Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 4 Number 2 (2009):133-146 ISSN: 1941-8167
PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON PEACE: AN EVANGELICAL ANALYSIS Matthew A. Heller Trinity College Introduction I was raised in a rather conservative Grace Brethren church that sent a small but dependable stream of soldiers into the military; their photos adorned bulletin boards in the church lobby, and we regularly prayed for them. However, the county where I lived was also a hotbed of Mennonites, and most of my friends were taught to be pacifists in their churches. As a child, I can remember thinking this was quaint at best, and possibly rather alarming that so many Christians would be opposed to military involvement. Then, during a Sunday school membership class I learned that the Brethren were also pacifists, despite the fact that it was never mentioned among the adult members.1 I was shocked. I relate this story to illustrate some of the tension and perhaps confusion that runs through evangelical Christian churches in America regarding the topic of peace. In this article I will first explore what psychology has to say about peace and conflict. In order to understand peace, one must also understand its opposites: conflict, violence, and war. Indeed, much of the psychological research on peace approaches the topic in this somewhat roundabout manner. I will explore some of the psychological and social forces that encourage war, as well as those that may foster peace. Next, I will connect that understanding to the realm of religion, focusing especially on evangelical Christianity as it addresses issues of peace and violence. I will examine research that suggests that at present evangelicals are relatively pro-war as a group, although this may be a result of current social and political influences rather than any clear theological beliefs.2 Psychological Factors Related to Peace and Violence Almost from the very founding of the discipline, psychologists have taken an interest in the topic of peace. William James has been described as the first peace psychologist based on his 1906 lecture “The Moral
133
Heller: Psychological Perspectives on Peace
Equivalent of War.”3 In this classic essay, James argued that there are certain human qualities and passions that war brings out that are highly desirable; qualities such as patriotism, toughness, and dignity through service to the greater collective. If we are to ever move beyond war, then we must find ways to manufacture these same qualities during times of peace. James’ solution to this was essentially a mandatory Peace Corps service, “a conscription of the whole youthful population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted against Nature.”4 From this beginning, interest in the field has continued such that today several journals are devoted to the topic of peace, 5 as well as a division of the American Psychological Association. 6 Rather than tracing the development of the study of peace in psychology, which others have done already, I will draw selected illustrations from this history as I attempt to fill in the picture of what we know about human beings and our capacity for peace and war.7 Like all complex human behaviors, peace and conflict are “multicausal, multi-maintained.” If one central drive or cause exists, it has not yet been discovered. However, in both individuals and groups, many small, incremental factors are known that may tend to increase or decrease the overall chance of a peaceful outcome. One may classify potential sources of violence (or non-violence) into two groups: internal and external. Some factors may nudge behavior toward violence, while others will promote nonviolence. Internal sources include personality factors such as antisocial personality disorder, an authoritarian personality, aggressive drives or instincts, or an egalitarian, altruistic, or nonviolent personality constellation. Studies have found some evidence that certain individuals are simply more peaceful than others. For example, V. K. Kool and colleagues have developed the Nonviolence Test.8 They found that Quakers and Buddhists, groups who have chosen to live a deliberately peaceful lifestyle, scored significantly higher than normal college undergraduates or juvenile delinquents. The high scorers shared qualities such as self-control, anti-punitiveness, forbearance, and a belief in equal justice. Internal factors, of course, may also contribute to an individual behaving more violently; for instance, the linkage between antisocial personality and criminal behavior is widely acknowledged. External sources of violence include such factors as obedience to authority, groupthink, media violence, or aggressive environmental cues. A compelling example of such factors at work is the Stanford Prison study, in which ordinary college undergraduates with no mental illness were asked to play the role of prisoners or guards in a realistic environment. After less than a week the study was terminated because the “guards” had become consistently cruel and punitive while the “prisoners” were listless and depressed. 9 In a similar vein, Stanley Milgram’s famous study of obedience revealed that given sufficient pressure from an authority figure, ordinary Americans could be convinced to administer seemingly lethal electric shocks to complete strangers.10 However, exter-
134
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 4 Number 2 (2009):133-146 ISSN: 1941-8167
nal factors, as with internal factors, may promote both violent and nonviolent behaviors. Studies of deindividuation indicate that the prevailing norm of the environment can give potent cues to behavior, whether positive or negative. For example, leaders of nonviolent resistance such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi were generally able to set a peaceful norm during large gatherings and marches, in stark contrast to lynch mobs, the L.A. race riots of the early 1990s, or gangs of European soccer hooligans after an especially contentious match. One might hope that in ordinary human life these factors would balance between the violent and the peaceful. Certainly obedience to destructive authority may lead to violence, but positive authority could prevent violence. Personality characteristics that are linked to violence such as an authoritarian personality should be counterbalanced by positive personality characteristics such as altruism and egalitarianism. It may seem to the optimistic observer, then, that on the whole these opposing forces might cancel one another out, and a few well-placed nudges toward nonviolence would lead to a generally peaceful world. Sadly, it takes nothing more than a glance over the evening newspaper to call this conclusion into serious question. The psychological pull toward positive and negative thoughts, inclinations, or actions is not equal; as one writer has put it, bad is frequently stronger than good. 11 This “negativity bias” can be observed in numerous domains of human behavior. In relationship research, satisfied marriages must maintain a 5:1 ratio of positive to negative interactions. In mental health, therapists have well-developed vocabulary for trauma, but no positive equivalent. Cognitively, moral judgments of others are impacted far more by a negative act than by a positive act; one crime may make a criminal, but dozens of good deeds may not erase the blemish. Applied to the arena of peace and violence, this “negativity bias” suggests that left to our own devices, violence trumps peacebuilding. Indeed, from the Gaza Strip, to northern Uganda, to Tripura, India, a single negative hostile event often undermines months or even years of peacebuilding efforts.12 Considering that the majority of people seem inclined to focus on the negative rather than the positive, how can the chances of peaceful, nonviolent response be improved? Researchers have focused both on identifying pro-violence factors in order to reduce or undermine them, as well as positive factors that will increase peace. Some have focused on helping behaviors. On an interpersonal level, Daniel Batson’s empathyaltruism model suggests that altruistic behavior is likely when empathy is felt for another. One way in which empathy can be increased is by highlighting similarity between actor and target.13 Other research demonstrates that something as simple as not being in a hurry significantly im-
135
Heller: Psychological Perspectives on Peace
proves the chances that a person will offer aid to a stranger.14 Others have explored the role of education in increasing peace.15 Still others have turned their attention to nonviolent conflict resolution strategies either between individuals or between groups.16 Intergroup relations have also been explored through the venerable Contact Hypothesis, which identifies specific conditions under which intergroup conflict and prejudice may best be overcome. 17 Daniel Christie and colleagues have delineated a multi-level model of peace promotion that incorporates much of what psychology has learned regarding the matter.18 The authors distinguish negative peace— referring to attempts to reduce or eliminate violence—from positive peace, which involves transformation of social structures to reduce structural inequalities. Particularly in the realm of negative peace, the model identifies three states of the current relationship between conflicting parties: conflictual, violent, and post-violent. It then addresses entry-points where interventions may begin. For example, in negative peace, one may address nonviolent conflict management, violence de-escalation, or postviolence peacebuilding, depending on the current state of the relationship. On the other hand, in the case of positive peace, interventions may occur at numerous points not necessarily linked to the current status, as the goal is not so closely tied to eliminating specific conflictual events. Working from this overarching framework, Christie et al.’s peace promotion model incorporates psychological knowledge on all levels from the root causes of conflict, to the psychological consequences of violence, to effective personal and group-level interventions before, during, or after violent interactions.19 For example, theories of conflict include realistic group conflict theory which predicts conflict will occur between groups in competition for scarce resources, relative deprivation theory which notes that conflict may erupt when one group perceives a discrepancy between their own status and that of another group, and absolute deprivation theory, which notes that certain conditions may become so difficult that a group sees violence as the only solution. Thus, a first step may be to assess the conflict situation in order to understand the reasons for the conflict. Once the reasons are identified, it is possible to move into structuring a situation where nonviolent conflict management may be employed. Psychologists are frequently involved in the treatment of traumas incurred during violent episodes. Returning again to Christie et al.’s model, this demonstrates a negative peacebuilding intervention in the post-violence peacebuilding stage. War victims, child soldiers, political prisoners, and displaced civilians are but a few of the groups that may need extensive intervention to restore some measure of psychological health. In addition, peacebuilding often involves a process of reconciliation between formerly warring factions. Reconciliation between groups is not dissimilar to interpersonal forgiveness, involving a lengthy, gradual, progressive process.20
136
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 4 Number 2 (2009):133-146 ISSN: 1941-8167
This peace promotion model attempts to incorporate psychological research into a broad explanatory framework. Research from diverse branches of psychology (e.g., conflict management, therapy, intergroup conflict, personality theory) is incorporated to address one or more aspects of the peace process. In addition, this model addresses both the reduction of ongoing violence, as well as the establishment of a sustainable peace by addressing issues of structural injustice. 21 In sum, psychological research indicates that despite the fact that internal and external factors may influence people toward both violence and non-violence, most individuals are inclined to respond more powerfully to negative stimuli. Nonetheless, researchers have done much to demonstrate ways in which peaceful interactions may be facilitated. Morality, Religion, and Peace Morality, whether in the linkage between peace and justice, altruistic behavior, forgiveness as a path towards peace, or the moral maturity it takes to overcome one’s aggressive tendencies towards another when slighted, plays an important role in the achievement of peace. As previously discussed, many scholars address morality as they grapple with the topic of peace. 22 Peace is frequently portrayed as intrinsically bound up with justice. Unjust, inequitable situations are commonly linked to eruptions of violent conflict. Rectifying such situations is seen as a crucial step toward increasing peace. Other researchers have examined moral maturity as a correlate to a nonviolent, peaceful lifestyle or attitude. Although there does not seem to be a direct, simple relationship between higher levels of moral development (measured using Kohlberg’s justice-oriented definition) and the nonviolent personality, this is not to say that a more complex relationship does not exist.23 Kool and Keyes found a small, positive, non-significant correlation between the Defining Issues Test (a measure of moral reasoning) and scores on the Nonviolence Test. They suggest the lack of a simple, direct relationship is likely because although Kohlberg’s theory focuses largely on justice, nonviolence also involves care, love, forgiveness, and a host of other moral qualities.24 Every major religion contains a moral code, and peace is associated in some manner with all of them. 25 Certain religious traditions, including Buddhism, the Quakers, and Anabaptists (i.e., the Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren), place nonresistance as a core tenet of faith. In order to validate the Nonviolence Test mentioned earlier, Buddhists and Quakers were studied as the comparison group of nonviolent individuals.26 On the other hand, religion is not always associated with peace. Consider several
137
Heller: Psychological Perspectives on Peace
recent anthologies that have been published in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks (carried out by religious fanatics): the four-volume work The World’s Religions After September 11, as well as Belief and Bloodshed: Religion and Violence across Time and Tradition, and The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In fact, depending on to whom one listens, one often hears that religion has caused more wars, or deaths, or misery than any other phenomenon in history. Interestingly, this view is apparently not the sole province of atheists. In 1998, The International Social Survey Programme asked people to respond to the statement: “Looking around the world, religions bring more conflict than peace.” Perhaps not surprisingly, those participants who claimed no religious affiliation voiced the strongest agreement with this statement (69.5%), however, Protestants were almost identical in their support (69.3%). Catholics were the least likely to agree, though still nearly half of them did (47.1%). Of course, this statement itself is somewhat vague, and agreement does not necessarily indicate that one holds religion to be violent. Nonetheless, to the extent that one tends to imagine religion having more to do with peace than conflict, this is sobering data. Psychology frequently addresses a new question by examining attitudes and beliefs. Several studies from across the twentieth century have examined the relationship between religious beliefs and pacifistic worldviews. For example, in the decade leading up to WWII, Hilding Carlson conducted a survey of 215 University of Chicago undergraduates, and found a correlation of –0.27 between belief in God and support for pacifism. 27 That is, the more strongly one believed in God, the less strongly one supported pacifism. It is worth noting that almost all students were favorable towards pacifism in this study, with only 8.8 percent (n = 19) falling below the neutral point. This University of Chicago study tells us almost nothing about the context of these students’ faith—whether they were devout believers, or had not darkened the door of a church since childhood. However, a study published one year later examined 80 randomly selected ministers from four different denominations.28 One may assume that the ministers were, on average, more serious about their faith than the undergraduates. Interestingly, the ministers were quite favorable in their views towards pacifism, even more than the students. Almost 44 percent of the ministers were classified as “extremely pacifistic,” and only 5 percent were “neutral” in their attitude towards war. One additional factor that proved to be linked to attitude was age; a correlation of -0.337 shows that younger ministers tended to have more positive attitudes towards pacifism. Religious belief is intensely personal, and differs both from church to church as well as from person to person. Indeed, how does one know that when two groups of religious persons are measured, that the groups are the same? Specifically, the University of Chicago undergraduates
138
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 4 Number 2 (2009):133-146 ISSN: 1941-8167
were almost certainly not the same as the Protestant ministers in the preceding studies on many different levels. Stephen Finner addressed one of the potential differences by asking a sample of college undergraduates two separate but related questions about religious belief: “What is your religious preference?” and, “Of what religion are you a formal member?” They were later asked their attitude towards war.29 He discovered that whether a student was a member of a religion or not made no difference in their mean pacifism scores (p < 0.20), however, students with no religious preference tended to score significantly higher in pacifism than students who did indicate a religious preference (p < 0.001). These three studies may seem somewhat contradictory. Undergraduate students who appear more committed to religious belief (stronger belief in God or stated personal preference for a specific religion) tend to be less pacifistic than those with weaker beliefs. However, ministers, who presumably have the strongest beliefs and preferences, are extremely pacifistic. There may be several explanations for this seeming inconsistency. As mentioned earlier, religious denominations and traditions differ markedly in the position they take on pacifism (or non-resistance). The Anabaptists and peace churches (e.g., Quakers) all take strong non-resistance positions whereas other denominations make this teaching peripheral or interpret it more symbolically. Alternatively, perhaps the ministers, being in a leadership role, felt greater pressure to take a clear and public stand on their beliefs. Evangelicals and the Sword of God Wilhelm Wille has suggested that Christians do not have a consistent view on non-resistance, arguing that although the Bible contains clear teachings on peace, application of these teachings has vacillated across the history of Christianity.30 One of the chief sources of this ambivalence is the frequent overlap between church and government. Wille points out that Christianity has gone through a continuous process of growth, stagnation, and reformation. During the first three hundred years after Christ, while Christianity was a persecuted sect on the fringes of society, beliefs seemed to be strongly pacifistic. When Constantine made Christianity the state religion, it was hurtled into power. The height of church power, during the Middle Ages and into the Age of Colonization, co-occurred with the Crusades, the Inquisition, and terribly oppressive colonial policies, possibly the most violent church-sponsored events of Christian church history. Church-sect theory suggests that this power-violence connection is not merely coincidental.31 As a church (or denomination) gains power, it
139
Heller: Psychological Perspectives on Peace
tends to attract mainstream attention and acceptance. This reduces the tension between the church and society, making it less likely the church will act in opposition to the larger culture. Distinctions between patriotism and piety tend to blur, and “God and country” can become the dominant mentality. Eventually a small subgroup will become so discontent with the direction the Church has taken that they will break off into a sect, restoring the high tension with society, and regaining the freedom to act contrary to the majority culture. Mirroring this theory, Wille argues that this sort of blurring of church-state lines played a central role in precluding most European churches from speaking compellingly against either of the World Wars.32 Thus, although there has always been a nonviolent tradition within Christianity, it is frequently muted, and all the more so when the church rises in political power. Ominously, Wille closed by discussing what he saw as, “another encumbrance on the credibility of Christianity,” the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the US, which he describes as an “apocalyptic…mass movement of tens of millions mainly in the most powerful nation in the world.”33 Although the terms are not entirely synonymous, he seems to be referring mainly to American evangelicals. Wille is not alone in fingering evangelicals as relatively hawkish. Indeed, evangelicals have traditionally supported a range of state-sponsored violence, from capital punishment to military spending to outright war.34 The strong identification of evangelicals with the Republican Party may offer yet another illustration of political power emphasizing certain Biblical teachings over others.35 It has been widely demonstrated that George W. Bush successfully courted and galvanized the Religious Right which is made up largely of evangelicals. The Baylor Religion Survey of 2005, for example, found that evangelicals were the most likely religious group to state that they trusted Bush “a lot” (31.7%). Perhaps not surprisingly, evangelicals were also the religious group most in favor of the war in Iraq (60.3% said it was justified). In a more general sense, Protestants currently seem to support pro-war beliefs more than other groups. When asked, “How do you feel about war?” Protestants were the least likely to agree war is “always wrong” (16.8%), and the most likely to say that war is “not wrong at all” (10.2%). Compare those responses to religious Americans of non-Christian background, who agreed that war is “always wrong” 24.4 percent of the time, and that war is “not wrong at all” 0.8 percent of the time. 36 Looking at these same data from a different perspective, Americans who attend church most often, regardless of religious affiliation, are the most likely to hold pro-war attitudes. Additionally, the Baylor Religion Survey found that “Biblical literalism” correlated significantly with support for spending more on the military (r = 0.317).37 Thus, there is considerable evidence that at this time in American history, evangelical Protestants as a group are far more likely to support pro-war beliefs than other religious groups. It is important to read these survey results in the
140
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 4 Number 2 (2009):133-146 ISSN: 1941-8167
historical context they were collected. Evangelicals broadly supported President Bush, and the recent Iraq war in particular. However, in the absence of additional evidence, one should not generalize that evangelicals (let alone all Christians) are pro-war per se. In fact, this has not been the case consistently throughout history. Still, this appears to be an excellent example of how politics and religion can combine in complex ways that may eventually serve the politicians more than the religious. Peaceful Traditions within Evangelical Christianity Despite these findings, Christianity has a rich tradition of peace from which to draw. Elise Boulding has described two conflicting cultures innate to every major religion, the “holy war” and the “peaceable garden” cultures.38 She argued that in most religions, the holy war culture has been dominant, but the peaceable garden has always been at work, though often in the background. In Christianity, the “peaceable garden” can be seen throughout the Bible. Genesis opens with humans living in harmony with God, the world, and each other in the garden. After the Fall, many of the Hebrew prophets forecast a future peaceful vision of the world when swords will be beaten into plowshares, and all nations will come together to worship in harmony.39 The New Testament writers frequently referred to the God of peace and the gospel of peace, and prayers for peace abound. Jesus clearly teaches nonresistance in several passages, and his teachings have been interpreted as a radical call to nonviolence by some.40 The fruit of the Spirit includes such virtues as peace, love, patience, and kindness. 41 Although some references seem to explicitly refer to peace between Christians,42 others explicitly apply to all people. 43 The emphasis on peace as a valued commodity cannot be ignored. Steve Brown and colleagues exemplify one way in which religious belief and peacemaking can be brought together.44 Drawing from the Just Peacemaking perspective, “a framework that integrates justice with particular virtues from monotheistic religions in general and Protestant Christianity in particular”, they have constructed and validated the Just Peacemaking Inventory. 45 This inventory identifies specific attitudes and practices that characterize promotion of justice through religious values. The five major dimensions of the scale include a) support for nonviolent direct action, b) responsibility and forgiveness, c) sustainable economic development, d) cooperative conflict resolution, and e) initiative to reduce threats. This research demonstrates ways in which scholars are actively exploring the moral components of peacemaking from a Protestant Christian perspective.
141
Heller: Psychological Perspectives on Peace
Brown et al. have developed a way in which peacemaking tendencies can be identified among samples of Christians.46 One could imagine transitioning from description to implementation by targeting areas in which people have nascent interest in peacemaking but lack the skills or the tools. This is where research on peace and nonviolence in psychology may be able to play a key role. According to Christie et al., where peace building is necessary, situations may be characterized as being conflictual, violent, or post-violent. 47 Borrowing from this framework, I would like to suggest several ways in which psychology and religion, specifically evangelical Christianity, may work toward a common, peaceful goal. First, conflictual situations may benefit from a wealth of conflict management research. Psychology may sensitize religious individuals to ways in which their actions or attitudes create hostile environments for peace, and assist them in adjusting appropriately. For example, the rhetoric surrounding the “Culture Wars” emphasizes competition and conflict, assuming a zero-sum game with clearly defined winners and losers. By adopting techniques of “principled negotiation,” focusing on interests rather than opponents, and understanding how emotion polarizes these interactions, thus minimizing any hope of a peaceful resolution, greater progress could be made.48 To focus on just one topic, relatively few supporters of abortion wish to destroy fetuses for no good reason; rather, they see this as an imperfect solution to a difficult problem. Peacemaking Christians might find ways to capitalize on this shared common ground to move toward a reduction in abortions by providing alternative social services for infants without suitable parents. Second, the violence and de-escalation stage in Christie et al.’s model requires effective peacekeeping interventions. Numerous wellunderstood factors contribute to the escalation and perpetuation of ongoing violence: the entrenchment of demonized stereotypes of the enemy, strong in-group/out-group dynamics, the noble characteristics mentioned by James brought about by war. Christians may support an ongoing war or conflict simply because they see no alternative to the current situation. In part this is due to having succumbed to powerful psychological and cultural forces, or because they have not considered the issue thoroughly enough. Education on peace, conflict resolution, or consequences of war may give religious individuals new ways of understanding and applying peace beliefs. Third, “post-violent” situations require peace building. Psychology offers numerous methods in which peaceful relations may be encouraged and fostered: understanding and healing traumas, thus breaking cycles of violence, or reconciliation between individuals as well as groups. Reconciliation is a topic familiar to most Christians who believe they are sinners reconciled to God by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, and who are enjoined to forgive their neighbors “seventy times seven.”49 Certainly, the Bible teaches Christians to love their enemies and to live at
142
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 4 Number 2 (2009):133-146 ISSN: 1941-8167
peace with everyone. Religious individuals who are motivated toward peace building should be able to increase their skills through application of research findings in psychology. As already discussed, the seeds of peace are sown liberally throughout Christian history. Most Christians already have latent peaceful inclinations in their belief system, perhaps not realized, but there nonetheless. The Christian looking for ways in which to turn the other cheek and live in peace with all people will find many practical, well-documented ways to apply these teachings through psychological research. Conclusion In this article I have highlighted a sampling of research in the field of psychology on peace and conflict. At all levels, from interpersonal to international, psychology has generated compelling research on practical ways to de-escalate violence and encourage peaceful interactions. I then turned to the question of the relationship between religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and peace. Based on many correlational and theoretical studies, it seems that currently, evangelical Christians in the U.S. hold more positive attitudes toward war than most other groups. Certainly there are important exceptions, including organizations such as Sojourners, and denominations particularly from the Anabaptist tradition. It is my perspective that evangelical Christianity can learn from psychological research. Evangelicals are fond of claiming that the Bible is their sole source of authority, as opposed to the culture in which they live. Despite this, the patterns of evangelical belief seem to follow what would be predicted by church-sect theory in an acquiescence to secular American culture. Evangelicals would be well-served to carefully examine their theological positions in light of political influence. Do evangelicals believe it serves the kingdom of heaven to be known as the most pro-war segment of American society? If not, then there is no shortage of practical, immediately available strategies for increasing peace in whatever sphere of influence one may operate. 1
Harold H. Etling, Our Heritage: Brethren Beliefs and Practices (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1981), 103-111. It should be noted that Mr. Etling explicitly distinguishes Brethren non-resistance from pacifism, which he seems to equate with support for Communism, as well as the belief that pacifism must apply to all people and nations, rather than only to Christians. 2 The terms pacifism, non-violence, and non-resistance are used somewhat interchangeably in the article. I realize that certain positions may be taken to differentiate them, but it seems in my reading that across history and authors, no consistent, generally agreeable way to differentiate one from the other has
143
Heller: Psychological Perspectives on Peace
emerged. Therefore, to avoid polarizing one author or another into saying something they did not intend, I use all terms to mean a position that is opposed to some degree—generally on moral grounds, but sometimes practical or logical— to war and violence as desirable or effective ways of resolving conflict. 3
Morton Deutsch, “William James: The First Peace Psychologist,” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 1, no. 1 (1995): 17-26. 4 William James, “The Moral Equivalent of War,” (1906), http://www.constitution.org/wj/meow.htm (accessed October 29, 2009). 5 E.g., Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, and Peace and Conflict Studies. 6 Division 48: Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence 7 E.g., Rachel M. MacNair, The Psychology of Peace: An Introduction (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003). 8 V. K. Kool and Corey M. L. Keyes. “Explorations in the Nonviolent Personality,” in Perspectives on Nonviolence, ed. V. K. Kool (New York: SpringerVerlag, 2007), 86-89. 9 Craig Haney, Curtis Banks, and Philip Zimbardo. “Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison,” International Journal of Criminology and Pathology 1, no. 1 (1973): 69-97. 10 Stanley Milgram, “Behavioral Study of Obedience,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, no. 4 (1963): 371-378. 11 Roy F. Baumeister and Brad J. Bushman, Social Psychology & Human Nature (Belmont, CA: Thomson / Wadsworth, 2008). 12 Clark McCauley and Joseph G. Bock, “Why Does Violence Trump Peace Building? Negativity Bias in Intergroup Relations,” in The Psychology of Ethnic and Cultural Conflict, ed. Yueh-Ting Lee, Clark McCauley, Fathali Moghaddam, and Stephen Worchel (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2007), 273-288. 13 C. Daniel Batson, Bruce D. Duncan, Paula Ackerman, Terese Buckley, and Kimberly Birch, “Is Empathic Emotion a Source of Altruistic Motivation?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40, no. 2 (1981): 290-302. 14 John M. Darley and C. Daniel Batson. “’From Jerusalem to Jericho’”: A Study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27, no. 1 (1973): 100-108. 15 E.g., Benedicto R. Bacani, “Bridging Theory and Practice in Peace Education: The Notre Dame University Peace Education Experience,” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 21, no. 4 (2004): 503-511; MacNair, The Psychology of Peace. 16 Morton Deutsch, The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973); Roger Fisher and William L. Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (New York: Penguin Books, 1981). 17 Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1958).; Baumeister & Bushman, Social Psychology & Human Nature. 18 Daniel J. Christie, Barbara S. Tint, Richard V. Wagner, and Deborah DuNann Winter, “Peace Psychology for a Peaceful World,” American Psychologist 63, no. 6 (2008): 540-552.
144
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 4 Number 2 (2009):133-146 ISSN: 1941-8167
19
Ibid. Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 E.g., Darley & Batson, “’From Jerusalem to Jericho’”: A Study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior”; Christie, Tint, Wagner, & Winter, “Peace Psychology for a Peaceful World”; James, “The Moral Equivalent of War.” 23 Allen H. Keniston, “Dimensions of Moral Development Among Nonviolent Individuals,” in Perspectives on Nonviolence, ed. V. K. Kool (New York: Springer-Verlag, 2007), 86-89. 24 Kool & Keyes, “Explorations in the Nonviolent Personality.” 25 E.g., Issa Kirarira, “Religious Tolerance and Peace Building in a World of Diversity,” in The World's Religions After September 11, ed. Arvind Sharma (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, 2009), 173180; Brian D. Lepard, “World Religions and World Peace: Toward a New Partnership,” in The World's Religions After September 11, ed. Arvind Sharma (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, 2009), 161168. 26 Kool & Keyes, “Explorations in the Nonviolent Personality.” 27 Hilding B. Carlson, “Attitudes of Undergraduate Students,” Journal of Social Psychology 5 (1934): 202-213. 28 N. Franklin Stump and Arlene Lewis, “What Some Ministers Think About War: Some Findings From a Brief Statistical Study of Ministers’ Responses Toward War,” Religious Education 30 (1935): 135-137. 29 Stephen L. Finner, “Religious Membership and Religious Preference: Equal Indicators of Religiosity?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 9, no. 4 (1970): 273-279. 30 Wilhelm Wille “Ambivalence in the Christian Attitude to War and Peace,” International Review of Psychiatry 19, no. 3 (2007): 235–242. 31 Rodney Stark, and William S. Bainbridge, The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival and Cult Formation (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1985). 32 Wille, “Ambivalence in the Christian Attitude to War and Peace.” 33 Ibid., p. 241. 34 James K. Wellman, Jr., “Is War Normal for American Evangelical Religion?” in Belief and Bloodshed: Religion and Violence Across Time and Tradition, ed. James K. Wellman, Jr. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 195-210. 35 Pew Research Center Publications, “Evangelicals and the GOP: An update”. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/78/evangelicals-and-the-gop-an-update (ac20
145
Heller: Psychological Perspectives on Peace
cessed October 29, 2009). This Republican support is especially true for white evangelicals. 36 Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion. “American Piety in the 21st Century: New Insights to the Depth and Complexity of Religion in the US,” http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf (accessed on October 29, 2009). 37 Ibid. 38 Elise Boulding, “Two Cultures of Religion as Obstacles to Peace,” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 21, no. 4 (1986): 501-518. 39 E.g., Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3 40 Most notably Matthew 5:9 and 38-42. See Walter Wink, “Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus' Nonviolent Way,” in The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (condensed and updated), ed. J. Harold Ellens (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007), 180-199. 41 Galatians 5:22 42 First Thessalonians 5:13 43 E.g., Titus 3:2 and Hebrews 12:14 44 Steve Brown, Kevin S. Reimer, Alvin C. Dueck, Richard Gorsuch, Robert Strong, and Tracy Sidesinger, “A Particular Peace: Psychometric Properties of the Just Peacemaking Inventory,” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 14, no. 1 (2008): 75-92. 45 Ibid., 78. 46 Ibid. 47 Christie, Tint, Wagner, & Winter, “Peace Psychology for a Peaceful World.” 48 Fisher & Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. 49 Matthew 18:22
146