Everyday Life in Social Psychology FRANCESCA EMILIANI AND STEFANO PASSINI ABSTRACT In the field of psychology, the topic of everyday life as a specific subject of inquiry has been afforded little attention. Indeed, everyday life has recently been analyzed mainly in psychological studies that examine people’s ways of behaving and think- ing when they act in situations termed as mundane and ordinary. These studies are mainly carried out in two fields of social psychology which we refer to in gen- eral terms as Social Cognition and Social Representation Theory. The aim of this paper is to examine how both these fields treat some of the features commonly at- tributed to everyday life. In particular, the features of familiarization, continuity and stability over time and automaticity are discussed in order to try to figure out meeting points between the two fields mentioned. Keywords: everyday life, familiarization, stability, automaticity, social cognition, social representations Since the mid-twentieth century, the study of everyday life has become a major concern within the social and human sciences such as philosophy, sociology, ethnomethodology, and cultural anthropology (see for instance Bégout, 2010; Berger & Luckman, 1967; de Certeau, 1984; Garfinkel, 1984; Geertz, 1973; Goffman, 1959; Highmore, 2002; Lefevbre, 1961; Schutz, 1967). Within these disciplines, scholars have produced a substantial body of work that has made it possible to explore many of the aspects of everyday life. In line with Schutz’s per- spective, some authors such as Bégout (2010) recently assumed a genetic point of view stressing that everyday life is the product of a shared and collective human process which implies not only a reproductive dimension through routines, habits and rhythms but also a productive one when we have to face with the “unex- pected.” Furthermore, all these disciplines and approaches have emphasized the construction and re-construction of everyday life as a fundamental collective process. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 47:1 DOI: 10.1111/jtsb.12109 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd