Experimentsin IntergroupDiscrimination

Can cliscriminationbe trctcedto somesuclzorigirt as social conflict

ar a history of hostiLity?Not necessarily.Apparently the rnerefact
of divisioninto grolLpsis enolLghta trigger discriminatory behuvior

by Flenri Tajfel

fntergroup discrimination is a feature logical causation. In The Functions of ciocultural milieu. This convergence is
I of most modern societies.The phe- SocialConf.,ict;published in 1956,Lewis often consideredin terms of socia!Ie:rrn-

t I nomenon is depressingly similar re-

gardlessof the constihrtion of the "in-
group" and of the "outgrouP" that is per-
A. Coser of Brandeis University estab- ing and conformity. For instance,there is
lished a reiated dichotomy when he dis- much evidence that children learn quite
tinguished behveen two types of inter- early the pecking order of evaluations of
group confl.ict:the "rational" and the "ir- various groups that prevails in their so-

T ceived as being somehow different. A

Slovenefriend of mine once described to
me the stereotypes-the common traits
attributed to a large human group-that
rational." The forsrer is a means to an cief, and that the order remains fairly
end: the con$ict and the attitudes that stable. This applies not only to the evalu-
go with it rbflect a genuine competition ation of groups tliat are in daily contacl

t are applied in his counbry, the richest

constituent republic of Yugoslavia, to
immigrant Bosnians,who come from a
between $oups. with divergent interests. such as racial grouPs in mixed environ-
The latter is an end in itself: it servesto ments, but also to ideas about foreign
release accumulated emotional tensions nations with which there is Jittle if *y
poorer region. Some time later I pre.. of various kinds. As both popular lore personalcontact.

t sented this description to a group of stu-

dents at the University of Oxford and
asked them to guess by whom it was
and. the psychological literah:re testify, fn sfudies conducted at Oxford a ferv
nothing is better suited for this purpose years ago rny colleagues and I found a
than a well-selected,scapegoat. high consensus alnong children of six
These dichotomies have somevalue as and seven in their preference for'four
I used and to whom it referred. The aI-
most unanimous reply was that this lvas
the characterization appUed by native
analytical tools but they need not be foreign counhies. The order was'Amer-
. taken too seriously.'Most casesof con- ica, France, Germany and Russia, and
Englishmen to "colored" immigrants: . flict between human groups, large or there was a correlation of .98 between

I people coming pti*atily from the West

Indies, India and ?akistan.
small; .reflect an intricate interdepen- the preferences of subjects from tlvo
'dence of soiial and psychological cau- di#s1ss1 schools.As for adults, studies
The.intensity of discrimination varies sation. Often it is difficulg and probably conducted by Ttromas F. Pettigrerv in
more than the natule. of the phenom- fruitless, to speculate about what were the late 1950'sin South AJrica and in the
I enon. In countrieswith long-standing in-
tergroup problems-be they racial as in
the ffrst causesof real present-day social American South have shown tbat con-
sih:ations. Moreover, there is a dialecti- formity is an important determinant of
cal relation between the objective and hostile attitudes toward blacl<sin both
the U.S., religiousas in Northern Ireland

I or linguistic-national as in Belgium-ten-
sionsreach the boiling point more easily
than they do elsewhere.In spite of rliffer-
the subjectivedeterminauts of intergroup places (above and beyond individu-
abtitudesand behavior. Once the process al tendencieb toward. authoritarianism,
is set in motion they reinforce each other which is lcaown to be closely related to

t
ing econornic, culrural, historical politi- in a relentlessspiral in wbich the weight prejudice tcilvardoutgrouPs).
cal and psychologicalbackgrounds,horv- o[ predominant causestends to shift con-
ever, .the ottitudes of prejud.ice toward tinirousiy. For example, economic or so- rfrhese stud.ies,Iike many others, were
outgroups and the belwoior of discrirrii- cial competition can.lead to discrimina- r concerned with attitudes rather than

t nation against outgroups ciearly display

a set of common characteristics.Social
scientistshave nafurally been concerned
tory behavior; that behavior can then in behavior, ivith prejud.icerather than dis-
a number of ways create attitudes bf crimination. Discriminatioq it is often
prejudice; those attitudes can in turn said is more {irectly a function of the
'lead to new forms of discriminatory be- objective social situation, which some-
to hy to identify these characteristics in

t an effort to understand. the origins of

. prejudice and discrimination.
havior tbat create new economic or so-. times does and sometimesdoes not fa-
cial disparities, and so the vieious cirele cilitate the erpression of attitudes; the
is continued. attihrdes of prejudice may be socially

T Th" invesbigativeappronches
* taskcan be roughly
to this The interdependence of the two tylles leamed,or due to tendenciesto conform,
classiffedinto two of causationdoesnot manifest itself only but they are not avery efficientpredictor
categories.Some wor.kerssbess the so- in their mutual reinforcement. They ac- o[ d.iscriminatorybehavior. According to
cial determinants of preiudice and, di3- to"ily converge because of the psycho- this view, psychological considerations

I criminatioa. Others emphasize psycho- logical effectson an individual of his so- are best suited to explaining and predict-

'96

f;
 A
-19 -16 -13 -10 -7 -4 -1 0 I
2 3 4
T 5 6
MATRIX 1

o 4 1
2 .t
I 0 I -4 -7 -10 -tJ -16 -19

12 10 I b + 2 n - l I -5 -9 -tJ -17 -21 -25

MATRIX 2
-25 -21 -17 -13 -3 - l I n 2 4 h
t' I\J 12

B
I 2 4 h
6 7 I I lv t l 12 13 14
MATR1X3
14 13 1.2 t l 10 I I I A 5 4 3 2 1
I

18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 :t I 7 6 5
MATRIX4
5 6 7 8 I t[l 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

C
- 14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 -1 c 1
I 11 lc IY 23
MATRIX 5
{n -l
23 I J lc 11 t 3 I
-2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14

.4 ''
I I 14 .l .l
t l I 2 -1 -2 -4 -5 -o .'
_T -8
MATRIX6
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 I
2 I il 14 17

FIRST EXPERII{ENT conducterl by the aurhor anil his colleagues
utilized these six matricee. The nnr',hers representetl points (Iater
trairslated into awards or penalties i.E money) to be assigned by a
subject to other inilividuals; bycheclcing a box the srirlject assigneil
the nunber of points iu the top of the box to oue persou anil the
number in the bottom ol the box to ,nother person.; he tlid not
koow the identiry of these people but only whether each was a
member of his owu group or "the other group." (The groups had
been established by the experimenrersoh grounils tlat-were arti.
ficial ancl ineignificant.) Each reatrix appeareil three ti-es in a test
booklet with each row of nurnbers labeled to inilicate wbether tLe
subject was choosing berween two members oI his own group (in-
group) otber.than himseU, two membere of the oritgroup or oue
. me'.,her of the ingroup and one member oI the outgroup. Choices
lyere scored to see if subjects chose'for fairness,maximu,m gain to
their owu group or msximum difierence in favor of the ingroup.
t ing the genesisand functioning of atti-
rudes;the trrctsof intergroup discriminn-
tion are best related to, and predicted
from, objectiveindexeso[ a social, eco-
I nomic and demograPhic
Although l ltave no
nafure.
quarrel lvith this
vierv; I am leFt with a nagging feeling
t that it omits an important part of the
story. The fact is that behavior torvard.
outgroups shorvsthe samemonotonous
similnrity a.srrttitudesdo, acrossa diver-
I sity of socioeconomicconditions. This
apparent diversity may, of course, ob-
scure an underlying common firctor of
t "rirtional" confict, of struggle to pre-
sele a sfattrs quo favorable to oneself
or to obtdn an equitable share of social
opportunitiesand beneEts.Another kind
I of underlying regularity is nonetheless
common to a variebyof social sifuations
and is an important psychological 9ffect
o[ our socioculhual mi[eu. It is tbe as-
I similation by the individual of tfie vari-
ous norms of conduct that prevail in his
society.
.
T Etot the prrrposesof this article I shall
r define social norms as being an in-
dividual's expectation of hori others
I erpect him to behaveand his expectation
of how others will behave in any given
sobialsituation.Whether he does or does
not behave according to these expecta-
]
; MAXIMUMGAIN
FOROUTGROUP
MEMBER
t
t I N G R O U P - t N G R OCUHPO I C E S
I MAXIMUMGAIN
FORINGROUP
M E M B EX
R
t
I OU T G R OU P .OU TGR OU
MAXTMUMGAIN
t FOROUTGROUP
MEMBERX
I
RXSWTS \9ERE SCORED by ranlcins the choices from I to 14
ilepending on which bor was checkeil. The encl of the matrix at
which the ingroup member got the minimum number of points
(and the outgroup member tbe maximum) was clesignatecl l; the.
I
otber end, giving the ingroup member the maximum, was 14, The'
9B
x tr
,1 .
tions depends primnrily on his under-
standingof lvhetirer or not and horv a
situation relates to a specificset of ex-
and simplification that reduce the com-
ple.riby of crisscrossinghuman categori-
zations.Perhap.s the most important prin-
pectntions.If a link is made betweenthe ciple of the subiective social order rve
one ilnd the other-if an inclividual's un-
derstnnding o[ a situation in rvhich he
ffnds himself is such that in his vierv cer-
conshuct for ourselvesis the classifica-
tion of groups as
'we"
and "they"-as in-
groups (any number of them to rvhich
tain frrmiliar social norns ale pertiuent
to it-he behavesaccordingly.
There is nothing nerv to this formula-
tion; it is inherent in most studies and
rve happen to beiong) and outgroups.
The criteria for these assignmentsmay
vary according to the situation,and their
emotional impact may be high or lorv,
discussionsof intergroup prejudice and
discriminationthat stressthe importance
o[ conforrniry.The p.oint I wish to ma]<e
but in. our socielies this division into
goups most often implies a competitive
relation behveen the groups. In other
is broader. Conformily contributes to
hostile attitudes and behavior torvard
specified goups of people in situations
that are usually characterizedby a his-
rvords; intergoup categorizationsof all
kinds may bring into play what seemsto
the in&vidual to be the appropriate form
of intergroup behavior.
tory of intergr'oup tensions, conf.icts of
interest and early acquisitionby individ-
uals of hostile vielvs about selectedout-
What this essentially meansis that the
need to bring somekind of orderinto our
"social conshuction of reality" (a term
groups. lVe are.dealing, however, lvith recently used by Peter L. Berger of the
a pr:ocessthat is more general and goes
deeper than the learning of value jrrdg-
ments about a speci-Ecgroup and the
Nerv School for Socia] Research and
Thomas Luckmann of the University of
Franldurt) combines with the hostility
subsequentaeting out of accepted pl,t-
terns of behaviortoward that group. The
child learns not only rvhom he should
inherent in many of the intergoup cate-
gorizations to which we are continually
exposed to develop a "generic norm" of
Iike or dislike in the complex social en- behavior torvard outgroups. Whenever
vironment'to lvhich he is exposed but
alsosomethingmore basic.An infividual
consb'uctshis orvrr"web of social afi]ia-
we are confronted with a situation to
which some form of intergroup categori
zation appears directly relevant, we are
tioni" by oppllong'principles of order likely to act in a manner that discrimi-
IN GR OU P -OU TGR OU
C HPOIC E S
r*l
MAXIMUMGAIN
FORINGROUP
MEMBER
M,AXIMUM
GAIN
FORINGROUP
MEMBERY
C HPOIC E S
MAXIMUMGAIN
FOROUTGROUP
MEMBERY
mean choicee (colored uertical lines) are showa Lere" In the inter.
group situation thb subjects gav€ significantly rnore points to tnem-
bers oI their own group than to members of tLe'other group.In the
intragroup nituations, however, the means.ol the choices.fell at.
Rank ?.5, betwe'en the choices of maximum fairnese (brackets),
nates agAinst the outgroup and favors
the ingroup,
If ttr.isis true, if drere exists such a
generic norm of behavior toward out-
groups, severalimpoltant consequences
should follow. The ffrst is that there rnay
be discrimination ag&inst an outgroup
even if there is no reosottfor it in terms
of th.e in&vidual's orvo iirterests-in
terms of what he can gain as a result of
discriminating against the outgroup. The
secondconsequenceis that there may be
such discrimination in the ibsence of
any previously eristing attitudes of hos-
tility of disUketorvard the outgroup. And
the third consequence,following direct-
Iy from the secbnd, is that this generic
norm may manifest itself directly in be-
havior toward the outgroup before any
attitudes of prejudice or hostility have
been fo-rmed.If this reasoningis correct,
then discriminitory intergroup behavior
can sometimesbe e*pect"d Jven if the
individiral is not involved in ach-ral (or
even imagined) genfliqtsof interest and
has no past history of attitudes of inter-
group hostility.
the Universily of Bristol, in collab-
a[t! oration with Claude Flament of the
Universify of Alx-Marseille, R. P. Bundy
and M. J.Billig, I.have conductedexper-
iments designed to test this prediction
and others that follorv from it. The main
problem lvas to create experimental con-
didons that would enablew to assessthe
effects of intergroup categorizationper
se, uncontaminxtsd by other variables,
such asinteractions'amongind.ividualsor
. preexisting attitudes. We aimed, more-
over, to look at the behaviorrather than
the attitudbsof the subjectstoward their
own group aod the obhergroup, to en-
sure that this behavior rvasof some im-
portance to them and to present them
rvith a clear alterirative to discriminating
against the outgroup that rvould be a
more "sensible"mode of behavior.
Perhapsthe best meansof conveying
the way these criteria were met is to de-
scribe.theprocedure we followed in the
fi.rst erperiments and its variants in sub-
rrqt rrit ones.Our subjectswele 64 boys
14 and 15 years old from'a stare, or
"comprehensive,"school in a subru.b of
Bristol. They came to the laboratory in
separategoups of eight. AII the boys in
each of the groups were from the same
house in the sarneforrn at the school, so
that the1,knew each other well before
the erperirnent. The fust part of the e.r-
periment served.to establish an inter-
group categbrization and in the second
part we assessed the'effectsof that cate-
gorizationon intergroup behavior.
50
40
F
z
lrl
tr
t r I
2n \
| / ) J v
UJ
O
I
u I
I
()
LL
\
( J c v
z
tlJ
l
/ )
IJ-J
E
\
tJ-
' '10 \ )
/ ,
I
\
0
\ h
5 6
MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
FAIRNESS DIFFERENTIATION
INTERGROUP DISCRIMINATfON was a deliberate strategy in the ingroup.ourgroup
choices (colored' curue) and fairness a deliberate strategy in the ingrtiup-ingrou.p (Cra.yl
and outgroup'outgroup (btaclc) choices. This is inclicated by the fact that the frequencies of
intergroup choices tlifierecl significandy from those oI the intragroup choices only at the
exlreme points of the distribution, the points oI ma.',cimum fairness ancl of maximum dis.
crimination. (For this analysis the tw:o lairest choices in each matrix, the two middle ones,
lvsJs lnnksd together as 0 and deparlures in either d.irection were Ecored lrom 1 to 6.)
Inthe firstpart tl-reboyswere brought easeof c.oding.lvelvere going to group
togetherin a lecture room and were told them on the basis of the visual iudg-
that.we were interestedin the study of ments they had just made. In actuality
visualjudgments.Forty clustersof vary- the subjects rvere assigned to groups
ing numbers of dots were flashed on a quite at rand.om,half to "underestima-
screen.The boys were asked to estimate tors" and half to "overestimators" in the
the number of dots in eachciuster and to first condition, half to "better" and half
record 'eacir estimate in successionon to "worse" accuracyin the secondone.
pr:epareclscore sheets.There wer'd trvo Irubuctions follolved tr,boutthe nabure
conclitionsin this first part of the experi- of the forthcoming task. The boys.were
ment. In one condition, aftei the boys told that it would cousist of giving to
had completedtheir estimatesthey were othersrelvardsand penaltiesin real mon-
told that in judgments of this kind some ey. They would not know the identity of
people consistently overestimate the the individuals to whom they would be
number of dots and some consistently assigning these rewards.'and penalties
underestimate the number, but that since everyonewould have a code num-
thesetendeneiesare in no way relateclto ' ber. They rvould be taken to anothel
accuracy.In the other condiUonthe boys room one by one and given in-formation
were told that some people are consist- as to which group they lvere in. Once in
entiy.more accurate than others. Foru the other room they were to lvork bn
groupso[ eight servec]in eac]rof t]re'trvo their own in sepalate cubicl,es.In eac.h
conditions. cubicle they rvould find a pencil and a
After the judgments had been made booklet conbaining 18 sets of ordered
and ha.dbeen ostentatiousiy"scored" by numbers, one to . each page, It was
one of the experimenters,we told. the stressedthat on no occasionrvould the
subjectsthat, since lve lvere also intei: boys be relvalding or penalizing them-
estedin other lcindsof decision, lve \vere selves; they lvould always be allotting
going to take advantageof their.presence money to others.At the end of tle.task
to-investigatetliese as lvelf and that for each boy would be brought back into
99
A

MATRIX1
MJP
MJP
MIP MIP
.MD MD
1q 1 A 1q 12 11
20 19 18 11 16 t-

23 22 21 l.l

MATRIX2 21 29
1tr i7 19 21 23 25
q 7 I { l
l t 13

1q
B 11 1? 13 14 15 16 17 18
7 I I 10

MATRIX3 25 MIP
15
a 1
19 21 23
7 I 11 13 l ,

I MJP

MIP
MD MJP

20 21 22 23 MD
15 16 17 18 1g
{.t
t l 12 13 14

MATRIX4 29
19 21 23 25 27
o 11 13 15 17
J 1 l l

ilifferent versions; in sorire

Type L and Type B matrices anclin the
one end of the matrix antl in
S E c o N D E X P E R I M E N T i n v o l v e i l n e w m a t r i c e s . E a c h w a s .the
(as in rhe illustratiou at
p r e bottom
. casesthe maximg were together at
sented in four versions labelecL opiosit" eucls'Fdr' example'in the ingroup'
membeis other casesthey ln."" "i
the choice was between the maximr:m ingroup
of this page) to inclicate whether over-outgroop t...iore oiiyp" 'C matrices
groups or berween two members of the sane Eroup; ' were at oue enil antl the maximum
of ilifferent profit and maximum ilifierence
bact the ingroup member'g points (colored twe\; in the oEtgroup'over-
the intergroup choices sometin'es
hacl them in the bottom row'' The
ob' ioilet pront.at the other end'
in the top row .o-tti-es the three maxima \YeEeto'
"rra of three variables on t'he ingroup version oi tl" s"-e lltrices (blaclc Wpe\' Type B
the influence
jective nolv was to *"1y"" joint .gether at the right'hand encl of the mauiees
profit (MIP)' maximum hand' distinguish the
sublects' choices: m'aximum ingroup ingroup'ov".'oo,*ti-tip o"ttioot' -on
the bther
(MIP') and maximum difierence in lavor of the ingroup
i"g'otrp from the other two gains (color)'
;;;,
to ili'frerent patterns in the diference in favor- oi
member (MD). These varieil according

he was in' The awarils rver

as heacling reminiled him which group
PAGE OF BOOKLET, presentiug a single matrix' is reproduced and group; the subjet
addition to checking a box' the made to personsitlentified only by number
a subject might have m".kecl it. In Loi onry their group iclenrificatior
page 'icr nor know ,"h"-;il;;-r"".u
subject fiileil'in the blanks below it to confirm his choice' The

r00
 the fust room and would receive the
amount of money the other boys had
awarded him. The value o.[ each point
they were awarding tvas a tenth of a
penny (about a tenth of a U.S. ceni).
Afber these instructions were given, tle
boys were led individually to tireir cubi-
cles to fill out their booklets.
On eachpage in the booklet there was
one makix consisting of 14 boxes con-
taining two numbers each.The numbers'
in the top rolv were the rewards and
penalties to.be awarded to one person
and thosein the bottom row rffere those
to be awarded to anolher. Each row was
labeled "These are relvardsand penalties
for menber No. - of your group" o,
"...of the other group." The. subjects
had to in&cate their choicesby check-
ing one box in eachmabix. On the cover
of each booklet and at the top of each
page was written: "Booklet for member
of the group."
fhere were six mahices [see itlust a-
L tion on page g7] and each
of them
appeared three times in the booklet-.
once for each of three $pes of choice.
There wer.e ingroup choi.s, with the
top and the bottom row signifying the
rewards and penalties to be awarded to
two members of the subject'sown group
(other than.himself). Then there were
outgroup choices, with both rows signi-
fy=og the rewards and penalties for a
member of the other goup. Finally
there were intergroup, or "r{i$grentia!"
ehoices, one row indicating the rewards
and penalties to be awarded to an in-
group member (other than himself) and
the other. the points for an outgroup
member. (The top and bobtompositio*
of ingroup and outgroup members were
varied at random.)
The results for the intergroup choices
were first scored in terms of ranks of
choices.In each matrix Rank 1 stood for
the choice of the tenn that gave to the
member of the ingroup the" minimum
. possible nurnber of points in that matrix;
RanI<14, at the opposite exbeme of the
matrix,'stood for the maximu:n possible
number of points. Comparable(butmore
complex) methods of scoringwere adopt-
ed for the other two kinds of choice, the
ingroup choices aad the outgroup ones,
and for comparisonof thesechoiceswith
those made in the differential situation.
The results ]vere sbiking. In making
their intergroup choices a large majority
of the subjects,in ail groupsin both con-
ditions, gave more money to members of
their own group than to members of the
other group. All the results were-at a
very high level of statisticalsign;fig*r..
-above both Rank 7.S, which
represents
the point of ma-xjmumfairness,La tn"
mean ranla of the ingogp and outgroup
choices.ln conbast the ingro,rp *nI oot-
group .tvere closely &sbibuted
_choices
abou[ the point of fairuess.F,rrth", anal-
ysis made it elear that intergroup dis_
crimination was the delibera6 sdategy
adoptedin making intergroup choices.
Before continuing, Iet us revieW the
situation.The boys, who knew each oth_
-erwell, were djvided into groups defined
by flimsy and unimportauicritJri*. Th"ir
own individual interests were not affect-
ed by_theirchoices,since they aiways as-
signed points to two other peopie and
no one could know what any othlr bpy,,
choices rvere. The amounL of monev
were not trivial for them: each boy left
the experiment with tle equivalerit of
about a dollar. Inasmuch thuy.couid
not know who was in their ", group
and
who was in the other group, Ihey'could
have adopted either oT t o reasonable
sbategies.They could have,chosenthe
ma..cimum-joint-profitpoint of the ma-
.trices,which would mean.that
the boys
as a total group would get the most mon-.
ey .or
9_ut qf the experimenters, they
could choos'ethe pour*tof ma-ximumfair-
ness. Indeed, they did tend to choose
the secondalternativewhentheir choices
did not involve a distinction bebweenin_
group and outgroup. As soon as this dif_
ferentiatiotr was involved, however, they
discriminated.in favor of the ingroup.
The only thing we needed to ?o to
achieve this lssuh was to associatetheir
judgments of numbers of dots witd.the
use of the terms "yo* ..the
Soup,' and
other group" iu. the insU.uctiins and on
the bookletsof matrices.
he results lvere at a very high level
of statistical
_significaocein alt eight
lfParately-gted groups of eight boys.
In vierv of the consistency of the phe-
nomenon we.decided to analyze it-fur-
ther and also to validate it \\rith a d.iffer-
ent criterion for intergroup categoriza-
tion, We testedthree i"*ioops"of 16-
.boys each, -this_time with ae-stheic pref_
erence as the basis of the division into .
t_wogioups. The boys were shown 12
slides, slx of which wete reprod,uctions
pT"$gs
llWassiiy -by-PaulKleei.nd sir by
Kandinsky, and they were asked
to erpresstheir preference for one or the
other of these two "foreign pejnlg15.,,
The reproductions were prJren*ted.with_
out the painter's signature, so that ha,lf
of the subjectscould be assigned,at ran-
dom to the "KIee group" *a n*U to the
"Kandin5\, group.,'
The matrices&at confronted the boys
subsequently itr their individual cubicles
were different from those in the ffrst ex-
periment. We were norv interested in as_
sessingthe relative rveights cjf some of
the variables that may have pulled their
decisionsin one dtection or the other.In
this experiment lve Iooked at three vari-
abies:ma.timum joint profit, or the larg_
est possiblejoint award to both peopl!;
ma-rimum ingryup profit or the largest
possible arvard to a mernber of thJin-
groupr and ma.timum difference, or the
largest posSible difference in gain be-
tween a member of the ingroup and a
member of the outgroup inlavor of the
former. ."
There were' .four difierent mabices
lsee tep illustration on o.pposite pagel.
As'in the first experiment, there were
three tfp"r of choice: between a mem-
ber of the ingroup and a member of the
outgroup, between tr,vomembers of the.
ingroup and bebween two members of
the outgroup. In the outgroup-over-in-
gFoupversion of Type A mabices (that
is, where the numbers in the'top row
representedamounts gtven to a member
of the outgroup and in the bottom row
to a member of the ingroup) th" tliree
gains*jointprofit, ingroup profit and dif-
ference in favor of the ingroup-varied
together; their maxima (mlxr.mum joint
profft, ma.rimum ingroup profft and
manmum difference) were all at the
same end of the matrix. In the ingroup-
over-outgroup version, ingroup profit
and difference in favor of ingroup went
together in one direction and were in
direct ssnflisl with choicesapproaching
rna-rcimumjoint profit. In the Type B
ma bices outgro up-over-ingoup versions
again represented a covariation of the
three gain.1; in the ingroup-over-out-
group versiod,s, difference in favor of
ingroup varied in the direction opposite
to joint profit and ingroup profit com-
bined.
-
A comparison of the boys' choicesin
the various mabices showed that ma-ri.
mum joint profit exerted hardly any ef-
fect at aII; the efiect of mzuCmumin-
gloup profft and ma.rimr::n difierence
combined against madmum joint profft
we,s shong and highly significant; the
effect of maximum difierence against-
ma*''cimu:njoint piofit and ma..cim,ril i;-
group profit was also sbong and highly
significant. In other lvords, when-thl
subjects had a ihoice between marimjz-
i"99"_ profit f91 ali and maximizing the
p_rofitformem,bers_cif their own group,
ttrey acted on behalf of their o*
[-oup.
When they had a choice between proftt
for all and for tleir own group lo*-
bined, as again.sltheir own gtrOup'swin-
I0t
 t fow'
ning more than . the outgroup at
,*.iifi." o[ both of these utilitarian ad- to
vantages,it rvas the ma'ximizationo[ dif- into
-the were askedto do. It was enoughfor them
see themselves as clearly categorized'
an ingroup and'an oulgroup, flimsy

I luE
Oxfor d
,. \Sf ,
ferenie that seemedmore
them.
important to as the criteria for this division
even though the boys knew one another
lvell before the erperiments, tierr orvn
were-

Evidence leading in the same firec' in

individual gains oi.te not involved
tion emergeclfrom the other hvo typesof actions could

I The.Faceof the DeeP

Bv BRUCE C- HEEZEN'
ehoice,bJrween two rnembersof the in-
f'gmonrDolt'erty group and.behveen tlvo members
iutgioup, the ingroup choiceswere eon-
of the
their decisions and
have
corunon good.
their
been aimed'to achieve the gi-eatest

{;l:"i#ip*#*:"n[llfxq'#i[ sistJndy and significantly nearer. to tire

I ;;"id";[i[i.
than 600 iT"
lrtl'ri'606' ' -""
photographs,
or
-
the
ioii"pr's,
t""fi ania"ci,ptions"provide
ocean
eight
"igh
tif ns"
botto-m
t of. whichare
of.which
provide Ia f:]l
in more
1T"'in
full dl'
de'
madmum joint proftt than were the out- Tt rvould' seem'
in group ,.rui-"o& this lvas so in spite of I-
then, that the generic
oo* of outgroup behavior !o which
I have referrel dols exist and that
it
)".1i^.'t.ft
:,;i;."
iil "ip uriexplored. area' In ifr" tn"t that giving as much as possible have been

I
might
lliiJ;r"i.";i -""*tv H:9:-t-1.,'.' of th" out$oup in the helps to distort what
.il; ;il ;t " r.su.chfeatu' l t "t .tLt -{ currents' to trvo.memb-ers ;;;. reasonableconduct' This norm de-
iilas;- ilrUidity. currents, bottom choices aPPlylng solely to them Pre-
il;";L G;i it"i,ttto"a t'"6ks snd tpirs'-
trails, the autho-rs p.re' termines behavior-as ot'her social norns
1!1l-**::"t:'i uct ion sented.tto *ttfli.t with the ingroup's in-
[iTt ;ii;"fii ;"-;i;b I; ; " d cur r en! i nt r od an in&vid'ual ffnds himself in'
terest. It simply would have meant giv- do-rvhen
ffi i"' ohloi?"t'oceanogtaPhY''
i;iJ,;i'"1;ii6sop'p.'oda illus. cloth $25.00
paPer$12.50 ing more to
ithe others" lvithout gt"t"g
*.r] l"rt to "yout olvr." This represented" norrn
a situatioir to which, in his view' the
applies. Behavior is never-motive-
bul it is a crude oversimphffcation
the Universe therefore, a clear case of grahritous d'is- less,
Exploring ttink that motives in social sihrations
I Seconcl
Editeclbr
Edition,
LOUISE
- B' Y0UNG'
i;;' ;;; ; i,, i oii-ai' tio" fo r Co ntinui n under'
Scicnce
crtmination. We also included in the to
Etlitor' s'econd.dxperiment;om.9
g Edu ca' matrices used in the firit one, rvith re-
of the original include no more than

aii
seif-interest
from a felv
or that
supposedly
they
calculations of
can be derived
universal human
iirt.' F.."i,ti,,g 'oi ttt ori6ntationfor an. sults much the same as before' Again

I rr"ilai.* tl't. principles upon rvhich the the results in this erperirnent were at a
u
:;il' ilt i "''il.t'i "imethodsandtaturelnq?
i[r,t"t"tuggests the
lt, th
L.prE"tationoi the universe' T-hereader
is.b'o o n,o r':.1i
of high level of statisticalsignificance'
in subsequentexperimentslve tested behave socially
drives such as aggression
sider, the need to
is "nUote
a
toward

complex
and so
the
on:
business'
out-
To
It
"t"";t tn.Gh the o[ orieinal involves a iong learning process; it is
of the importance of fairness in making the
I
il'iltA';;"i, .use
;rt,t;;:;;-i[e-atrit'iaes and moti*atioisdis' based on the i:anipulation of qymbols
scientistsrangrng-fromNervtor.rand .hismod' choicei, the effect
on the choices of
the capaci$
;ili;;"i-n? 'Er'ottion of light to the familiarity with the situation and the and.abstractions;it implies
their dibates over the when the
about the choices that for mociification of cJnduet
ffi";;;;;l"si." and
cieation' Emphasisis..placeduoon subiects' ideas
iiirir:

I situations
ii".ii* irnd othe.s lvere making. Fairness,lve fourrd, situation changes-and social
;ii;"reil;r."f oi =ti"nt" to art' philbsophv' behave aPPro'
of never remd.in static. To
Hi:i:,!l""OtI 6sopp.2oollus.cloth $12.00 was an importantbedeterminant;'most understoodas being priately is therefore z pow-erful social
paper$6.50 the choicesmust
motive, and attemPting to do so rheans
a comPromisebetween fairne-ssancl,fa-
I An Introcluction to Stellar
Atmospheres and Interiors
| "ori"g one'solvn groug'
lVe fgun{
discriirittation not only persistecl but
to'behave accord-ingto one'sbest under-
1ha1 standing of the situation.-Judg*ents of
situation rvhat dappropriate are determined
by
Br EVA NOVOTNY, StaffScien'tist' Astronorny also increasedwhen the entire axpectations'

I social ttot*s, or sets of

hi;;i:' Ivlannedftiace{ruft Qentgr'.Houston' became more familiar to the subjects'
"\i;i;;; intdrmediatelevel' this intro' lvith familiarity there was also an in-
-".ttopttysic-s It seems clear that two such norms
i;;,i;; "i-itt"
to explores the basic to were understood by our subjectsto apply '.
oI steUar atmospheres crease (lvhen the boys lvere
asked
In*.tti""f
-it iricludessuch.topicsas radta' pred.ict the other subjects' beiravior) in
"on""ptJ
It to the situation we'imposed' on them:

I
;',"f i;i*;i"rs-
" model atmospheres' "groupness" and "fairness." Thgy man-
;i;; ,;;;;i"i
'- i
il;u r ;e 'dr - 'iiv"- -;:i * i tiol:,,"-1"191,
fo'"o.v' ^tio'' iheit'erpectabion that other boys rvere
q
"" flI l'i' fiscriminating. o!.d io achievea neat balancebetween
c e n e r a tl e m a t L e r ' n r l s t e l l a r e v b l u t i o n '
deg
and one might asfllme that in
Fsll I971 approx.350 PP. $9.s0 Much ,"*oitts to be done to analYze ti'. t*o,
sihrabions the same ldnd of

I An Introductionto
: the entire phenomenouin greater detail real-life
NlolecuiarQuantumMechanics and to gain a fuller understandingof its balance would aPPIy. Unfortunately
determining conditions, but some clear only
too easyto ;hdk
nuhere
of examples
fiairness would go out the
in
it is
real
be made' Out- life
Quanturn CltemistrY inferences can ah'eady

ffi Bv P.W. ATKINS' Oxford Uniuersily' This group discrimination

b6ok introducesthe ideas--ot. guantum me'
l. Part II deils with the
is exlraordinarily wind.otv,
easy-to trigger ofi. In some-previous on.
since
criterift more
grouPnessis often based

'group conflict, such ns one preferring a painter ooi h*t never heard
weighty'thau either

"fr"^r".'"i.-P;'t ot i ons-of th e-theory, while sfudies of'

;;'ib; i;oi ro of b"fo.. or iesembling someoneelse in

I ii;;'lii-;ft'ers

;;-r;;il; eiectric
"; " an
"d

and
account of aroniic and conducted6y U,rz"ter Sherif at tbe Uni-
*otl."t"t structure and spectra and further versif of Oklahoma, grouPs had to be
maghetic.
molecules.The rvork is available as a tlYo' placed in interue
properties of
one'slvay of counting dots' So-cialization
competition .for sev- into "groupness" is powerful
.has innumerabie
and un-
valuable
p"perbouirdset, or in one volume' lral days for such results to opcur lsee avoidaile; it

I ""f"-rn-
c l o t h b o u n d$,I 7 - ? 5 .
i'9i0 V;:'i'1P*1t',I, il1 230 pp' VoL iI (Part
"Erperiments in Group Con-0'ict" by functiotu.
n4 25i PP.Pilet, each$5'50 lv{uiafer Sherif; ScrsNTrrrc Arvruntce'N, fects
November, 1956]; in other situations intergroup
that
Ii also has some odd' side ef-
may-and
tensioirs
do-reinforce acute
whose roots lie else-
those educators in oul
CXFORDW ruheti. Plrhaps

I UNIVERSITY}ry
PRESS}g
behavior of this kind can occur without
direct confl.ict'ifit is basedon previously compehitive
existinghostility, Yet neither an objective est
societieswho
sihooling are so keen
ir"** spiril could give-som-e
from
on
the
"teams"
thought
ear]i-
and
to
conflict o[ intelests nor hostility had any

I 200MadisonAvcnue,
Ncw York, N.Y. 100.16 relevancervhateverto lvhat our subiects the opeiation
of these side efiects'

tr 102