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. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Schocken Books.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. (1952/1987). Social Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University 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

Assmann, J. (2018). Achsenzeit: Eine Archäologie der Moderne. Munchen: CH Beck.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

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction Process Analysis. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google 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

Begout, B. (2014). Le recidives de la gnose. ESPRIT, 403, March–April, 68–74.CrossRefGoogle 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

Boehme, H. (2006). Fetischismus und Kultur. Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag.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

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New York: Academic Press.Google 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

Canetti, E. (1960/1973). Crowds and Power. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Carey, J. (1992). The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice among the Literary Intelligentsia 1880–1939. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar

Carr, E. H. (1961). What Is History? Harmondsworth: Penguin.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

Clausewitz, C. von. (1832/1976). On War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 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

Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.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

Douglas, M. (1990). Risk as a forensic resource. Daedalus, 119(4), 1–16.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

Ehrlich, P. (1968). The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantine 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

Eschenburg, T. (1965). Ueber Autoritaet, 129. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.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

Feyerabend, P. (2016). Philosophy of Nature. Cambridge: Polity 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

Frigg, R. (2013). Clever fetishists. Art History, 36(3), 664–669.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

Gehlen, A. (1980). Man in the Age of Technology. New York: Columbia University Press.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, J. (2005). Fred Hoyle’s Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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

Gridley, M. C. (1978). Jazz Styles. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.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. (1999). Geliebte Objekte. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.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

Hazan, E. (2015). A History of the Barricade. London: Verso.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

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.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

Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2018). Social Psychology (8th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.Google 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

Husserl, E. (1931/2012). Ideas. London: Routledge.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

Jodelet, D. (1991). Madness and Social Representation. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.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, F. (2009). An alien concept. Nature, 461, 17 September, 345–346.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

Khilnany, S. (1997). The Idea of India. London: Penguin.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

Koehler, W. (1947). Gestalt 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. (1994). On technical mediation. Common Knowledge, 3, 29–64.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(4), 228–245.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. (1936). Principles of Topological Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.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. (1952). Field Theory in Social Science. London: Tavistock Publications.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

Lorenz, K. (2005). On Aggression. London: Routledge.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

MacKenzie, N., & MacKenzie, J. (1977). The First Fabians. London: Quartet Books.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

Mori, M. (1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33–35.Google Scholar

Morris, D. B. (1991). The Culture of Pain. Berkeley: University of California Press.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. (1988). La machine à faire des dieux. Paris: Fayard.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. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.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, R. A. (1975). The Origins of Crowd Psychology. London: Sage.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

Pavlov, I. P. (1897/1902). The Work of the Digestive Glands. London: Griffin.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

Perelman, C. (1982). The Realm of Rhetoric. Paris: University of Notre Dame Press.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