Peace Education from a Psychological Perspective:
Contributions of the Peace and Education Working Group of the American Psychological Association Div. 48
Linden L. Nelson
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA
“Peace education, broadly defined, is the cornerstone of a culture of peace.”
- Michael Wessells (1994, p. 43)
The Executive Committee of the Division of Peace Psychology (Div. 48) of the American Psychological Association (APA) created a task force on Peace Psychology and Education in August 1991. Its purpose was “to enable and foster applications of peace psychology in education at all levels” (Wessells, 1991, p. 7). David W. Johnson, a professor at the University of Minnesota well known for his work on cooperative learning, was appointed as the first chairperson of the Peace and Education Task Force. In an article written for the first issue of The Peace Psychology Bulletin, Johnson suggested that Division 48 members should attempt to convince school districts and colleges to incorporate peacemaking procedures into instruction and “help educators weave constructive conflict procedures into all aspects of school and college life” (Johnson, 1992, p. 9).
From the beginnings of the Peace Psychology Division in 1990, there was a close connection between Division 48 and Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR). PsySR had established a Curriculum Task force in 1984, and Linden Nelson served as chairperson from 1984 to 1987. The PsySR Curriculum Task force initiated some of the activities (e.g., collecting syllabi on psychology of peace issues) that became functions of the Peace and Education Task Force. In 1992, following a recommendation from PsySR, Division 48 agreed to take over the work of the Curriculum Task Force. However, PsySR continued to provide administrative support for the syllabi collection project and frequently referred requests for information about peace education issues to the co-chairs of the Peace and Education Task Force.
In August of 1992, Daniel J. Christie (Ohio State University) was appointed to serve with David Johnson as co-chair of the task force. The following year, Neil Wollman (Manchester College, Indiana) replaced Johnson as co-chair. In August 1994, Linden Nelson (California Polytechnic State University) replaced Christie as co-chair. Finally in 1995, Michael Van Slyck (now at Virginia Commonwealth University) took the place of Wollman as co-chair. Nelson and Van Slyck have continued to serve as co-chairs up to the present time.
In 1995 Division 48 changed the names of its task forces to “working groups,” so the group took on the name of Peace and Education Working Group. The name of Division 48 was also changed to Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association. The most recent structural change relevant to this historical review occurred in 2000 when PsySR established new “action committees.” Linden Nelson agreed to serve as chairperson of the Peace Education Action Committee on the condition that the membership of the action committee would be combined with the membership of the Peace and Education Working Group. The two groups now function as a single unit, and there is only one membership list, which currently includes 149 people. When the group’s activities are described in the context of Division 48, the group is referred to as the Peace and Education Working Group. When the group’s activities are described within the context of PsySR, it is referred to as the Peace Education Action Committee. Members join the group through Division 48, through PsySR, or simply by requesting to be added to the group’s e-mail distribution list.
Early Projects
Three projects were announced in a report written in 1993 for The Peace Psychology Bulletin (Christie and Johnson, 1993). The first project was a manuscript written by Richard Wagner and Dan Christie for the sixth edition of Peace and World Security Studies: A Curriculum Guide (1994). The chapter elucidated concepts and themes in peace psychology, identified key references, and served as an introduction to syllabi authored by Michael Wessells and by Jeanette Diaz-Veizades and David Warren.
The second project was a manuscript written by Linden Nelson and Dan Christie (1995) that summarized and expanded upon a session they co-chaired at the 1992 APA convention on “Peace Psychology in Psychology Courses: Suggestions for Content and Pedagogy.” The article described competencies, values, and expectancies assumed to facilitate and motivate peaceful behavior, and the authors made suggestions about the kind of instruction that might be required to develop peaceful people.
The third project was a proposal to update the collection of syllabi on war and peace issues that had been developed by PsySR in the mid 1980s. Division 48 members and others who taught psychology or interdisciplinary courses that addressed conflict and peace processes were invited to submit syllabi. Edited by Dan Christie and David Boyer (1995), the International Directory of Psychology and Interdisciplinary Courses on Conflict and Peace, Second Edition described 67 courses.
Convention Programs
One of the more obvious ways for the Peace and Education Working Group to promote research, development, and interest in peace education has been to organize symposia and other sessions for annual conventions of the APA. For most of the conventions since 1991, the working group co-chairs have organized and chaired sessions that included additional members of the group. In some years, other working group members have successfully initiated program proposals, usually with assistance from the co-chairs. Most of these sessions have been part of the Division 48 program, but several were included in Division 2 (Teaching of Psychology) or Division 9 (Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues) programs. The most recent session in 2003 was organized for the PsySR conference on “Social Responsibility for the 21st Century.”
On several occasions efforts were made to invite participation by peace educators in other organizations in order to facilitate collaboration with other groups. For example, symposia panels have included Sheldon Berman and Larry Dieringer from Educators for Social Responsibility, Ian Harris from the Peace Education Commission of the International Peace Research Association, Aline Stomfay-Stitz from the Peace Education Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association, and Jennifer Druliner and Trisha Jones from the Association for Conflict Resolution.
Following is a list of the peace education convention programs that were organized by working group co-chairs or members:
1991 – Teaching About Peace and Conflict in University Courses
1992 – Peace Education in Psychology Courses: Suggestions for Content and Pedagogy
1994 – Using Education Videotapes to Reduce Prejudice: The Teaching Tolerance
Program
1994 – Peace Education and Research: Faculty Roles and Student Studies
1994 – Mentoring Students in Peace Psychology
1994 – Managing Conflict: Promising Interventions for Children and Youth
1995 – Innovations in Peace Education: Conflict Resolution Programs and Evaluation
Strategies
1996 – Conflict in Political and Cultural Context: Psychological and Educational
Approaches
1997 – Educating for Peace: From Specific Interventions to a Comprehensive Approach
1997 – From Beirut to Birmingham: Managing Conflict in Multicultural Schools
1998 – Training Peacemakers, Peace Keepers, and Peace Educators: Programs and
Principles
1998 – Peace Education: Psychological Issues and Applications
1999 – Educational Approaches for Violence Prevention, Conflict Resolution, and Peace
2000 – Child and School Violence Issues
2000 – Evaluating School-Based Violence Prevention Programs: What Do We Know?
2000 – Conflict Resolution in Educational Settings
2001 – Integrating Peace Research and Theory Into the Psychology Curriculum
2001 – Conflict Resolution Educational Programs: Some Current Activities and Future
Trends
2002 – Peace and Education: Challenges, Vision and Plans
2003 – Best Practices in School-Based conflict Resolution and Violence Prevention
Programs
Networking Among Working Group Members
Various means in addition to conference programs have been used to communicate information about peace education resources to members and other interested persons. Most issues of the Division 48 newsletter, The Peace Psychology Bulletin (changed in 1995 to Peace Psychology Newsletter), have included a report from the Peace and Education Working Group. These reports included information about peace education books, conferences, Web sites, and other resources in addition to information about working group projects. For several years, each report included information about seven to eight individual members concerning their activities related to peace education. This information about members was solicited on a questionnaire that was mailed to new members.
Longer versions of the newsletter reports were often mailed to working group members prior to publication of the newsletters. As e-mail became more widely used, reports were also sent electronically. Eventually, an e-mail distribution list replaced the regular mailing list, and information was sent to members as it came to the attention of the co-chairs, rather than as quarterly reports.
Finally, in 2002, PsySR created Yahoo groups for its action committees, and the Peace and Education Working Group e-mail distribution list was converted to a Yahoo listserv. The listserv is used only for sending announcements and for maintaining an archive of past announcements (at psysr-pe-announce@yahoogroups.com). The moderator, Linden Nelson, must approve messages. As of July 2003, there were about 150 members and about 30 archived messages.
Encouraging Authors of Psychology Textbooks to Include Peace
At one of the annual business meetings of the Peace and Education Working Group (usually held in the Div. 48 & PsySR hospitality suite at the APA conventions), members discussed the need to improve the coverage of peace and conflict issues in textbooks for introductory psychology courses. The group decided to prepare a letter for authors of such textbooks. Dan Christie, Div. 48 President in 1995, agreed to author the letter with input from other working group members. The letter encouraged authors to expand coverage of psychological dimensions of conflict and peace in the next editions of their texts. Christie wrote: “With such a large number of students taking introductory psychology every year, psychologists have a remarkable opportunity to influence the next generation’s capacity to create a culture of cooperation and peace rather than one of hatred and violence.” The letter also suggested two strategies for expanding coverage of conflict and peace: integrating new material throughout a text or adding a separate chapter.
The letter mentioned three textbooks as examples of books that already included sections on conflict and peace. Those texts were authored by M.W. Matlin, by D.G. Myers, and by P.G. Zimbardo and A.L. Weber. Enclosed with the letter was a copy of an article written by Nelson and Christie (1995) on which Christie had used yellow highlighter to call attention to “concepts, themes, and citations that are well suited for the content of introductory psychology courses.” The letter was signed by Dan Christie (as Div. 48 President) and by Linden Nelson (as working group Co-Chair) and was mailed on October 20, 1995 to 57 authors of introductory psychology textbooks.
One textbook author responded to the letter by rebuking Christie and Nelson for failure to include the author’s text as one of the examples of textbooks that already included relevant coverage. Several authors responded with expressions of intention to increase their coverage of peace and conflict issues in subsequent editions of their texts.
High School Curriculum Evaluation Project
During the working group annual meeting in August 1996, the group decided to conduct a study of high school curricula on peace and conflict. The major purpose of the project was to provide to high school educators comparative and evaluative information about available curricula for teaching about peace and conflict resolution. Other objectives were to investigate the use of psychological knowledge by the authors of the curricula and to provide suggestions to the authors and publishers for improving the applications of psychology within the curricula. Five curricula, including teacher’s manuals and materials written for adolescents, were selected based on the group’s perceptions that they were widely used and offered a variety of approaches. In all cases, the publishers were willing to donate six copies for use by reviewers.
Linden Nelson served as coordinator of the project, and twenty-one members of the working group participated as reviewers. Each of the five curricula was evaluated by between five and seven reviewers. Reviewers used an evaluation form that included space for written comments about strengths and weaknesses or limitations as well as sections for ratings of expected impact and perceived interest, difficulty, and appropriateness for high school students.
The rating scales for reviewers to evaluate the expected impact of curricula on students were based on a model that described educational objectives essential for developing peaceful people (Nelson & Christie, 1995). Reviewers rated probable curriculum impact on student outcomes relevant to peaceful behavior in the categories of knowledge, competencies, attitudes, values, and efficacy expectancies.
Lucille Cardella and Michael Van Slyck assisted Linden Nelson in the analysis and interpretation of results. For most of the educational objectives, there were substantial differences between curricula in reviewers’ ratings of probable impact on students. This suggested that educators might be able to use this information to select curricula based either on their particular strengths or on their comprehensiveness.
Most of the authors did an excellent job describing basic communication, negotiation, mediation, and problem-solving principles. However, some of the curricula failed to emphasize how basic principles about conflict generalize from interpersonal to international levels, or vice versa. Most of the curricula were weak on the topics of anger management, causes and consequences of competition and cooperation, out-group perception processes, and nonviolent methods of social influence including use of rewards, positive incentives, and friendly initiatives.
The authors and/or publishers of each curriculum received all of the reviewers’ ratings and comments for their curriculum as well as an overall summary of results authored by Linden Nelson, Michael Van Slyck, and Lucille Cardella. The authors and publishers expressed appreciation for the reviews and seemed very open to the possibility that the reviews might be useful in the process of revising the curricula.
Because a major purpose of the project was to provide information to high school educators, the results of the study were published as a chapter in a book written primarily for high school teachers and administrators (Nelson, Van Slyck, & Cardella, 1999a). The chapter included a description of each curriculum, a summary of each curriculum’s strengths and weaknesses/limitations, and tables with the ratings for all five curricula. A similar report was written for the newsletter that the APA Educational Directorate publishes primarily for high school teachers of introductory psychology courses (Nelson, 2000). Finally, an article emphasizing the psychological content of the curricula was written for Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology (Nelson, Van Slyck, & Cardella, 1999b).
Middle School Curriculum Evaluation Project
Following the successful completion of the high school curriculum project, the working group decided to evaluate middle school curricula. Michael Van Slyck and Lucille Cardella agreed to be coordinators of the study. While the goals and procedures for the study were very similar to the previous curriculum review project, the coordinators made improvements in the curriculum evaluation instrument based on a literature review, feedback from reviewers in the previous study, and input from experts.
A search for peace education and conflict resolution curricula for middle school students identified twelve curricula. Six of them were selected for the project based largely on the willingness of publishers to provide copies for review. Twenty-two members of the working group participated as reviewers, and five or six reviewers reviewed each curriculum.
As in the previous study, the variability between curricula in reviewer ratings suggested that the results might be useful to educators in selecting curricula based on their objectives, strengths, and limitations. The results also suggested that the middle school curricula, with one exception, focused on interpersonal conflict and gave little attention to international conflict and very little attention to intergroup conflict. Consistent with this observation, the reviewers expected these curricula to have little impact on students’ understanding of international conflict or on their ethnocentric attitudes or political efficacy beliefs. It seems unfortunate that authors of conflict resolution curricula so often miss the opportunity to strengthen students’ learning of basic principles by illustrating how principles apply across levels of conflict from interpersonal to international.
For most of the curricula, reviewers rated the amount and quality of psychological content between “satisfactory” and “good.” However, reviewers thought that psychological concepts related to enemy perception processes and to development of violent tendencies were generally not utilized well.
Cardella and Van Slyck (1999) wrote a paper describing the study’s methods and results. It includes descriptions of the six curricula, summaries of reviewers’ comments about strengths and limitations, tables displaying the reviewers’ ratings, and the evaluation form. The paper was presented at the American Psychological Association convention on August 22, 1999, and it is available online at HERE.
Conceptual Framework for Applying Psychology to Peace Education
When PsySR established action committees in August 2000, committees were asked to create “conceptual frameworks” to guide their activities. Members of the combined Peace and Education Working Group and Peace Education Action Committee were encouraged to submit ideas for defining peace education; for describing the objectives, essential content, and most efficacious methods of peace education; and for outlining the applications of psychology to peace education. Comments were received from Ilse Hakvoort, Susan Heitler, David Johnson, Judith Margerum, Judith Myers-Walls, Marc Pilisuk, Gert Sommer, and Johanna Tabin.
The original plan was to prepare a draft of a conceptual framework for distribution to members and to solicit comments. However, this has not yet happened. Thus, the following outline for a conceptual framework represents the first attempt to organize the group’s ideas. The discussion below incorporates comments received from members and is also influenced by published work of members including Michael Wessells (1994), Linden Nelson and Daniel Christie (1995), Ian Harris (1999, 2002), Gavriel Salomon (2002), and Ervin Staub (2002).
Most working group members seem to favor a comprehensive and inclusive definition of peace education. For example, Harris (2002) suggests that it includes all efforts to teach about violence and alternatives to violence. Violence is defined here as including physical, psychological, and structural violence, and alternatives to violence may include peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peacebuilding. Peace education often takes place in schools, churches, families, community learning centers, counseling centers, clinics, prisons, and the workplace. Of course, it may occur anywhere, and the learners may be anyone including young children, graduate students, United Nations peacekeepers, police officers, etc.
Harris (1999) delineated five types of peace education and described examples, goals, and content for each. “Global peace education” includes international studies, holocaust studies, and nuclear education. “Conflict resolution programs” teach about meditation, negotiation, and communication skills. “Violence prevention programs” emphasize domestic violence, drug abuse, anger management, and teaching tolerance. “Development education” includes human rights education, environmental studies, and an emphasis on power and resource inequities and structural violence. “Nonviolence education” is based on the ideas of Gandhi, King, and other great peacemakers.
Many additional subcategories of peace education were mentioned by Harris and by other members of the working group. For example, some members are involved in marriage training, parenting education, character education, or social and emotional learning programs. Peace education in schools often occurs in the context of Social Studies or History. Of course, the five types of peace education described by Harris are not mutually exclusive, and distinctions between categories and subcategories may be somewhat arbitrary.
The essential content of peace education varies with time, place, and the particular needs of individuals, groups, and societies. Salomon (2002) has described how the challenges, goals, and methods of peace education differ substantially between areas characterized by intractable conflict, interethnic tension, or relative tranquility. Nevertheless, because some needs are common among people everywhere, certain elements of peace education may be seen as more universally essential.
Some members of the working group became involved in peace education in the early 1980s when the threat of nuclear holocaust made nuclear war education “essential.” The continuing proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the possibility that terrorist groups might obtain WMD suggests that knowledge about threats of WMD should be considered an essential component of peace education for youth and adults throughout the world.
Attitudes, concepts, and competencies that relate to all levels of conflict from interpersonal to international, and that may relate even to intrapersonal conflict, would seem to be particularly important as educational objectives. Democratic and tolerant attitudes, concepts like interdependency and reciprocity, and competencies for empathy, impulse control, problem solving, and negotiation are examples of peace education objectives that are relevant for all levels of conflict.
Another approach to defining the essential content of peace education assumes that its primary objective is to develop dispositions within people that will influence them to behave peacefully (Nelson & Christie, 1995). As elaborated by Staub (2002), the aims of peace education are to develop caring and nonaggressive individuals who relate peacefully to others in their own lives, who promote the welfare of others, and who take action to prevent violence in their society and in the world. Perhaps the most important contribution of psychology toward a conceptual framework for peace education is to identify the personal dispositions that largely determine whether individuals act peacefully.
Following this psychological approach for defining the objectives of peace education, Nelson, Van Slyck, and Cardella (1999) identified specific educational objectives in four categories: knowledge and understanding, competencies, attitudes and values, and efficacy and outcome expectancies. Most psychologists would acknowledge that these categories represent important determinants of behavior. Although all four of these categories are considered essential objectives, it could be argued that educators should give priority to developing dispositions that have the greatest influence on behavior. Further research is needed in order to understand the relative importance of particular beliefs, competencies, attitudes, and expectancies as determinants of peaceful behavior.
Another application of psychology to peace education provides guidance for selecting teaching methods and for creating classroom and school climate. One working group member suggested that peace educators should be explicit about their theories of learning and development, and they should use methods that have been shown to be effective with their target groups. Research on teaching and learning has shown that students generally learn more when they are active, as when participating in group activities, engaging in role-plays, or working on projects. Students “learn by doing” when they serve as peer mediators. Other members suggested that peace education should occur within a democratic and inclusive climate. One way to promote a democratic climate is “negotiated learning” where students play a role in deciding what to study, how to study, and how to be evaluated.
Working group members identified the following as teaching methods that have been shown to promote peaceful attitudes and competencies: cooperative learning, constructive controversy, and service learning. Members also recommended involvement of parents, contact with people from other cultures, and use of storytelling, art, and music.
Finally, a conceptual framework for applying psychology to peace education should call attention to the importance of scientific methodology in the evaluation of peace education methods and programs. Current levels of violence and the threat of weapons of mass destruction pose an urgent need for effective peace education programs. Scientific methods of evaluation are essential to discriminate between programs that work and programs that don’t work. Schools, communities, and governments are not likely to adopt and sustain peace education programs in the absence of sound evidence concerning effectiveness.
Providing Information about Peace Psychology in Higher Education
After receiving repeated requests for information about undergraduate and graduate programs in peace psychology, the working group co-chairs solicited information from members. The group developed a statement “Graduate Programs in Peace Psychology” that offers advice and suggestions to students about graduate study in peace psychology and peace education. The statement also provides a list of Web sites that describe and give links to graduate and undergraduate programs in peace studies. It was sent to the e-mail distribution list, was published in newsletters, and is posted HERE.
Current and Future Projects
Following an APA symposium on school-based violence prevention programs that the working group organized in 2000, the group decided to develop a brochure that could be used to inform school administrators and school board members about these programs. The brochure will summarize results of the evaluation research, discuss program benefits, offer suggestions for getting started, and provide contact information for organizations that assist schools in the development of these programs. Over the past couple years the group collected information on outcome evaluation studies of school-based violence prevention and conflict resolution programs. The projected date for completing the design of the brochure is Dec. 31, 2003.
Other current projects include developing a collection of syllabi and other resources for teaching about peace and conflict in college courses (Linda Woolf, Project Director) and completing the “conceptual framework for applying psychology to peace education.” A likely future project is a comparative evaluation of textbooks for introductory psychology courses regarding their coverage of peace, conflict, and violence.
The working group has never suffered from a lack of ideas for promoting peace education. Finding the time to do the work is always the greater challenge. Still, working group members continue to be inspired by the promise and challenge of developing peaceful people. As expressed by Nelson, Van Slyck, and Cardella (1999a, p. 91): “If creating peace implies developing peaceful people, education is the cornerstone for peacebuilding.”
References
Cardella, L.A., & Van Slyck, M. (1999, August). Peace education and conflict resolution
curricula for middle school students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.
Christie, D., & Boyer, D. (Eds.). (1995). International directory of psychology and
interdisciplinary courses on conflict and peace (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.:
Psychologists for Social Responsibility.
Christie, D., & Johnson, D.W. (1993, April). The Peace and Education Task Force. The
Peace Psychology Bulletin, 2(1), 12.
Harris, I.M. (1999). Types of peace education. In A. Raviv, L. Oppenheimer, & D. Bar-
Tal (Eds.), How children understand war and peace: A call for international
peace education (pp. 299-317). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Harris, I.M. (2002). Conceptual underpinnings of peace education. In G. Salomon & B.
Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the
world (pp. 15-25). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, D.W. (1992, April). Teaching students to be peacemakers. The Peace
Psychology Bulletin, 1(1), 7-9.
Nelson, L.L. (2000, January/February). Teaching about violence and conflict resolution.
Psychology Teacher Network, 10(1), 1,2,8,13.
Nelson, L.L., & Christie, D.J. (1995). Peace in the psychology curriculum: Moving from
assimilation to accommodation. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace
Psychology, 1, 161-178.
Nelson, L.L., Van Slyck, M.R., & Cardella, L.A. (1999a). Peace and conflict curricula for
adolescents. In L. Forcey & I. Harris (Eds.), Peacebuilding for adolescents:
Strategies for educators and community leaders (pp. 91-117). New York, NY:
Peter Lang.
Nelson, L.L., Van Slyck, M.R., & Cardella, L.A. (1999b). Curricula for teaching
adolescents about peace and conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace
Psychology, 5, 169-174.
Salomon, G. (2002). The nature of peace education: Not all programs are created equal.
In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and
practices around the world (pp. 3-13). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Staub, E. (2002). From healing past wounds to the development of inclusive caring:
Contents and processes of peace education. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.),
Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp.
73-86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wagner, R.V., & Christie, D.J. (1994). Teaching psychology and peace. In M. Klare
(Ed.), Peace and world security studies: Curriculum guide (6th ed., pp. 230-256).
New York, NY: Lynne Rienner.
Wessells, M. (1991, October). President’s report: Directions for the year. The Peace
Psychology Newsletter, 1(3), 7-8.
Wessells, M.G. (1994). The role of peace education in a culture of peace: A social-
psychological analysis. Peace, Environment and Education, 5(4), 39-54.