1

Social Representation
Khushi Deegwal
Department of Psychology, University of Delhi
PSY 103: Advanced Social Psychology
Roshan Lal
15 October 2024
2

Introduction
Social psychology is a scientific study that deals with social reality. It includes

explanations to which we immediately have recourse in order to explain and understand the

world around us. Everyone around us tries to explain and understand environment in a

predictable and more controllable way. This environment, however, is comprised of countless

situations and events, and a multitude of people and groups. In order to understand and make

sense of environment, we have to depict it as something streamlined, predictable, and

familiar. For instance, in India, Ayurveda is offered as a holistic and an ancient form of

medicine which helps people relate to modern health practices in the context of traditional

wisdom. This collective belief of ayurveda simplifies the understanding of health and well-

being.

The theory of social representations was first formulated by Serge Moscovici in 1961.

Social representation concerns the content of everyday thinking and the stock of ideas that

give coherence to our religious beliefs, political ideas and the connections we create as

spontaneously as we breathe. They make it possible for us to classify persons and objects, to

compare and explain behaviors and to objectify them as part of our social setting (Moscovici

1988: 214). These representations are socially and culturally defined and rooted through the

institutions of family, mass media, and educational systems within which people live. It

captures rationally as well as irrationally, which permits contradictions and variations in the

social and cultural contexts. Thus, it makes these representations flexible and inclusive of

different perspectives.

With everyday contradictions and variations, how does collectively shared social

cognitions quality as social representations? To deal with this, Moscovici makes a distinction

between hegemonic representations, emancipated representations, and polemic

representations. Hegemonic representations are those which are shared by most of the

members of a political party, a nation, or other structured macro unit. These representations

are uniform and prevail in all symbolic or affective practices (Moscovici, 1988: 221). For

instance, politicians generally agree that climate change is a severe problem, the media

reporting is dominated by certainty about the existence of anthropogenic climate change

(Olausson, 2009), and the public at large has adopted the same view (Berglez, Höijer &

Olausson, 2009). Emancipated representations refers to subgroups that creates their own

experience of health and illness. For instance, subgroups like yoga practitioners create their

own understanding of wellness. They integrate spiritual and physical health concepts distinct

from conventional medicine. Lastly, Polemic representations are related to social conflicts,

struggles between groups, and controversies in a society. These representations are

determined by “antagonistic relations” and “intended to be mutually exclusive” (Moscovici,

1988: 221). For instance, debate on immigration often represents polemic representations.

However, these classification into three categories is somewhat vague as ideas and social

thinking complex and heterogeneous.

Social representations are heterogeneous, mobile, and fluid. As people continually

interact and communicate within their communities, they reconstruct social reality and share

a common understanding of the world. Instead of forming rigid structures, these

representations adapt and change reflecting the diversity of individual and collective

experiences.

Origin

There exists a link between the concept of social representations by Moscovici and

Durkheim’s concept “collective representations”. It refers to the common ways of conceiving,

thinking about and evaluating social realities. However, according to Moscovici (2002), the
4

concept of collective representations is too static in relation to how we should understand

contemporary society. It does neither catch the dynamics of and changeable character, nor the

variability and plurality of social cognitions of the age in which we now live. Moscovici, in

order to incorporate all this fragments therefore suggests the new concept “social

representation”. As pointed out by Markova (2003:121), social representations can be

regarded even as “thoughts in movement” developing through communication.

Background
Social representation (SR) was developed by Serge Moscovici in 1961 as a

psychological approach articulating individual thinking and feeling with collective interaction

and communication. SRs are thought of being symbolic structures that result from media and

human contact. They are the manner in which people think, relate to one another and mould

social objects in their interactions with the surrounding environment.

Serge Moscovici initially presented his theories in a French language book titled “La

psychanalyse son image et son public”, marking the beginning of the first period of his work

(1961-1984). According to the theory, social and cognitive variables played a role in the

development and organization of SRs. They are accompanied by certain communication

modalities that express the ideologies and identities of the communicators. These elements

combined make up common sense. During this time, Moscovici and others expanded the

theoretical framework of social representation theory to incorporate the concept of

consensual versus reified domains. A reified sphere of communication is governed by

institutionalized rules, whereas a consensual domain is defined by the free exchange of

attitudes and opinions. Additionally, Moscovici formulated a cognitive polyphasia process,

which is defined as the tendency for people to think differently and contradictorily about the

same thing depending on the social context in which they find themselves.
5

The publication of a book in 1984, edited by Robert Farr and Moscovici, was the first

book-length compilation of publications on Social Representations (SRT). Between 1979 and

1992, the field experienced growth, with the establishment of the journal Papers on Social

Representations and the initiation of International Conferences. This led to the development

of various theoretical subfields, including individual microgenesis, structural theory, socially

beneficial features, dialogical perspectives, and large-scale themata. The years following

2000 marked a period of normalization, with SRT being published in dedicated handbooks

and monographs.

Theoretical Review
Social representations theory (SRT) shows how collective cognitions are produced

and transformed through communication. There are different approaches to understand how

shared knowledge and beliefs are formed and structured within aspects of social

representations. It includes how they emerge, evolve, and influence social dynamics.

The Sociogenetic Model

Moscovici (1961) suggested that the emergence of a social representations always

coincides with the emergence of an unprecedented situations. These events implies that

information about it is limited, incomplete, or widely spread throughout the different social

groups involved in the emergence, it was known as dispersion of information. Thereby, it

disrupts the normal course of things and motivates intense cognitive activity to understand,

control, or defend it. It is known as inference pressure phenomenon. As a result, individuals

deal with information on the objects or the situation selectively, focusing on particular

aspects. It is according to their expectations and the orientations of the groups, the

phenomenon is known as focalization. These three phenomena are based on two major

processes: objectification and anchoring.

Objectification

The way in which a new object, through communication about it, will be rapidly

simplified, imaged, and diagrammed is known as objectification. It consists of selecting

particular characteristics of the object, often based on cultural and normative criteria and

creating a concrete image that is easier to communicate. These selected elements form

together and is called figurative core, according to Moscovici. It is a simplified version of the

object that replaces the complex reality.

While studying the emergence of the representations of psychoanalysis in the French

society, Moscovici observed that figurative core like the conscious, the unconscious,

repression, and complexes were extracted from their original theoretical context. Eventually

naturalized in the sense that individuals view them as concrete and observable elements of the

psychic apparatus.

Anchoring

This process of anchoring completes objectification process. It means the ways an

objects finds its place in a pre-existing individual and group thought system. Depending on

values, beliefs, and existing knowledge, the new object is categorized. It is assimilated into

forms that is already known and into familiar categories. Along with it, it will become

identified with a network of already present meaning to evaluate. Thus, the object sill be

interpreted in various ways depending on social groups. It thereby reflects, a group’s identity

as it fits new phenomena into their pre-existing value systems.

An innovative mix from the contact of the new object with the old object creates new

object reactivating habitual frameworks of thought in order to incorporate it. For example:

assimilating new phenomena like psychoanalytic concepts into existing categories like mental

health. It allows people to make sense of them within familiar frameworks.

Social representation are stable and dynamic, it adapts to new information while

preserving the group’s existing beliefs. Subsequent research by Denise Jodelet (1989),

showed how social representations emerge through language and discourse. It explores how

communication helps shape and maintain these representations.

The Structural Model

Based on Moscovici’s concept of objectification and Asch’s work on social perception

(1946), Jean Claude Abric and Claude Flament proposed the structural model. It suggests that

social representations are structured around a central core i.e., a set of stable, key elements

that define the representation’s essence and ensure its consistency across different contexts

(Abric, 1993, 2001). Surrounding this concept, there are peripheral elements. They are

flexible and can adapt to various social contexts. They allow for individual interpretations

while remaining connected to the central core.

The central system provides stability and a common framework for the group. It

allows members to recognize each other and differentiate themselves from other groups.

Whereas, the peripheral system offers adaptability. It enables the representation to evolve as

social contexts change. This model shows a significant shift from viewing social

representations merely as “spheres of opinions” to recognizing them as structured entities

with identifiable components. It allows to study functioning of social representations within

various contexts and it’s relation to individual cognition.

The approach offers the formulation of hypotheses regarding how social

representations adapt to changing environments. It provides a structure for experimental

methods in studying social representations and enhances the understanding of their dynamics

and structures.

The Sociodynamic Model

The model was proposed by Willem Doise, grounded on the anchoring process

defined by Moscovici. This model aimed to reconcile the structural complexity of social

representations and their insertion in plural social and ideological contexts. The

representations, according to Doise, were understood within social dynamic through

communication in which social actors engage in interactive situations. This social dynamics

when around important issues, arouses specific position taking which fundamentally depends

upon people’s social memberships and situations within which they are produced. It generates

an apparent multiplicity of position taking.

According to Doise, social interactions have symbolic characteristics and therefore

defining everyone’s identity. The representations serve as a common “reference point” that

organize social interactions. It guides individuals in their position taking and behaviour

within a group. The model assigns role to representations. On the one hand, principles for

position taking provide framework for individuals to express their opinions on issues. On the

hand, principles for organizing differences help organize individual differences around the

central issues of debate.

The sociodynamic approach introduces a new way of thinking of the question of

consensus in the social representation theory. As per Moscovici, the consensus resulted from

the sharing of certain beliefs within a given group through communication. Whereas, Doise

considered consensuses more as anchoring points for a social representation anchored in the

collective realities of social groups i.e., to understand relation between cognitive elements

and social positions. The model therefore, encourages a multifaceted study of social

representation highlighting the link between cognitive elements, individual positions, and

group dynamics (Doise et al., 1992).

In the 1980s, Social Representation Theory (SRT) gained quite significant acceptance,

particularly in Latin America where social and political crises were addressed using it. The

theory gained prominence in the UK due to the findings of researchers like Miles Hewstone

and Robert Farr, and it was linked to social identity by researchers like Gerard Duveen and

Caroline Howarth. SRT's emphasis on intergroup processes and modern psychology's

emphasis on intraindividual cognition diverged, which made it difficult for the theory to take

off in the United States despite its widespread appeal.

Functions and characteristics

Firstly, the representations conventionalize objects, persons, and events we meeting by giving

them specific from, localize them to a category, and gradually establish them as distinct and

shared cognitions. This process leads to help society make sense of the world by establishing

conventions. Secondly, social representations are imposed by social structures and tradition.

While individuals incorporate them into their minds, they can also rethink and transform

these collective cognitions. It shows a dynamic link between the individual and collective,

past and present, and known and unknown.

There are several hallmarks that social representations. It shows how social

representations are deeply intertwined with human cognition, social interaction, and

behaviour. The following table 1 enlists various characteristics representing concept of social

representation:

Table 1: Characteristics of social representation

Basis Social Representation

Reference to objects The concept revolves around tangible or

intangible social objects, concepts, or

phenomena. It helps individuals

understand their world by providing basis

for collective thinking.

Make absent things present It allows people to make abstract things

present into everyday thinking. It

influences people’s perspectives on what is

real. For instance, concept like justice is

not physically present but exist strongly in

people’s mind.

Figurative and symbolic aspects To make sense of the social environment,

the knowledge is presented into symbolic

forms. This helps simplify complex ideas

into images that hold specific meaning.

For example: the heart is represented as a

symbol of love.

Psychological constructions of reality They are actively constructed by people

based on their interactions, experiences,

and the collective knowledge. The reality

of representations is interpreted,

reinterpreted, and transformed across time.

For example: the representation of mental

health has shifted over time.

Social character “Social representations” as the name

signifies, are formed through group

interactions aligning with the group’s

needs or cultural practices.

Common sense These representations represent common

sense knowledge which is created through

everyday life and shared experiences. For

example: the idea that drinking hot ginger

tea help relieve cough.

Affective dimensions People’s emotional or affective state

influence how they perceive, interpret, and

build knowledge. This can affect the

creation of these representations, such as

the fear of disease.

Guide for behaviour They act as a guiding principles for how

individuals and groups behave in society.

Critical Evaluation
The concept of social representation helps to unravel various pieces of understanding

everyday social environment. From understanding how groups in society collectively

construct and share knowledge to dynamic and evolving nature of ever-changing societal

representations. Social representations acts a reference point for individuals to navigate social

interactions and framing their identities. However, it comes along with limitations suggesting

to focus more on how social representations can reinforce social inequalities, making it an

effective conceptualization for empowerment.

To understand better, let’s shed light on the limitations of social representation.

Firstly, critics often point out that theory lacks conceptual clarity. There is flexibility in the

theory that can sometimes lead to vagueness, and thereby making it difficult to operationalize

the concept clearly. Jahoda (1988) suggested that there needs to be clearer definitions to

avoid confusion and overgeneralization. Secondly, even though the concept highlights the

presence of power but it has been criticized for not sufficiency addressing how power

imbalances shape the formation and dissemination of social representations. The theory

overlooks the role of conflict, domination, and oppression in shaping what becomes accepted

knowledge in society (Howarth, 2006). Thirdly, the focus is laid on shared beliefs and

collective consensus rather than the conflicts and struggles between groups. Thus, there needs

to be an emphasis on how social groups actively contest and reshape dominant

representations, particularly in the face of social inequalities. Fourthly, despite the theory

providing rich conceptual framework, it lacks standardized methodologies for studying social

representations. Lastly, critics argue that social representation theory sometimes treats

common sense knowledge as fixed and static. Billing ( 1988) indicated that SRT needs to

better explore how scientific, everyday, and cultural knowledge intersect and are

continuously contested, mainly in areas like public health wherein experts and public

opinions often clash.

Social Representation Theory (SRT) provided significant contributions. Additionally,

addressing the limitations can strengthen its applicability. SRT has broad applicability across

disciplines and explains how societies construct and disseminate knowledge.

Conclusion
The framework of social representation formulated by Serge Moscovici in 1961

gained contributions to understand the ways in which societies form, share, and disseminate

collective knowledge. The emphasis is made on social interactions in shaping everyday

thinking to navigate individuals and groups social identities. Additionally, it has been

instrumental in fields such as health, education, and media providing a flexible way to

explore how concepts are communicated, institutionalized, and challenged within societies.

Thus, it helps guide social behaviour.

While the concept provided strong understanding, it faced several criticism addressing

to refine the concept further. Critics highlights that it overlooks power dynamics. The theory

focuses on consensus and shared beliefs while underscoring the significant conflict,

resistance, and the role of marginalized groups in reshaping dominant narratives. Alongside,

there also lack of methodological clarity in how representations can be studied empirically

across various contexts. Thus, it creates challenge to measure these representations evolve

over time.

To maintain the relevance and expand of the concept it is very necessary to address

the limitations. By incorporating a stronger focus on power relations, conflicts, and the ways

in which representations are contested and transformed. Despite that, social representation

still remains a valuable tool to examine the dynamic interplay between individual cognition

and collective societal processes.

References

Höijer, B. (2011). Social Representations Theory. Nordicom Review/NORDICOM Review,

32(2), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2017-0109

Wagner, W. (2020). Social Representation Theory: an Historical Outline. Oxford Research

Encyclopedia of Psychology.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.606
14

Howarth, Caroline (2006) A social representation is not a quiet thing: exploring the critical

potential of social representations theory. British journal of social psychology, 45 (1).

pp. 65-86. DOI: 10.1348/014466605X43777