Tag: Personal and Institutional Rights to Aggression and Peace Survey

God bless us, every one

Posted on by kathiemm
Peace March painting by Reginald Pollack
Peace March painting by Reginald Pollack. Used under CC Attribution 3.0 Unported license.

Millions of Americans want peace, and in particular they want a peace that can be achieved peacefully.

In today’s post, we share the voices of some of the hundreds of Americans who responded to the Personal and Institutional Rights to Aggression and Peace survey conducted in over 40 countries by the Group on International Perspectives on Governmental Aggression and Peace (GIPGAP).

Here are their views regarding the best ways to achieve world peace:

  • Provide more equality in shares of resources, better understanding and validation of differences in cultures.
  • Hold peaceful meetings between many countries in the world, between world officials.
  • Put hatred, power, and money aside.
  • Ummmm … change people!?! Things like Fair Trade, and equalizing standards of living would certainly help equalize powers.
  • Get rid of our values through some form of a cultural revolution.
  • Foster strong social relationships, empathetic perspectives, and a sense of responsibility to fellow human beings.
  • May god bless you and walk with you during these times. Explore the Zen Philosophy.
  • Accept differences and pay attention to others.
  • Promote negotiation, discussion, mutual concession.
  • Level the playing field to give all countries equal economic, medical, and political opportunity.
  • Foster solidarity and mutual help between countries.
  • Pick better, nonviolent leaders.
  • Promote nonviolent policies and leadership activities to promote nonviolence.

What do you think of these suggestions from fellow American citizens? Their views and hundreds of others will be available in the International Handbook on Peace and Reconciliation, which will be published by Springer Publishing next month.

What additional suggestions can you offer?

Enjoy your holidays and work for peace.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Violating human rights agreements

Posted on by kathiemm

The United States’ “War on Terror” and involvement in Iraq have renewed questions concerning human rights agreements and international treaties. Do nations ever have the right to violate or ignore these agreements? What conditions are seen as justifying a breech? These were the questions addressed in a study by GIPGAP in 2005.

Declaration of Human Rights, French painting
Declaration of Human Rights, France 1789. Image in public domain.

A sample of 518 participants (253 females and 218 males), at least 20 percent of whom were college students, completed the Personal and Institutional Rights to Aggression and Peace Scale (PAIRTAPS), which includes the following item: “Sometimes a country has the right to ignore international treaties or international human rights agreements.”

Participants were asked to indicate on a scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree) the extent to which they agreed with the statement, and then to explain the reasoning behind their rating scale score.

Analyses revealed that most participants could be divided into two groups:

  • Opposers—i.e., respondents who argued that governments do not have the right to violate or ignore agreements
  • Justifiers—i.e., participants who argued governments sometimes do have such a right.

Of the 518 respondents, significantly more opposed violations than justified them, but opposers and justifiers used the same types of arguments to support their positions.

For example, both opposers and justifiers appealed to characteristics of treaties to justify their scores, with opposers arguing that agreements should be respected and justifiers arguing that agreements could be ignored if they were impractical, obsolete, or unjust.

Similarly, both opposers and justifiers emphasized the positive effects and the greater good that would come from adopting their position. For instance, one opposer wrote “These treaties are for the greater good of mankind,” while one justifier wrote “Sometimes you have to ignore your morals for the good of mankind.”

What do you think about these findings? Can you think of other situations where people argue passionately in favor of two opposing positions using the exact same type of argument—e.g., “My way is more moral/more intelligent/more practical, etc. than yours”?

Why might this be? What might be done to help opponents get beyond endless debate?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Note: This post is based on the study “Attitudes toward international treaties and human rights agreements” by Kyleen Hashim and  Kathleen Malley-Morrison, published in the journal Peace Psychology, Spring/Summer 2007.

 

International survey on peace and war

Posted on by kathiemm

We promised in our first blog that we would share, on occasion, findings from our international survey concerning war and peace.

The Personal and Institutional Rights to Aggression and Peace Survey (PAIRTAPS) has been completed by ordinary people from over 40 countries around the world. This survey asks respondents to give their own definitions of war, torture, terrorism, peace, and reconciliation.

It also asks them to indicate on a seven point scale (from 1 totally disagree to 7 totally agree) the extent to which they agree with statements such as the following:

  • Sometimes one country has the right to invade another.
  • Governments have the right to order the torture of prisoners during times of war.
  • Individuals have the right to stage protests against war and in favor of peace.
  • Children have the right to grow up in a world of peace.

Participants are also asked to explain in their own words the reasoning behind their rating scale scores. These qualitative responses allow us to compare the kinds of arguments made for and against the use of violence and in favor of a right to peace.

How would you respond to those items? In what ways do you think your responses might differ from the ones made by someone from a different country?

In the last post, we asked the question, “In what countries do you think the greatest support for government-sponsored aggression can be found?” The samples showing the greatest tolerance for invasion of one country by another were the samples from the United States and China. In addition, a majority of the samples from both countries provided arguments supporting a state’s right to torture.

What speculations do you have about the apparent tolerance for governmental aggression in each of those countries?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology