochschulkommunikation (pp. 97–121). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
Escobar, O. (2011). Public Dialogue and Deliberation: A Communication Perspective for Public Engagement Practitioners. Edinburgh: UK Beacons for Public Engagement.Google Scholar
Evans, S. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. S. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognitions: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.Google Scholar
Farr, R. (1982). Interviewing: an introduction to the social psychology of the interview. In Chapman, A. J. & Gale, A. (eds.), Psychology and People: A Tutorial Text (pp. 287–305). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Farr, R. (1987). Social representations: a French tradition of research. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 17(4), 343–370.Google Scholar
Ferguson, N. (2009). The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Ferree, M. M. (2003). Resonance and radicalism: feminist framing in the abortion debates of the United States and Germany. American Journal of Sociology, 109(2), 304–344.Google Scholar
Fessler, D. M. T., & Holbrook, C. (2016). Synchronised behaviour increases assessment of formidability and cohesion of coalition. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 37(6), 502–509.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.Google Scholar
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1981). Classical empiricism. In Feyerabend, P., Problems of Empiricism: Philosophical Papers (vol. 2)(pp. 34–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiedler, F. E. (1965). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 1)(pp. 149–190). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. (2017). Manipulation: zur Theorie und Ethik einer Form der Beeinflussung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B. (1998). Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15(2), 137–145.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. (2009). Grid–group analysis and tourism: tipping as a cultural behaviour. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 7(1), 34–47.Google Scholar
Fisher, K. (1997). Locating frames in the discursive universe. Sociological Research Online, 2(3); www.socresonline.org.uk/2/3/4.html.Google Scholar
Fleck, L. (1935/1979). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Franks, B., & Attia, S. (2011). Rumours and gossip as genres of communication. In Hook, D., Franks, B. & Bauer, M. W. (eds.), The Social Psychology of Communication (pp. 169–186). London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Franks, B., Bangerter, A. & Bauer, M. W. (2013). Conspiracy theories as quasi-religious mentality: an integrated account from cognitive science, social representations theory, and frame theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 424. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00424.Google Scholar
Franzosi, R., & Vicari, S. (2013). What’s in a text? answers from frame analysis and rhetoric for measuring meaning systems and argumentative structures. Rhetorica, 36(4), 394–429.Google Scholar
Franzosi, R., & Wang, R. (2018). From Words to Numbers: An Automatic Approach to Information Retrieval from Narrative Texts. Unpublished manuscript, July 2018.Google Scholar
Freelon, D. (2018). The Filter Map: Media and the Pursuit of Truth and Legitimacy. Miami: The Knight Foundation.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1921/1985). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. In Freud, S., Collected Works: Civilisation, Society and Religion (vol. 12). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Friedkin, N. E. (2001). Norm formation in social influence networks. Social Networks, 23(3), 167–189.Google Scholar
Fuller, S. (2013). History of the psychology of science. In Feist, G .J. & Gorman, M. E. (eds.), Handbook of the Psychology of Science (pp. 21–47). New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Funk, C., & Kennedy, B. (2016). The Politics of Climate. Washington, DC: PEW Foundation.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H. G. (1960). Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzuege einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tubingen: JCB Mohr.Google Scholar
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1–37.Google Scholar
Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online? politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 265–285. httcp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x.Google Scholar
Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77( 2), 167–187.Google Scholar
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorelli, N. & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: cultivation processes. In Bryant, J. & Zillman, D. (eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 43–67). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
Gerbner, G. (1969). Towards ‘cultural indicators’: the analysis of mass mediated public message systems. In Gerbner, G., Holsti, O., Krippendorff, K., Paisley, W. I. & Stone, P. I. (eds.), The Analysis of Communication Content (pp. 123–132). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(2), 309–320.Google Scholar
Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41.Google Scholar
Geuter, U. (1988). Die Professionalisierung der deutschen Psychologie im Nationalsozialismus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In Shaw, R. & Bransford, J. (eds.), Perceiving, Acting and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gibson, S. (2013). Milgram’s obedience experiments: a rhetorical analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(2), 290–309.Google Scholar
Giedion, S. (1975 [1948]). Mechanization Takes Command: A Contribution to Anonymous History. New York: WW Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Gildea, R. (2010). How to Understand the Dreyfus Affair. New York Review of Books, 10 June, 42–44.Google Scholar
Gillespie, A., & Cornish, F. (2009). Intersubjectivity: Towards a dialogical analysis. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(1), 19–46.Google Scholar
Ginneken, J. Van. (1992). Crowds, Psychology and Politics, 1871–1899. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Girard, R. (2008). Evolution and Conversion: Dialogues on the Origins of Culture. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. New York,: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Godin, B. (1999). Argument from consequences and the urge to polarize. Argumentation, 13, 347–365.Google Scholar
Godin, B. (2005). The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework. Project on the history and sociology of S&T statistics, Working paper no 30, Montreal.Google Scholar
Godin, B. (2012). On cultural indicators of science. In Bauer, M. W., Shukla, R. & Allum, N. (sds.), The Culture of Science – How the Public Relates to Science across the Globe (pp. 18–37). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Godin, B., & Vinck, D. (2017). Introduction: innovation: from the forbidden to the cliché. In Godin, B. & Vinck, D. (eds), Critical Studies of Innovation: Alternative Approaches to the Pro-innovation Bias (pp. 1–16). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Godin, B., & Vinck, D. (eds.). (2017). Reflexive Innovation: Alternative Approaches to the Pro-innovation Bias. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Goffmann, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organisation of Experience. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phase and mind-sets. In Higgins, E. T. & Sorrentino, R. M. (eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior (vol. 2)(pp. 53–92). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.Google Scholar
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119.Google Scholar
Graumann, C. F., & Metraux, A. (1977). Die phanomenologische Orientierung in der Psychologie. In Schneewind, K. A. (ed.), Wissenschaftstheoretische Grundlagen der Psychologie (pp. 27–54). Munich: Reinhardt.Google Scholar
Graumann, C. F., & Moscovici, S. (eds.). (1986). Changing Conceptions of Leadership. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Gregory, L. W., Cialdini, R. B. & Carpenter, K. M. (1982). Self-relevant scenarios as mediators of likelihood estimates and compliance: does imagining make it so? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(1), 89–99.Google Scholar
Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility. Cambridge: Perseus Publishers.Google Scholar
Groh, D. (1986). Collective behaviour from the seventeenth to the twentieth century: change of phenomenon, change of perception, or no change at all? Some preliminary reflections. In Graumann, C. F. & Moscovici, S. (eds.), Changing Conceptions of Crowd, Mind and Behaviour (pp. 143–162). New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Gross, A. G., & Walzer, A. E. (2000). Aristotle’s Rhetoric: A Guide to the Scholarship. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Gurwitch, A. (1957/1964). The Field of Consciousness. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
Gutteling, J. M. (2005). Mazur’s hypothesis on technology controversy and media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 2–41.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1981/1994). The Theory of Communicative Action (vol 1: Reason and rationalisation of society; vol 2: Lifeworld and systems). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (2001). Kommunikatives Handeln und detranszendentalisierte Vernunft. Stuttgart: Reclam Jr.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Hampton, G. J. (2015). Imagining Slaves and Robots in Literature, Film and Popular Culture: Reinventing Yesterday’s Slaves with Tomorrow’s Robots. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Hannemyr, G. (2003). The Internet as hyperbole: a critical examination of adoption rates. The Information Society, 19(2), 111–121.Google Scholar
Hanseth, O., Monteiro, E. & Hatling, M. (1996). Developing information infrastructure: the tension between standardisation and flexibility. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(4), 407–426.Google Scholar
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2005). Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Harlow, H. F., & Zimmermann, R. R. (1958). The development of affective responsiveness in infant monkeys. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 102, 501–509.Google Scholar
Harré, R., & Secord, P. F. (1973). The Explanation of Social Behaviour. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harré, R., & Sammut, G. (2013). What lies between? In Sammut, G., Daanen, P. & Moghaddam, F. M. (eds.), Understanding the Self and Others: Explorations in Intersubjectivity and Interobjectivity (pp. 15–30). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2018). A truth that does not always speak its name: how Hollander and Turowetz’s findings confirm and extend the engaged followership analysis of harm-doing in the Milgram paradigm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 292–300.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1935/1977). Der Ursprung des Kunstwerks. In Gesamtausgabe: Veroeffentlichte Schriften 1914–1970, Band 5 Holzwege. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1944/2012) Erlaeuterungen zu Holderlin’s Dichtung. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1954/1977). The Question concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Helbling, D., Fakas, L. & Viscek, T. (2000). Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature, 407, 28 September, 487–490.Google Scholar
Hertwig, R. (2017). When to consider boosting: some rules for policy makers. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(2), 143–161.Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., & Grune-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and boosting: steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1–14.Google Scholar
Hilgartner, S., & Bock, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: a public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 53–78.Google Scholar
Hindriks, F. A. (2003). A new role for the constitutive rule. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 62(1), 185–208.Google Scholar
Hinds, J., & Joinson, A. (2019). Human and computer personality predictions from digital footprints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(2), 204–211.Google Scholar
Hingst, R. D. (2006). Tuckman’s theory of group development in a call centre context: does it still work? In Fifth Global Conference on Business & Economics Proceedings. Global Conference on Business & Economics, 6–8 July 2006, Cambridge. Access: http://eprints.usq.edu.au.Google Scholar
Hofstaetter, P. R. (1957). Gruppendynamik – Kritik der Massenpsychologie. Hamburg: Rowolt Verlag.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3) 184–200.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16, 7–30Google Scholar
Hollander, M. M. (2015). The repertoire of resistance: non-compliance with directives in Milgram’s obedience experiments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 425–444.Google Scholar
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In Hunt, J. G. & Larson, L. L. (eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81–108.Google Scholar
Hovland, C. I, Janis, I. L. & Kelley, H. (1953). Communication and Persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A. & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experiments in Mass Communication. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hovland, C. I., & Mandell, W. (1952). An experimental comparison of conclusion-drawing by the communicator and by the audience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(3), 581–588.Google Scholar
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635–650.Google Scholar
Howarth, C. S, Campbell, C., Cornish, F., Franks, B., Garcia-Lorenzo, L., Gillespie, A., Gleibs, I. H., Goncalves-Portelinha, I., Jovchelovitch, S., Lahlou, S., Mannell, J. C., Reader, T. W. & Tennant, C. (2013). Insights from societal psychology: a contextual politics of societal change. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1(1), 364–384.Google Scholar
Howarth, C. S, Wagner, W., Magnusson, N. & Sammut, G. (2014). ‘It’s only other people who make me feel black’: acculturation, identity and agency in a multicultural community. Political Psychology, 35(1), 81–95.Google Scholar
Howe, J. (2008). Crowdsourcing: How the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business. London: Random House Business Books.Google Scholar
Janis, I. L. (1954). Personality correlates of susceptibility to persuasion. Journal of Personality, 22(4), 504–518.Google Scholar
Jaspers, K. (1955). Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte. Frankfurt: Fischer Buecherei.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302, 1138–1139.Google Scholar
Jonas, H. (2001). The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Jost, M. G. (2004). Learning by Resistance: An Analysis of Resistance to Change As a Source of Organisational Learning. Unpublished doctoral thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
Jovchelovitch, S. (2007). Knowledge in Context: Representations, Community and Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jurdant, B. (1993). Popularisation as the autobiography of science. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 365–373.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.Google Scholar
Kaplan, A., & Krueger, J. (1999). Compliance after threat: self-affirmation or self-presentation? Current Research in Social Psychology, 4(7), 178–197.Google Scholar
Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, C., & Breinlinger, S. (1996). The Social Psychology of Collective Action: Identity, Injustice and Gender. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2), 197–314.Google Scholar
Kempe, M., Groh, D., & Mauelshagen, F. (eds). (2003). Naturkatastrophen: Beitraege zu ihrer Deutung, Wahrnehmung und Darstellung von der Antike bis ins 20. Jahrhundert. Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. A. (1998). Comparative Rhetoric: A Historical and Cross-Cultural Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kepplinger, H. M. (1995). Individual and institutional impacts upon press coverage of sciences: the case of nuclear power and genetic engineering in Germany. In Bauer, M. W. (ed.), Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology (pp. 357–378). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keren, G. (2013). A tale of two systems: a scientific advance or a theoretical stone soup? Commentary on Evans & Stonovich (2013). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 257–262.Google Scholar
Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2007). Two is not always better than one: a critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 533–550.Google Scholar
Keupp, S., Behne, R. & Rakoczy, H. (2018). The rationality of (over)imitation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(6), 678–687.Google Scholar
Kim, H. S., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? a cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785–800.Google Scholar
Kinder, D. R. (1998). Opinion and action in the realm of politics. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T. & Lindzey, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (vol. 2)(pp. 778–876). Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Kirby, D. A. (2010). The future is now: diegetic prototyping and the role of popular film in generating real-world technological development. Social Studies of Science, 40(1), 41–70.Google Scholar
Kirby, D .A. (2011). Lab Coats in Hollywood: Science, Scientists and Cinema. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kirby, D. A. (2014). Science and technology in film: themes and representations. In Bucchi, M. & Trench, B. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science (2nd ed.)(pp. 97–107). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (2003). Infectious ideas: some preliminary explorations. In In Mendel’s Mirror: Philosophical Reflections on Biology (pp. 213–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, H. K., & Kleinman, D. L. (2002). The social construction of technology: structural considerations. Science, Technology and Human Values, 27(1), 28–52.Google Scholar
Koehler, W. (1930/1975). Gestalt Psychology: An Introduction to New Concepts in Modern Psychology. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
Koffka, K. (1959). The Growth of Mind: An Introduction to Child Psychology. Paterson, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co.Google Scholar
Kracauer, S. (1977). Die Gruppe als Ideentraeger. In Das Ornament der Masse (pp. 123–156). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Kroll, G. (2001). The silent springs of Rachel Carson: mass media and the origins of modern environmentalism. Public Understanding of Science, 10(4), 403–420.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay Epistemics and Human Knowledge: Cognitive and Motivational Bases. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W. (2013). Only one? The default interventionist perspective as a unimodel. Commentary on Evans & Stonovich (2013), Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 242–247.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberative judgement are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118, 97–109.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1999). Persuasion by a single route: a view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry, 10(2), 83–109.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Orehek, E., Dechesne, M. & Pierro, A. (2010). Lay epistemic theory: the motivational, cognitive and social aspects of knowledge formation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(10), 939–950.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. W. & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 861–876.Google Scholar
Kruse, L. (1986). Conceptions of crowds and crowding. In Graumann, C. F. & Moscovici, S. (eds.), Changing Conceptions of Crowd Mind and Behaviour (pp. 117–142). New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1987). The Presence of the Past: Regaining, Portraying and Embodying. Shearman Memorial Lecture, London, University College [manuscript], 23–25 November.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.Google Scholar
Lachlan, R. F., Janik, V. M., & Slater, P. J. B. (2004). The evolution of conformity-enforcing behaviour in cultural communication systems. Animal Behaviour, 68(3), 561–570.Google Scholar
Lahlou, S. (2015). Social representations and social construction: the evolutionary perspective of installation theory. In Sammut, G., Andreouli, E., Gaskell, G. & Valsiner, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations (pp. 193–209). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lahlou, S. (2017). Installation Theory: The Social Construction and Regulation of Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In Bryson, L. (ed.), The Communication of Ideas (pp. 37–51). New York: The Institute for Religious and Social Studies.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2000). When things strike back: a possible contribution of ‘science studies’ to the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 107–123.Google Scholar
Laupa, M., & Turiel, E. (1986). Children’s conceptions of adult and peer authority. Child Development, (2), 405–412.Google Scholar
Lauri, M. A. (2008). Changing public opinion towards organ donation: a social psychological approach to social marketing. In Pietriff, L. O. & Miller, R. V. (eds.), Public Opinion Research Focus (pp. 9–36). New York: Nova Science Publication.Google Scholar
Lauri, M.A. (2015). Social change, social marketing and social representations. In Sammut, G., Andreouli, E., Gaskell, G. & Valsiner, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations (pp. 397–410). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lauri, M. A., & Lauri, J. (2005), Social representations of organ donors and non-donors. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15 (2), 108–119.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P. (1954). How to overcome resistance to change. Harvard Business Review, 32(3), 49–57.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1941). Remarks on administrative and critical communication research. Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, 9, 2–16.Google Scholar
LeBon, G. (1895/1982). The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Atlanta: Cherokee Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, M., Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. (1955). Status factors in pedestrian violation of traffic signals. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 704–706.Google Scholar
LeGoff, J. (2015). Must We Divide History into Periods? New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lem, S. (1968). His Master’s Voice (English, 1983). San Diego: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Leventhal, H., Singer, R. & Jones, S. (1965). Effects of fear and specificity of recommendation upon attitudes and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(1), 20–29Google Scholar
Levitt, B., & March, M. G. (1988). Organisational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–40.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1920/1999) Socializing the taylor system. In Gold, M. (ed.), The Complete Social Scientist: A Kurt Lewin Reader. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1943). Forces behind food habits and methods of change. In The Problem of Changing Food Habits, (Bulletin no. 108 of the National Research Council), 35–65. Baltimore: Lord Baltimore Press.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1948/1999) Group decision and social change. In Gold, M. (ed.), The Complete Social Scientist: A Kurt Lewin Reader. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 271–301.Google Scholar
Lezaun, J., & Calvillo, N. (2013). In the political laboratory: Kurt Lewin’s atmospheres. Journal of Cultural Economy, 7(4), 434–457.Google Scholar
Liebermann, M. D. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: a review of core processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 259–289.Google Scholar
Lindenberg, S. (1987). Common sense and social structure: a sociological view. In Holthoon, Van & Olson, D. R. (eds.), Common Sense: The Foundations for Social Science (pp. 199–215). Lantham, MD: University of America Press.Google Scholar
Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1947/1965). An experimental study of leadership and group life. In Proshansky, H. & Seidenberg, B. (eds.), Basic Studies in Social Psychology (pp. 523–537). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G., Bryce, C., Hagmann, D. & Rajpal, S. (2015). Warning: you are about to be nuded. Behavioural Science & Policy, 1(1), 45–53.Google Scholar
Long, P. O. (2005). The annales and the history of technology. Technology and Culture, 46(1), 177–186.Google Scholar
Lopez, A. C., McDermott, R. & Bang Petersen, M. (2011). States in mind: evolution, coalitional psychology, and international politics. International Security, 36(2), 48–83.Google Scholar
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: what newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2), 226–251.Google Scholar
Lowery, S. A., & DeFleur, M. L. (eds.). (1995) Milestones in Mass Communication Research: Media Effects (3rd ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Luckmann, T. (2005). On the Communicative Construction of Reality. Lecture to the LSE Department of Information Systems, 2 February 2005.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1984). Sociale Systeme: Grundriss einer algemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1989). Vertrauen: ein Mechanismus der Reduktion von sozialer Komplexitaet. Stuttgart: Enke Verlag.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1990). The improbability of communication. In Essays on Self-Reference (pp. 86–98). New York: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1996). Die neuzeitlichen Wissenschaften und die Phaenomenologie. Wien: Picus Verlag.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1998). Familiarity, confidence and trust: problems and alternatives. In Gambetta, D. (ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations (pp. 94–107). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lundmark, S., Gilljam, M. & Dahlberg, S. (2016). Measuring generalised trust: an examination of question wording and the number of scale points. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(1), 26–43.Google Scholar
Lynch, A. (1996). Thought Contagion: How Belief Spreads through Society: The New Science of Memes. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Maass, A., & Clark, R. D. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 9(3), 428–450.Google Scholar
Mackay, C. (1841/1980). Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of the Crowds. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
MacNeil, M. K., & Sherif, M. (1976). Norm change over subject generations as a function of arbitrariness of prescribed norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 762–773.Google Scholar
Maffesoli, M. (2019). Transcendencia imanente. Caderno de Sabado, Coreio de Pova (Porto Alegre, BR), 20 April, p. 4.Google Scholar
Mahajan, V., & Peterson, R. A. (1985). Models of Innovation Diffusion (Series: quantitative applications in the social sciences no. 48). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Malsin, J. (2015). Why Western Media Overlooked a Massacre in Nigeria; CJR, 2 February www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/nigeria_coverage.php#sthash.JnG8eNLJ.dpufGoogle Scholar
Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of paradigm. In Lakotos, I. & Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (pp. 59–90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. (2008). Principia Rhetorica: une théorie générale de l’argumentation. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Mayo, E. (1933). The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mazur, A. (1981). Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies. Journal of Communication, 31(2), 106–115.Google Scholar
Mazur, A., & Lee, J. (1993). Sounding the global alarm: environmental issues in the US national news. Social Studies of Science, 23, 681–720Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1987). Resource mobilization and social movements: a partial theory. In Zald, M. N. & McCarthy, J. D. (eds.), Social Movement in an Organizational Society: Collected Essays (pp. 15–48). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
McCombs, M., & Reynolds, A. (2009). How the news shapes our civic agenda. In Bryant, J. & Oliver, M. B. (eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Practice (pp. 1–16). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 1)(pp. 191–229). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (3rd ed.)(pp. 233–346). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
McGuire, W. J. (1986). The vicissitudes of attitudes and similar representational constructs in twentieth century psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 89–130.Google Scholar
McQuail, D., & Windahl, S. (1996). Communication Models for the Study of Mass Communication (2nd ed.) London: Longman.Google Scholar
Meeus, W. H. J., & Raaijmakers, Q. A. W. (1995). Obedience in modern society: the Utrecht studies. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3), 155–175.Google Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945/1962). Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge & Kegan.Google Scholar
Metzger, W. (1940/1975). Psychologie – Die Entwicklung ihrer Grundannahmen seit der Einfuehrung des Experiments (5th ed.). Darmstadt: Steinkopff Verlag.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
Miller, J. M., Saunders, K. L. & Farhart, C. E. (2015) Conspiracy endorsement as motivated reasoning: the moderating roles of political knowledge and trust. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 824–844.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1974/1992). A framework for representing knowledge. In Collins, A. & Smith, E. E. (eds.), Cognitive Science. Burlington, MA: Morgan-Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Moghaddam, F. M. (2003). Interobjectivity and culture. Culture and Psychology, 9(3), 221–232.Google Scholar
Moghaddam, F. M. (2013). The Psychology of Dictatorship. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Moghaddam, F. M. (2016). The Psychology of Democracy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Mokyr, J. (1990). The Levers of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Monaco, J. (1981). How to Read a Film: The Art, Technology, Language, History and Theory of Film and Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, M., Shanahan, J. & Signorelli, N. (2009). Growing up with television: cultivation processes. In Bryant, J. & Oliver, M. B. (eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Practice (pp. 34–59). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1961/2008). Psychoanalysis: Its image and Its Public. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1985). The Age of the Crowd – A Historical Treatise on Mass Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S., & Doise, W. (1994). Conflict and Consensus: A General Theory of Collective Decisions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S., Doise, W. & Dulong, R. (1972). Studies in group decision II: differences of positions, differences of opinion and group polarization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2(4), 385–399.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S., Lage, E. & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32(4), 365–380.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S., & Personnaz, B. (1980). Studies in social influence V: minority influence and conversion behavior in a perceptual task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(3), 270–282.Google Scholar
Moskowitz, G. B., Skurnik, I. & Galinsky, A. D. (1999). The history of dual-process notions and the future of preconscious control. In Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y. (eds.), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 12–36). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Muchnik, L., Aral, S. & Taylor, S. J. (2013). Social influence bias: a randomized experiment. Science, 341, 647–651. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1240466Google Scholar
Mueller, J. W. (2016). What Is Populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. (1980). When rigidity does not fail: individualization and psychologization as resistances to the diffusion of minority innovations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 43–61.Google Scholar
Muller, J. Z. (2018). The Tyranny of Metrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nai, A., Coma, F. M. I. & Maier, J. (2019). Donald Trump, populism, and the age of extremes: comparing personality traits and campaigning styles of Trump and other leaders worldwide. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 49(3), 609–643.Google Scholar
Nature. (2019). Beyond the periodic table – the past, present and future of chemistry’s iconic chart. Nature, 565, no. 7741, pp. 535 & 551–565.Google Scholar
Nisbet, M. C., & Myers, T. (2007). The polls – trends: twenty years of public opinion about global warming. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(3), 444–470.Google Scholar
Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D. & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perception of science. Communication Research, 29(5), 585–608.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 1, 43–51.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. (1998). The Invisible Computer: Why Good Products Can Fail, the Personal Computer Is So Complex, and Information Appliances Are the Solution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Nye, J. S. (1991). Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Neue Zuercher Zeitung (NZZ). (2019). Folio Magazin Thema ‘Ausserirdische’, no 336, July. Zurich.Google Scholar
O’Donahoe, B. (2011). The Poetics of Homecoming: Heidegger, Homelessness and Homecoming Venture. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.Google Scholar
Ortega, Y., & Gasset, J. (1930/1956). Der Aufstand der Massen. Hamburg: Rowolt Verlag.Google Scholar
Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (eds.). (2003) How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Packer, D. J. (2008). Identifying systematic disobedience in Milgram’s obedience experiments: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 301–304.Google Scholar
Paicheler, G. (1977). Norms and attitude change II: the phenomenon of bipolarization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 5–14.Google Scholar
Paicheler, G. (1988). The Psychology of Social Influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pakulski, J. (1993). Mass social movements and social class. International Sociology, 8, 131–158.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1963). On the concept of influence. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 1, 37–62.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(6), 421–426.Google Scholar
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34(3), 566–593.Google Scholar
Pérez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (1987). Paradoxical effects of categorization in minority influence: when being an out-group is an advantage. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17(2), 157–169.Google Scholar
Perloff, R. M. (2014). The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century (5th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Peters, H. P. (2014). Scientists as public experts. In Bucchi, M. & Trench, B. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science (2nd ed.)(pp. 70–82). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Peyton Young, H. (2009). Innovation diffusion in heterogeneous populations: contagion, social influence and social learning. American Economics Review, 99(5), 1988–1924.Google Scholar
Phillet-Shore, D. (2010). Making way and making sense: including newcomers in interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(2), 152–175.Google Scholar
Piff, P. K., Dietze, P., Feinberg, M., Stancato, D. M. & Keltner, D. (2015). Awe, the small self and prosocial behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 883–899.Google Scholar
Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In Bijker, T., Hughes, T. P. & Pinch, T. J. (eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (pp. 9–50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pottage, A. (2013). Ius resistendi: resistance as reflexivity. In Bauer, M. W., Harré, R. & Jensen, C. (eds.), Resistance and the Practice of Rationality (pp. 262–281). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.Google Scholar
Pras, A., Schober, M. F. & Spiro, N. (2017). What about their performance do free jazz improvisers agree upon? a case study. Frontiers of Psychology, 8, 966. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00966.Google Scholar
Pratkanis, A. R. (2007). Social influence analysis: an index of tactics. In Pratkanis, A. R. (ed.), The Science of Social Influence: Advances and Future Progress (Frontiers of Social Psychology)(pp. 17–82). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Prinz, W. (2012). Open Minds: The Social Making of Agency and Intentionality: Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Psaltis, C. (2015). Communication and the microgenetic construction of knowledge. In Sammut, G., Andreouli, E., Gaskell, G. & Valsiner, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations (pp. 113–127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rampton, S., & Stauber, J. (2003). Weapons of Mass Deception. New York: J. P. Tarcher-Penguin.Google Scholar
Reddy, M. J. (1993). The conduit metaphor: a case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, E. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 164–201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reicher, S. (1984). The St Pauls riot: an explanation of the limits of crowd action in terms of a social identity model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 1–21.Google Scholar
Reicher, S. (1996). The battle of Westminster: developing the social identity model of crowd behaviour in order to explain the initiation and development of collective conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 115–134.Google Scholar
Reicher, S. (1996). The crowd’s century: reconciling practical success with theoretical failure. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 535–553.Google Scholar
Reicher, S. (2011) Mass action and mundane reality: an argument for putting crowd analysis at the centre of the social sciences. Contemporary Social Science, 6(3), 433–449.Google Scholar
Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2011). After shock? towards a social identity explanation of the Milgram obedience studies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 163–169.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. (1999). Visions of Technology: A Century of Vital Debate about Machines, Systems and the Human World. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Richter, L., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1999). Motivated search for common ground: need for closure effects on audience design in interpersonal communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(9), 1101–1114.Google Scholar
Riesch, H., (2010). Theorizing boundary work as representation and identity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(4), 452–473.Google Scholar
Rochat, F., & Modigliani, A. (1995). The ordinary quality of resistance: from Milgram’s laboratory to the village of LeChambon. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3), 195–210.Google Scholar
Rock, I. (1990). The frame of reference. In Rock, I. (ed.), The Legacy of Solomon Asch (pp. 243–270). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (1997). A History of Communication Study: A Biographical Approach. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Romeo, A., Tesio, V., Castelnuevo, G. & Castelli, L. (2017). Attachment style and chronic pain: towards an interpersonal model of pain. Frontiers of Psychology, 8, 284. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00284.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. & Carpentier, F. D. (2009). Media priming: an updated synthesis. In Bryant, J. & Oliver, M. B. (eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Practice (pp. 75–93). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Psychology (vol. 10) (pp. 173–220). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. London: Pinter & Martin.Google Scholar
Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996). Naive realism in everyday life: implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In Brown, T., Reed, E. S. & Turiel, E. (eds.), Values and Knowledge (pp. 103–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rothman, S. (1990). Journalists, broadcasters, scientific experts and public opinion. Minerva, 28(2), 117–133.Google Scholar
Runciman, D. (2019). Where Power Stops: The Making and Unmaking of Presidents and Prime Ministers. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (2010). Authority and the Individual, BBC Reith Lecture of 1949. London: Routledge Classics.Google Scholar
Sabini, J., & Silver, M. (1983). Dispositional vs situational interpretations of Milgram’s obedience experiments: the fundamental attributional error. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 13(2), 147–154.Google Scholar
Sagi, E., Diermeier, D. & Kaufmann, S. (2013). Identifying issue frames in text. PLoS One, 8(7), e69185.Google Scholar
Sajama, S., & Kamppinen, M. (1987). A Historical Introduction to Phenomenology. London: Crome Helm.Google Scholar
Salomon, G. (ed.). (1993). Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sammut, G. (2011). Civic solidarity: the negotiation of identities in modern societies. Papers on Social Representations, 20(1), 4.1–4.24.Google Scholar
Sammut, G. (2015). Attitudes, social representations and points of view. In Sammut, G., Andreouli, E., Gaskell, G. & Valisner, J. (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations (pp. 96-112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sammut, G., Andreouli, E., Gaskell, G. & Valsiner, J. (eds.). (2015) The Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sammut, G., Bauer, M. & Jovchelovitch, S. (2018). Knowledge and experience: Interobjectivity, subjectivity and social relations. In Rosa, A. & Valsiner, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 49–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sammut, G., Bezzina, F. & Sartawi, M. (2015). The spiral of conflict: naïve realism and the black sheep effect in attributions of knowledge and ignorance. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21(2), 289–294.Google Scholar
Sammut, G., Daanen, P. & Moghaddam, F. M. (eds.). (2013) Understanding the Self and Others: Explorations in Intersubjectivity and Interobjectivity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sammut, G., Daanen, P. & Sartawi, M. (2010). Interobjectivity: representations and artefacts in cultural psychology. Culture & Psychology, 16(4), 451–463.Google Scholar
Sammut, G., & Howarth, C. S. (2014). Social representations. In Teo, T. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology (pp. 1799–1802). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Sammut, G., Jovchelovitch, S., Buhagiar, L. J., Veltri, G. A., Redd, R. & Salvatore, S. (2018). Arabs in Europe: arguments for and against integration. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 24(4), 398–406.Google Scholar
Sammut, G., & Sartawi, M. (2012). Perspective-taking and the attribution of ignorance. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 42(2), 181–200.Google Scholar
Sammut, G., Tsirogianni, S. & Moghaddam, F. M. (2013). Interobjective social values. In Sammut, G., Daanen, P. & Moghaddam, F. M. (eds.), Understanding the Self and Others: Explorations in Intersubjectivity and Interobjectivity (pp. 161–174). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sammut, G., Tsirogianni, S. & Wagoner, B. (2012). Representations from the past: social relations and the devolution of social representations. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Sciences, 46(4), 493–511.Google Scholar
Sanders, C. (2007). Using social network analysis to explore social movements: a relational approach. Social Movement Studies, 6(3), 227–243.Google Scholar
Schaffer, S. (1988). Astronomers mark time: discipline and the personal equation. Science in Context, 2(1), 115–145.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Scheler, M. (1926/1960). Die Wissensformen und die Gesellschaft. Bern: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103–121.Google Scholar
Schiffmann, H. R. (1976). Sensation and Perception: An Integrated Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Schmidle, R. (2013). In the desert with Lawrence of Arabia. In Sammut, G., Daanen, P. & Moghaddam, F. M. (eds.), Understanding the Self and Others: Explorations in Inter-subjectivity and Inter-objectivity (pp. 175–189). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, A. (1830/2004). The Art of Always Being Right: The 38 Subtle Ways to Win When You Are Defeated (Grayling, A. C., ed.). London: Gibson Square Books.Google Scholar
Schutz, A. (1944). The stranger: an essay in social psychology. American Journal of Sociology, 49(6), 499–507.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Studying value: personal adventure, future directions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(2), 307–319.Google Scholar
Scott, J. C. (1987). Resistance without protest and without organization: peasant opposition to the Islamic Zakat and the Christian Tithe. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 29, 417–453.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2005). What is an institution? Journal of Institutional Economics, 1(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Seed, D. (2011). Science Fiction – A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (2006). The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity. London: Picador.Google Scholar
Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 257–283.Google Scholar
Shamir, B., House, R. J. & Arthur, M. (1992). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E. & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. (2008). Politics and publics. In Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, A., Lynch, M. & Wajcman, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (3rd ed.)(pp. 433–448). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27(187), 23–46.Google Scholar
Sherif, M. (1937). An experimental approach to the study of attitudes. Sociometry, 1(1/2), 90–98.Google Scholar
Shrum, L. J. (2009). Media consumption and perception of social reality. In Bryant, J. & Oliver, M. B. (eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Practice (pp. 50–73). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: a social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56(4), 319–331.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 62(2), 129–138.Google Scholar
Sloman, S., & Fernbach, P. (2017). The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
Sloterdijk, P. (2000). Die Verachtung der Massen: Versuch ueber Kulturkaempfe in der modernen Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Smith, G. (2001). Group development: a review of the literature and a commentary on future research directions. Group Facilitation, 3(spring), 14–45.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1990). The epidemiology of beliefs. In Fraser, C. & Gaskell, G. (eds.), The Social Psychology of Widespread Beliefs (pp. 25–44). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Spring, P. (2015). Great Walls and Linear Barriers. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military Books.Google Scholar
Staerkle, C. (2015). Social order and political legitimacy. In Sammut, G., Andreouli, E., Gaskell, G. & Valsiner, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations (pp. 280–294). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Starker, S. (1991). Evil Influences: Crusades against the Mass Media. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Steffen, W., Persson, A., Deutsch, L., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Richardson, K., Crumley, C., Crutzen, P., Folke, C., Gordon, L., Molina, M., Ramanthan, V., Rockstrom, J., Scheffer, M., Schellnhuber, H. J. & Svedin, U. (2011). The anthropocene: from global change to planetary stewardship. AMBIO, 40(7), 739–761. DOI 10.1007/s13280–011-0185-x.Google Scholar
Stern, P. (2000). Psychology and the science of human-environment interaction. American Psychologist, 55, 523–530.Google Scholar
Stott, C., & Reicher, S. (1998). Crowd action as intergroup process: introducing the police perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 509–529.Google Scholar
Strodthoff, G. G., Hawkins, R. P. & Schoenfeld, A. C. (1985). Media roles in a social movement: a model of ideology diffusion. Journal of Communication, 35, 134–153.Google Scholar
Suchmann, L., Trigg, R. & Blomberg, J. (2002). Working artefacts: ethnomethods of the prototype. British Journal of Sociology, 53(2), 163–179.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2016). The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of the Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few. London: Abacus.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S. (eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Tarde, G. (2010). On Communication and Social Influence: Selected Papers [Clark, T. N. ed.]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. (2012). The Artificial Ape: How Technology Changed the Course of Human Evolution. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Tchakhotine, S. (1952). Le viol des foules par la propagande politique. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Tenner, E. (1997). Why Things Bite Back: Predicting the Problems of Progress. London: Forth Estate.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tichenor, P., Donohue, G. & Olen, C. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth of knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 159–170.Google Scholar
Tie, X. (2011). In the Name of the Masses: Conceptualisation and Representation of the Crowd in Early 20th Century China. Humanities PhD, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Précis of simple heuristics that make us smart. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 727–741.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Carpenter, M. (2007). Shared intentionality. Developmental Science, 10(1), 121–125.Google Scholar
Tsuda, T. (2003). Strangers in the Ethnic Homeland: Japanese Brazilian Return Migration in Transnational Perspective. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.Google Scholar
Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Management, 2(4), 419–427.Google Scholar
Turkle, S. (1984). The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Turkle, S. (2016). Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in the Digital Age. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Turner, D. F. & Krauss, F. (1978). Fallible indicators of the subjective state of the nation. American Psychologist, 33, 456–470.Google Scholar
Valente, T. W., & Rogers, E. M. (1995). The origins and development of the diffusion of innovation paradigm as an example of scientific growth. Science Communication, 16(3), 242–273.Google Scholar
van Holthoon, F. L., & Olson, D. R. (eds.). (1987). Common Sense: The Foundations for Social Science. Lantham, MD: University of America Press.Google Scholar
van Lente, H., Spitters, C. & Peine, A. (2015). Comparing technological hype cycles: towards a theory. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80, 1615–1628.Google Scholar
VonMatt, P. (2012). Der Heimkehrer – eine Skizze. In das Kalb vor der Gotthardpost (ed.), Zur Literatur und Politik der Schweiz (pp. 273–276). Munchen: Hanser.Google Scholar
Wagner, W., Elejabarrieta, F. & Lahnsteiner, I. (1995). Objectification by metaphor in the social representation of conception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 671–688.Google Scholar
Wagner, W., Sen, R., Permanadeli, R. & Howarth, C. S. (2012). The veil and Muslim women’s identity: cultural pressures and resistance to stereotyping. Culture & Psychology, 18(4), 521–541.Google Scholar
Wall, P. D. (1979). On the relation of injury to pain: the John J. Bonica Lecture Pain, 6, 253–264.Google Scholar
Walsh, L. (2013). Scientists As Prophets: A Rhetorical Genealogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walster, E., & Festinger, L. (1962). The effectiveness of ‘overheard’ persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(6), 395–402.Google Scholar
Ward, E., Ganis, G. & Bach, P. (2019). Spontaneous vicarious perception of the content of another’s visual perspective. Current Biology. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.01.046.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1968). The types of legitimate domination. In Roth, G. & Wittich, C. (eds.), Economy and Society (vol. 3) (pp. 212–216). New York: Bedminster.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1978/1922). Economy and Society (Roth, G. & Wittich, C. eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Weinert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovation: a conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 297–326.Google Scholar
Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgement to Calculation. San Francisco: WH Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1912). Experimentelle Studien ueber das Sehen von Bewegung. Zeitschrift fuer Psychologie, 61, 161–265.Google Scholar
Whiten, A., Horner, V., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2005). Conformity to cultural norms of tool use in chimpanzees. Nature, 437, 737–740.Google Scholar
Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism: consequences and coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 71–75.Google Scholar
Winston, B. (1998). Media Technology and Society: A History from the Telegraph to the Internet. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S. & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: a meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 323–345.Google Scholar
Woolley, J. T. (2000). Using media-based data in studies of politics. American Journal of Politics, 44 (1), 156–173.Google Scholar
Wyatt, S., Milojević, S., Park, H. W. & Leydesdorff, L. (2017). The intellectual and practical contributions of scientometrics to STS. In Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. & Smith, L.-Doerr, (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (4th ed.)(pp. 87–112). Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yardi, S., & Boyd, D. (2010). Dynamic debates: an analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316–327. http://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380011.Google Scholar
Zaller, J. R. (1992). The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zomeren, M., Potmes, T. & Spears, R. (2008). Towards an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535.Google Scholar
Zubek, J. (ed.). (1969). Sensory Deprivation: Fifteen Years of Research. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, E. (2015). Media coverage of Charlie Hebdo and the Baga massacre: a study in contrasts. MIT Centre for Civic Media [internet note published 13 January 2015, 8.38pm GMT].Google Scholar