Peace psychology

Peace psychology is a subfield of psychology and peace research that deals with the psychological aspects of peace, conflict, violence, and war. Peace psychology can be characterized by four interconnected pillars: (1) research, (2) education, (3) practice, and (4) advocacy. The first pillar, research, is documented most extensively in this article. Peace psychology is a subfield of psychology and peace research that deals with the psychological aspects of peace, conflict, violence, and war. Peace psychology can be characterized by four interconnected pillars: (1) research, (2) education, (3) practice, and (4) advocacy. The first pillar, research, is documented most extensively in this article. Peace psychological activities are based on psychological models (theories) and methods; they are usually normatively bound in their means and objectives by working towards the ideal of sustainable peace using (as far as possible) non-violent means. Violence and peace are usually defined in terms of Johan Galtung's extended conceptualization of peace, according to which peace is not merely the absence of personal (direct) violence and war (= negative peace), but also the absence of structural (indirect) and cultural violence (= positive peace). The ideal of peace can also be conceptualized as the comprehensive implementation of human rights (civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights); this should, among other purposes, ensure the satisfaction of basic human needs, such as positive personal and social identity, sense of control, security, (social) justice, well-being, a safe environment, and access to adequate food and shelter. Organizations that focus on peace psychology include, for example, in the United States the Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence (Peace Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association) and Psychologists for Social Responsibility, a nongovernmental organization based in Washington, DC. Germany has the Forum Friedenspsychologie, and the Australian Psychological Society has an Interest Group called Psychologists for Peace. On the international level, there is the Committee for the Psychological Study of Peace as well as the International Network of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, which links organizations from (among other countries) Germany, Finland, the United States, Australia, Costa Rica, India, and Italy. Peace psychological research can be analytically (research on peace) or normatively (research for peace) oriented. Regardless of its analytical or normative orientation, peace psychological research mainly deals with the psychological aspects of the formation, escalation, reduction, and resolution of conflicts (including war), the psychosocial conditions conducive or detrimental to a sustainable peace, and the psychosocial effects of war and violence. In each case, different levels of analysis and explanation are relevant: from the level of individuals to groups, social organizations and institutions, states and state systems (e.g., the European Union), military alliances (e.g., NATO), and collective security systems (e.g., the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe ). Peace psychology focuses on the psychological aspects of the formation, escalation, reduction, and resolution of conflicts. A conflict exists when the expectations, interests, needs, or actions of at least two parties to the conflict are perceived by at least one of the parties to be incompatible. Peace psychology is mainly concerned with conflicts between social groups (intergroup conflicts, such as between ethnic groups, clans, religious groups, states etc.), in terms of domains like power, wealth, access to raw materials and markets, cultural or religious values, honor, dignity, or recognition. In conflicts one has to distinguish between (overt) positions (e.g., ' we don't negotiate with X') and underlying interests (e.g., power, spheres of influence and wealth) as well as between current triggers (e.g., violence at a political protest) and systematic, enduring, structural causes (e.g., deprivation of a group's political participation or access to professional employment). Although conflicts are inevitable and can lead to positive change when dealt with constructively, the escalation of conflicts and in particular the occurrence of violence are preventable. Psychological processes of information processing (attention, perception, memory, thinking, judgment), emotion, and motivation influence substantially how a conflict is handled, and in particular whether conflicts escalate to violent episodes. An important factor is the different points of view of the conflict parties, such as when behavior that is based on positive intentions is perceived by the opponent as aggressive and therefore contributes to escalation. Conflicts can easily escalate. A cycle of violence can arise in which both parties are involved, and original victims can become perpetrators, without realizing it ('victim myth'). Conflicts can be intensified specifically through the construction of enemy images, psychological warfare, and propaganda promulgated by the media, political elite, educational systems, socialization, cultural symbols and other means. Enemy images may have a kernel of truth, but overstate the negative sides of the opponent. The core features of a strong enemy image include: (1) a negative evaluation of the opponent (e.g., aggressive, immoral, but also inferior), (2) a one-sided blame for negative events, and (3) a different evaluation of similar actions of one's own side than the enemy ('double standard'; e.g., build-up of arms on one’s own side is self-defense, on the enemy's it is aggression). These constructions can cause dehumanization of the opponent, so that moral standards no longer apply. In extreme cases, it may seem acceptable, even desirable, for the opponent to suffer and be killed. The construction of the enemy image has the central function of justifying armament, violence, and war. In addition, it enhances the individual and collective self-image. Psychological warfare includes methods of generating or strengthening war support among the civilian population and the military. These methods include disinformation using the media (war propaganda), but also sabotage, displacement, murder, and terror. War propaganda consists of two complementary strategies: (1) repeating, highlighting, and embellishing with detail information that functions to intensify the enemy image or threat perceptions, and (2) ignoring and devaluing information that may lead to de-escalation. In addition, negative behavior of the adversary may be provoked (e.g., by maneuvers at the state borders) or charges that the enemy engaged in heinous acts may be entirely invented (e.g., the Nayirah testimony). Different peace psychological strategies for non-violent conflict resolution are discussed (conflict de-escalation, conflict resolution, conflict transformation). One can distinguish between strategies on the official level (e.g., measures of tension reduction and trust build such as Charles E. Osgood's 'Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension Reduction' , negotiations, mediation), approaches of unofficial diplomacy (interactive problem-solving workshops), and strategies at the level of peace and conflict civil society (e.g., peace journalism, contact between social groups). Osgood's GRIT model was designed as a counter-concept to the arms race in the East-West conflict, in which the former superpowers, USA and USSR, constantly increased the quantity and quality of their arms so that the destruction of humankind by a nuclear war seemed increasingly possible. The GRIT model, in contrast, aimed to de-escalate and create an atmosphere of mutual trust. One party publicly announces and performs a verifiable, concrete step to reduce tension, and asks or invites the other side to do something similar (developing a spiral of trust). Care is taken so that each step does not endanger the safety of one's own side. GRIT was designed to reverse the tension involved in the nuclear arms race by having each side engage in graduated and reciprocal inititiatives. While there is no firm evidence, it has been suggested that U.S. President Kennedy and the Soviet leader Khrushchev based their negotiations after the Cuban missile crisis on this concept.