Social representational correlates of attitudes toward peace and war: A cross-cultural analysis in the United States and Denmark.

Abstract

This research aimed at examining the possibility that certain social representations of peace and war are, more than others, (in)compatible with support for warfare. It also aimed at investigating the weight of political culture on the realization of this possibility. Using the framework of social representations theory (Moscovici, 1961=2008), this study surveyed undergraduate students from 3 universities located in 2 countries: the United States and Denmark. Analyses conducted at the cultural and individual levels (Leung, 1989

On the (In)Compatibility of Attitudes Toward Peace and War

“…The measure is also fully controlled for acquiescence. Our measure has already demonstrated pragmatic utility for researchers, who have used the measure to study differences between attitudes toward peace and war in terms of social representations (Van der Linden, Bizumic, Stubager, & Mellon, ) and moral psychology variables (Iyer, Koleva, Graham, Haidt, & Ditto, ),…”

Turning psychology against militarism

“…Arms designers, producers and dealers, and the staff of military establishments and state defence departments are overwhelmingly male, operating in “highly masculinist institutions that glorify and promote the traditional male values of strength, power, and competitive advantage” (Du Nann Winter, Pilisuk, Houck, & Lee, , p. 144). Van der Linden, Bizumic, Stubager, and Mellon () found, as others have done, that female participants held more negative attitudes towards war and were more likely than male participants to think about war and peace in terms of equality, fear, and poverty.…”

“…The importance of preparing for war during times of peace has often been emphasised, for example by William James, often described as the first peace psychologist, who opined that, “preparation for war by nations is the real war, permanent, unceasing” (James, , cited by Du Nann Winter et al, , p. 140). Referring specifically to the United States, several scholars have attributed the perpetuation of the country as a military–industrial complex to the conservative political culture of U.S. society, whereas others have attributed it to the military superiority of the United States and militarised worldview: “The more a society is militarized, the more its political culture will tend to legitimate the use of violence” (Van der Linden et al, , p. 223). Others have noted the prominence of wars in people's representations of history in different countries; for example, World War II dominating what are considered the most important historical events in victorious nations but not in those that were defeated or remained neutral (Liu & Sibley, , cited by Van der Linden et al, ), and the much greater weight given to war compared to peace in U.S. history textbooks (Finley, ).…”

“…Those relatively high on the second dimension tended to agree with statements: Britain needs to spend more money on its armed forces, and Britain should maintain its overseas military bases. Van der Linden et al () considered social representations of war, citing, for example, Herrera and Reicher () who, shortly after the first Gulf War, found that pro‐war participants more often recalled images about the technical aspects of war such as images of soldiers, the firing of cruise missiles, and the dropping of bombs, whereas anti‐war respondents more often recalled images of destruction and suffering.…”

Principios morales de la guerra: Actitudes frente a la transgresión

“…Buena parte de las investigaciones sobre la guerra y la violencia acuden a esta metodología, con la cual se ha establecido la influencia de diferentes factores en las respuestas de las personas. Entre las variables estudiadas se encuentra el género (Brooks & Valentino, 2011), la orientación política y religiosa (Friese, Fishman, Beatson, Sauerwein, & Rip, 2009;Shaw, Quezada, & Zárate, 2011), las diferencias culturales e identificación grupal (Van der Linden, Bizumic, Stubager, & Mellon, 2011;Bobowik, y otros, 2014;Li, Li, Huang, & Chiu, 2015) y los rasgos de personalidad (Crowson, 2009;Dunwoody, Plane, Trescher, & Rice, 2014;Sundberg, 2014), sin desconocer las ventajas que supone este tipo de metodología, usualmente las investigaciones se agotan en el análisis estadístico entre variables o la descripción de opiniones y reacciones positivas o negativas frente a la guerra, sin comprometerse con discusiones más amplias sobre el rol que cumplen las creencias o concepciones morales en la decisión de dañar a otros.…”