Content uploaded by Nick Haslam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nick Haslam on Jun 10, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
The structure and evolution of social psychology: a co-citation
network analysis
Nick Haslam
a
, Naomi Baes
a
, and Milad Haghani
b
a
University of Melbourne;
b
UNSW Sydney
ABSTRACT
The present study examined the thematic composition and temporal evolu-
tion of social psychology through a co-citation network analysis of 80,350
articles published from 1970 through 2022. Six primary thematic clusters were
identied: a broad “Classic Social Psychology” cluster most prominent in the
1970s and 1980s; “Traits & Aect” and “Social Cognition” clusters most inu-
ential in the 1990s; and “The Self,” “Intergroup Relations,” and “Big Five”
clusters emerging after 2000. A small seventh cluster dedicated to COVID-19
and conspiracy theories emerged around 2021. These trends t a narrative of
generational shifts within distinct social and personality psychology traditions.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 22 September 2023
Accepted 15 May 2024
KEYWORDS
Citation network; history of
psychology; personality;
social psychology
Knowing a field’s history is essential to understanding its present and guiding its future. Social
psychology is no exception to this truism. The field has undergone rapid growth and no shortage of
growing pains. Critics have diagnosed a series of crises involving its supposed positivism, excessive
focus on experimentation, impracticality and social irrelevance, political disengagement, dominance
by North American researchers, and reproducibility problems, among other failings (e.g., Berkman &
Wilson, 2021; Elms, 1975; Gergen, 1973; Open Science Collaboration, 2012). A thorough investigation
of past and present trends in the field is necessary to chart how it has progressed and evolved, and what
its main divisions have been.
That investigation could take a narrative approach. Farr (1996) presents an overview of trends in
early social psychology until the mid-1950s and chapters in successive editions of the Handbook of
social psychology (Jones, 1985; Ross et al., 2010) have identified the field’s key themes, dynamics,
influences, and topics. Ross et al. (2010), for example, identified three fundamental themes (the
normative influence of groups, the centrality of subjective meaning, and emphasis on non-obvious
experimental demonstrations) and three basic content areas (group processes; attitudes, opinions, and
beliefs; and social perception) that persisted from the 1930s to the 2000s. Other writers offer historical
analyses that highlight specific issues, such as Cartwright’s (1979) exploration of the split between
psychological and sociological perspectives on the field.
An alternative approach is to investigate historical trends in social psychology quantitatively. Some
investigators have studied broad changes, such as the steep rise in the volume of publications and
journals and the internationalization of the research community (Kruglanski et al., 2017). Others have
restricted their focus to specific subfields or world regions. Allik (2013), for example, revealed a reduction
in the proportion of articles by US authors in 2000s personality psychology – understood here as a field
within social psychology, broadly conceived – and Haslam and Kashima (2010) documented changes in
the proportional contribution of Asian nations to social psychology publications from 1970 to 2008.
CONTACT Nick Haslam nhaslam@unimelb.edu.au School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC
3010, Australia
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2024.2363354
THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2024.2363354
© 2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published allow the
posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
Numerous studies have examined changes within specific journals, most commonly the Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP). Fried et al. (1973) and Mark et al. (1976) reported
a rise in field studies in JPSP, and decades apart Reis and Stiller (1992), Quinones-Vidal et al.
(2004), and Kruglanski et al. (2017) observed that articles were becoming longer and including
more studies, a trend also apparent in the European Journal of Social Psychology (EJSP) (van
Leeuwen, 2013). Cikara et al. (2012) noted the stability of the gender imbalance among JPSP
authors. Shifts in topic content were also apparent. West et al. (1992) found that JPSP articles
addressing personality processes rose at the expense of articles on interpersonal relations and
group processes over a 20-year period, whereas Webster (2007) demonstrated increasing attention
to evolutionary, neuroscientific, and psychophysiological concepts, and to stereotyping and pre-
judice, judgment and decision making, and motivation and emotion. In the Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, Cretchley et al. (2010) revealed long-term trends toward the study of values
and acculturation and away from child development, implying the journal’s increasing centrality
within social psychology.
Most quantitative studies of changes in the topics covered by social psychology journals have
concentrated on specific content themes rather than attempting to map topics in a comprehensive and
systematic manner. The three exceptions help to identify topics that Jones (1985) memorably dubbed
“bandwagons” and “sinking ships:” topics on the rise or in decline. Fisch and Daniel (1982) examined
the titles of 1,059 articles published between 1971 and 1980 in the Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, EJSP, or Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie and classified them into 21 pre-defined content
domains. Articles on attribution theory rose over the decade whereas those on cooperation and
conflict and the “risky shift” declined. More recently, Rizzoli et al. (2019) conducted lexicometric
analyses of abstracts from 2,559 EJSP articles published between 1971 and 2016, extracted 16 content
clusters, and observed their trajectories. Some clusters rose (e.g., an intergroup relations cluster
marked by expressions such as “intergroup contact,” “inter-group attitude,” “threat,” and “racial”),
others fell (e.g., an aggression cluster including “aggression,” “aggressive,” “male,” and “shock”), and
some rose and then fell (e.g., a cognitive processes cluster marked by “stereotype,” “name-letter effect,”
and “cognitive representation”).
More recently still, Rizzoli et al. (2023) employed similar lexically based methods to cluster all
10,222 JPSP articles published from 1965 through 2021. They extracted keywords from the titles of
these articles and generated thirteen-, nine-, and six-cluster solutions. At the coarsest level, these
groupings were 1) a declining cluster identified by “compliance,” “conformity,” “dissonance,” and
neo-behaviorist terms; 2) a declining cluster that included “attitudes,” “behavior,” “aggression,”
“causal attribution,” and “locus of control;” 3) a cluster including terms such as “memory,” “decision-
making,” “social judgment,” “social comparison,” and “trait” that peaked in the 1980s and 1990s
before trending down; 4) a cluster that rose to a plateau in the 2000s and included terms related to
social cognition as well as social identity and intergroup relations; 5) a temporally stable cluster
composed of generic research terms such as “experiment,” “control,” “predict,” “correlation,” and
“influence;” and 6) a rising cluster including “regulatory fit,” “Big Five,” “trait,” “narcissism,” “roman-
tic relationships,” “implicit methods,” “outgroup,” and “cultural variation.” The nine- and thirteen-
cluster solutions subdivided these coarse clusters.
Rizzoli et al. (2023) work is the most comprehensive analysis of the topic structure and evolution of
social psychology to date. It combines sophisticated methodology with a long study period (57 years)
and a very large article sample. It also has some limitations. First, the focus on a single, albeit
prominent, journal makes it risky to generalize findings to the discipline as a whole. Second, although
lexical analysis of article titles is a valid basis for inferring clusters, it may generate some clusters that
do not correspond to topic content (e.g., the generic fifth cluster). Analysis of other article-relevant
information might generate distinct clusters. For example, the research an article cites may be as
informative about its topic content as the wording of its title.
Clusters within a research field can be identified using an array of indicators and approaches, such
as title, keywords, and citation patterns. Citation patterns, in particular, often provide a higher level of
2N. HASLAM ET AL.
granularity than approaches based on word usage and meanings (Haghani, 2023). Citation network
analysis has emerged as the dominant approach to mapping science, offering diverse methods for
describing the structure and evolution of fields of study based on the knowledge foundations their
publications refer to. Citation-based methods may study simple citation counts and how they change,
or reveal more complex patterns by determining clusters or networks of publications that tend to cite
the same research (bibliographic coupling) or that tend to be cited together (co-citation).) Diverse
forms of citation network analysis can clarify how fields are structured, which works or researchers are
most central, and how new trends and themes emerge over time, using sophisticated quantitative
methods based on network science on very large datasets (Boyack & Klavans, 2010; McLaren &
Bruner, 2022).
When the focus of research is on characterizing the evolution of a field, a key component of our
analysis, document co-citation analysis has a unique advantage. This method not only reveals how
studies are interconnected but also how these connections evolve over time. A field’s contemporary
publications can be understood as constituting a research front that rests on an intellectual base of
earlier publications. The networks of influential early works that tend to be cited together by
contemporary works represent that base. Over time, the research front will tend to evolve and cite
new networks. Pivotal new publications will appear, and abrupt bursts of citations will announce the
emergence of new trends or topics. As Chen (2006), a proponent of this approach argues, a research
specialty can be conceptualized as “a time-variant mapping between its research front and its
intellectual base” (p. 361).
The present research adopted this approach by carrying out a co-citation network analysis (Trujillo
& Long, 2018) of a comprehensive sample of social psychology articles over a 53-year period (1970–
2022). By including articles from all 36 journals identified by Web of Science as falling within the
“Psychology, Social” field, it overcomes the limitations of studies restricted to single journals and
contains an unprecedented volume of published items (80,350 articles). Chen’s (2004) pioneering
Document Co-citation Analysis (DCA) methodology was used to identify network-based topical
clusters within the article sample. Since its development, researchers have used DCA to identify
intellectual trends and turning points in a range of fields (e.g., Haghani et al., 2023; Tavakoli et al.,
2023). In essence, the DCA method identifies clusters of publications (i.e., “cited articles”) in the
reference lists of a sample of publications (i.e., “citing articles”) based on co-citation patterns. Each
cluster is conceptualized as a distinct knowledge foundation or intellectual base for the sample of citing
articles and can include publications outside that sample. The dominant themes and methodological
approaches of a cluster can be identified by its most highly cited articles and by common descriptors in
the titles of its citing articles. Properties of each cluster such as its size (i.e., number of cited articles)
and the distribution of the publication years of its cited and citing articles allow inferences about its
popularity and historical evolution. The DCA methodology also locates bursts of citations for highly
influential publications to reveal temporal trends in the influence of each cluster. We aimed to
characterize the main structural divisions or subfields within social psychology and the evolution of
these topic clusters over time in a way that would shed light on the field’s recent history. This aim was
purely descriptive: to document the patterns detected by a powerful analysis of a very large dataset
rather than to test any predictions about the nature or drivers of the field’s evolution.
Method
Article sample and analysis
DCA analysis was conducted with a sample of all 80,350 articles published 1970–2022 inclusive in
the 36 journals that the Web of Science database lists as belonging to the field of “Psychology,
Social.” This includes journals with some focus on personality (i.e., Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, British Journal of Social Psychology,
Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking, European Journal of Personality, European
THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 3
Journal of Social Psychology, European Review of Social Psychology, Group Dynamics-Theory
Research and Practice, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, International Journal of Social
Psychology, International Review of Social Psychology, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Journal of Individual
Differences, Journal of Loss & Trauma, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, Journal of Personality,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Research in Personality, Journal of
Psychosocial Oncology, Journal of Social Psychology, Personality and Individual Differences,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Psychology
of Men & Masculinities, Self and Identity, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Social
Behavior and Personality, Social Cognition, Social Influence, Social Psychological and Personality
Science, Social Psychology, Social Psychology Quarterly). Citing articles published before 1970 were
excluded because the number of annual publications becomes very low (e.g., only four of the 36
journals existed pre-1970). The bibliographic information of this article set was exported and
stored in the form of text files. This included the title, year of publication, and full reference lists
of each article. By examining the reference lists of the articles (i.e., the 80,350 citing articles), the
DCA employs a k-means clustering algorithm to identify groups of references (i.e., the cited
references) that are often jointly cited. Each cluster represents the knowledge foundation of
a specific theme or broad topic in the field, one or more of which may underpin individual citing
articles.
The DCA analysis was conducted using CiteSpace version 6.1.R6, aligning with the methodology
proposed by Chen (2004). It was performed with time slices of one-year intervals for the 1970 to
2022 period. The look-back years (maximum age of cited articles relative to their citing article) were
set to 50, to comprehensively capture the historical context. The parameter k for the g-index (Egghe,
2006) calculation used to restrict the network to the most relevant cited articles) was set at k = 100,
a relatively large number that provides a high level of granularity within each cluster (higher values of
k increase the number of cited articles retained in the network). All other parameters were maintained
at their default settings. The resulting network comprised N = 11,261 nodes (i.e., cited articles in the
network) and E = 368,829 links (i.e., co-citation connections between nodes), resulting in a moderate
network density of D = 0.0058 (i.e., 0.58% of all possible links among nodes were actual links).
Once the clusters were identified, the following attributes of each cluster were extracted: 1) its size (i.e.,
the number of cited references it contains), 2) the temporal distribution (i.e., mean, median and range) of
publication year of the cited references, representing the age of the cluster’s knowledge foundation, and 3)
the coverage of each citing article, representing the number of the cited references of the cluster that have
appeared in the reference list of each citing article. Citing articles with higher coverage are considered more
relevant to the cluster. The overall number of times that each cited reference appeared in the reference lists
of the citing articles was also recorded. This “local citation count” represents the total citations to each
reference from within the field of social psychology over the 53-year study period, to be differentiated from
each reference’s global citation count, which also includes citations from outside the field.
To provide an objective and algorithmic determination of the themes that each cluster represents,
nouns and noun phrases were extracted from the titles of the citing articles of each cluster. The most
frequently recurring examples were identified, with greater weight given for those extracted from
high-coverage, and therefore more cluster-relevant, citing articles. The top nouns and noun phrases
representing each cluster were determined by this method and used as a guide for labeling each cluster,
alongside inspection of their most influential references.
The temporal component in the analysis focused on cluster-level trends, notably the time period
over which each cluster was most active (i.e., the distribution of publication years of its citing and cited
articles). However, bursts (sudden spikes) in the local citations of specific articles within each cluster
were also determined using Chen’s (2004) methodology, which employs Kleinberg’s (2003) burst
detection algorithm, and these are reported in the supplementary materials as a further aid to
interpreting when each cluster was most active.
4N. HASLAM ET AL.
Transparency and openness
Our sample is the complete population of articles in the specified years and journals without
exclusions. Data were analyzed using CiteSpace software (Chen, 2004). This study’s analysis was not
preregistered.
Results
Characterizing the clusters
The co-citation network analysis yielded nine topic clusters. Six clusters were very large, collectively
containing 11,082 (98.6%) of the 11,240 articles allocated to any cluster. The two smallest clusters,
containing 30 and 3 articles respectively, were excluded from further analysis, but the next largest (125
articles) was retained for analysis despite being much smaller than the primary six (all >1,000 articles).
In recognition of its smaller size, this marginal cluster receives less thorough interpretation below. The
thematic contents of the seven final clusters were interpreted by examining (a) the top noun and noun
phrase descriptors extracted from titles of articles citing articles in each cluster and (b) the cited articles
with the greatest local citation count, which represent intellectual milestones or lodestones, and (c) the
cited articles with the strongest citation bursts, which represent publications that were especially
influential in the cluster period. The supplementary materials table (see Appendix 1) summarizes this
information about each cluster, including documenting the count and mean publication year of its
articles, and articles with especially strong citation bursts, and it documents that the “silhouette scores”
for all clusters exceed the standard benchmark (0.7) for strong cluster homogeneity or cohesiveness.
The complete output of the analysis is provided in Appendix 2. The table also identifies articles within
the cluster with the greatest broad (cross-cluster) citation impact on social psychology (“centrality”),
based on being co-cited with articles in other clusters. The following paragraphs provide descriptions
of the seven clusters listed in decreasing order by size.
Cluster 1 (Classic Social Psychology). This cluster was the largest, containing 2,888 cited publica-
tions, and also the oldest. The median publication date of the citing articles was 1980, with most
activity between 1975 and 1985, and the median publication date of the cited articles was 1971. The
most strongly associated descriptors in the titles of articles citing publications in the cluster were
“causal attribution,” “interpersonal attraction,” “risky shift,” “helping behavior,” and “intrinsic moti-
vation.” The cluster’s most locally cited publications include famous articles and books published from
the 1950s through the 1970s by pioneers such as Bandura, Bem, Byrne, Festinger, Heider, and Kelley.
The most influential publications in the early years of the cluster, determined by the strength of their
citation bursts, were works by Heider (1958) on interpersonal relationships (the cluster’s strongest
burst overall), Festinger on social comparison processes, Adorno and colleagues on the authoritarian
personality, Osgood and colleagues on the semantic differential, and Rotter on locus of control.
Publications by E. E. Jones and Davis on attribution processes and by Abramson and colleagues on
learned helplessness had bursts commencing later in the 1970s. One statistical text by Winer also
experienced a citation burst.
Key topics within the cluster therefore included attribution theory, interpersonal liking, cognitive
dissonance, social comparison, the risky shift in groups, the semantic differential, authoritarianism,
stigma, and self-efficacy, among others. These topics are diverse by the standards of the field’s present-
day specialization, cross-cutting group, interpersonal, and intrapersonal processes as well as individual
differences. The cluster is therefore best defined historically as the relatively early stages of modern
social psychology from which later specialist subfields differentiated.
Cluster 2 (Intergroup Relations). This second-largest cluster of citing articles had a median
publication year of 2016, with the greatest activity between 2010 and 2019, and the median date
of its cited articles was 2001. The titles of articles in the cluster commonly contained the
descriptors “collective action,” “intergroup contact,” “social dominance orientation,” “system
justification,” and “intergroup relation.” The cluster’s most cited publications included major
THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 5
theoretical and empirical works by Brewer, Crocker, S. Fiske, Jost, Pratto, Sidanius, and
especially Tajfel and Turner, reflecting a substantial contribution from European social psychol-
ogists. In decreasing order, the strongest citation bursts for substantive contributions included
works by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) on contact theory, Graham and colleagues on the politics
of moral foundations, Fiske and colleagues on stereotype content, van Zomeren and colleagues
on social identity and collective action, and Leach and colleagues on group identification.
Several methodological publications – on mediation and moderated mediation analysis by
authors including Preacher, Hayes, and Muller, and on MTurk as a data collection platform
by Burmeister and colleagues – also showed strong bursts, with Hayes (2022) the cluster’s
strongest overall.
The key topics in Cluster 2 therefore included social identity, social dominance, inter-group
contact, minimal groups, political psychology, and the stereotype content model. Its central theme
is therefore one of intergroup relations and group-based identities.
Cluster 3 (The Self). This cluster’s median citing article publication year was 2010, with greatest
intensity between 2004 and 2015, and its median cited publication appeared in 1997. Common
title descriptors included “mortality salience,” “social exclusion,” “cultural difference,” “terror
management,” and “regulatory focus.” Authors of the cluster’s most cited publications included
Baumeister, Brown, Deci, Higgins, Hofstede, Kitayama, Leary, Markus, Rosenberg, Ryan, Steele,
Taylor, and Triandis. Prominent early citation bursts were found for publications on positive
illusions and self-serving biases by Taylor and Brown (1988), on the self-concept by Rosenberg, on
social comparison by Wills, and on self-regulation by Carver and Scheier, respectively. Work on
self-construal by Trope and Liberman had a substantially later burst. Statistical publications by
Aiken and West (1991; multiple regression), Sobel (mediation analysis), and Raudenbush (hier-
archical linear models) also featured among the cluster’s strongest citation bursts, with the first of
these the strongest overall for the cluster.
Major topics in the cluster therefore included self-esteem, the need to belong, self-serving biases,
independent versus interdependent self-construals, self-affirmation, comparing self to others, indivi-
dualism versus collectivism and other cultural dimensions, and intrinsic motivation and self-
determination. The common thread in these topics is a focus on the self-concept and its individual
and cultural processes, variations, and impacts. The focus of the cluster is therefore more intrapersonal
and interpersonal in focus than the intergroup emphasis of the previous cluster, with a special
emphasis on processes implicating the self.
Cluster 4 (Traits & Affect). The median publication year of this cluster’s citing article was 1996, with
an interquartile range of 1991 to 2003, and the median cited article was published in 1983. Descriptors
extracted from the titles of its articles included “social support,” “5-factor model,” “type-A behavior
(pattern),” and “coping style.” The cluster’s most cited substantive publications were written by
Carver, Diener, Folkman, Lazarus, H. and S. Eysenck, Mischel, and Watson. Several of the most
cited publications were methodological in focus, such as Baron and Kenny on mediation analysis,
Bentler on structural equation modeling, and Nunnally on psychometrics. Several of the strongest
citation bursts in the cluster were also methodological, including Baron and Kenny (1986), the
strongest burst overall, Cronbach on reliability, and Cohen and Cohen on regression analysis.
Substantive publications with strong bursts addressed Eysenck’s personality dimensions (Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1975), Rotter on locus of control, Mischel on the situationist critique of traits, Fenigstein and
colleagues on private versus public self-consciousness, and Bandura on social learning theory.
The main topics explored in the cluster were therefore the structure of positive and negative affect,
basic dimensions of personality and coping, the nature and predictive potency of traits, life satisfac-
tion, empathy, and self-monitoring. Cluster 4 is therefore dominated by personality psychology and
studies of affect variations.
Cluster 5 (Big Five). This cluster had a median citing article date of 2016, with greatest
activity from 2011 to 2019, and the median cited publication appeared in 2003. The most
strongly associated title descriptors were “dark triad (trait),” “personality trait,” “emotional
6N. HASLAM ET AL.
intelligence,” and “personality development.” The most cited substantive publications in the
cluster were written by personality psychologists including Buss, Costa, Digman, Goldberg,
Gosling, John, McCrae, Roberts, Paulhus, and Srivastava, and the most influential methodo-
logical publications by Bentler, Cohen, Hu, Kenny, and L. and B. Muthén. The strongest
citation bursts among substantive publications were on the Dark Triad by Paulhus and
Williams (2002), and the Big Five by Gosling and colleagues and John and Srivastava. In
addition, more methodological and meta-scientific publications on structural equation model-
ing (Hu & Bentler, 1999), the R statistics package, researcher degrees of freedom (Simmons
et al.), and WEIRD societies (Henrich and colleagues), as well as the DSM-5, also experienced
strong citation bursts.
A large proportion of the most influential substantive publications in this cluster were about the
structure, nature, or measurement of the Big Five personality factors, or employed the Big Five model
as a framework for examining personality development and change. Other key publications examined
additional traits such as narcissism and the dark triad, and statistical methods for evaluating covar-
iance structure of individual difference variables. Therefore, whereas Cluster 4 represented
a generation of personality research in which the Big Five had not yet emerged as a primary descriptive
framework, Cluster 5 represents a new generation of research in which that structural framework
predominates.
Cluster 6 (Social Cognition). This cluster’s citing articles had a median publication year of 2000,
concentrated around 1993 to 2008, and its median cited publication was dated 1989. Its top title
descriptors were “social judgment,” “planned behavior,” “stereotype activation,” “explicit attitude,”
and “personality trait.” Authors of the most cited publications include leading authorities on attitudes
and attitude-behavior relations (Ajzen, Chaikin, Eagly, Fishbein), social information processing (S.
Fiske, Higgins, Markus, Neuberg), implicit processes (Banaji, Fazio, Greenwald), and cognitive
heuristics and biases (Kahneman, Nisbett, Wilson, Tversky). The strongest citation bursts in the
cluster, the earliest commencing in the late 1970s and early 1980s, were for publications by Heider
(1958) on balance theory, Nisbett and Ross on inference processes, Allport on prejudice, two editions
of Fiske and Taylor’s social cognition textbook, Markus on self-schemas, and Fishbein and Ajzen on
the theory of reasoned action. Somewhat weaker citation bursts to publications on implicit attitudes,
automatic processes and priming arose in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
The central concerns of this cluster revolve around the cognitive dimensions of social phenomena
as they relate to attitudes and behavior. This cluster therefore represents the core topics of the
psychology of social cognition.
Cluster 7 (COVID-19 & Conspiracies). With a median citing article year of 2021 and a median cited
publication of 2019, this very small cluster contains recent publications focused on conspiracy theories
and the pandemic. Citing title descriptors included “conspiracy theories” (and “conspiracy theorist”),
“conspiracy belief,” “COVID-19 pandemic,” and “national narcissism.” Most cited publications in the
cluster included recent articles led by van Bavel, Brooks, Douglas, Imhoff, and Jolley, but also included
older publications by Carver and Park on coping and meaning-making, respectively. These publica-
tions primarily addressed conspiracy thinking in general and in relation to vaccination, as well as
responses to the pandemic and quarantine. This very small cluster was too young to have any
identified citation bursts.
The temporal ordering of the six primary clusters, excluding the very small Cluster 7, is summar-
ized in Figure 1, which present the distribution of publication years of the cited and citing publications
for each cluster. The two panels show the same temporal ordering of clusters but with a cited-to-citing
lag averaging 12.3 years between median publication dates (range 9–15 years).
Figure 2 presents a visualization of all seven clusters, each dot representing one cited reference and
cluster proximity reflecting overall similarity of co-citation patterns. This spatial representation of the
relations among the clusters reveals a temporal dimension from left to right. The left-most cluster
(Classic Social Psychology: median citing article publication year 1980) precedes the Traits and Affect
(1996) and Social Cognition (2000) clusters, which are followed by The Self (2010), Intergroup
THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 7
Relations (2016), and Big Five (2016), with the fledgling COVID-19 and Conspiracies cluster (2021)
last. The Traits and Affect cluster is adjacent to the Big Five cluster at the bottom of the figure,
representing a concatenation of personality research, and the Social Cognition and Intergroup
Relations clusters are similarly adjacent at the top, representing a progression of core social psychology
research. The Self cluster is intermediate between the core personality and social psychology clusters,
with significant interpenetration of the Big Five, Social Cognition, and Intergroup Relations clusters.
Discussion
Our co-citation network analysis identified six large article clusters and one small, recently emerging
cluster dominated by research on the COVID-19 pandemic. The clusters were dense and small in
Figure 1. Box and Whisker Plot of the Age of the Cited Articles (left panel) and Citing Articles (right panel) for the Six Primary Clusters.
Figure 2. Spatial Visualization of the Seven Co-citation Network Clusters.
8N. HASLAM ET AL.
number by the norms of the DCA methodology, as an analysis of a similarly sized urban planning
literature (Haghani et al., 2023) generated 18 clusters. This suggests that social psychology has cohered
to an unusually strong degree around a few primary themes or subfields. This conclusion contradicts
the common view that social psychology is fragmented, at least at the level of its knowledge
foundations.
The composition of the clusters was readily interpretable both thematically and historically. With
the exception of the “Classic Social Psychology” cluster, whose focus was diffused across intergroup,
interpersonal, and intra-individual levels of analysis, each cluster had a clearly identifiable set of
content foci. Those foci were aligned with core topics in social and personality psychology and
exemplified by well-known influential publications. Characterization of the clusters was also aided
by the close temporal alignment of their key publications, despite publication year not being a basis for
the cluster solution. Within each cluster the most influential publications tended to be published
within a decadal range and the time when they were most influential tended to occur in a defined
period of similar duration. Moreover, the timing of the clusters is consistent with a progression of new
research topics, with lines of social cognition and trait and affect structure research emerging from the
less differentiated “parent” cluster of classic social psychology and being succeeded by clusters
associated with intergroup relations, the self, and the Big Five personality factors.
In some respects, this progression seems generational. New clusters emerged from the one most
closely related to them approximately every 15 years, and their key papers experience periods of peak
influence of similar length. In addition, each cluster’s citing articles tended to cite publications that
appeared 12 years earlier, on average. There are also apparent generational lineages of personality and
core social psychology clusters through the study period, with The Self cluster as a possible hybrid. The
existence of these sequences – from Social Cognition to Intergroup Relations, and from Trait and
Affect structure to the Big Five – suggests that as a new cluster emerges, becomes “hot” and grows, an
earlier one tends to go into relative decline.
The six primary clusters obtained in the present study show some resemblance to those found in
other attempts to map the structure and evolution of social psychology. Rizzoli et al. (2023) analysis of
JPSP article titles is especially relevant, as it also yielded six clusters whereas the earlier analysis of EJSP
article abstracts (Rizzoli et al., 2019) yielded 16. Rizzoli et al.’s (2023) first cluster, which included
“compliance,” “conformity,” “dissonance,” and neo-behaviorist terms and declined through their
study period, appears to correspond well to our “Classic Social Psychology” cluster, which included
early work by Festinger and others from the 1950s to 1970s. However, their second cluster (“attitudes,”
“behavior,” “aggression,” “causal attribution,” and “locus of control”) includes keywords that align
both with the “Classic Social Psychology” (e.g., “causal attribution”) and the later “Social cognition”
(e.g., “attitude,” “behavior”) clusters. Rizzoli et al.’s (2023) third cluster (“memory,” “decision-making,
” “social judgment,” “social comparison,” and “trait”) corresponds well to our “Social cognition”
cluster, and like that cluster it reached its zenith in the 1990s and then declined.
However, Rizzoli et al.’s (2023) fourth cluster, which peaks in the 2000s, combines some social
cognition-related terms (e.g., “stereotype” and “bias”) with intergroup keywords (e.g., “intergroup,”
“identity”), and thus overlaps our “Social Cognition” and “Intergroup Relations” clusters. Rizzoli
et al.’s (2023) fifth cluster is primarily generic rather than topical, and their sixth, which rises in the
2010s, is a disparate collection of personality trait, relationship, and group-related terms and does not
correspond well to any of our clusters.
The correspondence between our six-cluster solution and Rizzoli et al. (2023) is evidently only
moderate, the latter notably including no personality- or self-focused clusters. Nevertheless, there are
several points of consistency: the fading away of “classic” early work on attribution, conformity, and
dissonance; the rise and decline of social cognition research; and the relatively recent rise of intergroup
relations research. The final two patterns were also observed in Rizzoli et al.’s (2019) analysis of EJSP
abstracts, the last one arguably reflecting the growing global impact of the European social identity
tradition.
THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 9
Although our analysis has the virtue of being derived from a substantially larger and more diverse
sample of publications than Rizzoli et al.’s (2023) JPSP analysis, we believe the two clusterings have
complementary value. They rest on very different types of data – Rizzoli et al.’s language use (common
expressions in article titles) versus our bibliographic referencing (co-citation patterns) – and also
diverge in how cluster content is interpreted. Rizzoli and colleagues’ interpretive approach emphasizes
the keywords most strongly associated with each cluster, whereas ours emphasizes the key references
that are most influential as a knowledge foundation within it. Our approach may produce cluster
interpretations that are more influenced by “founder effects” by highlighting the (generally earlier)
highly cited articles that established a new research field or approach.
Among the strengths of the present study are its unprecedentedly large sample of publications and
its derivation of recognizable, historically meaningful topic clusters that support a credible narrative of
the field’s evolution. However, the work also has limitations. The study did not include citing articles
published prior to 1970 – although its cited publications included some from as far back as the 1930s –
so it could not thoroughly explore social psychology’s earlier history. The “classic social psychology” of
the 1950s to 1970s, for example, itself rested on an earlier body of classics. The fact that our set of
journals included those covering personality psychology under Web of Science’s broad “Psychology,
Social” grouping means that our clusters do not exclusively capture social psychology in a narrow
sense but also includes research on personality and individual differences. However, many of the
field’s most well-known journals encompass both social and personality psychology and the distinc-
tion may be eroding. The labeling of our clusters may be imprecise and arguable in some cases given
the diversity of research topics covered under each one. The Big Five cluster, for example, included
articles on other individual difference dimensions and models (e.g., dark triad, emotional intelligence,
narcissism), which may challenge the adequacy of the current label. Finally, although our analysis
implies that clusters are generationally distinct or discontinuous, there must be gradual transition
processes between temporally displaced research subfields that an analysis based on discrete clusters
cannot fully describe.
The present analysis offers a comprehensive but economical mapping of social psychology research
that illuminates its recent history. Further research could explore the dynamics and drivers of the
changes we have identified, consider the merits of finer-grained clustering within our broad clusters,
and examine whether or how the categorical shifts in social psychology’s main topics co-exist with
historical continuities in the fundamental concerns of the field (Ross et al., 2010).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.
Notes on contributors
Nick Haslam is Professor of Psychology at the University of Melbourne.
Naomi Baes is a PhD student in psychology at the University of Melbourne.
Milad Haghani is Senior Lecturer in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of New South
Wales.
Data availability statement
Data are available on request. A comprehensive spreadsheet of the data analysis is available at https://osf.io/4zkw6
10 N. HASLAM ET AL.
Open scholarship
This article has earned the Center for Open Science badge for Open Materials. The materials are openly accessible at
https://osf.io/4zkw6
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications, Inc.
Allik, J. (2013). Personality psychology in the first decade of the new millennium: A bibliometric portrait. European
Journal of Personality, 27(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1843
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Berkman, E. T., & Wilson, S. M. (2021). So useful as a good theory? The practicality crisis in (social) psychological
theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 864–874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620969650
Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co‐citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation
approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21419
Cartwright, D. (1979). Contemporary social psychology in historical perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42(1),
82–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033880
Chen, C. (2004). Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 101(suppl 1), 5303–5310. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307513100
Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.
20317
Cikara, M., Rudman, L., & Fiske, S. (2012). Dearth by a thousand cuts? Accounting for gender differences in top-ranked
publication rates in social psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 68(2), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.
2012.01748.x
Cretchley, J., Rooney, D., & Gallois, C. (2010). Mapping a 40-year history with leximancer: Themes and concepts in the
journal of cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(3), 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022022110366105
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-
0144-7
Elms, A. C. (1975). The crisis of confidence in social psychology. American Psychologist, 30(10), 967–976. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0003-066X.30.10.967
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck personality questionnaire (junior and adult). Hodder
and Stoughton.
Farr, R. M. (1996). The roots of modern social psychology, 1872–1954. Blackwell Publishing.
Fisch, R., & Daniel, H. D. (1982). Research and publication trends in experimental social psychology: 1971–1980—a
thematic analysis of the journal of experimental social psychology, the European journal of social psychology, and the
Zeitschrift für soziaipsychologie. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12(4), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.
2420120406
Fried, S. B., Gumpper, D. C., & Allen, J. C. (1973). Ten years of social psychology: Is there a growing commitment to field
research? American Psychologist, 28(2), 155–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034202
Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(2), 309–320. https://
doi.org/10.1037/h0034436
Haghani, M. (2023). What makes an informative and publication-worthy scientometric analysis of literature: A guide for
authors, reviewers and editors. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 22, 100956. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.trip.2023.100956
Haghani, M., Sabri, S., De Gruyter, C., Ardeshiri, A., Shahhoseini, Z., Sanchez, T. W., & Acuto, M. (2023). The landscape
and evolution of urban planning science. Cities, 136, 104261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104261
Haslam, N., & Kashima, Y. (2010). The rise and rise of social psychology in Asia: A bibliometric analysis. Asian Journal of
Social Psychology, 13(3), 202–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01320.x
Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: third edition: A Regression-
Based Approach (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 11
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10705519909540118
Jones, E. E. (1985). Major developments in social psychology during the past five decades. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 47–108). Random House.
Kleinberg, J. (2003). Bursts and hierarchical structure in streams. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 7(4), 373–397.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024940629314
Kruglanski, A. W., Chernikova, M., & Jasko, K. (2017). Social psychology circa 2016: A field on steroids. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 47(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2285
Mark, M. M., Cook, T. D., & Diamond, S. S. (1976). Fourteen years of social psychology: A growing commitment to field
experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2(2), 154–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/
014616727600200217
McLaren, C. D., & Bruner, M. W. (2022). Citation network analysis. International Review of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 15(1), 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2021.1989705
Open Science Collaboration. (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of
psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 657–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1745691612462588
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy.
Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Quinones-Vidal, E., López-García, J. J., Peñaranda-Ortega, M., & Tortosa-Gil, F. (2004). The nature of social and
personality psychology as reflected in JPSP, 1965-2000. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 435–452.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.435
Reis, H. T., & Stiller, J. (1992). Publication trends in JPSP: A three-decade review. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18(4), 465–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292184011
Rizzoli, V., Castro, P., Tuzzi, A., & Contarello, A. (2019). Probing the history of social psychology, exploring diversity
and views of the social: Publication trends in the European journal of social psychology from 1971 to 2016. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 49(4), 671–687. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2528
Rizzoli, V., Trevisani, M., & Tuzzi, A. (2023). Portraying the life cycle of ideas in social psychology through functional
(textual) data analysis: A toolkit for digital history. Scientometrics, 128(9), 5197–5226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-
023-04722-5
Ross, L., Lepper, M., & Ward, A. (2010). History of social psychology: Insights, challenges, and contributions to theory
and application. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 3–50).
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Tavakoli, S., Khojasteh, D., Haghani, M., & Hirdaris, S. (2023). A review on the progress and research directions of ocean
engineering. Ocean Engineering, 272, 113617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.113617
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health.
Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193
Trujillo, C. M., & Long, T. M. (2018). Document co-citation analysis to enhance transdisciplinary research. Science
Advances, 4(1), e1701130. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701130
van Leeuwen, T. (2013). Publication trends in social psychology journals: A long-term bibliometric analysis. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 43(1), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1933
Webster, G. D. (2007). Evolutionary theory’s increasing role in personality and social psychology. Evolutionary
Psychology, 5(1), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490700500108
West, S. G., Newsom, J. T., & Fenaughty, A. M. (1992). Publication trends in JPSP: Stability and change in topics,
methods, and theories across two decades. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(4), 473–484. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0146167292184012
12 N. HASLAM ET AL.
