This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]

On: 04 March 2015, At: 09:04

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Peace and Conflict: Journal of

Peace Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpcn20

The Development of Enemy

Images: A Theoretical
Contribution
Louis Oppenheimer
Published online: 18 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Louis Oppenheimer (2006) The Development of Enemy Images:
A Theoretical Contribution, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 12:3,
269-292, DOI: 10.1207/s15327949pac1203_4

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327949pac1203_4

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015
 PEACE AND CONFLICT: JOURNAL OF PEACE PSYCHOLOGY, 12(3), 269–292
Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

The Development of Enemy Images:

A Theoretical Contribution
Louis Oppenheimer
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

Universiteit van Amsterdam

The Netherlands

Enemies and enemy images are thought to be prerequisites in preparedness for war
(i.e., to fight and kill). In spite of this knowledge, very little information is available
about children’s understanding of enemies and the emergence and nature of enemy
images. In part this is due to the absence of theoretical insights into the developmen-
tal course for the understanding of enemies and the emergence of enemy images. The
purpose of this article is to present a theoretical model embedding the development
of the understanding of enemy and the emergence of enemy images in social con-
texts, such as the family, the peer group, and society. On the basis of this model, fu-
ture research questions dealing with the development, emergence, and maintenance
of enemy images can be formulated.

Whereas it is made abundantly clear in the literature that an enemy is essential for
armed conflict (Bjerstedt et al., 1991; Middleton, 1991; Psychologists for Social
Responsibility, 1986; White, 1965, 2004), genocide (Staub, 1992, 1996), and, to a
lesser extent, racism and discrimination (Short & Carrington, 1996), very little is
known about the origins and developmental course of enemy images. As a conse-
quence, the role and importance of enemy images in accounts of conflict are sys-
tematically underestimated (Stein, 1996). An enemy image is here defined as a spe-
cific form of a negative stereotype.
The purpose of this article is to develop a theoretical model dealing with devel-
opment of enemy images on the basis of various theoretical assumptions and em-
pirical findings concerning the development of the understanding of enemy and
the emergence and maintenance of enemy images (Oppenheimer, 2001). In this

Correspondence should be addressed to Louis Oppenheimer, Department of Psychology, University

of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: l.j.t.oppenheimer@
uva.nl
 270 OPPENHEIMER

theoretical model the individual development and maintenance of enemy images is

embedded within immediate social contexts, such as the family and peer group, as
well as within wider social contexts, such as society and culture. In the next sec-
tion, enemy images and the process of “enmification” (Rieber & Kelly, 1991) are
defined and discussed in detail. Next, enemy images are discussed as internal pro-
cesses of projection in early childhood and elaborated within expanding societal
contexts and interpersonal relationships in later childhood and adolescence. In the
course of these discussions, a theoretical model is unfolded dealing with the emer-
gence of enemy images and the understanding of enemy from childhood through
adolescence. In the last section, recent empirical findings are discussed and related
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

to the model.
According to Staub (1992), enemy images play an important role in the mainte-
nance and reinforcement of hostility and antagonism between sections of the pop-
ulation. On the level of national entities, enemy images play a role in the perpetua-
tion and intensification of conflict between countries (Stein, 1996). Research on
cultural variations in the nature of enemy images for adults (Szalay & Mir-Djalali,
1991) has shown that parallel to the negative characterization of the enemy (i.e.,
the negative loading of enemy images), sociocultural and ideological perspectives
play an important role. Szalay and Mir-Djalali concluded that “the identity of the
enemy as well as the intensity of feelings evoked by that image cannot be made on
an a priori, rational basis” (p. 246), because enemy images are based on subjective
experiences and their foundations involve deep psychocultural dispositions related
to characteristics of the culture and political ideology of a particular group. From a
developmental point of view, the latter conclusions imply that the invention of the
enemy or formation of enemy images is the product of integrated processes involv-
ing subjective projections or dissociations that are guided or informed by society-
or culture-specific socialization processes over the life course. For instance, ac-
cording to Barnet (1985), the hostility and antagonism noted by Staub (1992) are
characteristics of totalitarian political systems and based on a limited availability
of information and a lack of open discussion concerning political matters (Oppen-
heimer, 2004, 2005).

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

With respect to the developmental of enemy images, early theory is limited to

psychodynamic and social psychological perspectives in which enmification is
perceived as the projection of one’s inner malevolent tendencies onto another and,
consequently, as a pathological process (cf. Freud, 1945; Fromm, 1956; Jung,
1972). As a consequence, negative characteristics, which previously defined the
self, are dissolved (Sheehan, 1986), or, as Rieber and Kelly (1991) aptly noted,
“one becomes more ‘human’ as the enemy becomes less so” (p. 16). Building on
 ENEMY IMAGES 271

the ideas of Klein (1955), Fornari (1975) argued that the invention of the enemy is
not a perverse inclination but a self-generated mechanism designed to neutralize
strong internal threats. According to Broughton (1991), defensive mechanisms de-
signed to protect against anxieties are triggered by surfacing, anxiety-laden fanta-
sies and “it is the defensiveness itself that tends to generate the worst problems” (p.
109). In short, the psychodynamic approach perceives enmification as a dynamic
process with internal motivating forces.
From a social psychological perspective, enmification or the emergence of nega-
tive stereotypes is also thought to be a dynamic process, albeit motivated by external
forces such as sociohistorical contexts and political developments (Haslam, Turner,
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

Oakes, Reynolds, & Doosje, 2002). Within this approach, an enemy image repre-
sents a set of beliefs or assumptions about an individual or a group and is considered a
natural reaction to the process of identity formation by individuals and groups
(Stein, 1996). When a group holds such an image it is considered a negative stereo-
type. Whereas the individual’s self-identity is in part determined by his or her social
identity, which, in turn, is primarily determined by group membership or group iden-
tity, group identity is defined by contrast to other groups and is the result of system-
atic comparisons with and differentiation from other groups. In some instances, the
emergence of group identity is accompanied by “derogation of other groups” (Stein,
1996, p. 94; see also Brewer, 1999). For instance, in a recent study, Mummendey,
Klink, and Brown (2001) demonstrated that when groups are involved in intergroup
comparisons, a strong relation is evident between positive ingroup (e.g., own coun-
try) identification and evaluation (i.e., national pride) on the one hand and outgroup
derogation on the other. These findings suggest that the relation between ingroup fa-
voritism or identification and outgroup devaluation can be manipulated by strength-
ening or weakening the need for intergroup comparisons (i.e., by either creating or
reducing uncertainty; McGarty, 2001). In addition, judging the own group as better
than another group supports one’s self-esteem or social identity (i.e., Social Identity
Theory; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The increase in level of self-esteem of the group as a
result of social comparison processes leads to a parallel increase in self-esteem by
the individual members of the ingroup. In particular, when there is a threat to one’s
identity, the tendency to evaluate groups that one identifies with more positively than
outgroups is most pronounced (Giles, 1977).
When present, enemy images or negative stereotypes are self-fulfilling and
self-reinforcing. On the basis of such images, people tend to act more aggressively
toward the other group. Such behavior provokes a hostile response that is inter-
preted to confirm the initial stereotype and so on. Enemy images or negative ste-
reotypes can thus be thought of as beliefs about individuals or groups that are
codetermined by internal individual variables, external societal contexts, and
ingroup–outgroup dynamics. With these major sources in mind, the development
of enemy images or negative stereotypes are discussed from childhood through
adolescence.
 272 OPPENHEIMER

CHILDREN IN CONTEXTS

In the following section, an attempt is made to integrate developmental, psy-

chodynamic, and social approaches in psychology and to develop a theoretical
framework from which hypotheses can be derived to study the understanding of
enemies and the emergence of enemy images from a developmental perspective.
The model that is presented (i.e., Figures 1 through 3) reflects schematic relations
among variables by which the development of the understanding of enemies and
the appearance of enemy images is embedded in progressively more complex soci-
etal contexts (i.e., from the family to culture). The arrows in the figures do not indi-
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

cate causal relations but rather depict hypothesized uni- and bidirectional affective
and reciprocal relations.

The Ecological Model

The primary point of departure in this discussion is Bronfenbrenner’s (1988) eco-
logical model that describes interactive processes between immediate social con-
texts (i.e., microsystems such as the family and school) and the developing child.
In spite of this model, the nature and role of larger social systems such as the
macro-systems or nation-specific sociocultural structures (i.e., society) and social
institutions have remained mostly unspecified (Oppenheimer, 2004). Society and
its institutions immediately affect the values and norms inherent in behavioral pat-
terns of parenting, socialization, and education (Oppenheimer, 1996). Hence, the
formation of particular assumptions about the world and how we perceive the ac-
tions of others is a direct result of socialization and the environment in which so-
cialization takes place. For instance, when the world is perceived as hostile, other
human beings will be perceived as such. Ambiguous acts will become threatening
and friendly acts devious and manipulative (Staub, 1992).
This sequence of effective influences corresponds to Triandis’ (1994) theoreti-
cal framework involving the sequence from ecology to behavior (i.e., “ecology →
culture → socialization → personality → behavior,” p. 22). In addition, character-
istics of society and its institutions such as parenting, socialization, and educa-
tion are not fixed but change over time (cf. Toulmin, 1990; Triandis, 1994). In par-
ticular, on the individual level the perception and understanding of society and its
institutions constitute developmental acquisitions as the result of the interaction
between the cognitively and emotionally maturing individual and the values em-
phasized by society at a particular period in time (Oppenheimer, 2004; Smetana,
1999; Valsiner, Branco, & Melo Dantas, 1997; Wertsch, 1985). Ecological theo-
rists conceptualize development as the result of numerous influences that range
from the immediate environment in which the child matures (i.e., the family) to the
ecological or cultural context that sets the norms and values of parenting, social-
ization, and education.
 ENEMY IMAGES 273

The role of the sociocultural structure in the development of the child is sche-
matically presented in Figure 1. In this figure, the child is placed within the
microsystem of the family, involving processes such as socialization and par-
enting, and within the larger macrosystem of society and culture. In contemporary
descriptions of society and culture, distinctions are made between horizontal and
vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism (Bhawuk, 2001; Gelfand,
Bhawuk, Nishii, & Bechtold, 2000; Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995;
Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Individualism and collectivism refer to the nature of
the relation between the individual and the group (Triandis, 1994). Whereas indi-
vidualism involves loose ties among individuals in a society, collectivism refers to
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

the belief that individuals are from birth onward part of “cohesive ingroups, which
throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestion-
ing loyalty” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 51).
Interpersonal relationships are also characterized by distances between individ-
uals in the upper and lower parts of the social structure or power relations among
individuals within and between parts of the social structure. This can be seen in the
extent to which a hierarchical ranking according to status is present in a society (A.
P. Fiske, 1990, 1992), whether such a ranking involves differences in power be-

FIGURE 1 A schematic presentation of hypothesized interrelations between characteristics

of society and causal attribution and their effects on socialization (i.e., parenting) as an aspect of
the microsystem of the family.
 274 OPPENHEIMER

tween individuals or groups of individuals (Hofstede, 1980) or the perception of

equality or inequality among individuals within a society. Whereas the horizontal
dimension refers to equality and the absence of (power) distance, the vertical di-
mension stresses inequality and hierarchical power relations. Hence, the individu-
alistic as well as collective sociocultural structures (i.e., society) are also charac-
terized by their emphasis on equality (i.e., horizontally structured societies such as
a democracy) or inequality (i.e., vertically structured societies such as a totalitarian
regime; see Puras, 1999). The characterization of the macro-system as horizontal
is in accordance with a more pluralistic and democratic political system that is
characterized by “moderate respect for authority and a willingness to question au-
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

thority … [and] a reasonable distribution of power and privilege” (Staub, 2003, p.

16). In such societies others are more positively evaluated. In addition, also inter-
nal or external causal attribution processes characterize society. Monolithic politi-
cal systems tend to attribute political failure to external causes whereas more dem-
ocratic political systems tend to attribute such failure to internal causes. All these
characteristics of the macro-system define the “overarching pattern of ideology
and organization of the social institutions” (Bronfenbrenner, 1988, p. 39) that are
thought to delimit the settings in which people function or act. Because “activity
can be thought of as a social institutionally defined setting, [every] activity or ac-
tivity setting is grounded in a set of assumptions about appropriate roles, goals, and
means used by the participants in that setting” (Wertsch, 1985, p. 212). Processes
of socialization and parenting are considered aspects of social institutions and con-
sequently play a role in determining the “spirit” of the sociocultural structure as
one of equality characterized by harmony, cooperation, and altruism or one of in-
equality characterized by disharmony, conflict, and harm-doing (Staub, 1992).
Hence, parenting may either enhance or reduce the extent of perceived or experi-
enced equality or inequality among individuals within a society.
Oppenheimer and Sallay (2001) found support for this assumption. They re-
ported that in societies that are characterized by inequality and hierarchical power
relations, authoritarian parenting is considerably more common than in societies
that are characterized by equality. In the latter society, authoritative and permissive
parenting are more common. In a recent study, Oppenheimer (2004) reported that
Dutch adolescents and young adults consider the distinction between verticality
and horizontality (i.e., inequality and equality) to characterize society even better
than the distinction between individualism and collectivism. Children who are
raised in an authoritarian parental environment will have trouble in assuming re-
sponsibility for their own lives and in developing separate, independent identities.
In the need for guidance and leadership they will escape from freedom by follow-
ing a leader or group (Fromm, 1954; Miller, 1983). That is, children raised in au-
thoritarian environments obey, do not protest, and are in need of strict discipline.
As a consequence they are more likely to develop prejudiced attitudes. According
to Allport (1954), some parents explicitly teach their children negative characteris-
 ENEMY IMAGES 275

tics of other individuals or groups and communicate their stereotypes and preju-
dices. Other children develop stereotypes and prejudices by observation and imita-
tion of their parents (Rutland, 1999). For instance, the use of jokes and derogatory
labels by parents in reference to other groups influences their children’s attitudes
about those groups (Rohan & Zanna, 1996). Until the age of 10 children were ob-
served to parrot the outgroup sentiments of their parents (Nelson, 2002; Rohan &
Zanna, 1996), because children do not yet comprehend the meaning or impact of
stereotypes and thus cannot really internalize such attitudes (F. Aboud, 1988; Rutl-
and, 1999). In short, the nature of society in which children are raised may play an
important role in the perception of interpersonal relationships and other population
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

sections within a society when these children mature and become adolescents and
adults.
As was noted previously, the more totalitarian the political system of a country
the more it is characterized by a limited availability of free information and open
discussion about political matters. The latter aspects of society may result in strong
hostile and antagonistic attitudes toward others (Barnet, 1985; Oppenheimer,
2004, 2005). As Puras (1999) noted, even today, posttotalitarian mentality of the
population and authorities of most of the former Communist countries of Central
and Eastern Europe is characterized by a lack of initiative, resistance for changes,
survivalism, scapegoating, medicalizing of social problems, and stigmatization of
“different” persons. Hence, totalitarian political systems more easily revert to bi-
ased attribution processes or, as Jervis (2002) noted, the tendency to attribute one’s
own belligerent politics to external circumstances while attributing other society’s
belligerent behavior to internal characteristics of that society. This biased causal
attribution process underlies the process of enmification (Rieber & Kelly, 1991)
and devaluation or derogation of the outgroup (Staub, 2003; Stein, 1996). In short,
the “devaluation of others, very strong respect of authority and tendency to obey it,
inequality and the experience of injustice, [and] monolithic political organization
and values … contribute to violence between groups and among individuals in a
society” (Staub, 2003, p. 16) and constitute the cultural or societal setting in which
children may be raised. When children pass from infancy and toddlerhood to child-
hood, the parental roles within the socialization process gradually diminish and are
taken over by a wider social context, including peers.

CHILDHOOD

From the moment the young child becomes an active participant in his or her envi-
ronment, he or she also becomes part of an extended social environment that now
includes peers (see Figure 2). Processes of socialization and social interaction are
extended to include others, not just members of the family. It is also the period in
which children become aware of themselves, and self-relevant information is
 276 OPPENHEIMER
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

FIGURE 2 The child as active participant in the social environment. A schematic presenta-
tion of hypothesized interrelations among the child, family, and peer group and processes and
outcomes that result in the emergence of personal or individual enemy images. The question
marks refer to possible relations that are in need of empirical verification.

learned and becomes organized with respect to the different contexts in which
children function (i.e., the family, school, peer group, and so on). Whereas already
during infancy and young childhood socialization experiences inevitably result in
internal conflicts and tensions within the child, causes for such conflicts con-
siderably increase as the social world extends (Harter, 1999). According to James
(1890), the number of context-related representations of the self correspond to
the number of contexts in which we function (see also Marsh & Hattie 1996;
Oosterwegel & Oppenheimer, 1993). A considerable theoretical overlap is present
 ENEMY IMAGES 277

between context-related self-concepts and the concept of social identities (Turner,

1985, 1987).
In self-system theory (for reviews see Bracken, 1996; Harter, 1999), each con-
text-related self-concept is characterized by domain-related self-concepts such as
the “real,” “ideal,” “ought-to-be,” and “feared-for” self that are often based on a
combination of internally and externally imposed standards of others such as par-
ents and peers (Deci & Ryan, 1995). The experience of internal tensions or con-
flicts between domain-related self-representations results in the emergence of the
feared-for self (Markus & Kityama, 1991), a self the child does not want to mani-
fest (Oosterwegel & Oppenheimer, 1993). If the feared-for self becomes too great
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

a threat, defensive mechanisms may project its contents outward (Broughton,

1991). Under particular sociocultural conditions, outward projection may transfer
the blame of internal tensions from the self onto another individual and result in a
personal or individual enemy image (Oppenheimer, 2002).
It should be noted here that the resolution of internal anxieties in childhood is
context-specific instead of context-general. For instance, with respect to national
identity, Short and Carrington (1996) reported that already at the age of 9, British
nationality is conceptualized in terms of a particular way of life (i.e., as cultural
habits) suggesting incipient forms of racism that are firmly entrenched at a rela-
tively young age. Similarly, Reizabel, Valencia, and Barrett (1999) noted that al-
ready at the age of 6, Basque children categorize themselves as members of their
national ingroup and consider contexts dealing with nationality as more important
than other contexts.
Staub (1992, 2003) stressed the profound importance of children’s experiences
in the family and elsewhere in shaping their personalities and moral values. When
socialization processes fail, the developing individual may not be able to develop a
personal uniqueness or to relate to and function with other people. As was noted
previously, the resulting internally experienced frustration may activate defensive
mechanisms already at an early age (Broughton, 1991) by which fantasized anxi-
eties and fears are projected outward (cf. Fornari, 1975). Such defensive mecha-
nisms can be stimulated and directed when parents transfer their own or society’s
prejudices to their children (Mane, 1993) or offer negatively depicted others (i.e.,
stereotypes) as targets for projection (e.g., societal outgroups such as the Jews,
Gypsies, and so on; cf. Elias & Scotson, 1965/1991; see Figure 2).
There is ample evidence that already at an early age children are capable of hate
and intense feelings of dislike and jealousy of others (Sternberg, 2003). Similarly,
Opotow (2005) contended that hate is readily understood even by young children
and may foster extreme violence. However, because hate can either be irrational or
rational, it can be either the result of long-term, and deep-seated prejudices or the
result of ingroup–outgroup rivalry (Olzak & Nagel, 1986). In particular, in societ-
ies in which hate is the product of fear, the development of an enemy (i.e., the tar-
geted prejudiced group or rival outgroup) and the emergence of enemy images can
 278 OPPENHEIMER

become manifest. When hate becomes destructive, moral norms that normally
would prevent hostility and violence may instead act as accelerators and moral jus-
tifications for harm-doing or moral exclusion (Opotow, 2005).
In a recent series of studies, Oppenheimer (2005) examined the development of
the understanding of enemy and the emergence of enemy images with Dutch chil-
dren between the ages of 7 and 13. No evidence was found for the presence of a
collective enemy image with Dutch children and young adolescents, a finding that
is explained by the absence of a clearly defined enemy or antagonism among sub-
groups within Dutch society. For each child, the enemy was depicted differently,
although a general trend was observed showing that older children conceptualized
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

enemies more as nonhumans (i.e., animals and aliens) than younger children. That
is, the concept of enemy shifted from more personal concepts (e.g., the other child
in the class) to more undefined abstract concepts across age. Simultaneously with
this change, Oppenheimer reported a change in the feelings that are evoked by an
enemy. Whereas younger children reacted with negative feelings (i.e., an enemy is
not funny), the older children showed primarily anger, an emotion that has been
found to be a reaction to threat (Danesh, 1977; Glick & Roose, 1993). Because
negative emotions (Holt & Silverstein, 1989; Oppenheimer & Hakvoort, 2003)
and negative personality characteristics (Oppenheimer, 2005) are inherent parts of
enemy images, the undetermined threats may easily trigger enemy images with a
focus on concrete others (see Rieber & Kelly, 1991). As long as no concrete enemy
is present, experienced threats remain undefined and latent and enemy images fo-
cus on undefined (nonhuman) others. However, as Povrzanovic (1997) has shown,
in situations involving war and civil conflict, latent images easily become con-
crete, a situation that too often results in severe violence toward others (cf.
Benderlioglu, 2000).
In our model (Figure 2), it is thought that the external projection of negative
characteristics of the self onto others (i.e., subsumed under the feared-for self) is
related to processes of external attribution. That is, one of the immediate products
of the socialization process is the extent to which children tend to put the blame for
failure on internal or external sources (S. T. Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Zebrowitz,
1990). When external attribution processes are emphasized in socialization, we as-
sume that children more easily tend to blame others for their own feelings of un-
ease. To date, however, no information is available about the relation between ex-
ternal attribution processes and the more psychodynamic process of projection on
the individual level (see [1] in Figure 2) and the consequent emergence of a per-
sonal enemy. In addition, little is known about the extent to which a personal en-
emy is informed by parental prejudices and parental or societal stereotypes and at-
titudes (see [2] in Figure 2).
Related to this question is the issue of the “ultimate attribution error,” by which
negative dispositional attributions (i.e., negative stereotypes) are made about an-
other individual or an entire group of people (Pettigrew, 1979). The ultimate attri-
 ENEMY IMAGES 279

bution error illustrates the necessity to take the valence of actions into account in
addition to the nature of the attributions. The presence of negative affective stereo-
types about a group of people often results in deemphasizing situational causes or
pressures when the actions are perceived as hostile or as proof that the enemy is
hostile or barbaric. Similarly, when the actions of an enemy could be considered
peaceful, the situational pressures affecting the enemy are overemphasized. As a
result, peaceful behavior on the part of the enemy is not understood in terms of a
desire for peace but as behavior that is prompted by external causes. Even hostile
motives may be attributed to peaceful actions, as when a peace proposal is seen to
be a trick, a propaganda ploy, or a way of increasing tension among allies (Psy-
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

chologists for Social Responsibility, 1986).

Also, little is known about whether individual, external attribution processes
can be generalized to group or national levels (Rosenfield & Stephan, 1981) or
whether the attribution characteristics of the group or nation are independent and
overrule individual attribution processes (cf. Niebuhr, 1932; see also the later dis-
cussion here). For instance, it could be argued that when internal attribution pro-
cesses either on the individual, group, or national level are prevalent, it is difficult
to envisage the need for an outgroup or an enemy. In this instance, failures on any
level are by definition attributed to oneself, one’s own group, or national policy,
and solutions will be sought within each level. Consequently, external attribution
processes on the individual, group, or national levels are thought to more easily
trigger enmification processes.
On the level of nation-states, it can be argued that different political ideologies
may use different attribution processes. In parallel with the assumption that totali-
tarian political systems stimulate hostility and antagonism more than democratic
political systems (Barnet, 1985), totalitarian systems may make greater use of ex-
ternal attributions as compared to internal attributions by democratic systems.
Because groups of which one is a member are valued because they offer a bal-
ance between uniqueness and belongingness (Brewer & Brown, 1998), the devel-
opment of social groups is inevitable and a characteristic of normal human pro-
cesses. The presence of power relations among members of a group and the nature
of attribution processes are thought to determine whether a group or nation is
served by enemy images (cf. Middleton, 1991), because for groups or nations “the
experience of threat can arise from psychological and societal sources, without
(any) real external threat” (Staub, 1992, p. 264).

FROM CHILDHOOD THROUGH ADOLESCENCE

In Figure 3, external and internal attribution processes on the level of the peer
group and society are added to the earlier variables. Within the course of develop-
ment, the first nonfamilial group of which a child becomes a member is a peer
 280 OPPENHEIMER
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

FIGURE 3 The child in context. A schematic presentation of hypothesized interrelations be-

tween components of contexts, processes, and outcomes in the emergence of enemy images.
The question marks refer to possible relations that are in need of empirical verification.

group. Within a peer group a hierarchical structure and external attribution pro-
cesses can be observed. For instance, rejected or disliked children may become a
target group or outgroup within the ingroup. Apparently no social group can func-
tion without defining either an internal outgroup (e.g., the rejected children) or an
external outgroup, which is more likely when the ingroup is cohesive and defined
by shared interests and actions (Hartup, 1992; Stein, 1996; Youniss, 1994). When
 ENEMY IMAGES 281

these processes on the individual and group level are extrapolated to the level of
nations under particular socioeconomical conditions, processes of social compari-
son on the national level may result in the formation of “outgroup” nations that are
perceived as threatening or hostile and thereby as enemies (see Staub, 2003).
In this schematic representation, external and internal attribution processes
characterize the individual, as well as the group and society. The postulation of
such processes on different organizational levels immediately evokes a series of
additional theoretical and empirical questions. These questions deal with the rela-
tion between negatively stereotyped others within a society and the personal or in-
dividual enemy (see previous discussion and [2] in Figure 2) and the outgroup of a
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

peer group (see [4] in Figure 3). For instance, is the individual or personal enemy a
member of the same peer outgroup (see [3])?
According to the Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, 1987; Turner, Hogg,
Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), individual belief systems and attitudes are not
necessarily maintained on the group level. From this theoretical perspective, an in-
dividual’s identity is defined by his or her personal identity and social identities de-
rived from group memberships. At different times we perceive ourselves as unique
individuals and at other times as members of groups. Whereas both perceptions are
equally valid expressions of the self, they are flexibly and selectively employed in
different circumstances and sometimes are functionally antagonistic (McGarty,
Haslam, Hutchinson, & Turner, 1994). Although particular views and attitudes are
observed on the individual level, social influence may lead individuals to adopt
group perceptions and attitudes by virtue of their group membership (Abrams &
Hogg, 1990). This phenomenon is also referred to as individual–group discontinu-
ity (Insko & Schopler, 1998), illustrated by the finding that individuals develop
less distrust than do groups. That is, the formation of long-term stereotypical
knowledge must be distinguished from the formation of current stereotypical de-
pictions or impressions of social groups (McGarty, 2001). Hence, judgments of
prototypicality (e.g., prejudice and stereotype) are not only context-dependent but
also dependent on the current belief systems of the society, the ingroup, and the in-
dividuals (McGarty, Spears, & Yzerbyt, 2002).
In addition, whereas stereotypes can be perceived as personal beliefs or images,
they may also be “tools that are developed by groups both to represent their mem-
bers’ shared social reality and to achieve particular objectives within it” (Haslam et
al., 2002, p. 161). The latter authors discuss four characteristics of stereotypes that
relate to these objectives. First, stereotypes are thought to be creatively tailored
constructions as the result of collaboration among societal institutions (e.g., the
government or the media) or members of an ingroup. Second, stereotypes are often
considered “context-sensitive and fluid” (p. 173) and not, as previously thought,
fixed and rigid. A currently shared target might then becomes the focus of such ste-
reotypes. Third, context-sensitive and fluid stereotypes change more easily in re-
action to changes in society. That is, stereotypes and their associated behavioral
 282 OPPENHEIMER

patterns are sensitive to “the network of intergroup relations in which groups are
located” (p. 176). Finally, stereotypes may be functional in the actualization of col-
lective group interests and can be perceived as “carefully crafted weapons that are
instrumental to their consolidated advancement” (p. 180). This approach to stereo-
types highlights the phenomenon that groups or nations can externally attribute
contemporary problems (e.g., economic hardship or discrimination) to any partic-
ular outgroup, be it a population segment within that society (e.g., Jews or
Gypsies) or another nation (see [6] in Figure 3) by the creation or manipulation of
stereotypes.
However, findings by Insko et al. (1992) qualify the latter conclusion. Insko et
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

al. reported a discontinuity between interpersonal and intergroup relations, the for-
mer being more competitive and less cooperative than the latter. From the perspec-
tive of Realistic Group Conflict Theory, intergroup conflicts rather than interper-
sonal conflicts often flow from “‘real’ issues such as territory, jobs, power, and
economic benefit” (Insko et al., 1992, p. 173). For that matter, Insko et al. believed
that prejudice and negative stereotypes play greater roles in intergroup than in in-
terpersonal problems. In this theoretical model, groups are thought to focus on val-
ued outcomes or the maximization of their own benefits and to develop a high level
of intolerance toward competing groups.
Within these theoretical frameworks, Anderson and Christie (2001) noted that
prejudice is often a consequence of the diminishing voice or material well-being of
one group as compared to another (i.e., the Relative Deprivation Theory). They ar-
gued that such “perceptions of growing ‘relative deprivation,’ whether real or
imagined, have a powerful influence on the development of intergroup enmity” (p.
179). Christie and Dawes (2001) illustrated this process by the rise or fall in racist
attitudes of the White population in South Africa. The extent to which Whites per-
ceive themselves to have lost or gained by the abolition of Apartheid or progressive
democratization processes is one of the major determinants for such changes in
racist attitudes.
Finally, in the proposed model (see Figure 3), two additional questions are
posed pertaining to the extent to which a “national” outgroup corresponds to the
outgroup of the peer group (see [5] in Figure 3) and the extent to which such an
outgroup is perceived as hostile by society and hence, the peer group (see [7]), and
consequently is negatively evaluated.

EMPIRICAL REFLECTIONS

The final model presented in Figure 3 illustrates the large number of mutually ef-
fective relations among variables that are thought to play a role in the development
of enemy images on the individual, group, and national level. For a proper under-
 ENEMY IMAGES 283

standing of the development of enemy and enemy images, research must take these
variables into account.
Whereas ingroup favoritism is not automatically related to outgroup prejudice
(Feshbach, 1994), the same processes that determine the psychological primacy of
the ingroup may turn into overt hostility toward outgroups. According to Brewer
(1999), forces such as “the need to justify ingroup values in the form of moral su-
periority, sensitivity to threat, [and] power politics [are] particularly powerful in
highly segmented, hierarchically organized societies” (p. 442). This finding fits
the earlier assumption that the enmification process or formation of hostile out-
groups is facilitated by societies that are vertically structured, such as monolithic
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

or totalitarian political systems. In such closed societies, prejudice, stereotypes,

and enemy images can be manipulated more easily than in open, democratic soci-
eties. Or as Benderlioglu (2000) noted, in societies that emphasize individualism,
hostile intent is more easily attributed to people when they show negative behavior
than in collective societies. Such an attributional bias may then form the basis for
mistrust and may be exploited by ideological leaders to create additional ethnic,
nationalist, or other intergroup violence or conflict.
In a recent study, Teichman and Zafrir (2003) examined the perception of Jew-
ish and Arab children and adolescents of each other by means of human figure
drawings and a questionnaire. Based on earlier findings, the authors expected that
younger children (ages 7 to 8) would favor the majority group. Young adolescents
(ages 11 to 13), on the other hand, were expected to identify with the ingroup, irre-
spective of whether it was the majority group (for the Jewish adolescents) or the
minority group (for the Arab adolescents) and to reject the outgroup. With the Jew-
ish and Arab children as well as the Jewish adolescents, the expectations were con-
firmed. The Arab adolescents, however, did not shift in preference toward the
minority group (i.e., the Arab ingroup). Teichman and Zafrir perceived this con-
sistency in preference pattern with the Arab adolescents as a mental strategy of de-
fensive identification that permits “members of a low-status group to experience
themselves as undifferentiated from the majority group and by doing so, enhance
their self-worth” (p. 674).
Whereas Teichman and Zafrir’s (2003) findings correspond with recent analy-
ses (Barrett, in press; Barrett, Lyons, & del Valle, 2004), showing different patterns
in the development of national identity and ingroup–outgroup attitudes in different
sociohistorical settings, the findings may also point to a more disturbing issue.
Teichman and Zafrir noted that as a reaction to the perceived psychological pri-
macy of the outgroup (i.e., the majority group) by the ingroup (i.e., the minority
group) the ingroup resorts to “defensive identification.” When this type of defen-
sive identification with the majority parallels individual defensive identification
(Mowrer, 1950) or identification with the aggressor (Freud, 1946), then the minor-
ity group presumably transforms itself from object to agent of aggression by
adopting the attributes of the aggressive, threatening majority group so as to allay
 284 OPPENHEIMER

anxiety. This principle is widely accepted as an explanation of the imitative learn-

ing of aggression (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961) and is often perceived as a patho-
logical reaction. In addition, identification with the aggressor feeds and facilitates
the turning of aggression against one’s own minority group and subsequently for
each individual member of the minority group against the self (see Erskine,
Moursund, & Trautmann, 1999; Gobes & Erskine, 1995). According to Kelman
(1999, 2005), both Israelis and Palestinians are part of a cycle of negative interde-
pendence, by which “asserting one group’s identity requires negating the identity
of the other” (Kelman, 1999, p. 581).
Alternatively, Teichman and Zafrir’s (2003) findings may point to a completely
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

different phenomenon involving the absence of any clear differentiating defini-

tions of ethnic minority and social class. For instance, according to Elias (1939/
1994), one of the “most remarkable characteristics of the civilizing process” in-
volves the development of a super-ego by the rising class, that is, “modeled on the
superior, colonizing upper class” (p. 508). Because minority families are often
overrepresented in socially lower classes (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997), the
Arab ethnic minority in Israel could be perceived as such a “lower” social class that
attempts to rise to the level of the Israeli majority that is perceived as the superior
social class. As a consequence, the perceived psychological “superiority” of the
outgroup (i.e., Israelis) by the ingroup (i.e., Arab adolescents) does not result in de-
fensive identification but rather in the imitation of the higher social group by the
formation of a super-ego that is less balanced and more severe (Elias, 1939/1994).
More research is needed for us to understand the exact relation between ethnic mi-
nority groups and social class, as well as the consequences of the development of
such a super-ego.
Early in development children learn that members of their own group are safe
whereas strangers and members of other groups can be dangerous (Silverstein &
Holt, 1989). E. Aboud and Skerry (1984) assumed that young children would rec-
ognize strangers and members of other groups primarily by color of skin and lan-
guage because they do not yet possess elaborate conceptual capacity and order
their social environment primarily on the basis of perceptual information. Duckitt
(1992) found support for this assumption because children from the ages of 3 to 5
years recognize strangers on the basis of racial differences, whereas such recogni-
tion by differences in religion and nationality occur much later in development.
Only from the ages of 10 to 11 years are children able to perceive the same infor-
mation from different perspectives, resulting in a better understanding of other
people (Doyle & Aboud, 1995). Although these findings indicate that the nature of
children’s prejudice is in part determined by their cognitive development, recent
research demonstrates that prejudice in itself is not the product of developing in-
formation processes or cognitive abilities. Instead, empirical findings “suggest
that stereotyping and its associated phenomena are closely related to the perceived
appropriateness and meaning of categorization prescribed by the social context”
 ENEMY IMAGES 285

(Rutland, 1999, p. 65; see also Barrett, in press; Barrett et al., 2004) and are indeed
caught rather than taught (Allport, 1954).
In the classic study by Frenkel-Brunswik (1947), the presence of prejudice and
enemy images with children was studied immediately following the Second World
War. She observed that prejudiced children showed particular behavioral patterns
involving the glorification of the group to which they belonged (i.e., chauvinism
and ethnocentrism) and unfriendliness toward minorities and other countries.
Though present in an extreme form with prejudiced children, Frenkel-Brunswik
assumed that the behavior in question was related to ethnocentrism and that preju-
dice was part of a more general developmental stage. Stable conceptions of other
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

individuals, groups, and nations develop in later childhood and adolescence

(Piaget & Weil, 1951). Prior to that age, conceptions of “others” reflect the ideas
and prejudices prevalent in children’s immediate environments (Allport, 1954).
Hesse and Poklemba (1989), who studied enemy images with 4- to 6-year-old Ger-
man and American children, offered more recent and additional support for these
early findings and assumptions. Whereas at the age of 4 to 6 years children have no
clear images of their own or other countries and, hence, no conceptions of a “politi-
cal” enemy, they have a clear understanding of the concept of enemy. An enemy is
thought to be through and through evil and can never become a friend, nor can a
friend ever become an enemy (see also Oppenheimer, 2005).
In a study with Croatian and Bosnian children, Povrzanovic (1997) demon-
strated that war, nationalist propaganda, and the influence of parents give rise to
particular feelings that result in clear hostile images of the enemy. The children in
her study were required to write an essay about the most important moments in
their lives. In all essays reference was made to the war and tragic changes in their
lives caused by the war, such as having to leave their homes and becoming refu-
gees. Quite often members of the family had to stay behind (mostly fathers and
older brothers) to defend the village. Whereas all children knew about the war and
experienced its consequences, only some children lost family and were directly
confronted with violence (e.g., being threatened and seeing wounded or dead peo-
ple). Children who did not experience direct violence perceived war to be some
kind of natural catastrophe or an event that suddenly passed, rather than blaming
anyone for causing the war. These latter children did not demonstrate well-defined
enemy images. When they wrote about the enemy, they used generalized names
and unclear identities in a way similar to the use of enemies in the media
(Povrzanovic, 1997). On the other hand, children who had direct and real experi-
ences with the war showed clear images of the enemy. For example, a 14-year-old
wrote: “They took my dad away and we didn’t know where he was. Those
Chetniks are evil people, that is what I would say when I thought of my dad”
(Povrzanovic, 1997, p. 90). Povrzanovic’s findings suggested that children who
have direct experience with war and violence have clear enemy images. Although
these enemy images appear to fit into a national frame, Povrzanovic did not con-
 286 OPPENHEIMER

sider nationalism the most important cause. According to her, social and historical
backgrounds also have to be taken into account (cf. Bar-Tal, 1996). Whereas
Croats and Serbs, in spite of different ethnic backgrounds, coexisted peacefully in
one country for several decades prior to the war, their history is burdened by hostil-
ity and war. Although nationalism and nationalistic propaganda may have func-
tioned as fertilizers for the war and the formation of enemy images with Croatian
children, Povrzanovic assumed that without the prior history of both populations
the influence of nationalism would never have been that large.
For Croatian children, a collective, national enemy was present (i.e., the Serbs;
Povrzanovic, 1997), but for many children in Western Europe and North America
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

this is not the case. Hesse and Mack (1991) reported that, in spite of the absence of
any national enemy, 5- to 6-year-old American children describe enemies as indi-
viduals who “attack people and take jewelry” (6-year-old boy) or “attack you …
[and] always fight and shoot people; he’s angry” (5-year-old girl). In these descrip-
tions delinquency is perceived as some kind of personalized conception of an en-
emy. Such conceptions of enemy do not result in identical enemy images in later
adolescence and adulthood (Holt, 1989). According to Holt, differences in values
and norms among individuals were found to play an important role in the forma-
tion of an enemy on the national level but not on the personal level. Nevertheless,
in the absence of a “real” enemy, children already at young ages (i.e., 4 to 6 years)
develop an understanding of an enemy (Hesse & Poklemba, 1989; Hesse & Mack,
1991; Myers-Bowman, Walker, & Myers-Walls, 2003; Oppenheimer, 2005). Of
course, it would be of interest to know whether such an understanding is paralleled
by the emergence of enemy images and what they depict.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

As was noted in the introduction, empirical information with respect to enemy im-
ages is scarce, particularly from a developmental point of view. What are available
are different theoretical approaches involving psychodynamic, social, political,
and developmental psychology, as well as sociological and cross-cultural perspec-
tives. The same holds for the available empirical data. The little developmental re-
search available is also informed by the same set of theoretical approaches. In this
article, an attempt was made to relate the different theoretical models within one
interdisciplinary model in which components from the different perspectives are
shown to play mutually interactive roles in the development of an enemy and the
emergence of enemy images on the individual, group, and national level. For a cor-
rect understanding of the development and maintenance of enemy images and the
understanding of enemy, the different components presented in the model should
be studied in relation to each other.
 ENEMY IMAGES 287

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article is based on a paper presented at the Eighth International Symposium

on the Contributions of Psychology to Peace in Sunne, Sweden, June 23–29, 2003.
I thank Richard Wagner and three anonymous reviewers for their comments and
suggestions on an earlier draft of this article.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

Louis Oppenheimer, born 1947, studied philosophy and psychology at Tel-Aviv

University, BA 1973, and psychology at the RijksUniversiteit Groningen, MA
1975. He received his PhD in developmental psychology from the Radboud Uni-
versity Nijmegen in 1978. From 1979 on he has taught in the Department of De-
velopmental Psychology, University of Amsterdam. His research interests lie in
the fields of self-system development and the development of conceptions of
peace, war, enemy, and terrorism.

REFERENCES

Aboud, F. (1988). Children and prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Aboud, F., & Skerry, S. A. (1984). The development of ethnic attitudes A critical review. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 3–34.
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self categorization and social influence. Eu-
ropean Review of Social Psychology, 1, 195–228.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Anderson, A., & Christie, D. J. (2001). Some contributions of psychology to policies promoting cul-
tures of peace. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7, 173–185.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggres-
sive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575–582.
Barnet, R. J. (1985, Winter). The ideology of the national security state. Massachusetts Review.
Barrett, M. (in press). Children’s knowledge, beliefs and feelings about nations and national groups.
Hove, UK: Psychological Press
Barrett, M., Lyons, E., & del Valle, A. (2004). The development of national identity and social identity
processes: Do social identity theory and self-categorization theory provide useful heuristic frame-
works for developmental research? In M. Bennett & F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self
(pp. 159–188). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Bar-Tal, D. (1996). Development of social categories and stereotypes in early childhood: The case of
“the Arab” concept formation, stereotype and attitudes by Jewish children in Israel. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 341–370.
Benderlioglu, Z. (2000). Hostile attribution bias and the self: A cross-cultural analysis. Perspectives:
Electronic Journal of the American Association of Behavioral and Social Sciences, 3. Retrieved Oc-
tober 19, 2004, from http://aabss.org/journal2000/f24Benderlioglu.jmm.html
Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2001). Evolution of culture assimilators: Toward theory-based assimilators. Interna-
tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 141–163.
 288 OPPENHEIMER

Bjerstedt, Å., Jenssen, J. P., Keldorff, S., Melnikova, O., Shirkov, Y., & Wahlström, R. (1991). Enemy
images among university students in four countries. A cross-national exploration using an associa-
tive technique. Peace, Environment and Education, 2, 13–31.
Bracken, B. A. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of self-concept: Developmental, social, and clinical consider-
ations. New York: Wiley.
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social
Issues, 55, 429–444.
Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 554–594). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1988). Interacting systems in human development. Research paradigms: Present
and future. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G. Downey, & M. Moorehouse (Eds.), Persons in context: Devel-
opmental processes (pp. 25–49). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7,
55–71.
Broughton, J. M. (1991). Babes in arms: Object relations and fantasies of annihilation. In R. W. Rieber
(Ed.), The psychology of war and peace: The image of the enemy (pp. 85–127). New York: Plenum.
Christie, D. J., & Dawes, A. (2001). Tolerance and solidarity. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psy-
chology, 7, 131–142.
Danesh, H. B. (1977). Anger and fear. American Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 1109–1112.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis
(Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31–46). New York: Plenum.
Doyle, A. B., & Aboud, F. E. (1995). A longitudinal study of white children’s racial prejudice as a so-
cial-cognitive development. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 41, 209–228.
Duckitt, J. (1992). The social transmission of prejudice to individuals. In J. Duckitt (Ed.), The social
psychology of prejudice (pp. 127–159). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Elias, N. (1994). The civilizing process. Oxford, England: Blackwell. (Original work published 1936)
Elias, N., & Scotson, J. L. (1991). The established and the outsiders. London: Cass. [Reprint. De
gevestigden en de buitenstaanders: Een studie van de spanningen en machtsverhoudingen tussen
twee arbeidersbuurten. Heerlen, NL: Open Universiteit.] (Original work published 1965)
Erskine, R. G., Moursund, J. P., & Trautmann, R. L. (1999). Beyond empathy: A therapy of con-
tact-in-relationship. London: Brunner/Mazel.
Feshbach, S. (1994). Nationalism, patriotism, and aggression: A clarification of functional differences.
In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 275–291). New York:
Plenum.
Fiske, A. P. (1990). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations. New York:
Free Press.
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social re-
lations. Psychological Review, 99, 689–723.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fornari, F. (1975). The psychoanalysis of war. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1947). A study of prejudice in children. Human Relations, 1, 295–306.
Freud, S. (1945). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. London: Hogarth.
Freud, A. (1946). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. New York: International Universities Press.
Fromm, E. (1954). Escape from freedom. New York: Avon Books.
Fromm, E. (1956). Sane society. New York: Bantam Books.
Gelfand, M. J., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Nishii, L. H., & Bechtold, D. (2000). Individualism and collectivism.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park.
Giles, H. (Ed.). (1977). Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations. London: Academic.
Glick, R. A., & Roose, S. P. (Eds.). (1993). Rage, power, and aggression: The role of affect in motiva-
tion, development, and adaptation. Vol. 2. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
 ENEMY IMAGES 289

Gobes, L., & Erskine, R. G. (1995). Letters to the editor. Transactional Analysis Journal, 25, 192–194.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford.
Hartup, W. W. (1992). Peer relations in early and middle childhood. In V. B. van Hasselt & M. Herson
(Eds.), Handbook of social development: A life-span perspective (pp. 257–281). New York: Plenum.
Haslam, A., Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Reynolds, K. J., & Doosje, B. (2002). From personal picture in
the head to collective tools in the world: How shared stereotypes allow groups to represent and
change social reality. In C. McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & R. Spears (Eds.), Stereotypes as explanations:
The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups (pp. 157–185). Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Hesse, P., & Mack, J. E. (1991). The world is a dangerous place: Images of the enemy on children’s tele-
vision. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The psychology of war and peace: The images of the enemy (pp.
131–151). New York: Plenum.
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

Hesse, P., & Poklemba, D. (1989). Feindbilder im Kindesalter: Der Fremde mit grünen Füßen und
schwarzen Zehen [Enemy images in childhood: The stranger with green feet and black toes].
Psycholsozial, 12, 62–67.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holt, R. R. (1989). College students’ definitions and images of enemies. Journal of Social Issues, 45(2),
33–50.
Holt, R. R., & Silverstein, B. (1989). On the psychology of enemy images: Introduction and overview.
Journal of Social Issues, 45(2), 1–11.
Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (1998). Differential distrust of groups and individuals. In C. Sedikides, J.
Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 75–107).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Kennedy, J. F., Dahl, K. R., Graetz, K. A., & Drigotas, S. M. (1992). Individ-
ual–discontinuity from the differing perspectives of Campbell’s Realistic Group Conflict Theory and
Tajfel and Turner’s Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 272–291.
James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
Jervis, R. (2002). Signaling and perception: Drawing inferences and projecting images. In K. R. Mon-
roe (Ed.), Political psychology (pp. 293–312). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Jung, C. G. (1972). Two essays on analytical psychology. Princeton: Bollingen.
Kelman, H. C. (1999). The interdependence of Israeli and Palestinian national identities: The role of the
other in existential conflicts. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 581–600.
Kelman, H. C. (2005). Building trust among enemies: The central challenge for international conflict
resolution. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 639–650.
Klein, M. (1955). On identification. In M. Klein, P. Heinemann, & R. E. Money-Kyrle (Eds.), New di-
rections in psycho-analysis: The significance of infant conflict in the pattern of adult behaviour. Lon-
don: Tavistock.
Mane, N. (1993). Children and hate: Hostility caused by racial prejudice. In V. P. Varma (Ed.), How and
why children hate (pp. 113–123). Philadelphia: Kingsley.
Markus, H. R., & Kityama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, H. (1996). Theoretical perspectives on the structure of self-concept. In B. A.
Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 38–90). New York: Wiley.
McGarty, C. (2001). Social identity theory does not maintain that identification produces bias, and
self-categorization theory does not maintain that salience is identification: Two comments on
Mummendey, Klink and Brown. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 173–176.
McGarty, C., Haslam, S. A., Hutchinson, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (1994). The effects of salient group
memberships on persuasion. Small Group Research, 25, 267–293.
McGarty, C., Spears, R., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2002). Conclusion: Stereotypes are selective, variable and
contested explanations. In C. McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & R. Spears (Eds.), Stereotypes as explana-
 290 OPPENHEIMER

tions: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups (pp. 186–199). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Middleton, H. (1991). Some psychological bases of the institution of war. In R. A. Hinde (Ed.), The in-
stitution of war (pp. 30–46). London: Macmillan.
Miller, A. (1983). For your own good: Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence. New
York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Mowrer, O. H. (1950). Identification: A link between learning theory and psychotherapy. In O. H.
Mowrer (Ed.), Learning theory and personality dynamics (pp. 69–94). New York: Ronald.
Mummendey, A., Klink, A., & Brown, R. (2001). Nationalism and patriotism: National identification
and outgroup rejection. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 159–172.
Myers-Bowman, K. S., Walker, K., & Myers-Walls, J. A. (2003). A cross-cultural examination of chil-
dren’s understanding of the enemy. Psychological Reports, 93, 779–790.
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

Nelson, T. D. (2002). The psychology of prejudice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Niebuhr, R. (1960). Moral man and immoral society: A study in ethics and politics (Reprint). New
York: Scribner. (Original work published 1932)
Olzak, S., & Nagel, J. (1986). Competitive ethnic relations. Orlando, FL: Academic.
Oosterwegel, A., & Oppenheimer, L. (1993). The self-system: Developmental changes between and
within self-concepts. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Opotow, S. (2005). Hate, conflict, and moral exclusion. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The psychology of hate
(pp. 121–153). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Oppenheimer, L. (1996). War as an institution, but what about peace? Developmental perspectives. In-
ternational Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 201–218.
Oppenheimer, L. (2001). Ellenségképek: Egy fejlödéslélektani megközelítés [Enemy images: A devel-
opmental approach]. In G. Hunyady & N. L. L. Anh (Eds.), Sztereotápia-Kutatík [Current issues in
stereotypes] (pp. 477–483). Budapest, Hungary: Eötvös Press.
Oppenheimer, L. (2002). Self or selves: Dissociative identity disorder and complexity of the self-sys-
tem. Theory and Psychology, 12, 95–126.
Oppenheimer, L. (2004). Perception of individualism and collectivism in Dutch society: A develop-
mental approach. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 336–346.
Oppenheimer, L. (2005). The development of enemy images in Dutch children: Measurement and ini-
tial findings. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 645–660.
Oppenheimer, L., & Hakvoort, I. (2003). Will the Germans ever be forgiven? Memories of the Second
World War four generations later. In E. Cairns & M. Roe (Eds.), The role of memory in ethnic conflict
(pp. 94–103). Houndmills, Basingstoke, England: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Oppenheimer, L., & Sallay, H. (2001, April). Subjectively perceived patterns of horizontal and vertical
individualism and collectivism and parenting: A comparison between 16-year-old Hungarian and
Dutch adolescents. Paper presented at the IRIC Conference Comparing Cultures. Tilburg, The Neth-
erlands.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of preju-
dice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461–476.
Piaget, J., & Weil, A. M. (1951). The development in children of the idea of the homeland and of rela-
tions with other countries. International Social Science Bulletin, 3, 561–578.
Povrzanovic, M. (1997). Children, war and nation: Croatia 1991–4. Childhood: A Global Journal of
Child Research, 4, 81–102.
Psychologists for Social Responsibility. (1986). Dismantling the mask of enmity: An educational re-
source manual on the psychology of enemy images. (Available from PsySR, 208 I Street, NE, Wash-
ington, DC 20002).
Puras, D. (1999, June). Reform of mental health services for children in CEE/NIS. Paper presented at
the conference on Child and Adolescent Mental Health: Clinical Concepts and Community Care,
Budapest, Hungary.
 ENEMY IMAGES 291

Reizabel, L., Valencia, J., & Barrett, M. (1999, September). The development of national identity in the
Basque Country. Paper presented at the IX European Conference on Developmental Psychology,
Spetses, Greece.
Rieber, R. W., & Kelly, R. J. (1991). Substance and shadow: Images of the enemy. In R. W. Rieber
(Ed.), The psychology of war and peace: The image of the enemy (pp. 3–39). New York: Plenum.
Rohan, M. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1996). Value transmission in families. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P.
Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values (pp. 253–276). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Rosenfield, D., & Stephan, W. G. (1981). Intergroup relations among children. In S. S. Brehm, S. M.
Kassin, & F. X. Gibbons (Eds.), Developmental social psychology: Theory and research (pp.
271–297). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rutland, A. (1999). The development of national prejudice, in-group favouritism and self-stereotypes
in British children. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 55–70.
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

Sheehan, T. (1986). The first coming. New York: Random.

Short, G., & Carrington, B. (1996). Anti-racist education, multiculturalism and the new racism. Educa-
tional Review, 48, 65–77.
Silverstein, B., & Holt, R. R. (1989), Research on enemy images: Present status and future prospects.
Journal of Social Issues, 45(2), 159–175.
Singelis, T., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimen-
sions of individualism and collectivism. Cross-cultural Research, 29, 240–275.
Smetana, J. G. (1999). Context, conflict, and constraint in adolescent-parent authority relationships. In
M. Killen & D. Hart (Eds.), Morality in everyday life: Developmental perspectives (pp. 225–255).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Staub, E. (1992). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. Cambridge, Eng-
land: Cambridge University Press.
Staub, E. (1996). Cultural-societal roots of violence: The examples of genocidal violence and of con-
temporary youth violence in the United States. American Psychologist, 51, 117–132.
Staub, E. (2003). Notes on cultures of violence, cultures of caring and peace, and the fulfillment of ba-
sic human needs. Political Psychology, 24, 1–21.
Stein, J. G. (1996). Image, identity and conflict resolution. In C. Crocker, F. Hampson, & P. Aall (Eds.),
Managing global chaos (pp. 93–111). Washington, DC: U. S. Institute of Peace Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). A duplex theory of hate: Development and application to terrorism, massacres,
and genocide. Review of General Psychology, 7, 299–328.
Szalay, L. B., & Mir-Djalali, E.(1991). Image of the enemy: Critical parameters, cultural variations. In
R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The psychology of war and peace: The image of the enemy (pp. 213–250). New
York: Plenum.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel &
W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Teichman, Y., & Zafrir, H. (2003). Images held by Jewish and Arab children in Israel of people repre-
senting their own and other group. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 658–676.
Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individu-
alism and collectivism. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74, 118–128.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group be-
haviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (pp. 77–122).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Turner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D.
Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp.
42–67). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
 292 OPPENHEIMER

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reichjer, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering social
groups: A self categorization theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Valsiner, J., Branco, A. U., & Melo Dantas, C, (1997). Co-construction of human development: Hetero-
geneity within parental belief orientations. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and
children’s internalization of values (pp. 283–304). New York: Wiley.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
White, R. K. (1965). Images in the context of international conflict: Soviet perceptions of the U.S. and
the U.S.S.R. In H. C. Kelman (Ed.), International behavior: A social–psychological analysis (pp.
238–276). New York: Rinehart.
White, R. K. (2004). Misperception and war. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 10,
399–409.
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 09:04 04 March 2015

Youniss, J. (1994). Children’s friendship and peer culture: Implications for theories of networks and
support. In F. Nestmann & K. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Social networks and social support in childhood
and adolescence (pp. 75–88). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Zebrowitz, L. A. (1990). Social perception. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.