HENRI TAJFEL

University of Oxford

Co-operation between Human Groups

THE COMPLEXITIES OF human social behaviour both these views are inadequate; that co-opera-
are not the preserve of any single discipline. tion or hostility between human groups cannot
There has always been a great proliferation of be understood fully on the basis of calculations
theories about the social nature or behaviour of of utility; and that they can be understood even
man. These ideas were sometimes expressed in less on the basis of sweeping assumptions about
the form of modest and cautious inferences from the role of instinct in the social behaviour of man.
empirical data; sometimes as systems of social or The "social psychological man" stands some-
political philosophy related to postulates about where apart both from the instinctive and from
such-and-such inherent characteristics of"human the utilitarian man; he is a good deal more
nature"; and sometimes they took a sweeping complicated than the two other homunculi could
analogy as their starting point and emerged at ever become.
the other end with a cosmic all-embracing
theory. The difficulty we have to-day is to dis-
tinguish between what is useless and what useful
for further inquiry; the subject matter is so vast Psychological Analysis
that almost any system of ideas is likely to
contain much truth. For example, as Plamenatz 10 A psychological analysis of the problems of
wrote, there is no doubt that modern social co-operation between human groups can be
science could learn a good deal more than it has undertaken only if its limitations are clearly kept
until now from the ideas of social and political in mind. Such an analysis cannot provide an
philosophers of the past. explanation of large-scale historical or social
When one considers the problem of co-opera- events. Each case of co-operation or of conflict
tion between human groups and other related must be understood in its own right, in terms of
problems, such as competition and conflict its own conditions and determinants which may
between groups and aggression displayed by one be economic or social, political or historical, and
group towards another, it is not too difficult to are most often a mixture of all these. No set of
identify two general assumptions which form- a priori psychological principles can replace the
implicitly or explicitly-the basis of much detailed knowledge which is necessary for the
theorizing on the subject. These assumptions analysis and understanding of a concrete social
represent, in some ways, two entirely distinct situation. The social phenomena which arise
ways of approaching the problems of human from it pursue their course in terms of their own
interaction in society. One concerns itself with logic. Modern wars, for example, cannot be
the "instinctive social man", the other with the "explained" on the basis of hostile attitudes
"utilitarian social man". One attempts to harboured by large masses of individuals living
explain the course of relationships between in the countries engaged in armed conflict. Such
social groups in terms of instinctive character- attitudes may contribute to the creation of a
istics of man; the other relies on a rational conffict, they may facilitate an explosion, they
calculation, by members of a group or by their may even be fostered to serve these ends. But
leaders, of the future utility of various possible large-scale social and political events are not
courses of action. I shall try to argue from the predictable from a crude algebra of attitudes and
evidence gathered by social psychologists that motives of millions of individuals.
77
THE EUGENICS REVIEW, June 1966, 58, 2.
 THE EUGENICS REVIEW
To stress this point I can do no better than emotional identification with a group? What are
quote from a recent paper byWithey and Katz 16: the conditions for the stability of such an
The social psychological approach to war and identification? What are its effects on an
peace is commonly misconceived as viewing inter- individual's attitudes and behaviour towards
national conflict either in terms of the personalities members of his own group and towards other
of national leaders or in terms of a national character groups as a whole or their individual members?
which suffuses the masses and the elite in similar And, finally, as a special case of all this, what are
fashion. Relevant social psychological processes are
not revealed, however, by imputing to the character the conditions leading to co-operative attitudes
of the people in the system the outcome of system and behaviour towards groups other than one's
processes. For example, a nation declares war, own?
hence, its people or its leaders are regarded as
aggressive or warlike. This is the group mind fallacy
in reverse, because there is the attribution of system Aggregations or Social Groups?
outcomes such as belligerent or conciliatory actions If in the attempt to provide some form of
to the personalities of the individual actors (p. 65).
answers to these questions one turns first
Once these reservations have been made, the towards studies of in animal social behaviour, such
task of identifying the contributions that can be as those discussed the preceding papers, some
made by social psychology to problems of general points can perhaps be made. According
co-operation between human groups becomes a to Etkin5 and to many other workers in this
little more tractable. The diversity of ways in field, animal groups can be roughly classified
which mankind can be classified into groups is into aggregates and genuine social groups. This
practically infinite. Every one of us belongs to a classification is based on the nature of the
large number of them, some as transient as a response made by individuals to other individ-
journey in a lift, some as permanent as a family, uals. Thus, as Etkin puts it, animal groups are
a tribe or a nation. For the purposes of the social:
present discussion I shall define a group as a when the members stay together as a result of their
category of people fulfilling two criteria: the social responses to one another rather than by
other factors in their environment.
first, that an individual identifies himself as Groups thatto are
responses
held together by responses to such
belonging to that category; and the second, that other factors will be called "aggregations". Thus a
this identification is to him of some emotional flock of sheep is a social group, since it is maintained
significance. Let me add immediately that there another;by the social responses of the animals to one
are many other possible definitions, but their night is an but the massing of insects around light at
aggregation, since it results from their
adequacy is not vested in some sort of absolute common attraction to the light (p. 4).
criterion of "truth". They are useful only in
relation to the problem for which they are Despite the fact that there may be many cases
needed. And a second point: this definition, when it is difficult to decide which of these two
though it takes two subjective criteria for its types of response determines the coming together
point of departure, need not remain "subjective" and the functioning of a group, there are also
at the level of empirical investigation. There are many animal groupings which can be assigned
many behavioural indices which can be used to without too much hesitation to one or to the
decide whether an individual does or does not other class.
feel himself to be a member of a group in the There is little doubt that many human
sense just indicated. aggregations can be found to exist. But they
Thus, a group has been defined here not in undoubtedly constitute the most temporary and
terms of its physical characteristics or of its social least complex type of human groups, and they
structure, but in terms of its psychological become social groups in a more adequate sense
existence for an individual. The main empirical only when, because of various pressures and
problems that arise within the framework of this needs, they give rise to more stable organizations
definition would then be as follows: What are whose members can be shown to display the sort
the origins of an individual's conceptual and of identifications to which I previously referred.
78
 CO-OPERATION BETWEEN HUMAN GROUPS
A comparative study of animal groups consensus of opinion reached by several members
exhibiting the second type of response-the one of a distinguished panel of contributors ranging
which is genuinely "social" in the sense employed from ethologists to social anthropologists.
by Etkin-can teach us a good deal about the Indeed, one of the papers7 consists mainly of
origin and the functioning of human social an impressive array of examples showing the
groups. It remains true, however, that facile horrifying incidence of cruelty, sadism, torture
analogies from animal to human are easily and massacre in the history of mankind. The
derived from the results of such studies. The less author concludes that nothing but the existence
is the social behaviour of a species determined by of an innate aggressive tendency could explain
its capacity to show flexibility and variability due all these phenomena. The argument has an
to learning, the more likely it is that such undeniable ring of plausibility; but using another
analogies will be widely off the mark. Studies of selection of examples one could infer with equal
animal social behaviour have shown that, in plausibility the existence of innate tendencies
many species, learning plays an important role in underlying the incidence in human affairs of
various forms of social behaviour; for example, co-operation, altruism, patriotism, self-sacrifice,
in individual recognition between parent and or even perhaps of changes in fashion and of
offspring, in differences in aggressive behaviour beauty contests. There are two principal reasons
shown towards members of in-groups and out- why all such explanations must remain unsatis-
groups, in territoriality, in the establishment of factory: one is that, without further independent
social hierarchies. Even this brief and incom- evidence, they are tautological; the other, that
plete enumeration shows clearly the striking they are not based on a detailed analysis of
similarities of some aspects of animal and human conditions under which the behaviour in question
social behaviour. The question that arises con- occurs or does not occur. As has been well
cerns the extent to which the processes under- shown in studies of animal social behaviour,
lying these phenomena display the same sort of only such an analysis would enable us to make
similarity. testable inferences concerning the causal factors
The study of the role played by innate and that may be involved. Even if it were true that
acquired patterns of behaviour in animal social there are innate tendencies lurking behind
groups is usually based on a careful analysis of various forms of human competition, conflict or
its various relevant aspects. This would include a co-operation, the complexity of social behaviour
detailed and painstaking account of a sequence in man is such that explanations of this nature
of behaviour, its relation to physiological would not take us very much further than
mechanisms, to the ecological features of the statements relating the development of the rich
environment, and also the analysis ofthe possible variety of gastronomic traditions to man's
functions and survival value of the sequence. No undeniably innate need for food and drink.
self-respecting student of animal behaviour
would commit here the "group mind fallacy in
reverse", which would consist in this case of Identification with the Group
"explaining", for example, the intra-species One of the basic phenomena of human social
aggressive behaviour of members of a group interaction has been well brought out by
towards members of another group by a simple implication in a paper by Thompsonl5 when he
attribution of this aggressive behaviour to an wrote "the language of the bees is not the
innate tendency to be aggressive. And yet, in the language of love". Human language is also very
case of human social behaviour we are often often not the language of love. But it must be
offered this type of statement with its implicit remembered that as the human being matures,
injunction that we can now rest content since we one of the primary features of his development,
have explained the phenomenon. For example, without which he would not be able to adapt to
in a recent symposium on aggression,4 its the society of other human beings, is his increas-
attribution in human affairs to an aggressive ing capacity to deal with his environment in
instinct seems to be, according to the editors, the abstract and symbolic terms. In most (if not all)
79
 THE EUGENICS REVIEW

cases of social interaction in animals the social Definitions of most of these groups are not based
responses cannot be related to a capacity of on a set of recognizable and invariant physical
perceiving the events from the point of view of characteristics of their members; they are
another individual. The simpler processes also abstract class concepts.
no doubt play an important role in human social We know that co-operation within a human
behaviour; but they are inserted, as it were, group is likely to develop as a function of
within a larger framework of symbolic activity. various concrete common needs. It must,
The eminent Swiss psychologist Piaget has however, also be remembered that the only
shown in much of his work that as the child possible basis for such co-operation in any
progresses from one stage to the next in his complex social situation is to be found in the
intellectual development, he becomes increasing- conceptual processes of the sort that Piaget
ly more capable of transcending the concrete investigated in children. To return to
perceptual context of the moment and of Thompson's 15 reference to bees, the language of
drawing inferences about the environment on the the bees is not only not the language of love; it is
basis of invariant rules applying to situations also not the language of co-operation. The
which may differ widely in their concrete possibility to co-operate in most human situa-
perceptual characteristics. If this were not so, we tions is based on the ability to perceive a
would never be able to teach our children that situation from the point of view of another
the area of a square with sides of 6 in. is equal to individual, and then to make use of the informa-
the area of a rectangle with sides of 2 in. and tion so obtained as a guide for subsequent
12 in.; or that if a child in Ibadan lives further actions. If co-operation were not based on the
south than a child in London, this means that implicit or explicit use of this ability to become
the child in London lives north of the child in allocentric as distinct from egocentric, it could
Ibadan. These examples point to a universal happen only sporadically, by chance encounters
human phenomenon which is sometimes ignored of parallel or complementary actions, and it
in discussions of human social behaviour. could never form the basis of a complex and
Emotional and conceptual identification with a co-ordinated sequence of behaviour originating
group consists of more than invariant responses from many individuals.
to clear-cut stimulus configurations. If it is true that co-operation largely depends
The origins of identification with a group-or upon this capacity to see the world from the
with a large number of groups-are to be found point of view of someone else, then its success
in early childhood. The Freudian accounts of must depend upon the conditions which make it
the manner in which the young child internalizes possible or impossible to engage in this type of
emotionally his relations with his parents and behaviour. This is clearly the case in modern
other members of his family are well known. societies with their complex checks and balances
The important aspect of these accounts from the due to a tangled network of competitive and
point of view of the present discussion is the fact co-operative interests. In such social systems the
that the transfer of these early emotional "zero-sum-games"-all loss to one and all gain
reactions to other people or to groups of other to the other-are becoming increasingly in-
people is possible only through the use of frequent, particularly at the level of large-scale
symbolic activity in which one individual is social events.
made to stand for another. It is just as true, An individual's identification-conceptual and
however, that independently of these early emotional-with a group has many psychological
emotional experiences and of their possible aspects. One of the most important is in the
transfer in later life, we also come to identify sharing of social norms. There are several ways
with a complex matrix of human groups in a in which a social norm can be defined. Three of
manner which seems to have, at best, tenuous these can serve as examples: "social norm" may
links with these early emotional reactions. We refer to contractual obligations accepted and
are all members of national, professional, shared by members of a social group; it may
religious, social and many other groups. refer to shared ideas about what ought to be the
80
 CO-OPERATION BETWEEN HUMAN GROUPS
way to behave in a variety of situations; and it events in the environment is sometimes not
may finally refer to observed uniformities of sufficiently appreciated. It will be obvious that
behaviour in a social group, large or small. The under conditions of "common fate", such as
manner in which a society comes to create and shared threats, dangers or goals, this convergence
perpetuate norms in all these three meanings of in behaviour is bound to become more marked.
the term is a very vast issue fraught with But it can also be found in cases where the
implications which I should neither wish nor feel function of concerted behaviour does not appear
competent to discuss here. This issue has always at all obvious. For example, there are many
been a joint focus of interest for historians, social psychological experiments showing the extent to
philosophers, sociologists, lawyers, social an- which individuals are prepared to accept the
thropologists and many others-and this repre- unanimous verdict of a majority even in tasks as
sents too many toes for anyone to dare to tread simple as judging differences in length between
on. I should like, however, to attempt a discus- several lines, and even when this majority
sion of the manner in which an individual comes verdict flatly contradicts the evidence of their
to share the established norms of social groups own senses.1
in which he enters. In doing this, I shall mainly One example can perhaps be briefly described,
be concerned with the third meaning of the term since it will serve as a transition to the next stage
"norm" which I previously mentioned: the of this discussion. It concerns the so-called
observed uniformities of behaviour. "autokinetic phenomenon": when a stationary
Many psychologists engaged in the study of pin-point of light is shown in complete darkness,
animal behaviour reached the conclusion that it appears to move. When several observers are
some aspects of animal learning cannot be put together in a dark room, their judgements of
adequately explained unless one postulates the the extent of this apparent movement tend to
existence of a drive or a tendency to explore the converge.13 In an interesting modification of this
environment.2,8 The biological survival value of procedure, various degrees of insecurity were
getting to know one's surroundings is obvious. introduced into the situation. This was done
Some of the greatest achievements of mankind through varying the size of the pitch-dark room,
would never have taken place had it not been for placing obstacles in the subject's way, making
the existence of a similar urge to explore and to him wander through complicated routes, and
understand. But in the case of man, there is one varying the degree of pleasantness and help
essential aspect of gathering this information shown to him by the experimenter. The most
about the environment which appears only in a extreme of these experimental conditions led to
very rudimentary form in non-human behaviour. considerable disorientation and confusion in the
An enormous amount of human knowledge subjects. Two successive experimental sessions
about the environment-physical and social-is were used at an interval of several days. In the
not collected through the direct experience of an first of these, each subject was alone; in the
individual but through information transmitted second, they were in pairs. As a function of the
to him by other members of the social groups to increasing degree of confusion there was, from
which he belongs. Each human being learns that the first to the second session, an increasing
one of the efficient ways to evaluate the informa- convergence between the subjects in their
tion he has about his surroundings, about him- judgements of the extent of the apparent
self, about the consequences of his actions, about movement.14
other people, about the relative probabilities of The interpretation of results such as these
various possible future events, is to rely on the leads one immediately into one of the chicken-
information provided by others.6 In addition, and-egg situations so common in social psycho-
the more an individual perceives other people as logy. The feeling of intense confusion creates
similar to himself, the more will his behaviour be presumably a situation in which the subjects see
determined by his perception of their behaviour. themselves as confronting together the same
The importance of this phenomenon in the difficulty. It is not, however, clear why this
determination of human reactions to all kinds of shared crisis amongst wreckage in a pitch-dark
81
 THE EUGENICS REVIEW

room should lead them to greater uniformity in drop a load of bombs from a height or to press a
judging the movement of a point of light. This button releasing a missile than to plunge a knife
agreement cannot conceivably have anything to into someone's belly even when there is no
do with any rational attempts on their part to danger of retribution. And to present a counter-
deal with their plight. And thus, it appears that a part to our dead chicken, pet-lovers are well
group situation in which people share common known for their attribution of all sorts of subtle
needs or difficulties leads in turn to the develop- characteristics to the objects of their love. The
ment of a need to create a variety of norms. This creation of a psychological distance between
emergence of norms seems therefore not only oneself and one's victim is probably responsible
determined by the utility value of co-operating for at least as much murder and massacre as is
in order to remove a difficulty, but also as an the much vaunted sadism and the presumed
emotionally autonomous consequence of affilia- ineradicable aggressive instinct in man. The
tion with a group, whatever may be the original recent play by Weiss The Investigation based on
causes of the group coming together. There are the Auschwitz trial in Germany does not show
many experiments in social psychology which most of the men involved as towering monsters
show the strength of these so-called "normative" of inhuman proportions. They were little men
effects of group membership. who managed to do what they did partly because
It is for such reasons that the model of they were able to dissociate themselves com-
"utilitarian social man" to which I previously pletely from recognizing in their victims a
referred is no more adequate for the explanation similarity to themselves, some form of a common
of co-operation in human groups than is the denominator.
model of the "instinctive social man". Shared In mentioning the executioners of Auschwitz
needs and shared background lead to shared one approaches a level of dissociation from
norms; shared norms lead to more shared back- other human beings which veers on the border-
ground and to an emotional investment in the line of psychopathology. But milder versions of
creation of more shared norms. All these inter- this phenomenon are by no means uncommon.
locked processes result in the strengthening of No one needs a psychologist to tell him that in
group identification, and to the increased situations of intense conflict between human
capacity for perceiving those who are in the groups, of real threat, or of eruption of violence,
same group as essentially similar to oneself. It hostile attitudes between members of the groups
will be obvious that this perception of similarity involved intensify rapidly. The conditions for
makes it much easier to adopt in any relevant coexistence of human groups living in a common
situation the point of view of those who are environment are such that, in one way or
categorized as being "in" in contrast to those another, some forms of competition between
who are perceived as being "out". them are bound to arise sooner or later. A
discussion of conditions which may facilitate
co-operation cannot be based on utopian dreams
Dissociation from other Groups of a world free from competing interests. The
These phenomena are of direct relevance to question is rather to what extent, in Rapoport's
what is often referred to as "depersonalization". terms, fights can be transformed into games or
Many people who are passionately humanitarian debates. Fights have no rules; games and
do not experience the slightest stirring of con- debates are ritualized. Ritualization and the
science when they confront half of a dead establishment of norms which effectively guide
chicken on their plates at lunch. There has never behaviour, are only feasible when one of two sets
been much of sharing of norms with a chicken, of conditions is satisfied: either when compliance
nor much opportunity of seeing the world from to established norms is enforced through the
the chicken's point of view, But it may be worth existence of an authority superordinate to the
remembering that the dead bird on the plate groups involved; or when, despite the competi-
represents no more than an extreme case of a tion the other group, while remaining definitely
familiar phenomenon. It is notoriously easier to "other" in some respects, is at the same time
82
 CO-OPERATION BETWEEN HUMAN GROUPS

perceived as similar in fairly fundamental ways. membership as dissimilar in some fundamental

It is likely that the creation of both these sets of ways from those who are-to use a current
conditions is interdependent: the existence of a phrase-our kith and kin, that things can be
superordinate authority would lead to a slow done to him which we would not otherwise
change of attitudes; a change of attitudes would dream of doing. This inability to conceive the
facilitate the creation of such an authority. Both world reciprocally leads directly to a further
these processes have happened many times in compounding of difficulties: namely, it creates
the past. blocks in communication. This may take one of
There is a good deal of evidence that hostile two forms: either we assume that members of
attitudes towards an outgroup are closely related another group must be able to communicate in
to its perception as essentially dissimilar from ways which are familiar to us (though we do not
one's own group. This process starts early in have to repay the courtesy)-and if they do not,
childhood, and it is very difficult to decide this only serves to strengthen the case for their
whether perception of dissimilarity leads to essentially alien character; or it is assumed that
dislike, or dislike leads to the perception of they may have acquired the gimmick of pretend-
dissimilarity. In some research that we have ing to be like us in order to be able "the better to
recently done in co-operation with colleagues eat us up". This wolf in a grandmother's bonnet
from the University of Leiden in Holland,9 we has now unexpectedly come to life in a context
found that there were high correlations between far removed from a fairy story. A colleague who
children's preferences for one or another foreign had returned to the United States from a trip to
country, and their perception of these countries the Soviet Union presented to a group of
as similar to, or different from, each other; i.e. American children photographs of a tree-lined
the greater was the gap between two countries on street in Russia. In his informal report he
a preference scale, the greater tended to be the writes: "A hand went up: 'Why do they have
judged dissimilarity between them. It is also trees along the road?' A bit puzzled, I turned
known from research on highly prejudiced the question back to the group: 'Why do you
people that they differ from those who are not suppose they have trees?' Another hand rose for
prejudiced in the differentiations they make eager answer: 'So that people won't be able to
between their own group and the other. Two see what's going on beyond the road.' A girl had
examples will make this clear: in one experi- a different idea: 'It's to make work for the
ment, (Secord, Bevan and Katz 11) after a prisoners.' I asked why some of our roads had
preliminary assessment of the degree of anti- trees planted along the side. 'For shade.' 'To keep
Negro prejudice, the subjects at the two extremes the dust down.' "3
of the continuum of prejudice were asked to rate
the shade of skin in a series of photographs, some
of which were of Negroes and some not. It was Conclusion
found that the highly prejudiced subjects tended I should like to conclude by stressing a few
to exaggerate more than the other subjects did points which perhaps hardly need stressing.
the differences in skin colour between those First, this paper is not a plea or an argument for
photographs which they assigned to the category the disappearance of differences between human
"Negro" and those which they assigned to the groups. The world would be a sad and boring
category "white". A related finding is that place to live in if this ever happened. Secondly,
prejudiced subjects tend to be less accurate than I was concerned neither with social, economic nor
others in recognizing individual Negroes whose political causes of conflicts between groups nor
photographs they had previously seen.12 with any policies relating to these aspects of
The depersonalization or dehumanization of inter-group problems. My purpose was to discuss
members of out-groups must be closely related those psychological aspects of inter-group
to these effects of emotional attitudes. It is only hostility and inter-group co-operation which are
because a member of another nation, class, race vested in the attitudes and behaviour of
or any other group is perceived by virtue of this individuals who compose the groups. It is my
83
 THE EUGENICS REVIEW

view that one of the essential ingredients of these 2. Berlyne, D. E. 1960. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity.
attitudes and of the behaviour relating to them New York, McGraw-Hill.
3. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1961. Some problems in com-
is to be found in man's capacity to see others as municating with Americans about the Soviet Union.
men like himself, however different they may be Mimeo report.
4. Carthy, J. D., and Ebling, F. J. (eds.) 1964. The
from him. No one needs to be told that this is far Natural History of Aggression. London and New
from being the case to-day. It would be a form of York, Academic Press.
academic escapism, however, to leave it at that 5. Etkin, W. 1964. Cooperation and competition in
social behaviour. In Social Behaviour and Organiza-
and not to attempt some conclusions about tion among Vertebrates. Ed. W. Etkin. University of
concrete problems. Though no one can expect Chicago Press (pp. 1-34).
any sudden changes in the attitudes of millions 6. Festinger, L. 1954. A theory of social comparison
processes. Hum. Relat. 7, 117-40.
of people, some attempts to induce changes can 7. Freeman, D. 1964. Human aggression in anthropo-
certainly be made. It seems to me that-with logical perspective. In Carthy and Ebling, op. cit.
regard to the psychological aspects of these (pp. 109-20).
problems-these attempts should be concentrated 8. Harlow, H. F. 1953. Motivation as a factor in the
acquisition of new responses. In Current Theory and
on two fronts: education and law. A good deal Research in Motivation. Ed. J. S. Brown et al.
is known about the development of hostile out- Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press.
group attitudes in children. Very little of this 9. Jaspars, J. M. F., Van de Geer, J. P., Tajfel, H., and
Johnson, N. B. 1965. On the Development of Inter-
knowledge has penetrated into the curricula of national Attitudes. Psychol. Institute, University of
primary or secondary education and of teacher Leiden.
training colleges. As to law, the point can 10. Plamenatz, J. 1963. Man and Society. A critical
examination of some important social and political
perhaps be briefly stated as follows: discrimina- theories from Machiavelli to Marx. London, Long-
tion without prejudice leads to discrimination mans, Green.
with prejudice; conversely, prejudice shorn of its 11. Secord, P. F., Bevan, W., and Katz, B. 1956. The
Negro Stereotype and Perceptual Accentuation.
capacity to manifest itself in discrimination J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 53, 78-83.
withers away little by little. Strong and strictly 12. Seeleman, V. 1940. The Influence of Attitude upon
enforced sanctions against any form of dis- the remembering of Pictorial Material. Arch. Psychol.
No. 258.
crimination or exercise of brute force, whether in 13. Sherif, M. 1936. The Psychology of Social Norms.
national or international affairs, would certainly New York, Harper.
not succeed overnight in eliminating blind out- 14. Sherif, M., and Harvey, 0. J. 1952. A study in Ego
group hostility. But they would go some way Functioning: Elimination of stable anchorages in
individual and group situations. Sociometry, 15,
towards bringing it home to all of us that the life 272-305.
and rights of every human being are a matter to 15. Thompson, W. R. 1958. Social Behaviour. In
be seriously considered. Behaviour and Evolution. Ed. A. Roe and G. G.
Simpson. New Haven, Yale University Press
(pp. 291-310).
REFERENCES 16. Withey, S., and Katz, D. 1965. The Social Psychology
of Human Conflict. In The Nature of Human Conflict.
1. Asch, S. E. 1952. Social psychology. New York, Ed. E. B. McNeil. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-
Prentice Hall. Hall (pp. 64-90).

84