Ethos of Conflict and Beyond: Differentiating Social Representations of Conflict

  • J. Christopher Cohrs
  • Özden Melis Uluğ
  • Lea Stahel
  • Reşit Kışlıoğlu
Part of the Peace Psychology Book Series book series (PPBS, volume 27)


Bar-Tal’s (1998, 2007) “ethos of conflict” is a powerful concept to account for the socially shared nature of conflict-supporting beliefs in societies involved in protracted conflict. We first briefly review studies on ethos of conflict and its consequences in the Jewish Israeli society and other societies that have used Bar-Tal’s conceptualization. Then we introduce our own approach, which builds on social representations theory (Moscovici, Psychoanalysis: Its Image And Its Public, 1961/1976) and a recent conceptualization of political ideology (Cohrs Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict, pp. 53–71, 2012). Our approach adopts a more bottom-up strategy that considers specific belief contents related to conflict and can account for qualitative differences within a society. We argue that it is important to go beyond distinguishing between people, who are high versus low on a dimension of ethos of conflict and to identify qualitatively different ideological subgroups in a conflict. To achieve this, we rely on Q methodological techniques. We illustrate the feasibility and usefulness of our approach by summarizing results from studies on the Kurdish conflict in Turkey and the Israel–Palestine conflict as represented by conflict outsiders, namely Swiss residents. Finally, we discuss the relative merits and shortcomings of the different approaches to conflict-related shared beliefs, possibilities for their integration, and some suggestions for future research in this area.


Conflict Resolution Social Representation Society Member Intergroup Relation Conflict Representation 
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.


  1. Bamberg, M. G. W., & Andrews, M. (2004). Considering counter-narratives: Narrating, resisting, making sense. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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. Bar-Tal, D. (2000). Shared beliefs in a society: Social psychological analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1430–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bar-Tal, D. (2011). Challenges for construing peace culture and peace education. In E. Matthews, D. Newman, & M. Dajani (Eds.), The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Parallel discourses. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2011). Socio-psychological barriers to conflict resolution. In D. Bar-Tal (Ed.), Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: Social psychological perspective (pp. 217–240). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., Raviv, A., & Dgani-Hirsh, A. (2009). The influence of the ethos of conflict on Israeli Jews’ interpretation of Jewish-Palestinian encounters. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53, 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bar-Tal, D., Sharvit, K., Halperin, E., & Zafran, A. (2012). Ethos of conflict: The concept and its measurement. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 18, 40–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bauer, M., & Gaskell, G. (1999). Towards a paradigm for research on social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 29, 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bliuc, A.-M., McGarty, C., Reynolds, K., & Muntele, D. (2007). Opinion-based group membership as a predictor of commitment to political action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Canetti, D., Lavi, I., Elad-Strenger, J., Bar-Tal, D., & Guy, D. (2013). Why Israelis and Palestinians say no to peace: The mediating role of threat, distress and ethos. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology in Herzliya, Israel.Google Scholar
  14. Cohrs, J. C. (2012). Ideological bases of violent conflict. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.), Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 53–71). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Coleman, P. T. (2003). Characteristics of protracted, intractable conflict: Towards the development of a framework—I. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 9, 1–37.Google Scholar
  16. Danielson, S. (2009). Q method and surveys: Three ways to combine Q and R. Field Methods, 21, 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doise, W., Spini, D., & Clémence, A. (1999). Human rights studied as social representations in a cross-national context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duveen, G., & Lloyd, B. (1993). An ethnographic approach to social representations. In G. Breakwell & D. Canter (Eds.), Empirical approaches to social representations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Echebarria Echabe, A., Fernandez Guede, E., & Gonzalez Castro, J. L. (1994). Social representations and intergroup conflicts: Who’s smoking here? European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elcheroth, G., & Spini, D. (2012). Political violence, intergroup conflict, and ethnic categories. In D. Bar-Tal (Ed.), Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: A social psychological perspective (pp. 175–194). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  21. Elcheroth, G., Doise, W., & Reicher, S. (2011). On the knowledge of politics and the politics of knowledge: How a social representations approach helps us rethink the subject of political psychology. Political Psychology, 32, 729–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.Google Scholar
  23. Gayer, C. (2012). Gendered Intractability: National identity constructions and gender in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gentner, D. (2003). Psychology of analogical reasoning. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 106–112). London: Nature Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  25. Gillespie, A. (2008). Social representations, alternative representations and semantic barriers. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38, 375–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grabe, S., & Dutt, A. (2015). Counter narratives, the psychology of liberation, and the evolution of a women’s social movement in Nicaragua. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21, 89–105.Google Scholar
  27. Greene, J. D., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 517–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hammack, P. L. (2006). Identity, conflict, and coexistence: Life stories of Israeli and Palestinian adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 323–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Howarth, C. (2002). Identity in whose eyes? The role of representations in identity construction. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 32, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Howarth, C. (2006). A social representation is not a quiet thing: Exploring the critical potential of social representations theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 65–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jovchelovitch, S. (2007). Knowledge in context: Representations, community and culture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Jovchelovitch, S. (2012). Narrative, memory and social representations: A conversation between history and social psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioural Science, 46, 440–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kempf, W. (2011). Mental models of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism, 3, 507–541.Google Scholar
  34. Klein, O., & Licata, L. (2003). When group representations serve social change: The speeches of Patrice Lumumba during the Congolese decolonization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 571–593.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liu, J. H., & Laszlo, J. (2007). A narrative theory of history and identity: Social identity, social representations, society and the individual. In G. Moloney & I. Walker (Eds.), Social representations and identity: Content, process and power (85–107). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q Methodology (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Medjedović, J., & Petrović, B. (2012). Personality traits, social attitudes and the ethos of conflict as predictors of party affiliation in Serbia. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  38. Moscovici, S. (1961/1976). Psychoanalysis: Its image and its public. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  39. Moscovici, S. (1981). On social representation. In J. Forgas (Ed.), Social cognition: Perspectives on everyday understanding (pp. 181–209). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  40. Moscovici, S. (2001). Why a theory of social representations? In K. Deaux & G. Philogene (Eds.), Representations of the social (pp. 8–35). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  41. Oren, N., Bar-Tal, D., & David, O. (2004). Conflict, identity and ethos; The Israeli-Palestinian case. In Y. T. Lee, C. R. McCauley, F. M. Moghaddam, & S. Worchel (Eds.), Psychology of ethnic and cultural conflict (pp. 133–154). Westport: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  42. Porat, R., Halperin, E., & Bar-Tal, D. (2015). The effect of sociopsychological barriers on the processing of new information about peace opportunities. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59(1), 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reicher, S. (2004). The context of social identity: Domination, resistance, and change. Political Psychology, 25, 921–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sarrica, M., & Contarello, A. (2004). Peace, war and conflict: Social representations shared by peace activists and non-activists. Journal of Peace Research, 41, 549–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sen, R., & Wagner, W. (2005). History, emotions and hetero-referential representations in inter-group conflict: the example of Hindu-Muslim relations in India. Papers on Social Representations, 14, 2.1–2.23.Google Scholar
  46. Shmueli, D. (2003). Conflict assessment. In G. Burgess & H. Burgess (Eds.), Beyond intractability. University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium.Google Scholar
  47. Stahel, L., & Cohrs, C. (2015). Socially shared representations of the Israel-Palestine conflict: An exploration among Swiss residents. Conflict and Communication Online, 14(1).Google Scholar
  48. Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behaviour: Q technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. Subašić, E., Reynolds, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (2008). The political solidarity model of social change: Dynamics of self-categorization in intergroup power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 330–352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  51. Uluğ, Ö. M., & Cohrs, J. C. (2014). Laypeople’s representations of the Kurdish conflict. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  52. Wagner, W., Duveen, G., Farr, R., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Jovchelovitch, S., & Rose, D. (1999). Theory and method of social representations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 95–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., & Seifert, F. (2002). Collective symbolic coping with new technology: Knowledge, images and public discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 323–343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 67–91.Google Scholar
  55. Wehr, P. (2006). Conflict mapping. In G. Burgess & H. Burgess (Eds.), Beyond intractability. University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium.Google Scholar
  56. Wright, S. C., & Baray, G. (2013). Models of social change in social psychology: Collective action or prejudice reduction? Conflict or harmony? In J. Dixon & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of conflict, inequality and social change (pp. 225–247). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Yeğen, M. (2007). Turkish nationalism and the Kurdish question. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30, 119–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Christopher Cohrs
    • 1
  • Özden Melis Uluğ
    • 1
  • Lea Stahel
    • 2
  • Reşit Kışlıoğlu
    • 1
  1. 1.Jacobs University BremenBremenGermany
  2. 2.Institute of SociologyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations