This paper aims to show that propaganda and persuasion are underlined by two forms of communication, one aiming at a monologue, and the other aiming at a dialogue, which in practice do often coexist, with one or the other prevailing at a particular time. In order to understand propaganda or persuasion, we need to study them as part of the systems (e.g. institutions, organizations, communication) to which they belong, rather than treat them as decontextualized phenomena. Both propaganda and persuasion involve (...) conscious and unconscious communicative processes. Nevertheless, the majority of social psychology experiments still assume that the experimenter should deal with phenomena only at a conscious level. In dialogical communication, however, latent and unconscious thought, inner dialogue, and ‘the depth of consciousness’, are presupposed to be unavoidable aspects of communication, whether it is concerned with influence processes, persuasion or social representations. They all are established through cultural-historical processes and determine symbolic meanings of social communication of the present and future. (shrink)

This editor’s introduction to the issue recalls the main methodological approaches to persuasion, rhetoric and propaganda in social psychology. It summarizes the classical theories issued from Hovland’s Yale Communication Program in experimental social psychology, like dissonance, attitude changes, inoculation approach, elaboration likelihood model. Yet there are, today, competing perspectives on persuasion, which turn attention to the meaning of persuasion in modern complex societies, in technology and the media. These perspectives place emphasis not on changes of attitudes, but on communication, social (...) influence and group processes. It is shown that the collection of articles in this issue brings out these diverse approaches in social psychology. Broadly, it encompasses social psychological studies based on the research of attitudes and attitude changes on the one hand, and those based on the studies of influence and communication on the other. (shrink)

In the field of psychology, the topic of everyday life as a specific subject of inquiry has been afforded little attention. Indeed, everyday life has recently been analyzed mainly in psychological studies that examine people's ways of behaving and thinking when they act in situations termed as mundane and ordinary. These studies are mainly carried out in two fields of social psychology which we refer to in general terms as Social Cognition and Social Representation Theory. The aim of this paper (...) is to examine how both these fields treat some of the features commonly attributed to everyday life. In particular, the features of familiarization, continuity and stability over time and automaticity are discussed in order to try to figure out meeting points between the two fields mentioned. (shrink)

The distinction between the reified universe of science and the consensual universe of common sense introduced by Serge Moscovici in the Psychoanalysis and reiterated in further texts always gave rise to debate and puzzled interrogations.In the present text it is argued that for Serge Moscovici there is both a discontinuity and continuity between the two fields of science and common sense although at different levels of analysis.They would be discontinuous at the operative theoretical level corresponding to the logic of verification (...) in the sense of Popper. Truth and truthfulness are not the same. But there would be continuity at the metatheoretical thematic level, where either scientists or lay people seem to follow the same non conscious insightful processes enabling them to look beyond the empirical observables as well as beyond the traditional beliefs and common places. (shrink)