The Journal of Sor'uil l\<yrlnj!,ujy. S. I'. S. S. I. Biillri'm, 1939, 10, 271-299,PATTERNS OF ACCiRKSSIVE BEHAVIOR IN EXPERIMENTALLY

CREATED "SOCLAL CLIMATES"ChilJ IFfljiirif Ri-sciirili Sttiiioii, State Uni-vcisily of lo-u-iiKURT LEWIN, RONALD LIPPITT, AND RALPH K. WHITEA. PROBLEMS AND METHODS

The present report: is a preliminary summary on one phase of a series of experimental studies of group life which has as its aim a scientific approach to such questions as the following: What underlies such differing patterns of group behavior as rebellion against authority, persecution of a scapegoat, apathetic submissiveness to authoritarian domination, or attack upon an outgroup? How many differences in subgroup structure, group stratification, and potency of ego-centered and group-centered goals he utilized as criteria for predicting the social resultants of different group atmospheres?Is not democratic group life more pleasant, but authoritarianism more efficient? These are the sorts of questions to which “opinionated” answers are many and varied today, and to which scientific answers, are, on that account, all the more necessary. An experimental approach to the phenomena of group life obviously raises many difficulties of creation and scientific control, but the fruitfulness of the method seems to compensate for the added experimental problems.

In the first experiment Lippitt organized two clubs of l0-year-old children, who engaged in the activity of theatrical mask-making for a period of three months. The same adult leader, changing his philosophy of leadership, led one club in an authoritarian manner and the other club in accordance with democratic techniques, while detailed observations were made by four observers, This study, reported in detail elsewhere (6), suggested more hypotheses than answers and led to a second and more extensive series of experiments by White and Lippitt. Four new clubs of 10-year-old boys were organized, on a voluntary basis as before, the variety of club activities was extended, while four different adult leaders participated. To the variables of authoritarian and democratic procedure was added a third, "laissez-faire" or group life without adult: participation.Also the behavior of each club was studied in different "social climates." Every six weeks each group had a new leader with a different technique of leadership, each club having three leaders during the course of the five months of the experimental series. The data on aggressive behavior summarized in this paper are drawn from both series of experiments.

Some of the techniques usedd for the equating of groups have been described previously (4). But will be summarized here with the improvements in method of the second experiment. Before the clubs were organized the schoolroom group as a whole was studied. Using the sociometric technique developed by Moreno (8) the interpersonal relations of the children, in terms of rejections, friendships, and leadership, were ascertained. Teacher ratings on relevant items of social behavior (e.g., teasing, showing off, obedience, physical energy) were secured, and observations were made on the playground and in the schoolroom by the investigators. The school records supplied information on intellectual status, physical status, and socio-economic background. From the larger number of eager volunteers in each room it was then possible to select from each schoolroom two five-member clubs, which were carefully equated on patterns of

interpersonal relationships, intellectual, physical, and socio-economic status, in addition to personality characteristics. The attempt was not to equate the boys within a particular club, but to ensure the same pattern in each group as a whole.

In spite of the methods described abo\ e to control by selection some of the more elusive social variables, it was essential to use a number of experimental controls which would help to make the results more clear-cut. First of all, to check on the "individuality" of the club as a whole, each group was studied in different social atmospheres so that it could be compared with itself. A second question raised by the first experiment was that concerning the personality of the leader as a factor m the creating of social atmospheres. The second experiment, with four leaders, makes possible a comparison of the authoritarianism and democracy of four different leaders, and the "laissez-faire" method of two different leaders. In two cases it is also possible to compare the same atmosphere, created by two different leaders with the same club.

One other type of control seemed very important, the nature ofthe club activity, and the physical setting, losing the same clubrooms(two clubs met at the same time in adjacent hut distinctly separate areas of the same large room) seemed to answer the latterproblem, but the question of activity was more complex. Thefollowing technique was developed: a list of activities "which wereof interest to all the children was assembled (e.g., mask-making,TABLE 1AutthoritarianAll determinationof policy by theleader.2. Techniques and activitysteps dictatedLiy the authority,one at :itime, so that futuresteps were alwaysuncertain to a largtdegree.3. The leader usuallydictated theparticular work taskand work companionsof each member.Uemocrntic1. All policies a matterof group discussionand decisi o n , enoouragec!and assistiitl by thelender,

2. Ai-tivity porspectiv-u gaincil duringfirst tUscussionperiod. G e n e r a lsteps to group goals k e t c h e d , andwliere technical advice-was neededthe leader suggestedIwo or three alternative1) r o c e-(lures from whichchoice could bemnde.3. 'I'he members werefree to work withw h o m e v e r theychose, and the divisionof tasks wasli-ft up to theCompk-te freedotnfor group or individualdecision,without any leaderparticipation.2. Various materialssupplied by theleader, who inad'jit clear thai hewould supply inforinauonw h e naskt'd. He took tioother part in workdiscussions.3. Ccimplufii nonparti c i p a l i i i i i liy leade;-.4. The diHiiHiatoi- WM'^"personal"' in hispraise and criticismof the woi-kof each member,but remained alooffrom active groupparticipation except

when demonstrating.He was friendlynr impersonalrather than openiyhostile.4. The leader was"o b 3 e c t i V e" or"f:ut-minded" i nhis praise anti criticism,and tried tobe a regular groupmember in spiritwithout dointi toomuch of ihe woj'k.V e r y infrequentcotiiments on memberactivities nnlessi|uestioned, andno attempt to partii'ipati-or interfere\vi[h the courseof events.274 JO^_Mi^^•^^, OF SOCLAI. PS^CMOI.OG-,'mural painting, soap carviny;, model airjilane construction, etc.).!^•'Ieeti^f;; iir?;t, ir-i chrono!oy;ical time, the democratic g:roups usedthese possibilities as liic basis foi" liiscussioti and \i)ted lijion theirclub activity. Ihe authoritarian leaders were then ready, as theirclubs met, to launch the same activity without choice by tlie members.The "lai.<xrz-fai>-i'" groups -were acquainted \\'\t\'i the \'ariety of materials-vvhicli were available, hut the\- \\-ere not otherwise influencedin their choice of activity; in their case, consequently, the activityfactor could not be completely controlled.The contrasting methods of the leaders m creatuii^ the three t}'pesof group atmosphere may he briefly sLinnnari7,i:(.i as m 'I able I.It should be; clear that due to the voluntary nature of the groupparticipation, and the cooperation of the parents and school systems,no radically autocratic methods (e.g., use of threats, instilling fear,etc.) were used. Fairly conj^enia! extra-cluh relatiiinships "weremaintained with each member by the leadei.The kinds of data collected during the course of the experimentsmay be classed roughly as: (;/) pre-cluli data, described above inreh-ition to the problem of equating the groups; (/>) ohservalions ofbehavior \n the experimental situation; and (c) extra-club information.Observations of club behavior consisted of:

{iij. A quantitativf running accoLint of the social interaci.iiins of the live children anti (he leader, in terms of symbolslor dii-ecti\'e, compHiini, and dhjc-rtive (fact-minded) approiirhi,-';. and rL'^pdnsc's, including a category of purposeful rcfiibiaito respond to a social apprDach.(/;), .A iniuute hy minute group structure analysis giving arecord of: acMvity subgroupings, the activity goal of each subgroupwas initiated by the leader or spontaneou^ily formed bythe children, and ratings on degree of unity of each sub-{c). An iuiLM-iiretiye running account of signiticant membernriion?, and chnngL"; in dynamics of Ihe grotip as a whole,(il). Continuous stenographic records of all conversation,{':). An interpretive running account of inter-club relationi^liips.(/). An "iinprcs^ioni-^tir" writf-up b\' the leader as to u-hathe saw and felt from -vvilhin the group atmosphtre duringeacli tnectln^.((/). Cotntnents by guest observers.(11). Movie records of se\'eral liegiueiirs of club life.KURT J.HWIN, RON M.D Lil'FITT, AND RALPH K. WHti L: 2 I :>All of these observations {except /, g, and /() were synchronizedat minute intervals so that side by side they furnish a rather completecross sectional picture of the ongoing life of the group. The majorpurpose of this experiment in methodology of obscr\^ution was torecord a> fully and with as miicli nisight as possible the totalbehavior of the group, a distinct break away from the usual procedureof recortlnig onl\ cert;:in pre-determined symptoms of behavior.The second aim \\as to ascertain whether data collectedby this method could be fruitfully anal\'zcd from bolli a sociologicaland psychological point of view (5).Extra-club information is of the following t\'p('s:{a). Interviews ivith each child by a friendly "non-club"person during cacli transition period (from one kind ui groupatmosphere and iiMdcr lo aiiiiilier) and ni the tnd of theexperimcnr, coiuei^nin.tr such itfins as roiuparison ol presentchib leader wirh |)ie\'irnis ones, with rhe leacher, and wilhparents: opinions on ciub accivilius; hnw ihv cliil) L:ouki be runbetttr; who were the best ajid ]i(iore^t club nieiiiliers; what anidea! club leader would be lilce, etc.(/'). Interviews with the parents by the investij^ntni-s, concentratingon kinds of discipline used in the home, status of thechild in the fiimily group (relations with siblings, etc.), personalityratings on the same scale used by the teache.'rs, discussionof chilli's attitude toward ihc elub, school, and other

gronp activities.{c). Talks witli the teachers concerning the transfer to theschoolroom, of behavior patterns acquired in the club.{d). Administration of a Rorschach test to each club member.{e). C^o rivers at ions with the children during fsvo sLimrnerhikes arranged after the experiment was over.These data were gathered -with a view to correlating the individtinlpattern of beba\-ior in tbe club situation witb the types ofgrai.i|) membei-shiii wJiich existed outside the experiment, and withtbe more or less stable individual personality' structure. The individualdifferences in "social plasticity" seem to he rather striking.Two other points of experimental technique seem of interest.The lirst concerns the introduction of observers into the club situation.In Lippitt's first experiment it was found that four observersgrouped around a table in a physically separated part of the clubroom attracted virtually no atiention if it -was explained at the first276 JOUR.X.M. or soci,-\;, PS~I'CIJOI.OGYmeetmg that "tHo.se are some people interested in learnm<j bow amask-making- club goes; tbey bave plenty to do so they won't botherus and \-\e won't bother them." In the second experiment tbearrangement was c^'en more advantageous and seemed to make forequally unselfconscious behavior on the part of the cUihs. In thisset-up the lighting arrangement was such that tbe observers weregrouped behind a low burlap wall in a darkh' shaded area, andseemed "not to exist at all" as far as tbe children and leaders wereconcerned.Tbe second point of interest is the development of a miniber of"group test" Situations, whicb aided greatly in i^etting at tbe actualsocial dynamics of a given group atmosphere. One test used systematicallywas loi' the leader to leave the room on business duringthe course tjf the cluh meeting, s(-j that the "social pressure" factorcould be analyzed more realisticalh'. Another practice was forthe leader to arrive a iew n-iinutes late so that the obser\-ers couldrecord tbe individual and "atmospheric" difterences in spontaneouswork initiation and work perspective. A third fruitful techniquei\"as that of having a strar-igcr (a .Lrraduate student who played therole of a janitor or electrician) enter the club situation and criticizetbe group's work efforts. A rather ilramatic i)icture of tbe resultsof this type of situatior-i may be seen in figures 5 and 6. Furthervanations (jf -vich evjienmental luampulations are heino; utilizedin a research now in progress.B, RESULTSI'he ai-ialysis of tbe results froiu the second experiment is nowproceeding in various directions, following two main trends: (a) interpretation

of socio!oq:ical or "group-centered" data; (h) interpretationof psychological (;r "individual-centered'' data. The socioloszicalapproach includes such analyses as dilYcrences in volun-ie of socialinteraction related to social atmosphere, nature of club acti\'ity, outgrouprelationship, dift'eiences in pattern of iiiteraetion related looutgroup and ingroup orientation, atmosphere differences in leadt:rgrouprelationship, effect upon group structure pattern of socialatmosphere and types of activity, poup differences in language behavior,etc. The p,s\chological approacii includes such anahse.-; ;]srelation of Iiome background to pattern of club beha\-ioi-, rangeof \-ariatioii of member behavior in different t\pes of social atmosKLRTI.I'WIN, RON'ALD LIPI'TTT, .AXD RAi.lMi K. 277phcif, |i:itt(nns of iiuli\'idn;t[ reaction t:o atmospliere transitions inrelation tu ca>e Iii>toi-\ data, coirclation between position in j^roupstratilication and pattern of social action, etc. In this paper willhe presented onl\- certain data from the partialK' completed .L'eneralanalysis which arc reh-vant to the ilynamics of individLial and .s^roupaggression.We might first recall one or two of the most striking residts ofthe iirst experitiient (6). As tiie club meetings progressed theauthoritiirian clvdi members developed a pattern of ai^^ressive dotninationto\\ard one another, and their relation to the leader wasone of suhmission or of persi^^tent demands for attention. 'I'hcinteractions in the democratic club \\ ere tnore spontaneous, tnorefact-minded, and triendlv. Rehitions to the leader were free andon an "equality hasis." Comparing the t"\vo groups on the oneItem of o\'ert hostility the authoritarian group was surprisingh inureaggressive, the ratio being 40 to I. Comparini; a constellation of"ego-in\'olved" types of language behavior (e.g., hostile, resistant,demands for attetUion, hostile criticism, expression of competition}•\vith a group of objective or "iionemotive"' beha\ lors, it was foundthat in tbe authoritarian group 7.^ pei" cent of the aiialyzed language1 [a.— i-//Vv /«oiKSOJBGOo

•_J—-1FK;UKK 1CI: ay SCAPECO.ATS IN* .^K" ALTocn.\'rH:(Lippirr, 1937)The curves (which indicate the amount of aggression directet! againsteach iiulividual) shoiv a much loner K^-'nei'al level of dominating behiiviorin the dcinocratic (D) than In the autocratic (A) groiiii. Twice during thenieetinfis of the atithoritarian cluh the aggression of four members wasfocused tipon the fifth {a niul / ' ) . In Imth teases the scapegoat dioii[)ed oiitof the group imaiediatcly or soon afterwards.278 JOURNAL OF SOCLIL I'SI'CJ iOLOGYbehavior was of the "ego-in\ olved" type as compared to 31 per centin the democratic cltih. Into the- ohjective category ^\ent 69 percent of the helia\'ior of the democratic group as compared to J7per cent of the language activities oi the authoritarian group.A second type ot data related to the dynamics of aggressionas It existe(i m tbe first experiment may be seen in 1"lgure 1. Twiceduring the course of the meetings of the authoritarian club thesituation shiited from one of mutual aggres-;ion hc't::'een all member?to one of concentrated aggression to'i\"ard one lnemher by the otherfour. In both cases the lowered status of n. scapegoat position w;isso acutely unpleasant that the member left the group, rationali/.inghis break from the cluh by sucli remarks as, "Tbe doctor says mye\cs are so had I'll ba\e to pla\' outiio(u"s in the sunshine insteadof coining to cluh meetings." Interestingly enough the two memherswho were singled out for persecution had been rnted by the teachersa,-' the t\\ o le:idcrs in tbe group, one of rhem scoring second mpopularity hy the sociometric technique, as ^yQ\\ as being physically thestrongest. After the emergence of hoth scapegoats, there was aratber brief rise m friendly cooperatu'e behavior between thp othermembers of the group.In the second experiment (see previous discussion, p. 4) therewere five democratic, five autocratic, and ti\o "hiissez-faire" atmospheres.The fact tfiat the leaders were successful in modifying tlieirbehavior to correspond to these three philo-ophies of leadership isclear on the hrtsis of several quantitati\'e indices. For instance,the ratio of "directive'' to "compliant" beha\-ior on the part of theautocratic leaders was 63 to 1 ; on the part of the democratic leadersit was 1.1 to L The total amount of leader participation "wasless than half as great in "laisscz-i<i'rc" ;is in either autocracy or

democracy.The data on aggression a\erages \n these three atmospheres aresummarized in Figures 2, 3, and 4. All of them indicate averageamounts of aggression per 50-minnte, five-member cluh meeting.They re|)rcscnt b(_*ha\"ior records, as reeorded by the interactionohservLM", and include ail social actions, both verbal and physical,which he designated as "hostile"' or "joking hostile.'' Figure 2 sho-ivsespecially the bi modal character of the asisression averages inautocracy; four of the h\v_ autocracies bad an extremely \Q\\ ]e\"elof aggression, and the lifth had an extremely bigh one. For comKURTI.i;\\iN, RONALD LH'ITii, AND RALPH K, \\ 279FI&2-AGGRESSI0N IN SIX AUTOCRATIC CLUB-PERIODSffl -"^IN CL10OlO^ 3DGGRESSIVE ACTIOMS IN 50-MINUTE MEETINGyNIAverage, I33&Z>cmocracu•;3JS <,fDcmocracu _Id37\S^ ^ ^- • -<193; Id35Thf amount of nFRJURls.sion i^ eillier very great or very small coiiip.i i ud wltti;igf;ression in democracy.parison. a sixth bar !ia^ heen added to represent aggression in Lippitt's1937 experimeni. computed on the same basis. It is obviouslycomparable \\-illi ihe single case of exceptionally aggressive beliaxiorin the l9,iS experimeni. For comparison, also, four lines havebeen ridded which indicate the aggression level in the two hiis.u'z-fniregroups, m the four 1938 democracies, and in Fippitt's 1937 democra280JOURXAL OF SOCLVL PSYCHOLOGYFIGURE 3

T H E SA,\IE GROUP IN DIFFERENTIn each group, aggression was at a medium level in democracy ami ai avery low level in autocracy. JNote thac the leaders in the lliird pel iiulwere the same as in the lirst, but reversed. Note also the sharp rise ofaggression in one group on the day of transition to democracy. <.iroup Ishows "'release of tension'' on the first day of freedom (14) afterapathetic autocracy. The name of the leader is indicated lielow thatof the atmosphere.cy. It can be seen tliat two of the six autocracies arc ;il)ove th.eentire ranee of democracies, and are in tbis respect comparablewitli the two laisscz-tiiire jzroups. The other four antocracie^^ areat tlie opposite extreme, helow tbe entire range of the denKX'racies.FiLTures .i and 4 sho"w especially tlic character of the exjierimenralcontrols. Together, the^" show ho^v each of four jjroups ^vas carriedthrough three diitercnt periods witii three different adult leaders.The relatn e importance of tb.e dehberateh' created social atmosphere,as compared with either the personality make-\ip of theS!;roup or the personality of the adult leader, can iie estimated fromthe character of these ciir\-es. It is clear that tiie b^ame group ii>nailvKURT LliWIX, RONALD LH'PITT, AND RALPH K. WHITB 28!changes markedly, and sometimes to an extreme degree, when it i^changed to a new atmosphere under a different leader. In suditransitions the factor of group personnel is held relatively constant,,w bile the factors of leader personality and social atmospliere arevaiicd. In addition, tbe factor of leader personality was systematicallyvaried, as can be seen if the four curves are compared witheacli other. Each of the four leaders played the role of a democraticleader at least once; alsei eacb played the role of an autocrat atleast once; t\^o of them (Adier and White} pla\ed in additionthe role of bystander in a "laissez-faire" group. One leader (Lippitt)was democratic with two different groups; and one (Mc-Candless) was autocratic with two different groups. Through thissystematic variation of both club personnel and leader's personality,the effects of the deliberately created social atmosphere (atitocracy,democracy, laissrz-faire) stand out more clearly ami more reliablythan -^^-otiM otherwise he possible.In Figure 3, for instance, the two curves both tell the same story:a moderate amount of ag,2:rcs>ion in democracy and an ahnormallysmall amount in autocracy, regardless of the personality of tbe leader{note that the roles of Lippitt and McCandless ^vere reversed, witiieach playing once the ro!c of autocrat and once the role of democraticleader). and regardless of the personnel of the group itself (nocethat the curves cross once "^I'hen the atmospheres are reversed, an<lcros-^ back again when the atmospheres return to what they WQXC

at the beginning). In l''igure 4, tite two hiisscz-fairc atmospheresgi\"e very high le\-els of aggression although different groups anddifferent leaders are in\'olved. The most extreme chancre of behaviorrecorded i[i any group occurred when Group 1\" was changedfrom autocracy (in which it had sho^\n the apathetic reaction) tolahsez-faiic. One of tlie autocratic groups (Figure 4) reactedapathetically, the other \-ery aggres^iveI_\•. The aggressi\-eness nfGroup III may be due to the personalities of the hoys, or to the factthat they had just pre\'ious!y "run wild'' in laissez-faire.The average number of aggressve actions per meeting in the differentatmospheres was as follows:Latssfz-jaire 38Autocracy (aggrL-ivivu reacticii) 30Democracy 20Autocracy (apaihetic reaction) 2282 JOURNAL ()[• SOCIAL I'S'iCHOLOGVi-j •! - Aij<,f/i iiitv, If, OIKIUB:IFIGURE 4'I'm; S.\MK GROUI' IN nii'viiki'NT ATM0Si'Hr:iu-;sGroup IV shows changes to the lc\'els typical for each atmosiihere. Ilshows also the "release of tension" on tlie first day of freetiom (7) afterapathetic autocracy. (Jroup III M-uniccI re^istanv lo change; il ^vasn'lativt'Iy ,Tggre-si\c cvi'.n in democracy.Ci-itical ratios for these comparisons have not yet been computed.The data are ei)m|iai able, ho\\"i.'\er, with Lippitt's i'-J,?? data, in whichtbe critical ratios lor the more important indices ranged between4.T and 7.?.In the interpretation of the?e data it is natural to ask: Why arcthe results tor autocracy paradoxical? Why is the reaction toautocracy sometimes very aggressu'e, witli much rebellion or persecutionof scapegoats, and sometimes very nona<;gressive ? Are theunderlying dynamics in these two eases as different as the surfacehehavior? The hiszh le-\'el of aggression in some autocracies hasoften been interjiretcd mainly m terms of tension, which presumablyresults from frustration of individual goals. K it, then, an indicationof non-trust ration wlien the aggression Ie\ e! in some otherautocracies is found to be extremely low?KUkI' i.l'WIX, RONALD l . i r i ' I T ' l \ AXU R.ALl'H K. WHITE 2S3Four lines of evidence in our experiments indicale that tin's is notthe case, and that the low level of aggression in the apatheticautocracies is nor due to lack nf frusriation.First of all, there are the suilden outbursts of ajjgression whichoccurred on the days of transition from a repressed autocratic atmosplieretu the much freer atmusjiiiere of democracy or laissez-faire.

'I\vo of these aie well illustrated in Figure 4. The boys hcha\'edjust as if they had previously been in a state of bortled-up tension,which could noc show itself overtly as long as the repressive Influenceof the autocrat was felt, but which burst out utimistakablywhen that pressure was removed.A second and \ery similar tyiu* of evidence can be obtained fromthe records on the days when the leader left the room for 10 or 15minutes. In ihe three other alniosjiheres {la'nscz-iairi', ajrgressiveautocracy, and deniocrac\') the a<:gression level did not rise whenthe leader left the room. In the apathetic autoeiacies, however,the level of aggression rises vcr\' rapidU to 10 times its formerle\"el. I'hese data should not be o\erstressed, because aggressioneven then does nut rise to a level significantly abo\'e that of theother atmosplieres. It is so extremely low in the apathetic atmospherethat even multiplication bv 10 does not produce what coiilrlbe called a high level of aggression. (The effect of the leader'sabsence is showti more significantly in a deterioration of i,\ork thanin an outburst of aggres-ion.) Ne\ ertlieless, the rapid disappearanceof apatln- when the leader goes out shows clcai!\- that It -wasdue to the repre^M\e influence of the leader rather than to anyparticular ahsenee of frustration. In this connecticni it shouldbe added that the autocratic h'ader never forbade aggression. His"repressive influence" was nol a prohibition cieated by expliciteommand but a S(jrt of u^enerali/ed inhibition ur restraining force.In the third place, there are the judgments of obser\ers who foundthemselves using such terms as "dull," "lifeless," "submissive," "repressed,"and "apathetic" in (k-scribing the nonaggressive reactionto autocracy. 'I'hei-e \\ as little smiling, joking, freedom of movement,freedom of initiating new projects, etc.; talk was largelyconfined to the immediate activity in progress, and bodily tensionwas often manifested, iloving pictures tell the same story. Theimpression created was nut one of acute discontent, h\- any means,and the actlvittes them>elves were apparently enio\able enouL'"h so284 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PliiYCHOl.OGVthat the net result for most of the boys was more pleasant tiianunpleasnnt. Nevertheless, the\' could not be described as genuinelycontenteil.Tbe fourlli ami perha]is tlse most C(in\-incing indication of tlieexistence of frustration in these atmospheres is the testimony offhe bo\s tlictnselves. They were individually interviewed, justbefore each day of transition to a new atnuisphere, and acram at theend of the -whole experiment. The intcirviewing was done by anadult who had not served as a leader in the boy's own group. Onthe wliolc good rapport was achieved, und the boys talked rather

freely, C()nip;iruig the three leaders luidcr \^-hi)ni their club had beencondiictcii. (l''or them it was a (]uc^tiiin uf comparing leaders theyliked or (hi! not like, as they were ima\\me of the dehberate changein the behavior of the same leader from one atmosphere to anotheror of tlie nature of the exjierinient.) AVith surprising unanimitythe boys a,L:reed in a lelarixe dislike for their autocratic leaderregardless oi his iiidi\'idual peisonality. Xiiieteen of the 20 boysliked their leatier in democracy better than their leader in autocracy.The twentieth hoy, as it happened, wa-. the si)n of ;m army officer(the only one in the ^roup), and consciously put a high value uponstrict discipline. As he expressed it, the autucratic leader "iv/i.'i l/wstrides!, nnd I HL-c !hn! ii loi." The other two leaders "Id us t/oahead aiul ju/hl. and tliat isn't yund." i''iii" tile other 19, strictnesswas not necessarily a virtue, their description of the autocrat beingthat he Aias "tun sirlct." Typical comments about the autocrat were:"he didn't Id i/s do what -ire zvanted to do": "he wouldn't Id usgo behind thr hi/rlap"; "he ivas all rujhi 'uustly—snrt of d'ldatorlikc";"we just had !o do th'ings; he ivantcd us to get it done ina hurry"; "he made us make masks, and the boys didn't like that";"the other tico g/iys suggested and ive emild do it or nol, but no!vc'illi him"; "ire didn't have any fun ivUli him—ive didn't have anvfights:" Ty|)ical comuients ahuut the ilctnucratic leader were: "hewas a good sporl, worked along iv:th ns and ih'inks of things jnstlike zve do' : "lie never did try to he the bass, bnl ive aliuavs hadfilenty to do": "just the jig lit eomljinatto/;—nothing/ I didn't likeabout him": "ire all liked him; he Jet us tiar down the burlaf> andeverything." These comments \\ere almii'^t uniformly dependentupon the lole played by the leader-, ami -were exacti}" reversedwhen he played a different role.KURT , ROX.M.D I.IFFITT, AND RALPH K.. WHITE 2S5As hctv\'een the leaders iti autocracy and "laissez-fairi'." the preferencewas for the "hiissfz-jmn " lea<ler in seven cases out of ten. Thethree ho\-s who preferred the autocrat made such comments aboutthe "laissi'z-Uiirc leatler a-: "he -ica.^ lo'i cas\-(j'iii!tj"; "lie liad tor,lc7V ihnii/s lor us to do ': "lie Iff us fu/i/ri- /hiiiz/s <iiit too much";in contrast the a u t o c r a t "told us -ivliat to do, and ivr had .uyf/u-ihiiii/lo do all ihr tiiiii." For tbe other se\en. e\en disorder was jireferablcto ritrithty: "ii-e could do icliul u-f pleased -ivith him"; "hi' rvasri'tstrifl at all."Another fortu of aLT^iiCssion "was oufjroup hostility, as manifestedespeciall\ in two "\i'ars" hclwcen clubs meeting in the ^ame lai'jieroom at the same time. J^oth \\-.\x~ seemed to he mainl\ in a spiritof pla\\ They were much more like snowball fiy:hts (ban serioiisconflicts, ( I his IS one more reason "wh\" in this case one should he

FIG. 5 - OUTGROUP AGGRESSION, SIXTH MEETINGIu 10!L-),te10 20 30 50 60FIGURE 5C.'o.vi i.icT RLiwhhj.v GROUI'S AKIRR INTRUSION' OF HOSTILE SrK\N'(;i.KAfier [lie sir.TUKcr left, strong lin>iitity developed bet^veen the two groups.Bcfort- the major conflict, tniiior hostilities had already occurred, \vith oneor twi) iiiL'inhfrs of the lniisr::-jairc group pinying ihe role of asjjiressors.286 TOURN.M. OF SOCIAL )'S\"C I lOT.OGYFIG, 6-Ot/TGROUP AGGRESSION, t'JINETEENTH MEETING40 50 60FIGURE 6CONFLICT RCTWEEK GKOUPS AFTER JNTRUSIUN of HOSTILEThe intrusiun of a hostile straniitr wz^ followed by in((;rgroup conflict(as in Figure 5). Iti rhis case the hostilities be^an siiddenly, rising ivithinfou r minutes almost lo their inaxiinutn level.cautious in comparing; advilt political phenomena directly with ourdata on small groups of children.) Our two small "wars" arc interestingin their o^^•n right, however, especially siiice the same generalconstellation of factors seemed to he operating in both cases.The cur\"es of rising hostility, ctmiptited J"or five-mmute intervals,are shown in Figtues 5 and 6. From these curves it can he seenthat the first "war'"' started gradually, with a long period of minorbickering and name calling, followed hy a nuich steeper gratlientof increasing bostility. The overt hostilities consisted of throwingwater, small pieces of clay (\\hich nearly always missed their mark),and sometimes water color paint, flicked from the end of a longpaint brush. No one was hurt. The second conflict (Figure 6)hegan mucli more suddenl\\ Xame calling hegan in tlic Hrst minuteaftei- the "hostile stranger" left tbe mom, and almost immediatelyK L R l ' LIAMN, ROXAI.D l . l l ' r r i ' i ' , AXD RALPH K. WIITTE 287tile hoys seemed to remember their previous conilict and to wish arepetition of it. Beginning with verbal aggression such as, "// /;riluii't \iiii h'nrn !', Inlk. ym siiwirs'f" they passed w i t b i n t h r e e m i n u t e sto thro^\"ing small pieces of soap (small pieces of soap statuettes,which they had carved, were h'iiig about), and wirhiii iive minutesnearly all the boys on both sides were wholeheartedly participating.This difterence in steepness of the liostility gradient Avas perhapsdue in part to a liigher level of tension or to weaker restrainingforces on the later occasion, but it seemed to be due also to acognitive difference. On the laler occasion tbe pattern of intergroupconflict had heen estaliHshed ; it ^^-as. b}- tliar time, a part of

the hnys' '"cognitive structure"—;t clearly defined region ^\•hlch theycould enter or not as they chose; and since they had found the fir-t"war" to be very pleasantl)' exciting, they readily and quickh'entered tiie same region again when the general psychological situationwas conducive to conHict. In this connection it may be notedthat the second conflict ^was labelled verbally almost immediately,•while the first one -was not iahelled until it W"as already well underway. On tlie lust occasion tlie siiout, "Let's lurrc a ivtirl" went uplong after the minor hostilities had begun; on the second occasion,one boy shouted, "Let's have a fif/lit" only two minutes after thename calling began, and anotlter one legalized it two minutes laterwith the words, "It's a •irar all I'li/lit."Certain similarities bet^ween the two da\s of conflict suggestsome very teniati\-e hypotheses as to the psychological factors conduciveto this sort of conflict. In the first place, hoth occurreii ondays when, with the adult leader absent, a hostile stranger liadbeen in the room and had criticized the work which the hoys weredoing. '^I'his Iiad hcen deliberately planned as a "test situation";a graduate stu(ient, placing tbe role of a janitor ur an electrician,was the hostile stranger. It may be doubtful whether or not tiieterm ''substitute hate ohject" is an appropriate one here; but thereAvas no cjiiestion in the obser\ ers' minds that in both cases the intrusionof the stranger tended to ilisorganize tbe regular play activitiesof the clubs and to build up a tense, restless psychological conditionwhich was conducive to intergroup conflict. In tlie second place,both conflicts started when nu respected adult ^\as present. Inthe ilrst one the main aggressors were unquestionaiily the lahscz-lairegroup (sec Figure 5). Their leailer was physically present at the2S8 jOLRN.AL OF .S()CI,\T, I'SI CHOI.OGYtime, hut iie \^ as psychologically unimportant. '1 he second conflictbegan when the leaders on both sides were out of tlie room, and bythe time the leaders retnrned, it liad gathered great momentum. Inthe third place, both conflicts occurred at a time when there wasno absorbing group activity as an alternati\-e. The first one beganat a time when tiie members of the laissez-faire group seemed unusuallybored and dissatisfied with their own lack of solid accomplislmient.The second one began after the boys had becomesomewhat bored \\ith their soap earning, antl after this individualisticacti\'il\' had been further disrupted by the ci'iticisms of thestranger.1'he free (hrect expression of aggression hy tiie "wars" followingfrustration in the laisscz-fairv antl democratic situations offers acontrast to several other patterns of expression which \\ere observedIn some of the authoritariati situations. These types of behavior

might be bidefly labelled: iji) a "strike"; {h) rebellious acts;{c) redjiroeal aggression among all members; {d) scapegoat attack;{e) lelease behavior after a decrease in leader pressure; {/) aggressionagainst impersonal "'substitute hate objects."Both the "strike" and symptoms of rebellious action occurred inthe aggressive type of autocracy. About the middle of the series ofsix meetings the club members went lo I heir teacher \\itii a letterof resignation signed by four ot them. 'I'hey asked their teacher togive this to the leader when lie came to get them after school.The teacher refused to act as a go-bet\\ een, suggesting that theboys go to the leader directly, but when he appeared after school,courage seemed to wane anil they al] went to the meeting as usual.O\ ej t rebellious acts were of the f()lhn\-ing nature: breaking arule by car\ing on the posts in tlie cluhroom (while casting sidelongglances at the leader), deliberately walking behind rhe burlap \\"a!Isof the clubroom without permission {mentioned to an inter\ ie-\\ er),leaving ihe club meeting early, and pretending not to hear v\-henspoken to by the leader. The tln'rd anil fourth kinds of behavior•were also typical of aggressive authoritarianism and have been mentionedin describing the Hrst experiment during which two scapegoatsemerged. As has been mentioned, changes in amount ofaggression while the leader w"as out, and days of transition to a freeratmosphere were especially good indicators of the existence ofunexpressed tension in the apathetic autoeraeies.KL'RT I.|-:W!X, RON".\I,D LIPl'lTT, .AN'D RALPH K. WHiri: 289Two very interesting examples of what we have tentativelycalled "release behavior through ati impersonal substitute hateobject" are worthy of description. During the eleventh meetingof the iirst experiment the authoritarian group •was given a chanceto indicate by secret ballot \\hcthcr they would like the club tostop (jr contiuue for se\'ei^ai more meetings. We may go to anobserver's record for further comments:Pt-culiar ;)i'uons follow the U d d e r ' s aiiiioiiiii'fiiient that l)ecaii^c of ihc \ o [ e i h i i f will bo no inorti incctin.ns a l t e r tmiay.' I h e leader ^sks KO :iiul J to put t h e p a p r r oti t h e Hoor asu s u a l . They put it down and tht-n run a n d j u m p on it timea n d again in a wild Dianner. I'liu t^roup ina^ks a r e d i v i d e damong the m e m b e r s and ./ inmu'<iialeiy begins lo t h r ow lusa r o u n d violently, p r e t e n d i n g to Jnni|i on it, l i e i h r o w s it d o w na g a i n and a g a i n , l a u g h i n g , R w a n i s to knoiv if it won't break,t h e n s t a r l s ro t h r ow his t l o w n too. Later ./ ami RO chase eacho t h e r LiroLiiul the room wildly with s i r c a i n e r s of t o w e l l i n g , . . .Rather clearly the w-ork products of this authoritariati atmosphereseemed to be the objects of aggres?i\e attack rather than prideful

ownership.During a last meeting of the secotid experiment a rather similarburst of beha\'ior occurred in one of the democratic groups. Thegroup was highly in\ olved in an acri\'ity of making an oil paintingon glass. While rhe leader \vas out for a short time (by arrangement)a student in the janitor rule came in to sweeji. Fromthe running acrountist's record of the 20-second minute we lind,He is making diir tiy and sweeping it t<iwaid the group.They all begin to cncf^h but don't move from their work,S c - \ ' e r a l m i n u t e s latei" \ \ e l i n d t h e c o m m e n t ,Janiror has aimo-t swept them away, bnt still no hostile res|Hmse. Tlu- project s(.'ciiis to ha-\'e ii \eiy high valence.Five minutes later the janitor had gotten them out of their chairsin oriler to sweep, thenthe janitor aceidentally knocks a piece of their gla^son the Hijor. They all yell and R makes as if to throw somethingm him, F says that if the leader were here he wouldbeat up the janitor.290 JOL'RXAL OF SOCIAL PS'iCHOl.lX.iVFi\e minutes later, after a numher of comments ci iticizing the;irt work of the cluh, tlie janitor left. The memhers dropped theirwork completely, climhed the rafters and made consitlerahle noise.On tlie thirt\-sixth minute \-\e liiui,R conifs ( ! o u n f r om tlu' i-afiL'r ;IIK1 b e g i n s to c i i ] i i | 4 a in aboutt h e j a i i i i u r , /. j o i n s h im nmi i l u y .TII c om pi :I in h i i t e i i y a n dloudiy.A^'ithin three minutes the iriouii lie.Liiui to destroy a larire woodensiLHi upon \\-hich the\- had paiiiled the cKih name. Such ciimnientsas this appear in the runuintr account,F ib w i t l i i l n s i t\v(i h a n i n i e r s at nnec. . . . R i< buf^v' ] n i i l i n g o u tall llie n:iils, . . . Thex' :irc i-\iiiL'ii. . . . F knocks llu- first hiiler h r o u g l i it. . . , R (ries to caul ion P f u r a inimitf, a n d t h e n getsb i i s y hiinsi'll . . . tlit-ir un!'^pl•|.•^s^;l.l a g g r e s s i o n l u w a r d t h e j a n i -t o r is t a k i n g a v i o l e n t o t i t k ' t , , . they a r e all \ ( ' i y st'iioLis n n dv i c i o u s alxiut t h e d e s f r u c t i o n ol" I'IK' s i g n . . , they seem to ticg e t t i i i i r a ;j:rcat deal nf '"pure a n i m a l p k a s u r e " of the p i l l a g e .l l i e meerinL^ eiideil -with tlnee or four mimites of pleasantconversation.C. lxT]'Ri'iu:'ri\'i; CoMWLiK'isFrotn the nian\ theoretical iirohi(;m_s invohxd we should like Intliscuss Init oru', n[miely, the jirohleiii of aLTUres^ion and apathy.Even here we wish to show the complexity of the problem am!its possilile attack from a iielci tlieoretical point of \'ii'w rather thanto set forth a deliiiite theory.

It is not eas\ to say what am^ression is, that is, tf otie is notsatisfied with mere verbal definition. One imjioriant aspect ohviouslyis that one Linuip or an individual within a .Liroup turns acainstanother group (or individual). In case these £;r{)ups are subgroupsof i;ne original L'runp, it can be called ai^irression li'ithin a gr<)Up,otherwise aggression ayatust an 'nitt/roup.J?oth kinds of aggre;:sioii occurleii m liur exiirritnents. All ofthese aggres^llills "\\ ere spontaneou-^ in character. I n other words,It was not a situaturn \\ here ;t Liroiip of people ate ordered by apolitically dominating po\\er (like the state) to indulge in a certaintype of directed acti\'ity calleil war. On the whole the aggression; \ a s the outcome oi the momeiitar\ emotional situation, althcui^hKURT LEWIN, RONAI.IJ i.lPIMTT, AND RALPH K. WHITE 291in two cases the aggressions had definitely the character of a fightof one group against another group and showed a certain amountof cooperati\e organization within each group.It IS necessar} to mention four points which seem to play adominant role in the spontaneous aggressions: tension, the space offree mo\ement, rigidity of grouji structure, and the style oi living(culture).I. TensionAn instance where tension was created by auunyituj ex]ieriences(iccurred \\hen the group A\-ork was criticized hy a strangi'i" (janitor).There were two cases where fighting broke out immediatelyafterwards.In the autocratic atmosphere the behavior of the leader prohablyanncned the children consiilerably (to judge from the interviewsreported abo\ e ) .In addition, tliere wvw six times as main' directing approachesto an mduiduai hy the leader in autocracy thati in democracy(Figure 7). It is probably fair to assume that the bombardmentCHILD IM AUTOCRACY CHILD IN DEMOCRACY7LEADI'K I'iiliSSURE AND CHILD TliNSIONIII ihi' jiulhoritarian ^ituntinn the leader makes six times ns many tlirectingapjiroaches (/^ (.^J to the child member as in the democrytic situation. Thiscreates social pressure (equi\'aicnt to forces f^ fr^ of the environment onthe child) and therefore a higher statf of tension in the i:liild in theautocratic group; ihis tension demands some sort of mitU't tnwnrd theenvironment fef|uivalent to forces /p;, ;.-),SPACE Of FREE MOVEMENT[AUTOCRACVSPACE Of FREE MOVFME/VTDEMOCRACV

FIGURES R AND 9Sl'Ael-: ()|- FKIiL MUVEMRVT IN" AUTdCRACi' AND 1)RMOCR,-\CYI n ihc [ i i i u i r i r i i i e s i i u a i i o n the ^-pacc DC frci' i i i o v e i n c d t ( w h i t e ) was o r i g i -n a l l y b o u i u l c d (iiily liy tlie l i i i i i t a l i u i i id nliiliiy LIFUI k n o w l e d g e ( b l a c k ) oi tliemeri'iliers, Init was ^'oon l i m i t e d mucli f i i i l h e r by tlie social influence oft h e l e a d e r ( g r a y l . In d e m o c r a c y the sp;ici' n':is i c i c r e a s e d w i l h the helpof the l e a d e r .Kl.iR'r LliWIK, RONALD LIFPIT'I', AND RALPH K. WHMl' 293with such frequent ascendant approaches is equivalent to higherpressure and that this pressure created a higher tension.2. 'Narru-ui Span' of I'Vi't' ]\Ir)'i'cnn'i!t as a Source of TensionOn the \\'hole, c;\'eti [iiore important than this single annoyingexperience was the general atniospiiere of the situation. Experimentsin individual psychology (1) seemed to indicate that lack ofspace of free movemetit is equivalent to higher i)iessure; both contlitionsseem to create tension. This seemed particularly true ifan originally larger space was narrowed down (one is remindedhere of the physical tension created b\' decreasing volume, althoughone should not overstress the analogy).Our experiments seemed to indicate that a similar relatioti betweenthe narrow space of free movement and high tension holds also inregard to groups. The space of free movement in autocracy ^^"assmaller in relation to tiie activities lUTimtted and the social statuswhich could be reached (Figures 8 anil 9), In laissez-faire, conttaryto expectations, the space (if free [no\'cment was not largerbut smaller titan in democracy, partly because of the lack of timeperspective and partU' because nf the interference of the •work ofone mdiviiltial with the actnittes of his fellows.i. Af/f/n's.fii/fi as the Efferf of 'J'emion1'he an[io\'mg occurrences, the pressure applied hy the leader,and the lack of space of free movement, are three hasic facts whichbrought up a higher tension. Our experiments indicate that thishigher tension might suffice to create aggression. This seems to he(if theoretical itnportance; obviously some aggressive acts can he\iewed mainl\' as a kiiul of "purpo'^i\-e" action (for instance, todestroy a danger), and one might ask whether or not this componentis an essential part in tbe causation of an\' aggression. Inour experiments, the two wars between the two outgrou|is canbaidl}- be classified in this way. They seemed to he rather clearcases where aggrcs^itin \va^ "emotional expression" of an underl\ing tension.4. R'u/idity of Group Structure

Ho\\e\er, to understand aggression one \\'ill ha\-e to realize thattension is only one of the factors -which determine whetlier or notan aggressn e action \\'il! take place. The buibling up of tension294 JOURXAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYcan be said to be equivalent to the creation of a certain type of needwhich might express Itself in aggressive action. '.Pension sets uptiie driving force (2) for the aggression (in the two situations withwhich we are dealing). However, \-\hetIier these driving forcesiictnally lead to aggressioti or to same other behavior, for instancethat of leaving the group, depends on additional chai'acteristics ofthe situation as a whole. One of these seems to be the rigidity ofrhe social position of tl:e person \i-ithin the grou|i.Aggression within a group can he viewed as a process by whichone part of the group sets itself in opposition to another part of thegroup, in this way hreakitig the unity o)' the grou[i. Of course,tliN ^e|iaration is only of a certain degree.In other words, tf _!/ indicates a meniher or subgrnup and Grthe whole group, an aggression involves a force acting on the subgroupin the direction awa}" from the main group {/•,,,_,;,.) or otherpart of tJie subgroup. From this it shnuld follow theoreticallyAUTOCRACY DEMOCRACYFIGFRE 10Ki(;u)rrv OF CRnv.p STKLcrLR)' ,\s A TI:N"5[ON- FACTUR111 a u i n c r a c y where eaeh member or s i i b s n u i ] ! {M\ . 1 / " . , . .1/^) h a s ai-ircumscribei.! region of a c t i v i t y {R^. R' . . . R">. [iiul [•s|ici.'i:illy w h e r e t h ec t - i u i a ! regions of g r o u p life (policy f o r m a t i o n Ri') art- i n a e r e s s i h l e to mostinpnibers, rigid b a r r i e r s ( £ ) to oivn goals (G) continually f r u s t r a t e mt'mbc r s ' I'fforf-. T h e m e m b e r ' s oivn position in t h e s i ' ^ ^ 'P s l i i n ' t u r e (R') t h e r e -fiiic ;ici]iiin;'S a n e g a l i v c valence, usually c r c n l i n g a force :Mvny fromg r o u p mciTihfrsliip {f^ii Q , . ) - But in r'uu(.\ groiiji slriii-lurcs a r e s t r a i n i n gb:i ri'liT {li^) ket'ps members or siibgi'mips from li'in' ing inilil :i v e r y highstate of lension de\clups,Tn democracy where all group regions (R^'') iire accessible lo all menibera(M'j R'l^ . . . M'^), their own goals (G) arc more easily attained antl no suchfrustrating siuiation i.k'\ cldps.KIH"I' LEWIX, ROXAM) J.li'i'lTl', AXD R.Al.Fil K. WHITE 295th:it if a subjiroup can easily locomnte in the direction away fromthe ^roup It will do so in case this force shows any significantstrL'rii;tli. hi nrher \\nrils, a stnin.L' tension and ati actual agixression"\"\^ill he hnilt up oiily in case lliere exist forcc^i which hinder thesubjzroiij") 1 luni leaving;: the grou]) (Figure 10).Cultural anthrup()k)g\- givfs examples which might be interpreted

fj^oni this any:Ic, The Arapesh (7), for instance, are livingin a s(iciet\- where everyone is a member of a i^reat •^•ariety ofdifferent groups and seems to shift easdy from one tjroup to another;it is a society without rigidly (i.xed social position. Tlie fact thatthey show e,vtremely little aggression might •well he linked •^I'ithtJlis lack of rigid social structure.Another example might be seen in the fact that adolesceiits ii^hoIiavc been kept •within the family probably sJto^w more aggression;iii other words, the more rigid the fatnily structure the more difficultit is for them to move from childhood to adulthood.An addititinal example is the well-kno^\\n fact that narrow familyties A\ hich ser\'e to make it difficult for hushand and \\ife to lea\"eeach othrr ma\- make agj3rre>^ion between theui particuhirly violent.in our experiment, autocracy provided a much more rigid socialgroup than democracy, it was particulariy difiicult for the membersof an atiCoci'acy to change tlieir --ocial status (,^). On the otherhand, in both groups the member did not like to leave the groupas a whole because of the intere.st in the work project and the feelingof rcsponvibilitv to the adult ie;uler.(_)n the whole, then, the t igiihty of the groiiji -will function ;i,sa restraining force (2) against locomotion a\^\"a\^ from the group,or from the position within the group. Sufficient strenj^ah of thisrestraiiiing force seems to be one ui the conditions for the buildingup ui' a tension which is sui"licii'nt]\ high to lead lo aggression.It can he seen easily tliat I lie harriei's limiting the space of freenio\ement may have a similar function. We mentioned above,that a narrow :>pace of free mo\^ement seems to be equivalent topressure, anti, in this way, creates tension. At tlie same time,the barriers pi^e\ent loconmtinn, thus providing the restraining forcf:;^necessar\ for budding up higher tension.it •was alieady mentioned ihal; these restraining forces are particularlystrong in our autocratic grou|^) (Figure 10).296 JOURN"AI. (IF SOCIAL I'SVCHOI.OG't'5. Style of Living (Culture)Whether or not :i aiveii amount of tension and given restrainingforces \\\\\ cau^e n person to become aggressive depends finally uponthe particular patterns of action which arc customarily used in theculture in winch he lives. The different styles of livine can heviewed a,^ different ways a given problem is usually solved. A personliving in a culture where a show of dominance is "the thingto do" under cert:ain conditions will hardly think of any other wayin wliich the soliition of this problem may he approached. Suchsocial patterns are comparable to ''habits." Indeed, individualhabits as well as cultural patterns have dynamically the character

of restraining forces against leaving the paths determined hy thesepatterns. In addition, they determine the cogi"iil"ive structure whicha gi\xn situation is likeh' to have for a given individual.For the problem of aggression, this cultural pattern, deterniincdhy the group in which an individual lives and by his past history,is of great impoitance. It determines under what conditions aggression"will be, for the individual concerned, the "distinguished path"lead&r 6uoi-her rns/Ddominaiionence m •ffiffence or oobediprsrfh ' fl'"[GURR Li[JiFFERi£NT STYLES 01" LIVING ,45 REPRIiSENTEI) liY DlITIiRliXT DlSTlKCUtSHEDP,\TH,s (AGGRESSIVE AUTOCRACY)The goal (G) of maximum sccial status and space of fcec mnveintnt cnnbe reached by one or more of several procedLiies depending on actualpossibilities and the prevailing mode of behavior in that group. In our"experimentally created cultures," the distinguished path to G wns fora child {C) in aggrestiive autocracy that of aggressive domination of olhermembers. In a similar situation the distinguished path for a memi"ier ofdemocratic groups seemed lo be that of gaining voluntary recognitinn ofthe other members as a leader through wo:-k snd social efforts. In thesii'iiatinn of apalhelic authoritarianism the path seemed to be that of submissiveobedience to authority, which n"iinhL win praise I I'oin rhe leader.KURT T.l-.WIX, ROX.ALD I.IIM'ITT, AND RALPH K. WHITE 29/to the gonl (2). It determines, fui thermore, h(.n\' casih^ a situationwill show for him a cognitive .structure when.- aggression appearsto he one possible path for his action (Fic!;urc J l ) .The factors iianicJ ave sufficient to warn against any "one-factor"theory of aggression. Here, as in regard to any other behavior, it isthe specific constellation of the (iuld as a M'holc that determineswhether or not aLCgression will occur. In ever\' case one has toconsider both 1 he dri^'tng and thi^ restraining torces and the cognitivestructure of the field. Such a field theoretical approach seemsto be rather arduous. On the other hand, only in this way willone be able to vinderstand for instance the paradox of behaviortliat autocracy may lead either to aggression or to apathy. It wasstated that aggression is partly to be viewed as an emotional outbreakdue to tension and that this tension, m turn, is due to pressureand restraining forces {lack of space of free inovement). AVc

have apathy when the pressure attd the restraining forces fromwithout are kept stronger than tlie forces {fch.t: in Figure 7) withinthe person winch lead to the emotional expression, and are due tothe tension. A^'llcther or not the forces from \\-ithout or those fromwithin are stronger depends upon the absolute amount of pressure andalso on the "willingness" of the jierson to "accept" the pressure.The iield theoretical approach also provides indications for thecircumstances under Avhich one might generalize the results of suchexperimental group studies. One must be careful of making toohasty generalization, perliaps especially in the field of politicalscience. Tlie varieties of democracies, autocracies, or "laissez-faire"atmospheres aie, of course, very numerous. Besides, there are alwaysindi\'idual dilferences of cliarader and background to consider. Onthe other liand, it would be wrong to minimize the possibilitvof generalization. The ans\\cr in social psychology and sociologyhas to be the same as in an experiment in any science. The essenceof an experiment is to create a situatiun which ^ho\xs a certainpattern. AVhat happens depends by and large upon this patternand is largely although not completely iudependetit of the absolutesize of tlie iield. This is one of the reas(jns why e.\periments arepossible and worthwhile.The generalization from an experimental situation should, therefore,go always to those life situations x^hicli show the same ursufficiently similar general patterns. This statement includes boththe rights and the limitations of generalization.29S JOURNAL OF SOCL\L PSYCHOLOd'D. SUM^LARV1. In a first experiment, Lippit;t compared one group of fi\'-*10-\ear-old children, under autocratic leadership, with a comparablegroup under democratic leadership. In a second experiment, Lippittand White studied four comparable cluhs of 10-\ear-old boys,each of which passed successively through three club periods insuch a way that there were altogether f\vQ democratic periods, Cweautocratic periods, and two "laissez-faire'' periods.2. In the second experiment, the factor of personality iliilerencesin the boys was controlled by liaving each group pass tliroughautocracy and then democracy, or \'ice versa. The factor of leader'spersonality was controlled by having each of four leaders pla_\' therole of autocrat and the role of democratic leader at least once.3. Records on each club meeting include stenographic recordsof conversation, quantitative symbolic records of group structure,quantitative symbolic records of all social interactions, and a continuousinterpretive running account. Parents and teachers wereinterviewed; each boy ^\"as given the Rorschach ink blots, a Morenotype

questionnaire, and was interviewed three times. Analysis -ifcausal relationships between these various t\'pes of data is still farfrom complete. As a prelimitiary report we are giving liere a partof the data bearing Lipon one specific prohlem, that of aggression.4. In the first experiment, hostility was 30 times as frequent inthe autocratic as in the democratic group. Aggression (includingiioth "hostilit}" and "joking hostility") v,as 8 times as frequent.iXIuch of this aggression \va.s directed toward two successive scapegoatswithin the group; none of it was directed toward the autocrat.5. In the second experiment, one of the i]\Q autocracies showedthe same aggressive reaction as was found in the first e.vpcriment.In tbe other four autocracies, the boys showed an extremely nonaggressive,"apathetic" pattern of behavior.6. Four types of evidence indicate that this hick of aggressionwa.-; probably not caused by lack of frustration, hnt by the repressiveinfiuence of the autocrat: (a) outbursts of aggression on the davsof transition to a freer atmosphere; (b) a sharp rise of aggressionwhen the autocrat left the room: {c) other indications of generahVedapathy, sucb as an absence of -miiina" and -oking; and {</) the factthat 19 out of 20 bovs liked their democratic leader better than theirK ( . ^ i n ' ! , L : W I N , H O N . A L D L I I ' I ' I T T , A N D R A t . r i i K. w r i i T i : 2 ^ 9autocratic leader, and 7 out of lfl also liked their "laissez-faire"leader better.7. I'liere were two wars," more or less I'layful, and withoutbodily d:iniage. between clubs meeting in tbe same room at thesame tin"ie. Tlie first of these began gradualK^, the second >inldenly.Three factors, present in botli cases, seemed conducive to groupcondict: {<i) irritation and tension produced by a hostile stranger,{h) absence ol a res|iecl'ed adult, and (c) lack of any absorbingalternative activit}.S. There were two striking mstances of aggression again-^t impersonalobjects.9. A general interjiretation of tbe abo\e data on aggression canbe made in terms of lour underlying facti")i^s: tension, restrictedspace of free movement, rigidit_\" of group :iti"ucture, and style ofliving (culture).REFERI-:NCES1. LEWIN", K. A Dynamic 'i'heory of Poisonality: Selected papers. Trans,by Doruikl K. Adaniii and Karl \i. Zener. New York: McGraw-Hill,1935, Pp. ix-r2S(>,2, . rile conecplual represcntatinn and llu- ineasurenuiu of psy-^;, Diikc Uni-v. Coiilrih. Psydml. Thr., 193H, 1, No. 4,Pp, 247,

3. . l:!xpL'[inn.'n(-' in siicial space, Hayi-ard liJiic. R,:v., !9,)'J, 9,No, 1,4. LEWIN, K,, i.^ Lii'PiTi", R. An experimental approach lo the study ofauiuciary and deniiicracy: A preliminary note. Sociomclry, 193S, 1,292-3IKI."S, , Field theory ;Hui expuriineiU id social iisycluihigy. (.'\cceptedfor piililiration in ihe May i^^ue nf the American Jnui'iial ofSociolftgy.)6. Lu'priT. K. An (.'xjiii imetilal stud> nf auihoi itari:in and democraticgroup niinosphercj^. Viiiv. Ioiv/i StiiJ., Sfii.l. C.liilJ JVrL, 1939, 16,No. 3, ' | l n press,]7. ME,\I>, ,\l,\i!o,\RE'r [ICD."!. C'onpeii!li<in and Compeiition ainnn^ i'riniitivePeuiili'^-. New York: Macmillan, 1937. Pp. viii-|-325.5. MORENO, J. I.. Wlio Shall Survive? -\ new approach to the problem ofhnman interrelation^. (Nervous nnd Mental Disease Monoi;raphSeries No. 5S.) Wasliingtoti, D, (.'.: Nervous t^ Menial DiseasePuhiishing Co., 1934. Pp. xviH-437.Child fl'i'lfare Rescareh StutionState Jjniversily uf lon-aloica City. Ifjiva