Advertisement

Some Psychological Bases of the Institution of War

  • Hugh Middleton

Abstract

Attention is focused upon an important perspective if war is to be thought of as an institution. The Oxford English Dictionary describes the use of the word ‘institution’ in a number of ways which include

an established law, custom, usage, practice, organization or other element in the political or social life of a people.

Keywords

Group Membership Cohesive Group External Threat Oxford English Dictionary Opposing Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. S.E. Asch (1951) ‘Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgements’, in Groups, Leadership and Men, edited by H. Guetzkow (Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press).Google Scholar
  2. P. Bateson (1989) ‘Is aggression instinctive?’, in Aggression and War: Their Biological and Social Bases, edited by J. Groebel and R.A. Hinde (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 35–47.Google Scholar
  3. U. Bronfenbrenner (1961) ‘The mirror image in Soviet-American relations: A social psychologist’s report’, Journal of Social Issues, 17, 46–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. M.M. Chemers (1983) ‘Leadership theory and research: A systems-process integration’, in Basic group processes, edited by P.B. Paulus (New York: Springer-Verlag) 9–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. M.M. Chemers and G.J. Skrzpek (1972) ‘An experimental test of the Contingency Model of leadership effectiveness’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 172–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. F.E. Fiedler (1964) ‘A contingency model of leadership effectiveness’, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 1, edited by L. Berko-witz (New York: Academic Press).Google Scholar
  7. R.G. Geen and N.B. Quantry (1977) ‘The catharsis of aggression: an evaluation of an hypothesis’, Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology, 10, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. R.J. House (1971) ‘A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. D.A. Kenny and S.J. Zaccaro (1983) ‘An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 678–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. A.J. Lott and B.E. Lott (1961) ‘Group cohesiveness, communication level, and conformity’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 408–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. D.C. McClelland and R.E. Boyatzis (1982) ‘Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. J. Panskeep (1980) ‘Opiates and Social Dependence’, in Endogenous and Exogenous Opiate Agonists and Antagonists, edited by E.L. Way (New York: Pergamon Press) 561–4.Google Scholar
  13. M.K. Roper (1975) ‘Evidence of warfare in the Near East from 10 000 to 4300 B.C.’, in War, its Causes and Correlates, edited by M.A. Nettleship (The Hague: Mouton) 299–343.Google Scholar
  14. M. Sherif (1958)’supraordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict’, American Journal of Sociology, 63, 349–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. M.J. Strube and J.E. Garcia (1981) ‘A meta-analytic investigation of Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership-effectiveness’, Psychological Bulletin, 90, 307–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. V.H. Vroom and P.W. Yetton (1973) Leadership and Decision Making (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Robert A. Hinde 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugh Middleton

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations