Social Representations Theory – Serge Moscovici

The landscape of twentieth-century social psychology was characterized by an acute epistemological divide. On one side stood the ascendant North American paradigm, rooted firmly in individualistic behaviorism, experimental reductionism, and intra-individual cognitive mechanics; on the other lay an emerging European consciousness seeking to reclaim the social nature of the human mind. At the vanguard of this intellectual reclamation stood the Romanian-born French social psychologist Serge Moscovici (1925–2014). With the publication of his seminal 1961 study on the public reception and cultural transformation of psychoanalysis in post-war France, Moscovici established Social Representations Theory (SRT). Far from proposing a mere social variant of mainstream cognitive psychology, Moscovici articulated an expansive meta-theoretical framework that redefined common sense not as an epistemic failure or a debased form of formal knowledge, but as an indispensable, generative, and sophisticated cognitive system through which human collectivities construct, navigate, and transform their shared realities.

Social Representations Theory posits that human beings are fundamentally symbolic animals who inhabit a world shaped by communication, culture, and collective history. In contrast to Cartesian paradigms that isolate an individual knower facing an objective, unmediated reality, Moscovici introduced a radical ternary epistemology: the Subject-Other-Object (Ego-Alter-Object) triad. Within this relational matrix, knowledge is never a direct internal copy of external inputs, nor is it an idiosyncratic cognitive projection; rather, it is continuously generated, negotiated, and maintained through intersubjective dialogue. Social representations constitute systems of values, ideas, metaphors, and social practices that fulfill two paramount, interconnected functions: they establish a symbolic order that enables individuals to orient themselves within their material and sociocultural environments, and they facilitate fluent communication among members of a community by providing a shared socio-semantic code for social interaction and mutual interpretation.

Over six decades since its inception, Social Representations Theory has evolved into a vast, pluralistic international research program. It spans multiple complementary schools of thought, including the structural approach developed at Aix-en-Provence under Jean-Claude Abric, the socio-dynamic paradigm pioneered by Willem Doise in Geneva, and cultural-dialogical trajectories formulated across the United Kingdom, Latin America, and beyond. This treatise provides an exhaustive, systemic exploration of Social Representations Theory. It traces its intellectual origins and philosophical architecture, details its primary sociocognitive mechanisms—anchoring and objectification—delineates its major structural and communicative models, evaluates its methodological paradigms, and assesses its ongoing relevance for analyzing the fractured, digitally mediated, and crisis-ridden landscapes of late modernity.

1. Foundations and Intellectual Genesis of Social Representations Theory

1.1 Emile Durkheim’s Collective Representations and Moscovici’s Departure

The conceptual lineage of Social Representations Theory traces back to the sociological foundations laid by Émile Durkheim at the turn of the twentieth century. Durkheim formulated the construct of “collective representations” (représentations collectives) to distinguish social facts from individual psychological phenomena. For Durkheim, collective representations comprised broad societal structures—such as religious myths, moral imperatives, legal systems, and ancestral traditions—that existed sui generis, external to the individual, and exerted an unyielding, coercive force over subjective experience. Within the classical Durkheimian framework, these representations were viewed as predominantly static, uniform, and stable entities characteristic of traditional societies marked by mechanical solidarity or unified cultural consensus. They served as conceptual anchors that secured social equilibrium and preserved collective consciousness against idiosyncratic deviation.

While Moscovici acknowledged his conceptual debt to Durkheim, his theoretical move was fundamentally revisionist. Moscovici argued that Durkheim’s formulation, while groundbreaking in its insistence on the irreducibility of the social, was ill-equipped to decipher the fractured, volatile, and hyper-dynamic conditions of modern democratic societies. In contemporary urbanized civilizations, monolithic collective representations have fragmented. Modernity is characterized by an accelerating turnover of scientific innovations, political discourses, and cultural pluralisms that defy totalizing sociological structures. Moscovici therefore substituted the Durkheimian notion of collective representations with that of “social representations,” deliberately replacing an adjective implying static, uniform, and coercive totality with one denoting dynamic, contested, and emergent communicative forms.

Moscovici’s departure rested on an epistemological transition: from homogeneous, external sociological constraints to heterogeneous, negotiated, and pluralistic sociocognitive systems. In modern societies, representations are not simply impressed upon passive minds by social structures; they are generated through daily conversational interactions, public deliberations, mass media transmissions, and political struggles. In this regard, Moscovici incorporated sensitivities closely aligned with symbolic interactionism and pragmatism, acknowledging human agency, reflexivity, and the constitutive power of communicative exchange. Where Durkheim viewed representations as cognitive products that preserved societal stability, Moscovici treated them as symbolic processes—living mental architectures continually renovated by social actors striving to domesticate novelty, construct common sense, and negotiate identity in a rapidly transforming world.

1.2 Historical Context of Post-War European Social Psychology

The genesis of Social Representations Theory must also be understood within the geopolitical and intellectual currents of mid-twentieth-century Europe. In the decades following the Second World War, the academic discipline of social psychology was overwhelmingly dominated by the North American academy. Influenced heavily by logical positivism, neo-behaviorism, and later by intra-individual information-processing cognitivism, American social psychology focused almost exclusively on the individual organism. Methodologically, it prioritized rigorous, decontextualized laboratory experimentation; conceptually, it reduced social phenomena to intrapsychic cognitive biases, perceptual errors, attitude scales, and discrete behavioral stimuli. In this paradigm, the “social” was treated merely as an external stimulus variable acting upon an otherwise isolated information processor, divorcing human thought from historical context, cultural meaning, and political reality.

Moscovici, alongside European contemporaries such as Henri Tajfel (who would develop Social Identity Theory), recognized this individualistic paradigm as an intellectual dead end that severed social psychology from its sociological, historical, and philosophical foundations. There was an urgent intellectual imperative to construct an autonomous, distinctly European social psychology capable of grappling with the profound collective traumas, ideological conflicts, and societal reconstructions of the post-war era. Moscovici envisioned a discipline that refused to collapse sociology into psychology or reduce culture to neurology. He sought to create an intellectual crossroads where structural anthropology, psychoanalysis, cognitive psychology, and sociology could converge to study human beings as inherently communicative, culture-producing agents.

This institutional and intellectual vision found its physical and pedagogical home at the prestigious École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) in Paris, where Moscovici established a vibrant research group. At the EHESS, Moscovici challenged the hegemony of the hypothetico-deductive experimental paradigm, advocating instead for methodological pluralism, historical contextualization, and theoretical breadth. By positioning the study of “natural thought” (la pensée naturelle) and collective common sense at the center of inquiry, Moscovici set out to build a discipline that treated everyday social life, cultural narratives, and conversational realities not as residual noise to be stripped away in a sterile laboratory, but as the essential, defining subject matter of the social sciences.

1.3 Moscovici’s Seminal 1961 Study: La Psychanalyse, son image et son public

The empirical foundation of Social Representations Theory was systematically established in Moscovici’s landmark 1961 doctoral dissertation, published as La Psychanalyse, son image et son public (Psychoanalysis: Its Image and Its Public). Rather than pursuing abstract meta-theoretical speculation, Moscovici undertook a massive, methodologically innovative investigation into how French society adapted, appropriated, and fundamentally transformed Freudian psychoanalytic theory during the late 1950s. Psychoanalysis offered the quintessential case study: it was a complex, esoteric, revolutionary scientific system that had escaped the confines of psychiatric clinics and academic academies to permeate the everyday lexicon, cultural practices, and popular imagination of an entire nation.

Moscovici deployed a rich mixed-methods approach combining extensive content analyses of over two hundred print publications with representative public opinion surveys and in-depth qualitative interviews across diverse sociopolitical strata of French society. He meticulously analyzed how vastly different social groups assimilated the Freudian corpus. His investigation focused particularly on three distinct cultural milieus: the urban liberal bourgeois sectors, the devout Catholic community, and the militant Marxist-Leninist factions aligned with the French Communist Party (PCF). Each of these groups encountered the same formal scientific body of knowledge, yet each transformed it into a radically different social representation, filtered through their own pre-existing institutional interests, normative doctrines, and ideological worldviews.

The urban bourgeois sector consumed psychoanalysis through the liberal mass media via a process Moscovici termed diffusion, treating it as an open, fashionable, intellectualized tool for individual self-exploration and sophisticated cocktail-party discourse. The Catholic press, by contrast, engaged in propagation: institutional authorities selectively appropriated elements of Freud’s theory that could be reconciled with Christian morality—such as the therapeutic value of the “talking cure” mirroring religious confession—while strictly excising and pathologizing Freud’s pan-sexual etiology of human behavior, thereby safeguarding the sanctity of the soul. Meanwhile, the Communist press engaged in aggressive propaganda: guided by Moscow’s ideological line, the PCF rejected psychoanalysis wholesale as a reactionary, decadent, bourgeois pseudo-science designed by American imperialism to demobilize the working class by locating the roots of social suffering inside the individual psyche rather than within capitalist relations of production.

Through this empirical tour de force, Moscovici uncovered the fundamental communicative filters shaping specialized knowledge into everyday social common sense. He revealed that society is not a passive sponge absorbing scientific truth, but a creative, active symbolic forge. In passing from the esoteric sphere of the clinic into the public square, psychoanalysis was radically reconstructed: abstract deductive concepts were dismantled, stripped of their clinical caveats, and reassembled into tangible, figurative schemas that ordinary people could use to explain interpersonal relationships, child-rearing, marital conflict, and neurotic behavior. The study demonstrated conclusively that social representations are functional, collective symbolic systems that domesticate scientific abstractions, turning the unfamiliar into the deeply familiar.

2. Epistemological Paradigm and Core Conceptual Framework

2.1 Defining Social Representations: The Science of Common Sense

In the epistemological architecture of Serge Moscovici, a social representation is defined as a system of values, ideas, metaphors, and behavioral practices that operates with a dual function. First, it establishes an intelligible order that enables social actors to orient themselves within their physical, social, and material worlds, mastering them without cognitive paralysis. Second, it facilitates fluid interpersonal and intra-group communication by equipping the members of a collectivity with a shared semantic code, a common symbolic currency for categorizing, naming, and debating various aspects of their worlds and their individual and collective histories. Far from being fleeting opinions or ephemeral impressions, social representations are robust, socially shared mental architectures that bridge the psychological reality of the individual with the cultural reality of the collectivity.

Moscovici famously characterized Social Representations Theory as the “science of common sense” (la science du sens commun) or natural thought (la pensée naturelle). Throughout the history of Western philosophy and classical scientific epistemology, common sense had long been castigated as a degraded, deficient, or corrupted mode of comprehension—a repository of vulgar illusions, superstitions, and cognitive biases waiting to be dismantled and purified by formal Cartesian deduction and empirical positivism. Moscovici radically overturned this hierarchical dichotomy. Drawing inspiration from anthropologists like Claude Lévi-Strauss and philosophers of science like Gaston Bachelard, he insisted that natural thought possesses an autonomous, highly sophisticated, and pragmatic logic of its own. Common sense is not failed science; it is a vital, culture-sustaining system of knowledge explicitly adapted to the relational, moral, and existential demands of everyday life.

The ontological stance of Social Representations Theory is resolutely constructivist and semiotic. It asserts that there is no pristine, unmediated “objective reality” accessible to human consciousness outside the interpretive matrices constructed through language, culture, and communication. We do not react to uninterpreted physical stimuli; we act upon a world meaningful to us through the representational networks we collectively fashion. By elevating common sense to a legitimate epistemological domain, Moscovici transformed social psychology from a technology of individual behavioral manipulation into an interpretative, critical human science dedicated to understanding how societies think, remember, and continuously reinvent the fabrics of their shared social existence.

2.2 The Subject-Other-Object Triad (Moscovici’s Ternary Epistemology)

At the center of Moscovici’s theoretical revolution lies his radical departure from the classical Cartesian binary epistemological model. Traditional Western psychology and philosophy operated upon a dualistic paradigm: an isolated Subject (Ego) confronting an independent, objective reality (Object). In this traditional schema, perception and cognition were conceptualized as direct, unmediated transactions between the solitary mind and the physical world, wherein the mind either accurately reflected the object or suffered from perceptual and cognitive illusions. Moscovici recognized that this binary model fundamentally obscured the social nature of knowledge production, as it erased the communicative context and collective history through which all human perception is structured.

To replace this atomistic view, Moscovici advanced a ternary epistemology: the Subject-Other-Object (Ego-Alter-Object) triad. In this semiotic framework, the relationship between the Subject and the Object is never direct; it is perpetually mediated by the Alter (the Other). The Alter is not merely an external observer or a physical presence; it represents the social world, symbolic institutions, historical narratives, peer groups, cultural traditions, and communicative matrices within which the Subject is enmeshed. We see, categorize, and experience the object through the linguistic categories, value judgments, and ideological lenses supplied by our interaction with the Other. The Alter can take the form of an immediate conversational partner, an ideological reference group, a cultural tradition, or an institutional authority.

This intersubjective triad fundamentally shifts the operational logic of research methodology and experimental social psychology. Perception is reconceptualized as a collaborative, socially influenced, and communicative act. One cannot isolate an individual’s evaluation of an issue—whether it is climate change, economic crisis, or artificial intelligence—without mapping the intersubjective field of relationships, group loyalties, and communicative channels in which that individual is situated. Moscovici’s ternary model asserts that all knowledge is intrinsically dialogical: to know an object is simultaneously to align oneself with, or differentiate oneself from, the Other. Social reality is not merely an assemblage of inert material entities waiting to be categorized; it is an ongoing symbolic construction sustained through the perpetual dance of intersubjective co-presence and mutual influence.

2.3 Distinction Between Consensual and Reified Universes

To understand the societal imperative that drives the continuous generation of social representations, Moscovici bifurcated modern society into two distinct yet dialectically intertwined symbolic realms: the Reified Universe and the Consensual Universe. This conceptual distinction captures the historical transition of modern societies into environments saturated by institutional expertise, scientific innovation, and technocratic administration, and it explains the psychological work required of modern citizens to navigate this landscape.

The Reified Universe represents the bounded spheres of formal science, technical rationality, bureaucratic administration, and institutionalized expertise. In this universe, society views itself as a stratified system of specialized roles, empirical laws, abstract classifications, and formal logical systems. Human actors within the reified universe are ostensibly detached, objective observers who must adhere to strict methodological rules, standardized metrics, and depersonalized calculations. In this domain, truth is claimed to be independent of identity, emotion, or local community; individuals participate not as whole, holistic human beings, but as specialized functionaries—physicians, legal scholars, epidemiologists, or theoretical physicists. The language of the reified universe is rigorous, mathematical, esoteric, and strictly regulated by peer-reviewed canons.

Conversely, the Consensual Universe constitutes the informal realm of everyday conversational exchange, public discourse, collective narrative, and spontaneous social interaction. In this universe, society perceives itself as an ongoing collective creation where all members are entitled to possess an equal voice and to apply their common sense to the dilemmas of life. Here, individuals interact not as specialized technocrats, but as complete, embodied subjects guided by historical memories, moral imperatives, emotional attachments, and pragmatic considerations. While the reified universe seeks universal abstraction and algorithmic detachment, the consensual universe seeks human meaning, normative coherence, and social solidarity. The fundamental medium of the consensual universe is natural speech, metaphor, gossip, informal debate, and everyday narrative.

The crucial insight of Social Representations Theory is that these two universes do not exist in sealed isolation; they are locked in a state of continuous translation and circular movement. Modern individuals are continually bombarded by novel, esoteric, and anxiety-inducing concepts emerging from the reified universe—such as climate change projections, mRNA technologies, macroeconomic inflation models, or neural networks. Because ordinary life cannot be lived through the abstract, counter-intuitive equations of the reified universe, the consensual universe must perform constant labor to translate, reconstruct, and domesticate these scientific uncertainties into actionable lay consensus. Social representations serve precisely as this interpretive bridge: they seize the arcane products of the reified universe and transmute them into the familiar, vivid, and communicable common sense of the consensual universe.

3. The Generative Mechanisms: Anchoring (L’Ancrage)

3.1 Conceptual Mechanics: Integrating the Unfamiliar into Pre-Existing Categories

How does the consensual universe bridge the gap between esoteric scientific constructs and everyday common sense? Moscovici argued that this transformation is executed through two primary, deeply interconnected sociocognitive mechanisms: anchoring (l’ancrage) and objectification (l’objectivation). Anchoring constitutes the process by which society assimilates threatening, novel, or esoteric phenomena into pre-existing, deeply familiar semantic matrices and culturally established taxonomies. Confronted with a completely unfamiliar event, illness, or technological development, human beings experience acute cognitive dissonance and existential dread. The mind cannot tolerate the radical strangeness of an unclassified entity; it demands meaning and orientation.

Anchoring operates as a cognitive and communicative tether, drawing the floating, unfamiliar object down into the well-charted waters of collective cultural history. In terms of cognitive psychology, anchoring bears a functional resemblance to Jean Piaget’s concept of assimilation, wherein new environmental information is integrated into existing cognitive structures without altering the underlying schemas. However, unlike Piagetian intra-individual cognitive schemas, anchoring is an explicitly social, dialogical, and historical process that unfolds across conversational networks, media channels, and institutional discourses. When an unfamiliar phenomenon emerges, society immediately searches its historical repertoire, ideological frameworks, and traditional mythologies for a suitable analogy, an established category that can neutralize the novelty and domesticate the unknown.

Through the taxonomic imperative of anchoring, social groups systematically classify the unfamiliar along established cultural genealogies. For example, when the novel disease entity known as AIDS first emerged in the early 1980s, the medical mystery generated immense societal terror. Society quickly anchored this novel retrovirus into archaic, morally charged cultural categories: the medieval “plague,” divine retribution for moral transgression, or a disease of social pariahs. By sorting the unfamiliar phenomenon into these historical archetypes, social groups perform an act of cognitive conservation. They preserve the stability and integrity of their pre-existing normative frameworks, ensuring that societal flux and disruptive events do not dismantle their fundamental worldviews.

3.2 Naming, Classifying, and the Neutralization of Threat

Anchoring is fundamentally an act of linguistic naming and normative classification. To name an object is not merely to assign it an arbitrary semantic label; it is a performative, constitutive act that bestows ontological security upon a chaotic reality. As Moscovici observed, an unnamed phenomenon remains an ominous, unmanageable specter that disrupts social communication. The moment a label is applied, the phenomenon is dragged out of the shadowy abyss of the incomprehensible and placed into the bright arena of common discourse. Once an entity is named, people can speak about it, debate it, assign blame, and devise collective strategies to manage it.

Classification, within the mechanics of anchoring, immediately attributes moral, social, and functional properties to the unfamiliar object. To classify is simultaneously to evaluate. When an unfamiliar behavior is classified under the clinical nomenclature of “mental illness,” it is assigned a radically different matrix of rights, moral responsibilities, and therapeutic interventions than if that same behavior were anchored within the religious category of “demonic possession” or the criminal category of “moral deviance.” The act of naming acts as an interpretive filter: it directs social perception toward certain attributes of the phenomenon while rendering other dimensions entirely invisible.

Furthermore, naming and classifying serve to neutralize threat through the invocation of historical allegories. By labeling an unprecedented economic collapse as a “Great Depression” or a geopolitical crisis as a “New Cold War,” society tames the existential vertigo of the present by asserting that this frightening novelty has occurred before and is therefore historically decipherable and manageable. Conversely, nomenclature can be weaponized to pathologize or valorize emerging phenomena. By anchoring a political protest movement under the label of “rioters” or “insurrectionists” versus “freedom fighters” or “civil rights activists,” dominant or counter-hegemonic groups predetermine the moral and legal landscape through which the actors will be perceived and treated.

3.3 Social Integration and Functional Consequences of Anchoring

The functional consequences of anchoring extend far beyond passive cognitive categorization; anchoring is the engine that drives pragmatic social action and everyday orientation. By embedding the unfamiliar within established cultural codes, anchoring provides social actors with immediate, actionable scripts for behavior. An individual does not need to read complex microbiological papers on viral loads to know how to act during a pandemic; the moment the virus is anchored as a “deadly airborne contagion,” a behavioral protocol—avoiding crowds, sanitizing surfaces, wearing masks—is triggered based on existing socio-cultural knowledge regarding contamination and hygiene.

Anchoring also acts as an instrument for the maintenance and expression of social identities. Different social groups will anchor identical phenomena into radically divergent ideological foundations based on their respective group histories, class belongings, and values. For instance, an identical socioeconomic reality, such as welfare policy, can be anchored by conservative social groups within narratives of “individual dependency” and “moral decay,” while progressive groups anchor it within frameworks of “universal human rights” and “systemic redistribution.” In each case, the anchoring mechanism embeds the phenomenon into the group’s foundational identity narratives, reinforcing in-group solidarity and sharpening the boundary lines separating them from the out-group.

Ultimately, anchoring prevents collective cognitive paralysis. In the face of disruptive epidemiological, political, or ecological crises that shatter daily routines and ontological security, anchoring functions as a collective psychological defense mechanism. It allows societies to rapidly domesticate cognitive anomalies, ensuring that communication does not break down and that collective life can proceed with an intelligible, shared script. Through anchoring, society continuously pulls the radically new back into the comfort of the historically known, sustaining cultural continuity across ruptures of historical time.

4. The Generative Mechanisms: Objectification (L’Objectivation)

4.1 Transforming Abstract Concepts into Concrete Realities

While anchoring domesticates the unfamiliar by assimilating it into existing conceptual categories, objectification (l’objectivation) operates through a complementary, more materializing mechanism: it transforms purely abstract, intangible, and esoteric constructs into concrete, tangible, and visible realities. Natural thought feels inherently uncomfortable in the presence of disembodied, non-sensory abstractions. The human consensual universe has an insatiable appetite for the concrete, the visible, the physical, and the semiotic. Objectification satisfies this cognitive demand by turning ideas into things—translating abstract theoretical signifiers into accessible experiential signifieds.

The process of objectification operates through a phase of selective decontextualization. When an esoteric theory—such as Freudian psychoanalysis, biological evolution, or climate science—emerges from the reified universe of academic laboratories, it consists of a complex web of qualifications, mathematical probabilities, and deductive hypotheses. The lay public does not assimilate this theoretical edifice in its totality. Instead, conversational networks and media platforms selectively extract specific elements from the theoretical matrix, severing them from their rigorous academic context and stripping away their epistemic nuances. The extracted concepts are then recombined into a streamlined, highly intuitive mental schema that can be easily circulated within public discourse.

This selective decontextualization achieves cognitive economization. Instead of requiring individuals to retain intricate, multi-layered deductive systems, objectification provides concise, iconic archetypes that summarize the core essence of the phenomenon. Society replaces complex mathematical models of anthropogenic atmospheric warming with the tangible image of a stranded polar bear on a melting ice floe. By transforming the abstract into the sensory, objectification allows individuals to “see” and “touch” ideological, scientific, and institutional concepts that would otherwise remain elusive, facilitating their seamless circulation within everyday communication.

4.2 The Figurative Nucleus (Noyau Figuratif) and Iconization

The central operational engine of objectification is the formation of the figurative nucleus (noyau figuratif), also known as the process of iconization. In this crucial stage, the selectively decontextualized concepts crystallize into a coherent, graphic, and highly memorable visual or mental image that captures the essence of the complex phenomenon. The figurative nucleus serves as a conceptual blueprint, a visual-semantic synthesis that unifies disparate elements into an instantly recognizable, self-evident gestalt.

In his 1961 study of psychoanalysis, Moscovici provided the classic illustration of the figurative nucleus. Freudian metapsychology is an intricate, highly abstract topological and economic model of the mind. However, as it was objectified within French popular culture, it condensed into an architectural, spatialized image: the human psyche was envisioned as a two-tiered structure consisting of a conscious surface (the ego) and a repressed subterranean chamber (the unconscious), separated by a vigilant barrier (the censor/superego), wherein repressed sexual desires boiled beneath the surface until slipping out via Freudian slips or neurotic symptoms. This graphic, highly spatialized metaphor served as the figurative nucleus of psychoanalysis. It was simple, communicable, and visually compelling, allowing ordinary citizens to “map” their own emotional lives and those of their peers onto this concrete psychological anatomy.

Iconization relies heavily on visual tropes, metaphorical structures, and cultural iconography to anchor and propagate meaning. In contemporary public health crises, abstract virological concepts like viral replication, immune response, and herd immunity are routinely objectified through military metaphors and combat iconography: the body is a “citadel,” the virus is an “invader,” and antibodies are “weapons” seeking out the enemy. Similarly, complex macroeconomic dynamics are objectified through household budgeting metaphors—”tightening our belts” or “balancing the checkbook.” The figurative nucleus condenses multifaceted, systemic problems into an iconic, easily disseminated symbol, establishing a vivid cognitive shorthand that anchors public perception and dictates the parameters of public discourse.

4.3 Naturalization: Bestowing Physical Reality Upon Metaphors

The final, most profound phase of objectification is naturalization. In this stage, the figurative nucleus ceases to be perceived as a metaphor, an illustrative analogy, or an artificial human construct; instead, it is ontologically projected onto the external world and perceived as an objective, physical fact of nature. What was originally an abstract theoretical signifier becomes an unquestioned, material reality woven into the fabric of everyday experience. The metaphor has solidified into stone.

To return to Moscovici’s investigation of psychoanalysis: in the early twentieth century, the “unconscious” was an abstract theoretical postulate, a clinical hypothesis formulated by Sigmund Freud to explain specific hysterical symptoms. Following decades of objectification and naturalization, modern Western individuals no longer view the unconscious as a theoretical model; they talk about their “unconscious” as if it were a physical organ, a tangible entity like the liver or the spleen that possesses desires, stores memories, and drives behavior. People casually state, “My unconscious made me do it,” demonstrating that the theoretical construct has become an ontological certainty in natural thought. The artificial, historical origins of the concept have been entirely forgotten through a process of collective amnesia.

Naturalization has profound behavioral and institutional consequences across clinical, legal, educational, and political settings. When an abstract classification—such as “intelligence quotient” (IQ), “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder” (ADHD), or “market forces”—is naturalized, it dictates tangible administrative interventions, pharmacological treatments, judicial verdicts, and economic policies. These constructs cease to be interrogated as socially negotiated conceptual frameworks; they become behavioral realities to which individuals must adapt. Naturalization completes the circle of representation: it transforms the subjective creations of society into objective social facts, which then circle back to exert an authoritative, shaping influence upon the very subjects who generated them.

5. Structural Evolution: The Central Core Theory (The Aix School)

5.1 The Central Core (Noyau Central): Stability, Normativeness, and Consensus

As Social Representations Theory proliferated across Europe, scholars sought to formulate more precise, structurally rigorous models capable of operationalizing Moscovici’s foundational ideas. Chief among these was the structural approach developed at the University of Aix-en-Provence, spearheaded by Jean-Claude Abric (1941–2012) and elaborated by Claude Flament and Christian Guimelli. Known internationally as the Central Core Theory (Théorie du Noyau Central), this framework conceptualizes a social representation not as a shapeless, amorphous cloud of associations, but as a hierarchical, structurally organized cognitive system composed of two fundamentally distinct yet complementary subsystems: the Central Core and the Peripheral System.

The Central Core (noyau central) constitutes the foundational, consensual, and historically stable heart of the representation. It is the core that gives the representation its fundamental meaning, coherence, and organizational architecture. The elements that comprise the central core are marked by three essential characteristics: stability, rigid consensus, and deep normativeness. The core is deeply embedded in collective memory, historical values, and the fundamental identity of the group. Because it represents the collective agreement of the community, the central core is remarkably resistant to immediate situational pressures, empirical contradictions, or temporary contextual fluctuations. It is the unshakeable axis around which the rest of the representation rotates.

The central core fulfills a double function within the representation: a generating function and an organizing function. Through its generating function, the core creates the meaning of the representation; any peripheral element or newly introduced piece of information is interpreted, evaluated, and assigned significance strictly in relation to the core values. Through its organizing function, the core determines the relations between all other elements, dictating how they are linked, prioritized, or marginalized. Crucially, Abric established that if the central core of a representation is modified or broken, the entire representation collapses or undergoes radical mutation. The identity of a social representation is entirely defined by the composition of its central core; two representations possessing identical peripheral elements but different central cores are fundamentally different representations.

5.2 The Peripheral System (Système Périphérique): Flexibility and Defense

Surrounding this rigid central core is the Peripheral System (système périphérique), which constitutes the vast majority of the manifest content of a social representation. While the core is stable, consensual, and abstract, the peripheral system is dynamic, flexible, heterogeneous, and deeply anchored in immediate situational realities. The peripheral system contains the specific beliefs, secondary associations, personal anecdotes, practical exceptions, and localized behavioral scripts through which individuals navigate daily life.

The peripheral system fulfills three vital functional roles in the life of a social representation:

• Adaptation to Contextual Reality: The peripheral elements allow the representation to adapt flexibly to heterogeneous individual experiences, idiosyncratic variations, and the specific demands of immediate, local contexts without threatening the stability of the central core.
• Regulation of Practices: The peripheral system operates as an actionable interface between the abstract values of the central core and concrete behavioral practices, providing pragmatic guidelines for how an individual should act in a specific, localized encounter.
• The Bumper/Shield Function: The peripheral system serves as a protective buffer, absorbing environmental contradictions, empirical anomalies, and counter-evidence. When reality produces facts that directly contradict the values of the central core, the peripheral system engages in complex rationalizations, treating the contradictions as mere “exceptions to the rule,” thereby shielding the central core from existential collapse.

The structural approach provides an elegant explanation for how social representations evolve over historical time. Transformation rarely occurs through sudden, cataclysmic core ruptures. Instead, evolution occurs gradually via the peripheral system. When external sociopolitical or material transformations persist in producing contradictions that the peripheral system can no longer rationalize away, tension mounts. The peripheral system undergoes progressive reorganizations until its protective barrier fails, ultimately forcing a restructuring or complete mutation of the central core. The interplay between the rigid core and the elastic periphery resolves the classic sociological dilemma of how a cultural system can simultaneously maintain long-term historical stability while remaining agile and responsive to everyday change.

5.3 Methodological Approaches to Core Identification

To substantiate the Central Core Theory empirically, researchers within the Aix School engineered rigorous, innovative methodological tools designed to systematically distinguish central core elements from peripheral beliefs. Because simple frequency counts of survey responses cannot reveal whether an idea is structurally fundamental or merely widely recognized, structuralists developed specific diagnostic tests centered on the semantic architecture of natural language.

The most widely deployed quantitative-structural technique is the Hierarchical Evocations Method, developed by Pierre Vergès. In this method, participants are presented with an inductor term (e.g., “Higher Education,” “Health,” or “Democracy”) and asked to spontaneously produce the first five words or expressions that come to their mind, subsequently ranking these items in order of subjective importance. By crossing the frequency of an evoked term with its rank order of appearance (average position in the evocation sequence), researchers construct a four-quadrant matrix (the Vergès Matrix):

• First Quadrant (High Frequency, Low Rank/Early Evocation): Hypothesized Central Core elements. These words come first to mind with overwhelming regularity across the sample, indicating high cognitive accessibility and collective consensus.
• Second Quadrant (High Frequency, High Rank/Late Evocation): First Periphery elements. These are widely shared cultural associations, but they do not possess the immediate organizational salience of the core.
• Third Quadrant (Low Frequency, Low Rank/Early Evocation): Contrasting Zone. Highly salient elements for a specific subgroup, often signaling the emergence of a minority representation or an ideological counter-core.
• Fourth Quadrant (Low Frequency, High Rank/Late Evocation): Second Periphery elements. Highly idiosyncratic, localized, or situation-specific associations that have minimal impact on the overarching representation.

To definitively validate whether the elements identified in the first quadrant truly constitute the central core, researchers utilize the Calling-Into-Question Technique (technique de mise en cause) or the test of context independence. In this procedure, the researcher directly challenges the non-negotiability of the hypothesized core element by posing a counter-factual scenario: “Can an entity still be considered [X] if it lacks [Core Element Y]?” (e.g., “Can an enterprise still be an enterprise if it makes no profit?”). If the overwhelming majority of respondents state that the entity ceases to exist without that specific attribute, the element is empirically confirmed as belonging to the central core. Through these methods, the Aix School introduced psychometric precision to the study of social representations, making it a powerful paradigm for organizational psychology, public health, and educational research.

6. The Socio-Dynamic Approach (The Geneva School)

6.1 Representations as Organizing Principles of Symbolic Relationships

While the Aix School focused heavily on the internal cognitive-structural architecture of representations, another vital European intellectual center—the University of Geneva—developed an alternative, highly complementary paradigm. Led by the prominent Swiss-based social psychologist Willem Doise (1935–2023), the Geneva School formulated the Socio-Dynamic Approach. Doise critiqued purely structural models for treating representations as overly insular, cognitive structures, arguing that representations must be analyzed primarily as dynamic organizing principles governing symbolic relationships, power asymmetries, and social positioning between groups.

For Doise and the Geneva School, a social representation is not defined by universal cognitive consensus across an entire population. Instead, representations are conceptualized as shared, common reference points around which social actors take systematically divergent, predictable positions based on their structural locations in society. A society or community shares a common representational field—they agree on what the issues, the stakes, and the fundamental debates are—but they construct opposing individual and group stances within that shared field. For example, in a debate over economic austerity, all actors may share the broad representation that public finances are constrained (the shared reference point), yet their specific political stances—whether to slash social services or levy higher corporate taxes—are systematically anchored in their distinct class belongings and ideological positions.

The socio-dynamic approach therefore shifts the analytical focus from cognitive consensus to the dialectical relationship between shared symbolic spaces and systematic positioning. Social representations act as normative frameworks that regulate symbolic exchanges, ideological conflicts, and institutional interactions within complex, stratified societies. They provide the common language and the social terrain upon which social groups wage struggles over legitimacy, resource distribution, and human rights. Knowledge is thus inherently positional: what one knows, and how one represents an object, is indissociable from where one stands in the social hierarchy.

6.2 Cross-Level Analysis: Doise’s Four Levels of Explanation

One of Willem Doise’s most enduring contributions to social psychology is his meta-theoretical model of the Four Levels of Explanation. Doise argued that social psychology had suffered historically from chronic reductionism because researchers routinely attempted to explain complex macro-social events using narrow intrapsychic concepts, or vice versa. To build a truly integrated social science, Doise insisted that researchers must conduct cross-level analyses, mapping how phenomena operate simultaneously across four distinct levels:

• Level I (Intra-individual): Focuses on how individuals organize their perception, cognitive processing, and emotional evaluation of the social environment (e.g., cognitive heuristics, information processing, dissonance reduction mechanisms).
• Level II (Inter-individual and Situational): Focuses on the dynamics of interaction between individuals within specific, immediate, and interchangeable social contexts, treating the actors as equals without regard to their external societal statuses (e.g., classic laboratory game theory, interpersonal attraction, dyadic communication).
• Level III (Positional / Inter-group): Introduces the reality of social stratification, focusing on how differences in social position, asymmetric status, group memberships, and categorical hierarchies (e.g., class, gender, race, organizational rank) systematically shape individuals’ perceptions and social relations.
• Level IV (Ideological): Encompasses the overarching cultural belief systems, institutional ideologies, historical worldviews, moral values, and collective mythologies that permeate an entire society, establishing what is considered legitimate, natural, or just.

Within this meta-theoretical architecture, Social Representations Theory is uniquely positioned as a multi-level paradigm par excellence. Rather than confining its inquiries to Level I or II like mainstream cognitive psychology, or remaining suspended at Level IV like traditional grand sociology, SRT operates across the intersection of all four levels. It demonstrates how Level IV ideological discourses are mediated through Level III positional realities, translated within Level II conversational interactions, and ultimately incorporated into Level I cognitive orientations. Doise’s four-level typology provides social representations researchers with a rigorous diagnostic map to ensure their empirical investigations maintain structural depth and avoid reductionism.

6.3 Multi-Dimensional Anchoring Mechanisms

To operationalize how individuals take specific stances within shared representational fields, the Geneva School significantly expanded Moscovici’s foundational concept of anchoring. Doise established that anchoring is not a monolithic process, but rather a multi-dimensional operation through which social representations are articulated into three distinct yet intersecting societal dimensions: sociological anchoring, psychological anchoring, and epistemic anchoring.

Sociological (or positional) anchoring examines how social representations are deeply rooted in the social categories, power asymmetries, class positions, and institutional affiliations of the actors. Here, the variation in how individuals represent an issue—such as immigration, criminal justice, or taxation—is empirically traced to their structural location within the societal division of labor and social status. Research in this vein demonstrates that individuals belonging to marginalized groups anchor representations of justice in redistributive and protective principles, whereas dominant elites anchor justice in meritocratic and property-based norms.

Psychological anchoring investigates how social representations are articulated with an individual’s pre-existing value systems, general worldviews, and cognitive styles. For instance, Doise’s extensive international studies on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights revealed that while citizens across multiple continents shared a common abstract representation of what human rights were, their willingness to support institutional interventions to enforce these rights was psychologically anchored in their general adherence to distinct value systems (e.g., authoritarianism vs. libertarianism; individualism vs. collectivism).

Finally, epistemic anchoring traces how representations are inextricably tied to broader, culturally accepted historical traditions and domain-specific knowledge conventions. This involves examining how contemporary commonsense beliefs about morality, disease, or science are anchored in centuries-old religious dogmas, legal codes, and philosophical traditions that continue to quietly organize contemporary thought. Through this tripartite model of anchoring, the Geneva School transformed the study of social representations into a sophisticated, highly empirical sociology of knowledge capable of untangling the political and institutional dynamics of contemporary society.

7. Communicative Modalities and Diffusion in the Public Sphere

7.1 Diffusion, Propagation, and Propaganda: The Tripartite Model

One of the most foundational yet frequently overlooked dimensions of Serge Moscovici’s 1961 thesis is his systemic analysis of communication systems. Moscovici recognized that social representations do not simply materialize from thin air; they are produced, cultivated, and disseminated through distinct communicative modalities operating within the public sphere. He identified three distinct, ideal-typical communicative systems through which media channels, institutions, and groups shape natural thought: diffusion, propagation, and propaganda.

Diffusion is the characteristic communicative mode of the broad, commercial mass media operating within open, liberal democratic societies. In diffusion, an outlet (such as a major metropolitan newspaper, television network, or commercial news portal) addresses a massive, heterogeneous, and undifferentiated audience. The communicative intent of diffusion is neither ideological indoctrination nor behavioral mobilization; rather, it seeks to inform, entertain, adapt to popular consumer demand, and reflect current affairs. The media organization maintains an ostensibly neutral, detached posture, reporting on diverse, often contradictory viewpoints without demanding that the audience adopt a rigid ideological stance. Knowledge is presented in a fragmented, highly accessible, and non-prescriptive manner.

Propagation is the communicative strategy utilized by organized, doctrinal institutions that possess a well-defined constituency and a coherent moral, philosophical, or spiritual framework—such as the Catholic Church, professional medical associations, or traditional trade unions. The objective of propagation is not to entertain or present an open buffet of perspectives, but to selectively assimilate and domesticate new, potentially disruptive external phenomena into the institution’s pre-existing, non-negotiable doctrinal architecture. In propagation, institutional authorities act as authoritative gatekeepers: they scrutinize new knowledge, filter out elements that openly threaten their foundational values, and integrate the sanitized remnants into their established worldview, providing their followers with explicit normative guidelines on how to interpret the phenomenon in accordance with their group identity.

Propaganda represents the combative, partisan, and highly disciplined communicative mode characteristic of militant political organizations, ideological factions, or authoritarian regimes—such as the French Communist Party in Moscovici’s original study. Propaganda is driven by an explicit imperative: ideological conflict, totalizing group mobilization, and the destruction of opposing worldviews. Propaganda does not seek to inform (like diffusion) nor does it seek moral accommodation (like propagation); it seeks total orthodoxy and direct action. The communicative style is binary, polemical, and uncompromising. Reality is partitioned into rigid, moralistic dichotomies: truth versus falsehood, the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie, the pure in-group versus the corrupt, treacherous out-group. New phenomena are not evaluated on their intrinsic merits, but are weaponized as instruments of political warfare.

7.2 Formation of Opinions, Attitudes, and Stereotypes

Crucially, Moscovici established a direct causal correspondence between these three communicative modalities and three primary psychological constructs that had long been studied independently by American social psychology: opinions, attitudes, and stereotypes. Moscovici argued that these cognitive states are not simply intrapsychic constructs; they are the direct psychological residues of specific communicative systems.

Diffusion produces opinions. Because diffusion exposes individuals to fluid, contradictory, and non-binding information without demanding moral allegiance, it produces opinions: unstable, superficial, and easily mutable cognitive states. An opinion is an intellectual evaluation that possesses low behavioral commitment; it is the currency of the casual voter, the consumer, and the cocktail-party conversationalist. Opinions fluctuate rapidly in response to changing media trends because they are not anchored in deep institutional loyalties or coherent moral systems.

Propagation produces attitudes. Because propagation systematically incorporates new realities into established, authoritative moral systems, it cultivates attitudes: structured, stable, and normatively guided predispositions to act. An attitude formed via propagation is far deeper than a mere opinion. It carries ethical weight, reflects group membership, and serves as an enduring guide for personal conduct. A devout religious believer whose church has propagated a specific stance on bioethics or reproductive technologies does not merely hold an ephemeral “opinion”; they hold a deeply anchored “attitude” that informs their voting behavior, medical choices, and moral judgments.

Propaganda produces stereotypes. Because propaganda operates through aggressive, binary ideological conflict, it generates stereotypes: rigid, highly simplified, emotionally charged, and virtually unshakeable behavioral scripts. A stereotype is an extreme form of cognitive closure that permits no nuance, ambiguity, or individual variation. It reduces complex social realities to hyper-simplified caricatures designed to facilitate immediate, unhesitating collective action—whether that action takes the form of political protest, institutional discrimination, or physical violence against the designated enemy. Through this tripartite model, Moscovici brilliantly unified mass communication theory with cognitive-behavioral outcomes, demonstrating that how society talks directly determines how the human mind thinks.

7.3 Everyday Discourse, Rumor, and Social Interaction

While the institutional channels of diffusion, propagation, and propaganda construct the broad communicative parameters of society, Moscovici insisted that the ultimate, indispensable crucible of representational life is everyday discourse: informal, spontaneous interpersonal conversation. It is around kitchen tables, in neighborhood cafes, within watercooler banter at the workplace, and in the casual commentary of social life that representations are actually forged, negotiated, tested, and lived.

Interpersonal conversation acts as an active symbolic digestive tract. When individuals discuss the news, family crises, or technological breakthroughs, they do not simply repeat media broadcasts verbatim. Instead, they interrupt, contest, elaborate, tell personal anecdotes, invoke shared cultural humor, and collectively smooth out the conceptual edges of novel ideas. Natural language is intrinsically creative and dialogical: through the collaborative labor of mutual comprehension, conversational partners co-construct shared representations, translating the foreign and technical jargon of the reified universe into a vibrant, locally tailored collective dialect.

A particularly dramatic manifestation of communicative elaboration during moments of acute social crisis is the phenomenon of rumor. Rumors are not mere informational pathology or random noise; within Social Representations Theory, rumors represent accelerated, emergent collective sense-making in environments characterized by high anxiety, epistemic ambiguity, and low institutional trust. When official institutional channels fail to provide convincing, culturally anchored explanations for traumatic disruptions—such as economic shocks, sudden blackouts, or epidemics—the informal conversational networks of society go into overdrive. Rumors rapidly generate figurative nuclei, personify abstract threats, assign moral culpability, and construct instant compensatory representations that restore a fleeting sense of cognitive control and group solidarity amidst chaos.

8. Social Representations and the Construction of Identity

8.1 Interplay Between Social Identity Theory and Social Representations

The relationship between Social Representations Theory and Social Identity Theory (SIT)—pioneered by Moscovici’s close friend and collaborator Henri Tajfel—represents one of the most intellectually fertile intersections in modern European social psychology. While SIT focuses primarily on the sociocognitive and motivational processes of social categorization, social comparison, and the pursuit of positive in-group distinctiveness, Social Representations Theory supplies the rich, cultural, and symbolic content that breathes life into these categories. The two theories are deeply complementary: social identity provides the categorical skeleton, while social representations provide the living cultural flesh.

In Social Representations Theory, representations serve as the vital symbolic currencies that define, authenticate, and validate in-group membership. To belong to a specific group—whether an ethnic community, a social class, a professional guild, or a political movement—does not merely mean checking a box on a demographic survey; it means sharing, inhabiting, and actively deploying that group’s social representations. A group’s shared representations of history, justice, morality, and identity constitute its symbolic boundary markers. To speak the group’s representational language, to laugh at its culturally objectified jokes, to share its anchored fears, and to utilize its figurative lexicon is the ultimate test of cultural and social belonging.

Social identity is therefore an internal psychological consequence of enmeshment within shared representational frameworks. An individual’s sense of self is constructed, sustained, and expressed through the culturally and historically situated representational practices of the communities to which they belong. By viewing identity through the lens of Moscovici’s framework, identity ceases to be a static psychological attribute locked inside an individual’s head; it becomes a dynamic, conversational performance that is continually re-enacted and validated through symbolic interaction with both in-group allies and out-group others.

8.2 Symbolic Coping and the Maintenance of Group Boundaries

When communities are confronted with disruptive, catastrophic, or paradigm-shifting events—such as technological revolutions, environmental disasters, or foreign cultural incursions—their collective identity is placed in acute jeopardy. Under such existential threats, social groups engage in what Wolfgang Wagner and colleagues conceptualized as symbolic coping: collective cognitive, communicative, and affective labor designed to domesticate the threat, restore ontological security, and preserve the coherence of group identity.

Symbolic coping operates by erecting and reinforcing symbolic boundaries between “Us” and “Them.” To maintain identity coherence when confronted with disconfirming empirical evidence or external cultural hegemony, groups utilize defensive representational strategies. They systematically construct asymmetric representations: the in-group’s knowledge is represented as rational, moral, historically grounded, and authentic, while the out-group’s knowledge is objectified as irrational, corrupted, alien, and dangerous. By projecting negative traits, contamination, and moral decay onto the out-group, the in-group preserves its internal purity and stabilizes its collective self-esteem.

This dynamic is especially visible in the defensive representational strategies deployed by minority groups, traditional religious enclaves, and subcultural formations resisting the homogenizing forces of globalization or technocratic modernization. When dominant societal discourses label these groups as backward, unscientific, or retrograde, the groups actively construct counter-representations. They re-anchor modernity as “spiritual vacuity” or “cultural decadence,” while re-objectifying their own traditional practices as sacred shields of moral integrity. Symbolic coping demonstrates that social representations are not merely cognitive instruments for understanding the world; they are collective psychological armor designed to preserve the continuity and dignity of the social self against existential dissolution.

8.3 Marginalization, Stigmatization, and Alterity

The dark underside of the Subject-Other-Object triad is the sociocognitive process of othering, stigmatization, and the production of marginality. As feminist scholars, post-colonial theorists, and critical social psychologists like Sandra Jovchelovitch have demonstrated within the SRT tradition, the power to represent is not distributed equally across society. Social representations are forged within historical fields of power, structural inequality, and imperial domination. What becomes “common sense” in a society is overwhelmingly dictated by the representations generated and institutionalized by dominant, hegemonic groups.

The mechanics of othering operate through the asymmetric deployment of anchoring and objectification. Dominant groups routinely represent themselves as possessing complexity, agency, rationality, and individuality. Conversely, marginalized groups—such as ethnic and racial minorities, indigenous populations, the economically disenfranchised, and psychiatric patients—are subjected to reductive, stereotyping, and exoticizing representations. They are anchored in archaic, dehumanizing categories (e.g., the “noble savage,” the “criminal element,” the “parasite”) and objectified through degrading cultural iconography that reduces entire populations to physical caricatures, moral pathologies, or biological threats.

Crucially, Social Representations Theory investigates the double consciousness of stigmatization: the harrowing dialectic between internalization and resistance. While marginalized populations are constantly inundated by the stigmatizing representations propagated by dominant institutions, they do not always accept these imposed identities passively. Communities of resistance actively wage representational struggles. They repurpose, subvert, and re-anchor derogatory labels—as seen in the reclamation of the term “Queer” or the “Black is Beautiful” movement—constructing counter-hegemonic representations that affirm their humanity, rewrite their historical agency, and destabilize the oppressive consensus of the dominant social order.

9. Methodological Methodologies in Social Representations Research

9.1 Qualitative Approaches: Discourse Analysis, Interviews, and Focus Groups

Because Social Representations Theory conceives of human thought as an inherently conversational, semiotic, and dialogical phenomenon, qualitative methodologies have historically occupied a central, privileged place in empirical research. Rather than stripping context away within artificial laboratory environments, qualitative researchers endeavor to capture social representations in their natural ecological habitats: in spontaneous speech, media texts, institutional archives, and interactive group discussions.

In-depth semi-structured interviews serve as a premier tool for eliciting the deep communicative repertoires, historical genealogies, and thematic anchors that structure an individual’s worldview. Through carefully designed narrative and episodic interview protocols, researchers allow participants to speak in their natural idiom. The objective is not to measure an isolated variable, but to trace the linguistic analogies, personal stories, and figurative metaphors through which the subject domesticates the topic under study, revealing the socio-cultural matrices operating within the individual psyche.

Focus groups represent the gold standard for observing the real-time social genesis and communicative negotiation of representations. Focus groups are not merely group interviews; they function as micro-public spheres, collective conversational spaces where researchers can observe how consensus is achieved, how counter-arguments are introduced and neutralized, and how anchoring and objectification are collaboratively performed in the heat of social interaction. By analyzing the conversational dynamics—the interruptions, collective laughter, shared idioms, and tense negotiations—the researcher gains a front-row seat to the living process of common sense in the very moment of its construction.

Furthermore, the tradition of discursive psychology and rhetorical analysis—though at times critically engaged with SRT—has enriched the methodological toolkit. Discursive approaches analyze media reports, parliamentary debates, and institutional documents to trace the ideological dilemmas, interpretive repertoires, and rhetorical strategies deployed by social actors to justify unequal power arrangements or resist institutional authority, treating discourse as a performative social practice rather than a mere mirror of internal cognitive states.

9.2 Quantitative and Structural Techniques

While qualitative methods capture the dynamic, conversational flow of representations, the structural traditions within Social Representations Theory—most notably the Aix School—have developed a remarkably sophisticated suite of quantitative, statistical, and psychometric instruments designed to uncover the latent structural organization and core-periphery architecture of collective knowledge.

Foremost among these is the quantitative analysis of free and constrained word association tests. In these protocols, large, representative samples of respondents are exposed to inductive stimuli, and the resulting semantic corpora are analyzed using computerized lexical algorithms. Researchers analyze the structural properties of this associative text using Similarity Analysis (l’analyse de similitude), a mathematical technique grounded in graph theory and developed extensively by Claude Flament. Similarity analysis calculates the strength of co-occurrence and associative distance between semantic concepts, generating structural graph trees that visually and mathematically demonstrate the cognitive hierarchy of the representation, revealing which terms serve as organizing hubs and which occupy peripheral positions.

Furthermore, quantitative researchers routinely deploy advanced multivariate statistics to map the socio-dynamic positioning of different groups, as championed by the Geneva School. Techniques such as Correspondence Analysis, Multidimensional Scaling (MDS), and Principal Component / Factor Analysis are utilized to correlate specific representational stances with demographic categories, institutional belongings, and ideological value scales. These methods enable researchers to demonstrate empirically how the shared representational space is systematically fragmented by positional differences across class, gender, and political alignments.

Finally, the empirical verification of the central core relies heavily on specialized questionnaire batteries operationalizing the Calling-Into-Question Technique. By systematically calculating the percentage of participants who reject scenarios that strip an object of a hypothesized core attribute, researchers can statistically confirm whether an element functions as a non-negotiable core value or a flexible peripheral belief, bringing empirical rigor and falsifiability to the structural model.

9.3 Mixed-Methods Triangulation and Ecological Validity

Given the multi-layered, polyphasic nature of social representations, there is widespread consensus among leading scholars that single-method approaches are fundamentally inadequate to capture the full life-cycle of a representation. Methodological monism—whether exclusively qualitative or rigidly quantitative—inevitably produces an incomplete, distorted image. Consequently, Social Representations Theory has become a premier champion of mixed-methods triangulation.

Methodological triangulation in SRT involves the strategic convergence of qualitative narratives and quantitative structural matrices within a single, coherent research program. A typical robust investigation proceeds in complementary stages:

• An initial exploratory qualitative phase utilizing focus groups, archival research, or ethnographic observation to map the spontaneous conversational vocabulary, historical metaphors, and emergent themes surrounding the phenomenon.
• A subsequent structural quantitative phase utilizing word association tests, Vergès matrices, and calling-into-question questionnaires to isolate the central core from the peripheral system and map structural hierarchies.
• A final positional phase deploying representative surveys analyzed via correspondence analysis to correlate the identified structural cores with sociopolitical positioning, demographic variables, and actual behavioral practices.

The overriding imperative governing this multimethod orientation is ecological validity. Social representations cannot be understood if they are ripped from the sociocultural context in which they naturally breathe. Experimental laboratory manipulations are utilized selectively to test specific cognitive mechanisms, but they are always anchored in and returned to the complex realities of natural thought. By combining longitudinal designs, historical text analyses, and cross-cultural comparisons, mixed-methods triangulation enables researchers to capture both the long-term, slow-moving structural stability of the central core and the rapid, conversational micro-genesis of peripheral adaptation across dynamic historical epochs.

10. Applications Across Diverse Disciplines and Modern Issues

10.1 Health, Illness, and Medical Knowledge Translation

One of the most prolific, transformative, and socially impactful fields of application for Social Representations Theory has been the sociology and social psychology of health, illness, and medicine. Spearheaded by pioneering European researchers like Claudine Herzlich in her foundational 1973 study Health and Illness: A Social Psychological Analysis, SRT fundamentally transformed how public health scholars understand the relationship between biomedical expertise and lay experience.

Herzlich demonstrated that ordinary people do not understand health and illness simply as biological malfunctions or cellular pathologies as defined by clinical medicine. Instead, health and illness are complex social representations deeply tied to the social order, morality, and identity. In Herzlich’s study, “health” was objectified as an organic, internal harmony and equilibrium belonging to the natural human state, whereas “illness” was anchored as an external, alien disruption caused by the artificiality, stress, and moral toxicity of modern urban civilization. Lay actors view illness not merely as a biological reality, but as a moral category: an individual’s response to illness is judged according to collective normative codes regarding duty, endurance, and social responsibility.

This representational framework has proven indispensable for deciphering global epidemiological crises. In the early years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, researchers like Denise Jodelet demonstrated that public understanding was dominated not by the microbiological reality of a retrovirus, but by archaic, moralized representations of contagion, sinful indulgence, and divine punishment, leading to the severe stigmatization and marginalization of vulnerable groups. Four decades later, the COVID-19 pandemic provided a dramatic, real-time laboratory for SRT. Researchers worldwide traced how the novel coronavirus was instantly anchored into pre-existing political and cultural narratives: as a “foreign bioweapon,” a “seasonal flu,” or a “warning from Nature.”

Crucially, SRT has revolutionized our understanding of vaccine hesitancy. While mainstream biomedical and technocratic models frequently dismissed vaccine refusal as simple ignorance, anti-scientific irrationality, or cognitive deficits to be corrected through aggressive informational campaigns, SRT revealed that vaccine hesitancy is the rational outcome of coherent, deeply held social representations. Vaccine skeptics anchor the vaccine not in medical progress, but in technocratic surveillance, corporate greed, and anxieties regarding bodily purity and institutional corruption. By revealing the deep normative and identity-preserving logic of lay common sense, SRT provides public health officials with the interpretive tools necessary to engage in meaningful, respectful, and effective communication, bridging the gulf between the reified universe of epidemiology and the consensual universe of community life.

10.2 Climate Change and Science Communication

Anthropogenic climate change represents perhaps the ultimate challenge to human natural thought: it is an invisible, hyper-complex, statistically probabilistic, and planetary phenomenon that cannot be directly perceived through unmediated sensory experience. It exists primarily within the reified universe of supercomputer climate models, parts-per-million carbon measurements, and geochemical feedback loops. Consequently, the study of how society understands climate change has emerged as a premier frontier of Social Representations Theory.

Through the generative mechanism of objectification, modern societies have laboriously translated this abstract geochemical crisis into concrete, emotionally salient imagery. Climate change has been objectified through a suite of ubiquitous figurative nuclei: the solitary polar bear clinging to a melting ice floe, cracked desert soil under a blazing sun, smoking factory chimneys, and apocalyptic floodwaters swallowing coastal metropolises. These iconic visual tropes have become the universal cultural shorthand for environmental degradation. However, this objectification carries profound unintended consequences: by objectifying climate change as melting Arctic glaciers and distant polar bears, societies in the Global North historically anchored the crisis as a geographically and temporally distant problem, inadvertently demobilizing local, immediate civic action.

Furthermore, research demonstrates that climate change is subjected to radical ideological anchoring. Identical empirical data—such as extreme weather anomalies or global temperature spikes—are anchored into completely divergent political worldviews. In progressive and ecological communities, a heatwave is anchored as definitive proof of systemic industrial devastation and late-capitalist hubris. In conservative or industrial communities, that same heatwave is anchored as a natural, cyclical weather fluctuation, while the institutional policies designed to curb emissions are anchored as tyrannical technocratic overreach designed to dismantle national sovereignty and economic liberty. By demonstrating that science communication is never a simple one-way transmission of facts into an empty mind, SRT exposes why public understanding of climate change remains profoundly polarized, showing that meaningful environmental mobilization requires engaging with the moral foundations, values, and historical identities of diverse communities.

10.3 Technological Innovations, Artificial Intelligence, and Risk Perception

The rapid acceleration of technological innovation in the twenty-first century has created unprecedented epistemic volatility. From agricultural biotechnology to generative artificial intelligence, societies are perpetually forced to make sense of revolutionary, disruptive technologies whose inner mechanics remain opaque to the lay public. Social Representations Theory provides an exceptionally powerful lens for decoding public risk perception and the social reception of these technological frontiers.

The historical controversy surrounding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) serves as a classic illustration of representational mechanics. When biotechnology companies introduced genetically modified crops in the 1990s, they operated within a reified frame of technical optimization, agronomic yield, and chemical resistance. However, the European public immediately anchored this esoteric biotechnology within pre-existing cultural mythologies: the Promethean hubris of the mad scientist and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. This gave rise to the devastatingly effective, highly viral figurative nucleus of “Frankenfoods.” By objectifying GMOs as an unnatural violation of the cosmic order, European consumer movements successfully constructed a durable social representation that halted the widespread agricultural commercialization of GMOs across the continent.

In the contemporary era, the emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and autonomous algorithmic systems has ignited an identical representational frenzy. The lay public cannot comprehend the complex mathematical architecture of deep learning neural networks, backpropagation, and transformer attention mechanisms. Consequently, AI is objectified through two dominant, culturally entrenched figurative nuclei borrowed directly from twentieth-century science fiction: the apocalyptic, conscious machine that inevitably enslaves humanity (the “Terminator” archetype), and the benevolent, all-knowing digital oracle that will cure all diseases and optimize human life. AI is relentlessly anthropomorphized: algorithms are spoken of as “thinking,” “hallucinating,” and possessing “intentions.”

These social representations of AI have direct, profound regulatory, legislative, and institutional consequences. Public representations dictate whether national governments approach AI through the lens of existential dread and precautionary prohibition or through the lens of economic competition and uninhibited liberation. By investigating how society imagines, names, and domesticates these algorithmic frontiers, Social Representations Theory illuminates how cultural mythologies quietly govern the technological trajectories of human civilization.

11. Critical Debates, Controversies, and Theoretical Limitations

11.1 Critiques from Discursive and Mainstream Cognitive Psychology

Despite its vast international influence and enduring popularity, Social Representations Theory has been the subject of continuous, vigorous theoretical and methodological critique from both sides of the Atlantic. These debates have significantly sharpened the theory’s conceptual precision while highlighting its inherent limitations.

The most sustained and intellectually ferocious critique emerged from the British tradition of Discursive Psychology, led by scholars such as Jonathan Potter, Derek Edwards, and Michael Billig. Potter and Edwards accused Moscovici of falling into the trap of “mentalism” and cognitive reductionism. They argued that by defining representations as internal, socio-cognitive structures residing within minds (even if socially generated), SRT was fundamentally reproducing the dualistic cognitive errors of mainstream North American psychology. The discursive psychologists argued that human discourse is fundamentally pragmatic, performative, and context-dependent: individuals do not consult a stable, internal “social representation” before speaking; rather, they deploy linguistic repertoires, rhetorical devices, and ideological justifications dynamically within specific, immediate social interactions to achieve conversational, moral, and political goals. For Potter and Edwards, the locus of inquiry must remain strictly on the external, performative surface of talk-in-interaction, rather than positing shadowy, unobservable internal mental structures.

Conversely, mainstream North American cognitive psychologists have persistently critiqued Social Representations Theory from a positivist, hypothetico-deductive standpoint. American critics have argued that the concept of a “social representation” is hopelessly vague, overly elastic, and lacking in empirical falsifiability. Mainstream experimentalists have questioned whether social representations are anything more than a grand European renaming of well-established, highly researched cognitive constructs such as schemas, attitudes, stereotypes, and cultural norms. These critics contend that SRT often appears more descriptive than truly explanatory: it provides a rich, evocative vocabulary for describing how people talk about an issue, but frequently struggles to formulate precise, predictive, and mathematically testable behavioral laws that can be validated under controlled experimental conditions.

11.2 The Challenge of Conceptual Elasticity and Boundary Ambiguity

A second major theoretical controversy involves the issue of boundary ambiguity. Critics and sympathetic internal scholars alike have often raised the “explains everything and therefore explains nothing” critique. In reading broader applications of the theory, it is sometimes difficult to determine where the boundaries of a social representation begin and end. What, precisely, is the operational distinction between a social representation, an ideology, a culture, a social norm, and a collective attitude?

Furthermore, Social Representations Theory has suffered from internal fragmentation across its competing regional and methodological traditions. The French Structural School (Aix-en-Provence) has frequently been accused of pursuing an excessively rigid, hyper-cognitivist, and laboratory-focused paradigm that strips representations of their living communicative, historical, and ideological flesh in a quest for psychometric structural diagrams. In contrast, the Swiss Socio-Dynamic School (Geneva) has been critiqued for collapsing representations into general sociology, while the Anglo-Saxon cultural-dialogical approaches are often seen as merging into unstructured qualitative discourse analysis.

This internal methodological and conceptual divergence has made it challenging to establish standardized, universally accepted diagnostic criteria for what strictly constitutes a social representation. Does a fleeting trend on social media constitute a representation, or does the construct require decades of historical crystallization? Can a single individual possess an idiosyncratic social representation, or must it be shared by an entire sociological class? These unresolved tensions between stability-focused structural approaches and fluid, change-oriented discursive models continue to provoke vigorous debate within the international scientific community.

11.3 Moscovici’s Responses and Theoretical Rebuttals

Serge Moscovici was acutely aware of these critiques and addressed them vigorously across numerous essays, books, and public debates. In response to the discursive psychologists, Moscovici firmly rejected the accusation of mentalism, pointing out that Social Representations Theory had from its very inception rejected the Cartesian separation of the internal mind and the external world. For Moscovici, a representation is not an isolated, static “mental container”; it is an active, hybrid, sociocognitive project that is simultaneously mental and material, private and public, semiotic and behavioral. He argued that discursive psychology, by reducing all of human reality to linguistic mechanics and momentary conversational pragmatics, suffered from an impoverished, text-bound reductionism that erased historical memory, structural power, and the profound bodily and emotional realities that operate beneath speech.

In response to North American cognitivist critics, Moscovici mounted a spirited defense of theoretical open-endedness and rejected the fetishization of narrow, decontextualized laboratory experiments. He argued that the American fixation on “schemas” and “attitudes” was an epistemological trap: schemas are fundamentally conceptualized as passive, static, intra-individual filters designed to process external stimuli, whereas social representations are active, collective, and historically generated worlds of meaning. Moscovici maintained that the messy, complex, and politically contested nature of human social life requires theories that are structurally generous, multidisciplinary, and historically sensitive. He insisted that social psychology must choose whether it wants to be an obscure laboratory technology verifying sterile, trivial behavioral microsystems, or an ambitious human science capable of illuminating the great cultural, political, and symbolic transformations of modern human civilization.

12. Legacy and Contemporary Trajectories of Moscovici’s Thought

12.1 Cognitive Polyphasia in Late Modernity

As the world navigates the hyper-complex, pluralistic landscapes of late modernity, one of Moscovici’s most visionary, prescient concepts has surged to the forefront of international scholarship: cognitive polyphasia. Introduced in his original 1961 thesis, cognitive polyphasia posits that in complex, heterogeneous societies, distinct, structurally contradictory, and epistemologically incommensurable modes of thought, rationality, and knowledge can comfortably coexist within the very same collectivity and even within the very same individual mind.

Classical Enlightenment philosophy and early sociological modernization theories posited a teleological, linear progression of human thought: humanity would march steadily from the dark age of superstition and religious dogma into the bright, unified daylight of scientific rationality and technocratic logic. Moscovici dismissed this linear model as a naive, empirically blind fantasy. He argued that new, scientific forms of knowledge do not displace or eliminate older, magical, religious, or traditional modes of understanding; instead, they layer on top of one another, forming rich, complex, sedimentary mental architectures. A contemporary, highly educated neurosurgeon can spend her day performing intricate, state-of-the-art biomedical surgeries grounded in rigorous empirical science, read her horoscope on her smartphone during lunch, pray fervently to ancestral spirits or God in the evening for a sick family member, and knock on wood to avert bad luck. These distinct systems of knowledge are not experienced as a psychotic breakdown or intolerable cognitive dissonance; rather, they are selectively deployed across different communicative spheres and relational contexts.

Today, cognitive polyphasia has become an indispensable concept for understanding post-colonial societies, religious syncretism, and the multicultural intersections of the modern globe. In Latin America, Africa, and Asia, scholars utilize the concept to map how indigenous healing systems and spiritual ontologies flourish dynamically alongside Western allopathic medicine and technological infrastructures. Cognitive polyphasia demonstrates that human rationality is fundamentally plural, flexible, and adaptive. Natural thought does not pursue the sterile, monolithic consistency of a formal mathematical equation; it pursues the versatile, pragmatic, and multifaceted wisdom necessary to survive, connect, and thrive across the divergent social domains of human life.

12.2 Digital Public Spheres, Social Media, and Algorithmic Enclaves

If Serge Moscovici formulated Social Representations Theory by observing the mid-twentieth-century world of print newspapers, radio, and cafe debates, how does the theory fare in the twenty-first century, characterized by high-speed digital networks, smartphones, algorithmic curation, and generative artificial intelligence? The contemporary consensus among communication scholars and digital social psychologists is that SRT is more vital today than ever before, providing an unmatched conceptual roadmap for decoding the digital condition.

In digital ecosystems, the foundational generative mechanisms of anchoring and objectification operate at unprecedented, light-speed velocities. In the era of social media, internet memes have emerged as the definitive, hyper-accelerated embodiment of the figurative nucleus. A meme is an instant, highly visual, humorous, and deeply symbolic iconization that extracts complex, nuanced sociopolitical debates and crystallizes them into a singular, highly viral, and reproducible image. Within hours of a geopolitical shock, a public health revelation, or a financial scandal, thousands of competing memes flood the digital public sphere, anchoring the novel event into contemporary cultural tropes, pop-culture iconography, and partisan mythologies.

Furthermore, the digital architecture of late modernity has fundamentally transformed Moscovici’s distinction between the Consensual and Reified Universes. The historical gatekeepers of the reified universe—universities, peer-reviewed journals, institutional scientists, and legacy media editorial boards—have lost their exclusive monopoly over public knowledge translation. The internet has democratized and fractured the consensual universe into hyper-segmented, algorithmic enclaves. Within digital echo chambers, alternative consensual universes flourish, generating their own autonomous, self-sealing social representations—from sprawling conspiracy theories like QAnon to complex crypto-financial mythologies—without requiring validation from institutional authorities.

Crucially, the algorithmic architectures of platforms like TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube act as profound new non-human actors within Moscovici’s ternary epistemology. The algorithm is no longer an invisible, neutral technical conduit; it is an active, machine-learning Alter that mediates the relationship between the Subject and the Object. By curating feeds, weaponizing outrage, and predicting emotional engagement, the algorithmic Alter selects which representations are amplified, which are buried, and which ideological boundaries are radicalized, transforming the modern digital sphere into a combustible battlefield of competing, algorithmically weaponized common senses.

12.3 The Ongoing Relevance of Social Representations in Global Crises

As human civilization stands deep within the third decade of the twenty-first century, it is enveloped by what social theorists term a systemic polycrisis: a terrifying, interconnected cascade of geopolitical destabilization, escalating climate catastrophe, epidemiological shocks, rapid technological displacement, and the fracturing of democratic consensus. In navigating these turbulent waters, Serge Moscovici’s Social Representations Theory remains an indispensable, luminous beacon for the social sciences.

The profound enduring vitality of Moscovici’s thought lies in his steadfast refusal to view the human animal as a sterile, isolated computing machine governed solely by cold calculations or blind biological reflexes. Moscovici restored to social psychology its authentic, magnificent subject matter: the human being as a symbolic, passionate, communicative, and collective creator of worlds. He revealed that society is fundamentally a “thinking society” (la société pensante), a vast, living tapestry of conversationalists who, through their daily interactions, continuously forge meaning out of chaos, transform the alien into the familiar, and project their shared dreams, fears, and identities upon the canvas of reality.

Furthermore, Moscovici’s broader sociological oeuvre—which brilliantly united Social Representations Theory with his groundbreaking work on Minority Influence and the dynamics of conversion—reminds us that society is never permanently locked in stone. If social representations are human, communicative, and historical constructions, they can be contested, dismantled, and rewritten. Transformative social change always begins as an active, courageous minority constructing a counter-representation, introducing cognitive conflict into the consensual universe, and gradually realigning the moral compass of an entire civilization. As we confront the immense ecological, ethical, and political challenges of our time, the theoretical legacy of Serge Moscovici provides us not merely with a scientific analytical framework, but with a profound, humanistic faith in the generative, conversational power of human collective thought to reimagine and reconstruct our shared world.

Conclusion

Social Representations Theory represents one of the most comprehensive, ambitious, and enduring meta-theoretical paradigms ever constructed within European social psychology. By reclaiming common sense from the condescension of positivism and constructing an innovative ternary epistemology centered on the dialogical relationship between Subject, Other, and Object, Serge Moscovici dismantled the reductionist confines of twentieth-century behavioral and cognitive psychology. Through the generative sociocognitive mechanisms of anchoring and objectification, he illuminated the profound alchemy through which human collectivities domesticate the terrifying novelties of the reified universe, translating the arcane products of science and technology into the living, meaningful common sense of the consensual universe.

From the structural precision of the Aix-en-Provence School’s Central Core Theory to the positional and multi-level sociodynamics of the Geneva School, Social Representations Theory has demonstrated an extraordinary capacity for internal theoretical evolution, methodological pluralism, and interdisciplinary fertility. It has offered transformative insights across health and medicine, environmental science communication, digital cultures, and the political struggles of marginalized identities. In an increasingly fragmented, digitally mediated, and crisis-laden global landscape characterized by cognitive polyphasia and ideological polarization, Moscovici’s visionary paradigm remains an indispensable intellectual compass. It reminds us that human reality is not merely an external terrain waiting to be passively discovered, but a dynamic, conversational, and collective creation: a world sustained, negotiated, and continuously reinvented through the symbolic power of the thinking society.

References

• Abric, J.-C. (1993). Central system, peripheral system: Their functions and roles in the dynamics of social representations. Papers on Social Representations, 2(2), 75–78. https://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/
• Abric, J.-C. (2001). A structural approach to social representations. In K. Deaux & G. Philogène (Eds.), Representations of the Social: Bridging Theoretical Traditions (pp. 42–47). Blackwell.
• Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (1999). Towards a paradigm for research on social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 29(2), 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00096
• Billig, M. (1993). Studying the thinking society: Social representations, rhetoric, and attitudes. In M. Billing (Ed.), Empirical Approaches to Social Representations (pp. 39–62). Oxford University Press.
• Doise, W. (1986). Levels of Explanation in Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
• Doise, W., Clemence, A., & Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1993). The Quantitative Analysis of Social Representations. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• Durkheim, É. (1898). Représentations individuelles et représentations collectives. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 6(3), 273–302.
• Flament, C. (1994). Structure, dynamique et transformation des représentations sociales. In J.-C. Abric (Ed.), Pratiques Sociales et Représentations (pp. 37–57). Presses Universitaires de France.
• Guimelli, C. (1993). Locating the central core of social representations: Towards a method. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23(5), 555–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420230511
• Herzlich, C. (1973). Health and Illness: A Social Psychological Analysis. Academic Press.
• Jodelet, D. (1991). Madness and Social Representations: Living with the Mad in One French Community. University of California Press.
• Jovchelovitch, S. (2007). Knowledge in Context: Representations, Community and Culture. Routledge.
• Moscovici, S. (1961). La psychanalyse, son image et son public. Presses Universitaires de France.
• Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. M. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Social Representations (pp. 3–69). Cambridge University Press.
• Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 211–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180303
• Moscovici, S. (2000). Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology (G. Duveen, Ed.). Polity Press.
• Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (1999). Social representations and discursive psychology: From cognition to action. Culture & Psychology, 5(4), 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X9954005
• Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
• Vergès, P. (1992). L’évocation des représentations sociales: Fonctions et structures. Bulletin de Psychologie, 45(405), 203–209.
• Wagner, W., Duveen, G., Farr, R., Jovchelovitch, S., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Marková, I., & Rose, D. (1999). Theory and method of social representations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 95–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00028
• Wagner, W., & Hayes, N. (2005). Everyday Discourse and Common Sense: The Theory of Social Representations. Palgrave Macmillan.