International Journal of Group Psychotherapy

ISSN: 0020-7284 (Print) 1943-2836 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujgp20

The Lewin, Lippitt and White Study of Leadership

and “Social Climates” Revisited

Saul Scheidlinger

To cite this article: Saul Scheidlinger (1994) The Lewin, Lippitt and White Study of Leadership
and “Social Climates” Revisited, International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 44:1, 123-127, DOI:
10.1080/00207284.1994.11490737

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207284.1994.11490737

Published online: 16 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujgp20

Download by: [Cornell University Library] Date: 29 June 2017, At: 03:57
 11\TERNATI O:\ALJO u R:\AL OF GRO l P PSYCHOTHERAPY. 44(1) 1994

BRIEF REPORT
The Lewin, Lippitt and White
Study of Leadership and
"Social Climates" Revisited

SAU L S C H E I D L I N G E R, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT
Sparked try the 1 OOth Anniversary of Kurt Lewin's birth, this paper re-examines
a classic 1939 study try Lewin, Lippitt, and White, of three leadership styles and
the resulting different social climates, that is, autocratic, democratic, and laissez
faire . A gradual extension of Lewinian field theory to include unconscious motiva-
tions in individual and in group behavior has served to broaden the already
significant influence of this research on the behavioral sciences. Two recent
developments moved me to write this communication: ( 1) The 1 OOth Anniversary
in 1990 of Kurt Lewin's birth (Maccotry , 1992); and (b) a broadening of
Lewinian field theory to encompass unconscious motivations (White, 1992).

Few studies in social psychology have ranked higher among the

classics than the 1939 research by Lewin, Lippitt, and White of chil-
dren's groups exposed to different leadership styles (Lewin, Lippitt,
& White, 1939). The findings of this study have profoundly influenced
work in the fields of group dynamics, education, intergroup relations,
organizational development, as well as in the socialization of children
(Barga!, Gold, & Lewin, 1992). The study of "social climates" entailed,
in brief, craft groups for elementary school-aged boys with three dif-
ferent leadership patterns. The authoritarian leader was impersonal,
the leader dictated the group's activities and eschewed participation by
group members. Criticism (or praise) were subjective. The democratic
leader, by contrast, invoked group planning, encouraged individual

Saul Scheidlinger is Emeritus Pro fessor o f Psychiatry (Chi ld Psychology), Albe rt

Einstein College of Medicine, and Adjunct Professor of Clinical Psychology in Psyc hiatry,
Cornell University Medical College, New York.

123
124 SCHEIDLINGER

decision making, and fostered an informal and friendl y group climate.

The laissez faire leader assumed a passive stance, left all decisions to
the group and offered technical advice on request.
When the behavior of the boys in each of the three different
groups was compared, certain distinct differences emerged : The auto-
cratic groups tended to work as well on their crafts pr~jects as the
democratic ones. Only the laissez faire groups were less productive .
When the leaders left the room, work stopped in the autocratic groups
only. In the democratic and laissez faire groups the activities continued.
The overall atmosphere in the autocratic groups took two distinct
forms ; either an apathetic submissiveness or an open aggressiveness
including scapegoating. The democratic groups displayed much cohe-
siveness, coupled with a tone of friendliness and contentment. When
questioned about it, the boys preferred the democratic leaders.
Lewin's ( 1948) own interpretation of the differences in the boys'
behavior is of interest insofar as it reflected his theoretical stance about
the exclusive role of the contemporaneous motivational factors. In his
scheme, behavior is a function of the field of forces existing at the
time of the behavior. As Lewin ( 1933) asserted, "Above all , the task
of analysis for me, seems not to be to find 'mechanisms behind' the
psychological field in such a way that one can derive logically all of
the possibilities of actual behavior" (p. 343). Or, "The cause of the
events in the relationship between the parts of the situation as d ynami-
cal facts , would be a complete analysis. I believe, therefore , that psy-
chologists must learn not to ask about causes which are 'more' than
the relations between these dynamical facts" (Lewin , 1993, p. 319).
Nevertheless, as I noted in 1952, Lewin's field theory with its
stress on the interaction and interdependence of dynamic forces (i.e. ,
individual and group) in social systems, lends itself readily to an inte-
gration with psychoanalytic group psychology (Scheidlinger, 1952).
This has in fact occurred with the group process theorizing of the so-
called "British School" of psychoanalysis (i.e. , Foulkes , 1965; Ezriel ,
1950; Bion, 1959). It is surprising in this connection, that Helen Dur-
kin who had spearheaded a major Task Force on General Systems Theory
within the American Group Psychotherapy Association in 1971 (Dur-
kin , 1972), had earlier also been a strong advocate of the affinity of
Lewin's field theory with group analytic psychotherapy (Durkin,
1964).
 BRIEF REPORT 125

To return to the "Social Climates" experiment, Lewin, following

his line of thinking, noted the higher tension level in the autocratically
run groups coupled with the boy's "low status" when contrasted with
the leaders' "high status." The autocratic leaders barred all attempts
of the members to attain "higher status." This discrepancy of status
levels was minimal in the democratic groups in which the boys were
openly encouraged to assume leadership roles. As for the scapegoating
episodes in the autocratic groups that resulted in the actual expulsion
of two natural group leaders among the youths, Lewin viewed these
as mere efforts to achieve higher status on the part of the attackers.
When I once questioned these superficial explanations as insufficient,
suggesting the operation of some additional explanatory factors from
the unconscious and genetic frames of reference (Scheidlinger, 1952),
I was severely criticized by one of Lewin's leading disciples (Cart-
wright, 1953).
Not surprisingly, in line with the lessening of the "ideological
chauvinism" and the growing move toward theoretical integration in
the behavioral sciences (Deutsch, 1992; Kuhn, 1970), the last decade
witnessed Lewin's followers, including cognitive psychologists, moving
toward an increasing acceptance of intrapsychic factors, that is, uncon-
scious motivations; symbolism; genetic elements in exploring individ-
ual and group behavior (Bowers & Meichenbaum, 1984). In fact,
Ralph K. White ( 1992), a co-author of the Lewin, Lippitt, and White
Study, came to acknowledge a weakness in Lewinian theory pertaining
to the "lack of interest in unconscious factors-even those that distort
perception" (p. 4 7). White went on: "If field theory is defined as taking
into account all of the psychological factors that influence behavior or
thinking at a given moment, a neglect of these defenses (i.e., rational-
ization , projection, denial) is a serious lapse from Lewin's own defini-
tion of field theory. Surely unconscious or marginally conscious factors
influence behavior and influence thinking even more" (p. 47).
It is noteworthy in this connection, that Brown (1936), a social
psychologist, had advocated an integration of Freudian and Lewinian
theory as early as 1936. He enumerated the following essential similari-
ties between these two ideologies: (a) both maintain a Gestalt view of
the organism, (b) both view the individual as being in a constant state
of interaction with the environment, (c) both stressed the evolution
and differentiation of the personality out of primary wholes, (d) both
126 SCHEIDLI NG ER

aim at an integration of unita ry psychological factors into broader

theoretical systems; and (e) both believed in psychic dete rminism and
in the uniformity and continuity of psychological elements in humans.
I believe with Gold ( 1992), that such extensions of the Lewinian
theory coupled with other, more recent suggested modifications are
bound to "sharpen the theory as a tool for applying social science"
(Gold, 1992, p. 77). As for the field of group psychoth erap y, had this
integration occurred earlier, it might have served to prevent a fruitless
and bitter debate during the 1960s as to "whethe r there were group
d ynamics in group psychotherapy" (Slavson, 1957, p . 154). In fact, a
broadened interdisciplinary version of field theory, which includes the
realm of unconscious motiva tions , might well serve to reclaim its earlier
role as a significant expla natory model in the evolution of a ge neral
theory of group psychothera py (Bach, 1954; Frank, 1957) . Limited
in scope, it had been temporarily forced to relinquish some of its clout
to general systems theor y ( J. Durkin , 1981).
In recent years, a significant number of small group practitioners
and researchers, dissatisfied with general systems theory, have shown
renewed interest in Lewinian field theory. The latter's parsimony and
relative simplicity was preferred to general system theory's complexity,
overly broad scope (i.e., a theory of theories) and especially, its tie to
biology and to mathematics. A Society for the Advancement of Field
Theory was formed in 1984 (Wheelan, Pepitone, & Abt, 1990), which
gave impetus to a number of important new, interdisciplinary studies
geared to the unravelling of some of today's noxiou s social problems
(Bargal, Gold , & Lewin , 1992).

REFERENCES

Bach , G. R. (1954). Intensive group psychotherapy. New York: Ronald Press.

Barga!, D., Gold, M. , & Lewin , M. ( 1992). Introduction : The he ritage of Kurt
Lewin. journal of Social Issues , 48; 3- 14.
Bion , W. R. (1959). Experiences in groups and other papers. New York: Basic
Books.
Bowers, K. S., & Meichenba um , D. (Eds.) (1984). The unconscious reconsidered.
New York: John Wiley.
Brown , J . F. ( 1936). Psychology and the social order. New York : McGraw-Hill.
Cartwright, D. ( 1953). Review of psychoanalysis a nd group behavior by Saul
Scheidlinger.journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology , 48 ; 157 -1 59.
Deutsch , M. ( 1992). Kurt Lewin: T he tough-minded and tender-hearted scien-
tist. Journal of Social Issues, 48 ; 3 1-44.
 BRIEF REPORT 127

Durkin, H. E. (I 964) . The group in depth. New York: International Universi-

ties Press.
Durkin, H. E. ( 1972). Analytic group therapy and systems theory. In C. J.
Sager & H. S. Kaplan (Eds .), Progress in group and family therapy . New
York: Brunner-Mazel.
Durkin, J . ( 1981 ). Living groups: Group psychotherap)' and general systems theory.
New York: Brunner-Mazel.
Ezriel, H. (l 950). A psychoanalytic approach to group treatment. British Jour-
nal of Medical Psychology , 23 ; 59-74 .
Foulkes , S. H . (1965) . Therapeutic group analysis. New York: International
Universities Press.
Frank, J. b. (1957). Some determinants, manifestations and effects of cohe-
siveness in therapy groups. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy,
7; 53-63.
Gold, M. ( 1992). Meta theory and field theory in social psychology: Relevance
or elegance? journal of Social Issues, 48; 67-78.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago Uni-
versity Press.
Lewin , K. ( 1933). Vectors, cognitive processes, and Mr. Tolman's criticism.
journal of General Psychology, 8; 318-345.
Lewin , K. ( 1948) . The consequences of an authoritarian and democratic lead-
ership. In G. Weiss (Ed.), Resolving social conflicts . New York: Harper
& Brothers.
Lewin , K. , Lippitt, R. , & White , R. K. ( 1939). Patters of aggressive behavior
in experimentally-created "social climates." Journal of Social Psychology,
10, 271-299.
Maccoby, E. E. ( 1992). Trends in the study of socialization: Is there a Lewinian
heritage? Journal of Social Issues, 48; 171-185.
Scheidlinger, S. (1952). Psychoanal)'sis and group behavior. New York: Norton.
Slavson, S. R. ( 1957). Are there group dynamics in therapy groups? Interna-
tional journal of Group Psychotherapy, 7; 131- 154.
Wheelan, S., Pepitone, E. , & Abt, V. (Eds.) (1990) . Advances in field theory.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
White, R. K. ( 1992). A personal assessment of Lewin's major contributions.
journal of Social Issues, 48; 45-50.

Saul Scheid/inger, Ph.D. Received May 24, 1993

715 Bleeker Avenue Revision received July 6, 1993
Mamaroneck, NY 10543 Accepted July 7, 1993