Advertisement

Achieving World Peace: Views from Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, and Greece

  • Nebojsa Petrovic
  • Olja Jovanovic
  • Erin Murtagh
  • Sherri McCarthy
  • Vlado Miheljak
  • Marko Polič
  • Charikleia Tsatsaroni
  • Anna Medvedeva
  • Alev Yalcinkaya
Chapter
Part of the Peace Psychology Book Series book series (PPBS, volume 7)

Abstract

This chapter deals with perception of ordinary citizens from Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, and Greece regarding the possibilities or elusiveness of achieving world peace. Despite important differences among these states, there are also many interconnections, mainly among dyads and triads of the four: Slavic group of people, Orthodox Christianity, similar languages, and enough similarities to justify common analysis. The sample consisted of 440 participants, aged from 18–82; 59 % are women. They were asked to signify their level of agreement with the item “I believe world peace can be achieved” and then to explain the answer. They also completed the statement “The best way to achieve peace is….” Bandura’s theory of moral engagement provided the framework for the coding manual. Analyses of coded responses were conducted to determine the relative distribution of responses within the coding categories, and some exploratory statistical tests were run to see if there were differences in frequencies of responses based on demographic groups. Despite differences among the countries in level of development, political culture, and current politics, the great majority of answers in all subsamples showed a clear propensity among the ordinary people of the region to argue in favor of world peace. The hope is that the results will not serve as information for the mighty who will find to which level they can oppress others in order to obtain dominance (euphemistically: “national interest”).Rather, it is hoped that the results will contribute to the optimism of ordinary people, regardless of their social system and geographical meridian, regarding a broad commitment to achieve world peace as an ultimate goal of humankind.

Keywords

Military Service Moral Disengagement Codeable Unit World Peace Prosocial Action 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration on inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar-Tal, D. (1998). Societal beliefs in times of intractable conflict: The Israeli case. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9, 22–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breyman, S. (2001). Why Movements Matter: The West German Peace Movement and U.S. Arms Control Policy. Albany, NY: SUNY PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Durant, W. (1929). The mansions of philosophy: A survey of human life and destiny. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  5. Freud, S. (1929/2002). Civilization and its discontents. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. Freud, S. (1933). Why war? (Einstein and Freud). S. E., 22, 199–215.Google Scholar
  7. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gilgun, J. F. (2005). Qualitative research and family psychology. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(1), 40–50. doi:10.1037/0893–3200.19.1.40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hegel, G. W. F., Dyde, S.W. (1820/2010). Hegel’s philosophy of right. Nabu Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hobbes, T. (1651/1982). Leviathan. Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  11. Kant, I (1914/2009). Eternal Peace: And Other International Essays. Kessinger Publishing, LLCGoogle Scholar
  12. Kant, I. (1795/1957). Perpetual Peace. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Lorenz, K. (1974). On agression. New York: Mariner Books.Google Scholar
  14. Malley-Morrison, K., Daskalopoulos, M., & You, H. S. (2006). International perspectives on governmental aggression. International Psychology Reporter, 10(1), 19–20.Google Scholar
  15. Mead, M. (1928/1971). Coming of Age in Samoa. Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  16. Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New York: Viking Adult.Google Scholar
  17. Roosevelt, E. (1966). Tomorrow is now. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nebojsa Petrovic
    • 1
  • Olja Jovanovic
    • 2
  • Erin Murtagh
    • 3
  • Sherri McCarthy
    • 4
  • Vlado Miheljak
    • 5
  • Marko Polič
    • 6
  • Charikleia Tsatsaroni
    • 3
  • Anna Medvedeva
    • 7
  • Alev Yalcinkaya
    • 8
  1. 1.Faculty of PsychologyUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Faculty of PhilosophyBelgradeSerbia
  3. 3.Psychology DepartmentBoston UniversityBostonUSA
  4. 4.Educational Psychology, Counseling and Human RelationsNorthern Arizona UniversityYumaUSA
  5. 5.University of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  6. 6.Department of PsychologyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  7. 7.University of FinlandHelsinkiFinland
  8. 8.Department of PsychologyYeditepeIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations