Division 48 of the American Psychological Association (APA), the section of the APA dedicated to Peace Psychology states that the field:

Seeks to develop theories and practices aimed at the prevention and mitigation of direct and structural violence. Framed positively, peace psychology promotes the nonviolent management of conflict and the pursuit of social justice, what we refer to as peacemaking and peacebuilding, respectively.

The four concepts central to the field are mentioned in the above statement. The first two concepts are direct and structural violence. Direct violence is when one takes direct action to physically harm another, either for personal gain or for some other reason. Structural violence is much more subtle and difficult to define. It is the harming of a person through the way that the system in which they exist operates. Specifically, structural violence exists when, “life spans are curtailed when people are socially dominated, politically oppressed, or economically exploited.” Peace psychologists argue that though no one person is intentionally harming another through the fabric of society and the systems themselves people are harmed to the same degree.

The category of direct violence is easy too see everywhere terrorism, crime, and domestic violence are unfortunately a very real and tangible aspect of American life. Structural violence is not as easy to see and define. One example is the cost of medical care. Those that have insurance of can afford the best care receive it in the United States. Those who are middle class maybe able to afford a lesser-degree, and those who are the poorest get only minimal amount of medical care only after finding their way through miles of bureaucratic red-tape. In this case, some peace psychologists would say that the poorest are exploited by the wealthiest in a form of structural violence (Christie, Wagner, & Winter, 2001).

The second two concepts mentioned at the end of the statement address the two general intervention techniques used to lessen violence, peacemaking and peacebuilding. Peacemaking is focused on stopping direct violence before or during the violent act. Peacebuilding is focused on addressing the subtle but often more incessant form of violence, structural violence. Overall, peace psychology is an optimistic and idealistic field focused on addressing the monumental issues of direct and structural violence through techniques of peacemaking and peacebuilding (Christie, Wagner, & Winter, 2001).

The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) is a key organization involved in conflict intervention has the charter to, “provide the analysis, training and tools that help to prevent, manage and end violent international conflicts, promote stability and professionalize the field of peacebuilding” (USIP, 2009). The USIP concept of peacebuilding differs slightly from the accepted definition of APA Division 48, but lays out a very effective framework of intervention into conflict. The Curve of Conflict, shows how diplomacy, peacemaking, peace enforcement, peace keeping, and post-conflict peace building fit into the spectrum of war from minor conflict, to major war, to post-conflict activities (USIP Certificate Course, 2008).

One critical concept in peace psychology is the impact of preference and bias of a group to its members, ideas, or behavior, called in-group bias. This concept states that the more similar groups are, the more that they will identify positively with each other, and inversely the less similar groups are the more negative feelings will develop. These feelings over time could lead to frustration, aggression, and violence.

One terrible example of this is in Rwanda. Before the arrival of European colonists there was little division between the Hutus and Tutses in Rwanda. Over decades, divisions and classifications the two tribes grew and grew, horrifically climaxing in 1994. In only 100 days of violence some estimate surmise that 800,000 people died. Unfortunately, this ethnic-motivated violence is seen across the world and normally occurs when one group is a minority or at the fault lines between two groups. The Hutus and Tutses were almost identical genetically and culturally, the only substantive difference was facial features. Overtime this was enough to provoke an unthinkable genocide (Smith, 2009). This is an example of how in-group identification can work to contribute to conflict and loss of life.

Peace psychology can offer some insights into how large-scale violent group behavior such as this could possibly be avoided. One such insight is that in experiments where subjects are asked to give electric shocks to others if someone speaks up the group ends the damaging behavior sooner than when someone does not speak up. In similar experiments, when electric shock intensity is increased dramatically the behavior stops sooner than when it is increased by small increments. What this means is that violent group behavior behaves like a “slippery slope” where there are small increases in degrees of severity (McNair, 2008).

In their work, Some Contributions of Psychology to Policies Promoting Cultures of Peace, Anderson and Christie advocate for nine psychologically based principles for peace. These include: 1) biological determinism can promote violence and social injustices, 2) reducing the wealth gap promotes human well-being, 3) violence can be prevented by supporting conflict management and constructive uses of conflict, 4) delegitimizing the use of violence at all levels of society can reduce episodes of violence, 5) nonviolent action is a powerful means of promoting social justice, 6) in the face of enmity, step up the level of communication, 7) liberation psychology is well-suited for social transformation, 8) promoting equality between men and women is good for everyone, 9) prevention is desirable over intervention. These principles offer a starting point for the practice of peace psychology and offer a viable way forward for guiding study.

Anders, T. M. (Dec, 2008). Peace Psychology: A Comprehensive Introduction. International Journal on World Peace, 25, 4. p.145(2).

Andersen, A. & Christie, D. (2001). Some Contributions of Psychology to Policies Promoting Cultures of Peace. Journal of Peace Psychology, 7(2), 173–185.

Christie, D. J., Wagner, R. V., & Winter, D. A. (Eds.). (2001). Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Dingfelder, S.F. (2006). Altruism: an accident of nature? Bees, bats, ravens and humans often help one another. But usually there’s a hidden agenda. Monitor. Retrieved December 20, 2009 from http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec06/altruism.aspx

Grinnell, R. (2008). Diffusion of Responsibility. Retrieved December 20, 2009 from http://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/2008/diffusion-of-responsibility/

Kassin, S. (2008). Psychology in Modules: ORG 5002 Survey of Psychology II. NewYork: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Kim, B. (2009). Bystander effect partially traced to desensitivity to violence. Coquitlam Now, 6. Retrieved December 19, 2009, from Canadian Newsstand Complete.

Klein, D., & Stern, C.. (2009). Groupthink in Academia: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid. The Independent Review, 13(4), 585-600.

MacNair, R. (Sept 2008). The psychology of peace: research into the psychology of peace has increased exponentially in recent years. Psychology Review, 14, 1. p.10(3).

Schmich, M. (2009, October 16). Anonymity a sad cover for online ugliness. Chicago

Tribune,p. 1.6. Retrieved December 19, 2009, from Chicago Tribune. (Document

Smith, E. R & Mackie, D.M. (2000). Social Psychology. Indiana, Taylor and Francis.

Smith, J. (2009, September 9). In Rwanda, a lesson in understanding :Area students travel to learn about genocide. Boston Globe,p. B.1.

Tan, H., & Tan, M.. (2008). Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Social Loafing: The Role of Personality, Motives, and Contextual Factors. The Journal of Psychology 142(1), 89-108.

United States Institute of Peace. (2009). Retrieved 21 December, 2009 from http://www.usip.org/

United States Institute of Peace Certificate Course in Conflict Analysis. (2008). Retrieved December 21, 2009 from http://www.usip.org/files/ETC-I/Online%20Courses/Conflict_Analysis_1-30-08.pdf