Peace in Our Time? Reflections on Comparative Data About Peace and Reconciliation from All Regions of the World

Part of the Peace Psychology Book Series book series (PPBS, volume 7)


Experiences and the ways in which individuals are socialized through culturally transmitted beliefs, modeling, media images, daily observations, and other means vary according to home region on this planet and the geopolitical realities surrounding individuals as they develop. The mythos, stories, and values of culture interplay to create beliefs. It is likely that this socialization, in turn, affects definitions of peace and reconciliation and beliefs about whether or not peace is possible. Definitions of peace and reconciliation as reported on the Personal and Institutional Rights to Aggression and Peace Survey (PAIRTAPS) from convenience samples in countries throughout the world were analyzed qualitatively using a grounded theory approach. In this chapter, frequencies of different types of definitions were compared across regions. In addition, exploratory chi-square analyses compared responses by gender, record of military service of self or family members, and participation in antiwar protests in each region. Group differences varied somewhat across regions. Given that none of the regional samples were probability samples, the results reports in this chapter must be considered purely exploratory, as suggesting directions for further research, rather than as definitive findings concerning the contributions of the selected demographic variables to likelihood of defining peace and reconciliation in particular ways. The data gathered as part of GIPGAP and presented here, however, do seem to suggest that peace in our time is perceived as possible by many citizens in regions throughout the world.


Europe Malaysia Defend Hines 


  1. Archer, J. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 133–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neubei, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481–494.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, D., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Leung, A. K.-Y. (2007). Culture and the structure of personal experience: Insider and outsider phenomenologies of the self and social world. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  7. Malley-Morrison, K. (2004). International perspectives on family violence and abuse. New York: Taylor, & Francis.Google Scholar
  8. Malley-Morrison, K., & Hines, D. A. (2004). Family violence in a cultural perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Malley-Morrison, K., Hines, D. A., & McCarthy, S. (2012). International handbook of war, torture, and terrorism. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. McCarthy, S., & Hutz, C. (2006). Preventing teen violence: A guide for parents and professionals. New York: Greenwood-Praeger.Google Scholar
  11. Pickerill, J., & Webster, F. (2006). The anti-war/peace movement in Britain and the conditions of information. International Relations, 20, 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schaller, M., & Murray, D. R. (2011). Infectious disease and the creation of culture. In M. Gelfand, C. C-Y, & H. Y-Y (Eds.), Advances in culture and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 99–151). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Straus, M. A. (2006). Future research on gender symmetry in physical assaults on partners. Violence Against Women, 12, 1086–1097.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 907–924.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Weiten, W., Lloyd, M. A., Dunn, D. S., & Hammer, E. A. (2009). Psychology applied to modern life: Adjustment in the 21st century (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Psychology, Counseling and Human RelationsNorthern Arizona UniversityYumaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations