Understanding Peace and War: A Review of Developmental Psychology Research

DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW ARTICLE NO.

18, 353–389 (1998)

DR980471

Understanding Peace and War: A Review of Developmental Psychology Research Ilse Hakvoort and Louis Oppenheimer Department of Developmental Psychology, Universiteit van Amsterdam, The Netherlands Over the past decades the number of studies dealing with the developing understanding of peace and war among children and adolescents has considerably increased. No coherent overview is available despite this increase. The purpose of this review is to address this absence and to offer a systematic discussion of early and contemporary studies. Besides the absence of a coherent review, most studies fail to offer a theoretical framework for the interpretation and examination of the developing understanding of peace and war. In the discussion of the literature it is shown that there is no overall consensus about the meaning of peace and war. For instance, children and adolescents in different cultural settings (i.e., geographically different areas or countries) are reported to differ in the development of the meanings they attach to peace and war. Early and contemporary studies offer ample evidence, not only for a dependency of the findings on employed measurement procedures and designs, but also for the apparent presence of a multitude of variables which affect the development of the understanding of peace and war. In all early and in most contemporary studies, age and gender are the major explanatory variables for the observed variations. In more recent studies indications are presented for a structural relationship between the understanding of interpersonal relationships and the understanding of peace, in particular. The influence of other variables such as social institutions and socialization agents on the development of this understanding appears to be primarily theoretically discussed, but rarely empirically supported.  1998 Academic Press

The realization that children’s and adolescent’s understanding of peace and war is subject to developmental changes led in the 1960s to a growing interest in the examination of the developmental courses for these conceptions. Notwithstanding an obvious increase in studies on children’s developing notions of peace and war in different countries, this particular field of peace research has been characterized as limited and theoretically underdeveloped (cf. Covell, Krasnor, & Fletcher, 1994; Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1993). There are several reasons for this. First, the field of peace research with children and adolescents represents a Address correspondence and reprint requests to Ilse Hakvoort, Department of Education and Educational Research, Go¨teborg University, Box 300, SE 405 30 Go¨teborg, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]. 353 0273-2297/98 $25.00

Copyright  1998 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

354

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

collection of different lines of research, each focusing on a particular aspect. Moreover, topics within peace research emerged, disappeared, and changed as a result of changing international relations (e.g., the formulation of peace treaties, the outbreak of war, or the disappearance of the Cold War). Further, not only can different lines of research be discerned, but also within a particular cluster of studies may approaches, conceptions, and methodologies differ considerably. Without being exhaustive, peace research with children and adolescents has been concerned with issues such as the psychological effects of conflicts and violence (cf. Cairns, 1996; Leavitt & Fox, 1993), children’s and adolescents’ attitudes toward nuclear war (cf. Boyd, Wallinga, Skeen, & Paguio, 1994), their views on particular wars (cf. Tolley, 1973), their political attitudes (cf. Torney-Purta, 1989; Covell, 1996), their conceptions or understanding of peace and war (Hakvoort, 1996a, 1996b; Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, in press), as well as the diagnosis and treatment of childhood traumas as a result of (civil) war or conflicts (cf. Danieli, 1996; Danieli, Rodley, & Weisaeth, 1996). If issues dealing with peace education are considered to be part of psychological peace research, an exponential increase in the number of studies will result (cf. Vriens, 1989, 1996a; Burns & Aspeslagh, 1996). In this article we focus on studies which deal with children’s and adolescent’s conceptions or understanding of peace and war. Conceptions and understanding are treated as synonyms, because we believe that conceptions are not possible without an underlying understanding of the state or processes involved (cf. Neisser, 1989). Within this considerably narrowed focus, confusion already exists about the inclusion or exclusion of the many studies which pay only marginal attention to (i.e., offer added information about) the content of children’s perceptions of peace and contemporary war events. For instance, in her selective review, Haas (1986) also included information from distinct research clusters which did not focus specifically on the understanding of peace and war. In this review only studies with a dominant focus on this development are included. A second reason for the theoretical underdevelopment of this research area, in particular from a developmental psychology perspective, is the fact that most studies on children’s understanding of peace and war have been mainly exploratory. Either the studies lack theory or the variety in theoretical backgrounds of studies prevented detailed comparisons of the findings. Among the different theoretical perspectives which were used to study and understand the course by which children come to develop their understanding of peace and war, the theoretical models of political socialization and Piagetian cognitive developmental theory were frequently used (cf. Hakvoort, 1996b). Selman’s (1980) model for the development of interpersonal understanding (i.e., social–cognitive development), which is based on the Piagetian theory, has also been used as theoretical framework. The third reason for the present state of affairs in this field of research is of methodological nature. The variety of assessment procedures used (e.g.,

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

355

interviews, questionnaires, and judgments), as well as the variety of questions within each procedure, are partly responsible for the absence of a coherent overview. The absence of methodological compatibility across studies requires caution in comparing results. As a final reason, the existence of conceptual disagreement should be mentioned. While peace and war are thought to be social phenomena, they are not simple phenomena. The past decades have carried an extensive conceptual discussion in the literature about the meaning (i.e., definition and operationalization) of the concepts of peace and war. The disagreement about the exact meaning of these concepts has resulted in considerable ambiguity when interpreting findings. The latter has also contributed to the delay in theory development. The main purpose of this review is to offer a systematic reflection upon those variables which were and still are considered essential for the formulation of a coherent theoretical framework with regard to the development of an understanding of peace and war and we hope it will lead to a better understanding of age-related changes. In addition, we expect it to expose gaps in the information and, hence, our knowledge about this development. Such gaps may function for identifying important goals for future research. In order to understand the complexity and variety in thinking about peace and war and, hence, the problems involved in understanding and interpreting the findings of empirical studies, the conceptual discussion is introduced before the presentation of empirical studies. PEACE AND WAR: A CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION In the literature dealing with the understanding of peace, different and often divergent meanings or definitions of peace can be identified (BrockeUtne, 1989; Galtung, 1964, 1969, 1981, 1985; Ishida, 1969; Wiberg, 1981). Even to date, its meaning is still challenged (Galtung, 1996; Rinehart, 1995). Contemporary changes in international relations, changes in the nature of armed conflict, as well as a progressive interdisciplinary approach within this field of research, have resulted in additional changes in the meaning or definition of peace and war (cf. Rinehart, 1995). During the past decades, many researchers (cf. Brock-Utne, 1989; Wiberg, 1981) have followed Galtung’s (1964) lead by taking up his distinction between a negative and a positive dimension of peace. In a series of articles, Galtung (1969, 1981) argued that in any discussion about peace, societal structures of violence should be included. Societal structures of violence imply structural violence based on the absence of equality within a society (e.g., poverty, socioeconomic relations, power, and so on). According to Galtung (1969), these types of inequality, like discrimination, are also forms of violence. Several years earlier, Galtung (1964) formulated his distinction between negative and positive peace. Negative peace was defined by the absence of physical and of direct violence between groups or nations and

356

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

positive peace by cooperative patterns aiming at the integration of and collaboration between groups or nations. Following the introduction of the concept of structural violence, Galtung (1969) redefined the concept of positive peace by involving ‘‘what it is not’’; that is, the absence of indirect or structural violence. Peace is then perceived to include two core values: ‘‘nonviolence’’ and ‘‘social justice.’’ Despite the latter specifications of the definitions of positive and negative peace, the debate is still continuing (cf. Galtung, 1996; Rinehart, 1995). Brock-Utne (1989) introduced the dimensions of organized and unorganized violence as characteristics of different organizational levels within society. She distinguished between the micro level (i.e., the individual level) and the macro level (i.e., the collective or society). While on the micro level, direct and indirect ‘‘unorganized violence’’ by individuals could be present, the macro level could be characterized by direct and indirect ‘‘organized’’ violence. From this perspective, negative peace should be defined either as the absence of direct unorganized violence (e.g., crime), as the absence of direct organized violence (i.e., usually war), or both. Consequently positive peace is defined by the absence of indirect unorganized violence (i.e., micro level) and the absence of indirect organized violence (i.e., macro level; Brock-Utne, 1989). Because indirect violence involves violence which may negatively affect the life chances of individuals as well as it’s quality, positive peace should include references to conditions that lead to longevity and optimal life conditions. On the societal or macro level this would mean, for instance, the absence of pollution or radiation and the absence of repression or discrimination, which are thought to reduce life chances and life quality respectively and the presence of universal human rights (e.g., democracy), which are thought to increase the quality of life (cf. Brock-Utne, 1989, p. 47). With respect to the micro level, Brocke-Utne referred to among others the presence of inequality in the distribution of economic resources in the family and repression (e.g., male dominance) resulting in an unequality in the freedom of choice and fulfilment for family members. Besides the conceptual framework previously discussed, other conceptual structures have been used to define differences in the meaning and understanding of peace (cf. Galtung, 1981, 1996; Rinehart, 1995). For instance, by comparing different cultures such as ancient Judaism and the Greek, Roman, Chinese, Japanese, and Indian cultures, Ishida (1969) studied variations in the inherent notions of peace based on the emphasis placed in them on factors like ‘‘justice’’ (e.g., realizing God’s will or fighting for the code of Allah, against injustice, for peace), ‘‘prosperity,’’ ‘‘unity and order’’ (i.e., a state of good order or the absence of war and violence), and ‘‘internal harmony’’ (i.e., tranquillity of the mind). According to Ishida, ‘‘the realization of justice, maintenance of good order, and tranquillity of the mind are likely to conflict with one another. For example we must oppose injustice in order to

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

357

realize justice; and this may threaten both good order and tranquillity of the mind’’ (p. 139). In addition, it is plausible to assume that ‘‘the more intense the desire to keep harmony among the members of a society with a strong ingroup consciousness, the stronger the tendency to fight against any enemy which threatens the inner harmony from outside’’ (p. 134). Rinehart (1995) argued ‘‘that there are concepts of peace ‘in society’ that are not adequately addressed in the mainstream scholarly literature on peace’’ (p. 380). He reported the presence of two ‘‘basic orientations’’ or ‘‘paradigms of peace’’ (i.e., the Popular and the Numinar paradigms) which can be viewed as being on different locations along a continuum of peace understanding. War has frequently been defined as ‘‘organized, collective, personal violence, usually between states but possible within one nation-state—so-called domestic wars’’ (Brock-Utne, 1989, p. 43). This definition of war involves only direct organized violence. The distinction between conflict and war is one of scale often expressed by the number of ‘‘battle-related deaths’’ of military forces involved in a conflict. With this criterion in mind, minor armed conflicts are defined by ‘‘battle-related deaths during the course of the conflict’’ ranging between 25 and 1000. When these casualties are more than 1000 during the course of the conflict, but fewer than 1000 in a particular year, reference is made to intermediate armed conflicts. Finally, war is defined by more than 1000 ‘‘battle-related deaths during a particular year’’ (Wallensteen & Sollenberg, 1997, p. 339). Intermediate armed conflicts and war are then referred to as major armed conflict. According to Wallensteen and Sollenberg (1997), there were a total of 36 armed conflicts in 1996. In the UN report ‘‘The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children,’’ Machel (1996) noted that the ‘‘patterns and characteristics of contemporary armed conflict’’ have changed (p. 5) and that the ‘‘proportion of war victims who are civilians has leaped dramatically from 5 percent to over 90 percent’’ in recent decades (p. 6). These changes have considerably increased the risks for children. In other words, the nature of armed conflict as well as their consequences are no longer a sole issue of the military, but directly involve civilians. In addition, the concept of indirect violence has been incorporated in definitions of war, albeit to a lesser extent than is the case for peace. For instance, Vriens and Aspeslagh (1985) defined war, by including indirect or structural violence, ‘‘as the interrelationship between violence, social injustice and underdevelopment, caused by unjust structures’’ (p. 14). Despite the considerable conceptual diversity when discussing peace and war, a shared position can be found when peace and war are regarded as social phenomena. Peace and war deal with relationships among and between people, groups, and nations. As social phenomena they involve a continuous sequence of interactions in which perspectives are either shared or ignored and actions and reactions are coordinated (cf. Galtung, 1996; Rinehart, 1995). As such, peace and war can be viewed as integral parts of the social world and experience. The understanding of peace and war among children

358

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

and adolescents, as well as developmental changes in this understanding, are then particular aspects of developing social knowledge (cf. Hakvoort, 1996b; Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, in press). The development of social knowledge can be studied from different perspectives. In the existing literature dealing with the development of children’s understanding of peace and war, two major theoretical models can be distinguished: The model of political socialization and Piaget’s cognitivedevelopmental theory. In addition, a third theoretical model can be discerned involving social–cognitive development, which is also related to Piagetian theory (cf. Selman, 1980). UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR Socialization Processes To discuss the role of social and political environments in the development of understanding peace and war, Haavelsrud (1970) and Rosell (1968) used the theoretical model of political socialization. Both investigators refer to this theoretical model in an exploratory way and did not verify assumptions empirically. Apparently, the primary purpose of these studies was to examine the extent to which social variables influence the individual attempts of children to understand the social phenomena of peace and war. Whereas Haavelsrud and Rosell refer to socialization processes and political socialization, one may question whether the understanding of peace and war was truly studied by these authors as products of social interaction as is implied by the definition of socialization processes within the field of developmental psychology (cf. Durkin, 1995). Despite the latter, Haavelrud’s and Rosell’s theoretical discussions on socialization variables provide information and guidelines for future research. In both studies external, environmental variables, as well as personality characteristics, are related to socialization of political knowledge (Haavelsrud, 1970; Rosell, 1968). According to Allen (1989), political socialization can be defined ‘‘as those developmental processes through which individuals acquire political orientations and patterns of behavior’’ (p. 1). Besides developing political attitudes, values, and behavior as part of a generalized role (i.e., primary political socialization), Rosell (1968) noted that new roles, not identical to the generalized one (i.e., secondary socialization), may interfere in this process. The way children understand peace and war may be illustrative of the influence of the social environment. For instance, according to Rosell, it is the general and dominant emphasis on negative peace by society and the media which lead children to understand peace as the absence of war or war activities. In addition, Rosell explained the emphasis on war activities in 8year-olds’ understanding of war and the concerns about consequences of war with the 11- and 14-year-olds by age socialization (p. 271). That is, social environments did not expect young children to reflect on the consequences

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

359

of war. Dinklage and Ziller (1989) used similar arguments to explain differences in the contents of peace and war photographs made by American and German children. They argued that the American and German cultural settings are different, which resulted in different meanings of peace and war. With regard to agents of socialization, families were perceived as the most important agents for young children. However, the impact of other socialization agents such as peer groups, school, and mass media were also emphasized (cf. Rosell, 1968). Jacob and Smith (1988) reported an interaction between children’s socioeconomic backgrounds and their verbal abilities. The higher the socioeconomic background the more associations were offered (i.e., the number of associations with peace and war was used as an indicator of children’s verbal abilities). A Dutch–Swedish comparative study was based on the explicit assumption that ‘‘adolescents’ knowledge about and attitudes towards manifestations of peace and war do not develop in a sociocultural and historical vacuum’’ (Hakvoort et al., 1998). The Netherlands and Sweden were considered to represent two comparable sociocultural contexts for socialization and development. Both countries belong to northwestern Europe, share democratic political systems, and have comparable standards of social and economical development involving education, health care, child care, and social welfare. Adolescents in both countries were expected to face similar perspectives for future education and employment and would share identical experiences with regard to information in the mass media (i.e., news about world events, fashion, and music). Sociocultural differences between the two countries were also noted. As the most obvious difference was noted—the historical fact that The Netherlands was directly involved in the Second World War in defending its borders and finally repelling invasion, while Sweden was only indirectly involved by supplying arms and information to both sides. Differences in Dutch and Swedish adolescents’ attitudes toward peace, which could be related to differences between both societies, were most clearly evident in their ideas about strategies to attain peace. The differences concerned in particular references to the absence or negation of war, positive global strategies (e.g., positive international relations, global meetings and conferences, and trade exchanges), disarmament, and sharing (e.g., sending clothes, food, and medicines to countries in war, helping and taking care of people). While the Swedish adolescents emphasized all these aspects more frequently, Dutch adolescents referred more often to abstract, norm-related values like equality, nondiscrimination, and democracy as important strategies for building and maintaining peace. On the basis of these findings, however, Hakvoort et al. were not able to reach any unequivocal conclusions as to which particular sociocultural factors affected these differences in adolescents’ perceptions of peace (i.e., strategies to attain and maintain peace) and in what way. Nevertheless, the authors argued speculatively that the findings

360

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

may indicate that in a society in which war and threats of war have been a (recent) reality (i.e., in The Netherlands) the emphasis on those aspects of society necessary to prevent violence and war and a positive evaluation of these aspects are more saliently present than in a society which has not experienced war and war activities for centuries (i.e., in Sweden). In other words, giving a high priority to the cessation of war activities ‘‘out there’’ (i.e., taking place elsewhere) appears more logical in societies which have experienced peace as a normal situation for many centuries (e.g., Sweden). However, for a clear comparative understanding of socialization processes (e.g., within the school, family, and media) within the two countries, more information is required concerning these processes. Additional empirical research is definitely needed to test and verify the assumptions. Relationship with Cognitive Development Initially, the understanding of peace and war was studied in relation to ˚ lvik, 1968), the cognitive development. In these studies (cf. Cooper, 1965; A Piagetian cognitive developmental theory was adopted. According to Piaget (1950), cognitive development is perceived to proceed through an invariant sequence of qualitatively different stages. These stages present different modes of cognitive organization and structure and reflect different ways of understanding the world. These changes in the structure of thinking (i.e., operational knowledge) have profound effects on the contents of knowledge as individuals mature. Consequently, age-related changes in the understanding of peace, war, and conflicts were expected. ˚ lvik (1968), the ability to understand According to Cooper (1965) and A that events affect each other reciprocally would be conditional for the development of a positive peace concept and the understanding of war as a mutual conflict between nations. However, no clear evidence was found in either study for relationships between children’s understanding of the reciprocity of events and their understanding of peace as a positive concept. According ˚ lvik (1968), this was because of the emphasis on concrete aspects of to A peace by mass media which resulted in the observed marginal impact of progressing abilities in reciprocal reasoning on children’s perceptions of peace. In addition, in both studies young children were found to attend to the concrete visual cues of war such as physical objects of war, while older children focused more on physical events, consequences of war, and negative evaluations of war activities. No reference to the mutual character of wars or conflicts was evident. The absence of any clear relationship between the understanding of peace and war and competences in reciprocal reasoning may be due to the nonsocial, impersonal context of Piaget’s tasks assessing the understanding of reciprocity (i.e., Piaget’s tasks are not embedded in social interactional contexts). As Chandler (1977) concluded, the ‘‘various assessment procedures [that have been used] are not formally equivalent, as has been usually supposed’’

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

361

(p. 120). Two other explanations for the absence of a clear relationship may ˚ lvik (1968) actually assessed children’s ability also be present. Whereas A of reciprocal reasoning by means of Piagetian tasks, Cooper (1965) did not. Cooper placed his findings with regard to children’s understanding of peace and war within a Piagetian theoretical framework to explain and understand them. Secondly, little information is offered about the reliability and validity of the assessment procedures used in both studies to assess the understanding and criticism could also be raised with respect to the assessment procedures used. The latter is discussed in detail below. Relationship with Social–Cognitive Development As with the assessment of the ability of reciprocal thinking, Piaget’s assessment of the development of role-taking ability—as one of the indices for egocentrism—focused primarily on nonsocial contexts (e.g., visual roleor perspective-taking; Piaget, 1926; Piaget & Inhelder, 1956). However, peace and war are social phenomena, the understanding of which is thought to emerge directly from social experiences. Social experience involves dynamic interactive processes between developing conceptions about peace and war and aspects of the social environment. Consequently, insights into children’s understanding of the social world are essential and should constitute one of the major points of departure for the study of phenomena such as peace and war. With this rational in mind, Hakvoort and Oppenheimer (1993) adapted a social–cognitive developmental approach emphasizing the relationship between cognitive and social development. Selman’s (1980) stage theory for perspective coordination was thought to provide the most detailed model for social–cognitive development based on interpersonal inferences. This theoretical framework was also used in the longitudinal study with Dutch children (Hakvoort, 1996a,b). Based on Selman’s (1980) five levels for social–cognitive development (i.e., role-taking or interpersonal understanding), hypotheses were formulated specifying the understanding of peace and war in relation to these five levels (Hakvoort, 1996b). Because young children are not able to differentiate between their own perspective and those of others (i.e., Stage 0: Egocentric viewpoint), they will perceive peace and war as static, situation-related events. Their associations with peace, as well as with war, were expected to reflect a concrete, visible, and material-oriented understanding of peace and war. When the ability to distinguish between different perspectives is present (i.e., Stage 1: Social-informational role-taking) children will come to acknowledge and understand personal relations resulting in peace being understood as being friends and war as having conflicts with friends. The attainment of self-reflective role taking (i.e., Stage 2: Self-reflection) was expected to be conditional for the understanding of peace in terms of cooperation between groups involving psychological processes and war in terms of bilateral conflicts. Simultaneous with the described changes in the

362

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

understanding of peace and war, a developmental shift was expected from concrete, materially oriented conceptions of peace to abstract, value-oriented conceptions of peace. In particular, the understanding of mutual affective relationships between people and nations (i.e., Stage 3: Mutual role-taking) was thought necessary for a more abstract, norm-related reasoning about peace (e.g., requiring tolerance, acceptation, and mutual respect) and war. The last stage in this developmental sequence (i.e., Stage 4: Interdependent role-taking) was assumed to lead to the realization that there is no complete understanding and that social conventions are compromises based on democratic processes. Consequently, the application of universal rights in the understanding of peace of adolescents was expected. At this level of interpersonal understanding, war was expected to be understood as conflicts within and between complex systems. In the study with Dutch children and adolescents (Hakvoort, 1996a, 1996b), a strong relationship was evident between the development of the role-taking ability and the understanding of peace. This relationship was still evident after the effects of age were controlled. Consequently, it was concluded that qualitative changes in the understanding of peace are structurally related to the understanding of interpersonal relationships. When children realized that their own and others’ perspectives influence one another reciprocally (i.e., self-reflective role-taking; Stage 2), peace was more frequently related to positive emotions at a global level (e.g., international meetings, bilateral contacts between nations, and a united Europe). While a relationship between mutual role taking (i.e., Stage 3) and a more abstract, norm-related reasoning was expected, the appearance of human attitudes such as respect and tolerance in the understanding of peace was already found to be related to Stage 2 reasoning about interpersonal relationships. However, substantial increases in the use of human attitudes in reasoning about peace were observed from the onset of mutual role taking (i.e., Stage 3). The latter level of role-taking, involving the ability to adapt a third-person’s perspective and evident primarily with adolescents, related to the understanding of peace in terms of universal rights. This level of reasoning about peace, however, was expected to be related to Stage 4 reasoning about interpersonal relationships; a stage that was not found in the responses. With regard to the understanding of war some developmental trends were observed showing a relationship between the understanding of Stage 2 role-taking (i.e., that perspectives influence one another reciprocally) and the understanding of war as nonmutual and mutual conflicts. Similarly, a qualitative evaluation of war was found to be related to the ability to adapt a third-person’s perspective (Stage 3). These findings did not confirm Hakvoort’s (1996b) theoretical assumption that understanding war in terms of bilateral or multinational conflicts would be possible from the moment that children come to understand the reciprocity between perspectives (i.e., Stage 2). At Stage 3, involving the mutual nature

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

363

of interpersonal relationships, this type of understanding would then be strengthened. Empirical Research Since Cooper’s (1965) study, a rough distinction can be made between two research waves focusing on the understanding of peace and war among children and adolescents. The first research wave can be historically positioned in the 1960s and early 1970s (cf. Cooper, 1965; Haavelsrud, 1970; ˚ lvik, 1968) and the second from the beginMercer, 1974; Rosell, 1968; A ning of the 1980s (cf. Covell et al., 1994; Dinklage & Ziller, 1989; Falk & Selg, 1982; Hall, 1993; Jacob & Schmidt, 1988; Van Kempen, Peek, & Vriens, 1986; McCreary & Palmer, 1991; Rodd, 1985; Spielmann, 1986). Recently two studies dealing with children’s and adolescent’s understanding of peace and war were conducted with Dutch children: a cross-sectional pilot study (Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1993) and a longitudinal, timesequential study (Hakvoort, 1996b). To verify the extent to which findings of these studies can be generalized to other sociocultural settings and to examine whether sociocultural-related differences are present, systematic cross-cultural research has been initiated from the mid-1990s (cf. Hakvoort, Ha¨gglund, & Oppenheimer, 1998; McLernon, Ferguson, & Cairns, 1997; Mohammad, 1996). In Table 1, an overview is presented of earlier and contemporary studies detailing the country(ies) in which the study was conducted, the age range involved, sample size, and procedure(s). Prior to the description and discussion of the findings of these studies, methodological issues should be dealt with. An examination of the different assessment procedures employed will offer an indication toward the comparability of studies and the influence of different methods on the outcomes. Methods used in this field of research. To elicit information about people’s knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, and understanding of certain issues, the use of questionnaires is particularly suited and verbal responses (oral or written) are widely used sources of data (Judd, Smith, & Kidder, 1991). In questionnaires as well as interviews, information is obtained by using questions ranging from rigidly standardized to completely unstructured. In standardized questionnaires, the questions as well as the choice of responses are predetermined or fixed; in unstructured questionnaires, neither the questions nor the responses are determined or constrained (Judd et al., 1991, pp. 239–241). For the assessment of children’s and adolescent’s understanding of peace and war predominantly open-ended questions were used. In a few studies, multiple-choice questions were added (cf. Covell et al., 1994; Hall, 1993) to study the sources by which children collect their information about the phenomena of peace and war. In contrast to the stable use of open-ended questions, the format and formulation of the questions in the various mea-

Year

1965

1968 1968

1970 1974 1982

1984 1985 1986

1986 1988 1988 1989

1991

1993 1993

1994

1996 1996 1997 1998

Study

Cooper

˚ lvik A Rosell

Haavelsrud Mercer Falk & Selg

Engel Rodd Van Kempen et al.

Spielmann Cretu Jacob & Schmidt Dinklage & Ziller

McCreary & Palmer

Hakvoort & Oppenheimer Hall

Covell et al.

Hakvoort Mohammad McLernon et al. Hakvoort et al.

Netherlands Malaysia N. Ireland Comparison, Netherlands– Sweden

Canada

Netherlands Australia

Israel Romania East-Germany Germany USA Australia, Canada, USA

USA Australia Netherlands

6–18 8–18 14–15 13–17

8–18

7–17 4–16

9–18 ⬍6 8–12 8–11 Idem 13–14

4–7 4–5 6–12

10–17 12–17 7–16

7–8; 13–14 8–12 8–14

Japan Norway Sweden

West Berlin Scotland Germany

5–16

Age

England

Country

203; 102m, 101f 81;46m 35f 45: 21m 25f 161: 76 Dutch, 85 Swedish

159: 72m, 87f

101: 52m, 49f 608

1224 30 120: 61m, 59f 80: 40m, 40f 80: idem 126 m ⫹ f

⫾20 60: 28m, 32f 264: 123m, 141f

565: 284m, 281f 2400 370

5–6: 25; ⬎6: 231, 93m, 138f 113: 71m, 42f 114: 55m, 59f 198: 100m, 98f

Sample

Procedure 5–6: Interview; ⬎6: questionnaire Questionnaire Interview 8: Interview; ⬎8: questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire 7–8: Interview; ⬎8: questionnaire Drawing and writing Interview Drawing and small group discussion Essay Drawing Free association Photocommunication Idem Peace in the family questionnaire Interview 4–10: Interview; ⬎10: questionnaire 8–9: Interview; ⬎9: questionnaire Interview Interview Questionnaire Interview

TABLE 1 Previous and Recent Research on Children’s and Adolescents’ Understanding of Peace and War

364 HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

365

sures differed considerably. With regard to the format, a pen-and-paper (i.e., written) procedure was most commonly used (i.e., at least in 10 of the studies in Table 1). In his exploratory study, Cooper (1965) used an open-ended questionnaire to examine conceptions of war with English and Japanese children and adolescents. The age range for the English sample was from 5 to 16 years and for the Japanese sample from 7 to 8 and 13 to 14 years. The dominant focus of this study was upon conceptions of war, though also questions about conceptions of peace were present.1 Unfortunately, the dominant focus on the understanding of war is quite common in the majority of studies. In many studies, the employed assessment procedures start with questions about war, which often outnumber questions about peace. While the 7- to 16-year-olds in Cooper’s study were requested to give written replies to the questionnaire, the 5- and 6-year-old participants were interviewed individually. When participants’ written responses could not be interpreted unambiguously they were interviewed individually at a later stage. After Cooper (1965), various investigators used a similar version of his questionnaire and procedure. That is, the pen-and-paper procedure was most common with children from the age of 7 or 8 onward, while interviews were most frequently used with younger children. In other words, usually different procedures (i.e., format of the questionnaires) were used with children of different ages. These differences considerably constrained the comparability of age groups. ˚ lvik’s An examination of the studies from the first wave shows that only A study (1968) used a method that was applicable for all participants irrespec˚ lvik (1968) used drawings and tive of age (i.e., individual interview). A several identical questions in individual interviews to assess 8- to 12-yearold Norwegian children’s understanding of peace and war.2 Haavelsrud (1970) and Rosell (1968) also made use of a slightly revised and translated version of Cooper’s (1965) questionnaire to examine respectively West Berlin (mean ages: 10, 12, 15, and 17 years) and Swedish children’s (mean ages: 8, 11, and 14 years) understanding of peace and war. Except for the youngest Swedish children (Rosell, 1968), a written procedure was used for the participants in both studies. Mercer (1974) also made use of items from Cooper’s ˚ lvik’s (1968) questionnaires to construct a self-administered (1965) and A questionnaire for the assessment of Scottish adolescent’s views on peace and war (age range: 12–17 years). The assessment methods used in the majority of studies from the second wave (cf. Covell et al., 1994; Falk & Selg, 1982; Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1 Cooper (1965) started his questionnaire with a request for free associations to the term war. Then, associations to the term peace were requested. 2 ˚ Alvik (1968) also used the free association procedure. In contrast to Cooper (1965), he assessed the concept of peace first. In addition, children were asked to define peace to peers and ‘‘What can we do to make sure that there will regularly be peace?’’

366

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

1993; Hall, 1993; Jacob & Schmidt, 1988) were comparable to Cooper’s (1965) procedure. The pen-and-paper procedure remained a frequently used method for the older ages. However, such procedures do not permit any prompting and a considerable risk exists that the responses merely reflect socially desirable or stereotype conceptions. For instance, Covell et al. (1994) assumed in their study that the absence of an abstract understanding of peace was due to the infrequent occurrence of ‘‘peace exemplars’’ (i.e., instances of peace) in society and that the absence of such examplars hampers the development of such an understanding. It can be argued, however, that the absence of abstract understanding is the result of the employed penand-paper procedure rather than the absence of peace exemplars. Almost all participants gave only one response (Covell et al., 1994), which may have reflected stereotypical understanding only. According to Hakvoort (1996b), the comparability of responses over different ages, as well as the complexity of the phenomena under study, set high demands upon the assessment method. She argued that ‘‘aspects such as completeness of response, sensitivity to misunderstanding, additional probing of inadequate and vague responses, as well as an efficient guarding of the order in which questions are answered were considered very important . . . to obtain complete and meaningful data that would allow insights into the complexity of these conceptions’’ [i.e., conceptions of peace and war] (Hakvoort, 1996b, p. 34). The use of prompting (i.e., probing questions) in these studies would address two important aspects of the reliability of the collected data. First, probing is used by the interviewer to ensure a correct and complete understanding of what is meant by a particular response. This procedure prevents the occurrence of any later errors in the interpretation of the verbal responses. Second, probing stimulates the participants to continue to respond. In that way children may provide additional information. When children begin to repeat themselves, probing is stopped. Besides the pen-and-paper procedure, procedures involving interviews, essays, drawings, and photocommunication (i.e., making pictures) were also present in the second wave. To control verbal abilities some investigators introduced nonverbal methods to assess the understanding of peace and war (i.e., emphasizing the relationship between the understanding of reality and creative activities; cf. Bu¨ttner, 1983; Cretu, 1988; Dinklage & Ziller, 1989; Engel, 1984). Dinklage and Ziller (1989) used a procedure of photocommunication in their study with children from Germany and the United States (age range: 8–11 years). The instruction to make pictures which represent peace and war best, without any additional specification, undoubtedly complicated the interpretation of the findings. In two exploratory studies (Cretu, 1988; Engel, 1984), a creative activity was included in the assessment. However, both exploratory studies were nonsystematic and limited in their scope by the predominant focus on the content of preschool children’s perceptions. For instance, in her study dealing with Romanian preschool children’s per-

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

367

ceptions of peace, Cretu (1988) asked them to draw something in connection with the word ‘‘peace.’’ Engel (1984) studied discussions about drawings and writings dealing with the theme ‘‘If I were the boss of the world’’ in a class of young American children (i.e., kindergarten through second grade). Engel indicated that ‘‘imaginative invention helps children to sort out feelings, not only about war and nuclear weapons but also many aspects of their happiness and security in the world’’ (p. 304). In a more systematic study, Van Kempen et al. (1986) used Dutch children’s drawings of peace and war (age range: 6–12 years) followed by group discussions. With regard to the formulation of the questions, free associations with peace and war were commonly used. In more recent studies, other questions about war were also present, such as definitions of war and questions about causes of war and reasons for participating. Other investigators constructed new instruments (cf. McCreary & Palmer, 1991; Spielmann, 1986). For example, Spielmann (1986) asked Jewish and Arab children and adolescents (ages: 9–10, 13–14, and 17–18 years) to write an essay titled ‘‘Thoughts about Peace’’ prior to and following the visit of Anwar Sadat (President of Egypt) to Israel. McCreary and Palmer (1991), on the other hand, constructed a questionnaire dealing with ‘‘Peace in the Family’’ and used this instrument with 13- and 14-year-old adolescents from Sydney (Australia), Toronto (Canada), and Chicago (USA). In the latter instrument, however, the questions were almost indentical to the questions dealing with free associations and definitions. The studies of Covell et al. (1994), Hakvoort and Oppenheimer (1993), and Hall (1993) were most obviously based on studies from the first wave (e.g., Cooper, 1965; Haavelsrud, 1970; Rosell, 1968). In two successive studies (Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1993; Hakvoort, 1996a, 1996b), Hakvoort examined Dutch children’s and adolescent’s (age ranges from 7 to 17 and from 6 to 18 years, respectively) understanding of peace and war by means of verbal associations and definitions. To complement studies with a dominant focus on the understanding of war and in order to make it possible to enlarge our insights into the understanding of peace, participants’ ideas about strategies to attain peace were explicitly studied in this research. For this purpose a series of questions involving interpersonal and international relationships were newly developed. All open-ended questions were presented individually as interviews. To avoid problems with regard to comparability, a procedure suitable for all age groups was carefully constructed. To compare the responses from Dutch and Swedish children and adolescents, a study with Swedish subjects (ages 7–17) was conducted (Hakvoort et al., 1998). A translated version of the Dutch instrument was used to assess the ideas of the Swedish children and adolescents. Similarly, the ideas of Malay children and adolescents (ages 8–17) were assessed by the same interview procedure translated into the Malay language (Mohammad, 1996). McLernon et al. (1997) included a few questions from the Dutch interview

368

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

in their study. A written procedure was used to explore the understanding of peace and war of Northern Irish adolescent’s (ages 14–15) before and after the IRA cease-fire (i.e., a first pilot study). Covell et al. (1994) tested the understanding of peace and war (ages 8–9, 10–11, 13–15, and 16–18) among Canadian children and adolescents by means of a questionnaire including several questions which were identical to those used in earlier studies ˚ lvik, 1968). Covell et (cf. Cooper, 1965; Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1993; A al. (1994) interviewed children in grades 3 and 4 individually, while older children and adolescents were presented with a written procedure. To address the question of whether the results of earlier studies could be replicated with Australian children from younger age groups (age range: 4–10 years) and adolescents (age range: 11–16 years), Hall (1993) used interviews with the 4- to 10-year-olds and a written questionnaire, consisting of a combination of open-ended and multiple-choice questions, with the 11-to 16-year-olds. With regard to the formulation of the questions within the questionnaires, we can conclude that some questions, such as the free-association question to peace and war, were present in many studies. A few investigators argued, however, that peace in particular but also war are complex concepts and that for an adequate understanding of the developmental course of children’s and adolescents’ understanding of these concepts additional open-ended ques˚ lvik (1968), Falk and Selg (1982), Haktions were required. Consequently, A voort (1996a, 1996b), McCreary and Palmer (1991), and Rosell (1968) included questions requiring participants to define both concepts. In addition, ˚ lvik (1968), Hakvoort (1996b), Hakvoort et al. (1998), in the studies by A Hakvoort and Oppenheimer (1993), McCreary and Palmer (1991), and Mohammad (1996) questions were added to elicit children’s and adolescent’s ideas about strategies to attain peace. In other studies, questions were included to assess children’s attitudes toward war, such as whether it is right or wrong to be involved in a specific war, instead of adding questions assessing children’s understanding of peace and war. There is some evidence that the content (i.e., the structural and referential aspects) of the used questions influences the nature of the responses. For instance, in comparing definitions of war with free associations to war, Rosell (1968) demonstrated that each question appealed to different aspects of this concept. In addition, Hakvoort (1996a,b) and Hakvoort and Oppenheimer (1993) found ample evidence for differences between question-related understandings of peace. In the discussion of the results we return to this issue because it is important for a correct interpretation of the findings. Besides the importance of the format of the questionnaire and content of the used question, differences in coding procedures also influence comparability between studies. With regard to the coding procedure and coding methodology, the studies are similar. Probably because of the exploratory nature of most studies, researchers gathered data in an attempt to specify the contents of children’s and adolescents’ thinking about peace and war (i.e., induc-

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

369

tive method). To be able to categorize the responses, thematic units had to be identified (i.e., process of unitizing, see Holsti, 1969, p. 136). Identification of units made it possible to label them. Although a similar approach was used for coding, the labeling of the thematic units and the description of what should be included and excluded within categories was mainly based on available empirical data and theory. Consequently, a long list of possible themes can be compiled, which have been and can be related to peace and war. Because of differences in the labeling of thematic units in the various studies, it is difficult to evaluate whether the different sets of categories are identical across studies. Before embarking on a more detailed review of the findings of earlier studies, some reflections are warranted on the research designs that have been used. That is, most studies from the first and second wave were based on a cross-sectional design. Exceptions were the studies by Spielmann (1986), McLernon et al. (1997), Hakvoort (1996b), and Mohammad (1996). While Spielmann and McLernon et al. assessed the understanding of peace and war before and after an important event (i.e., Sadat’s visit to Israel and the ceasefire by the IRA, respectively), Hakvoort and Mohammad employed longitudinal, time-sequential designs involving repeated measures. Further, the participants in most studies were primarily from one country. Some studies involved participants from two or more countries (cf. Cooper, 1965; McCreary and Palmer, 1991) or from different sociocultural settings within one country (Spielmann, 1986). Only recently have systematic comparisons between participants from different countries or sociocultural settings been initiated (cf. Ha¨gglund, Hakvoort, & Oppenheimer, 1996; Hakvoort et al., 1998). In the following sections, the findings of the various studies are reviewed. Besides age, gender is included as an important variable, because it is perceived to result in qualitative differences between the understanding of peace and war. The Role of Age and Gender In studies from the first wave, the first coherent verbal associations to peace and war were observed with 6-year-old children (cf. Cooper, 1965; ˚ lvik, 1968). From that age onwards the understanding of Rosell, 1968; A these concepts was found to progress. However, children’s understanding of war preceded their understanding of peace and by the time the understanding of peace developed, children were considerably more proficient in verbalizing war than peace. The fact that children are found to develop an understanding of war before the age of 6 implies that preschool ages should be included in future studies. However such an inclusion will require a reflection on the use of ‘‘verbal’’ methods and, subsequently, the control of verbal abilities and fluency. Studies from the second wave confirmed these findings and also demon-

370

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

strated that even young children understand the meaning of peace and war. In some of the studies preschool children were involved (Cretu, 1988; Engel, 1984; Hall, 1993; Rodd, 1985). While Hall (1993) and Rodd (1985) used interviews, Cretu (1998) and Engel (1984) made use of drawings. Unfortunately, both later studies were less systematic. Rodd (1985) noted that whereas only a small number of Australian preschool children could verbalize their understanding of war, most children understood the threat implied. In drawings of Romanian preschool children, Cretu (1988) identified different themes related to peace, such as doves and flowers. The earlier finding that the understanding of war developmentally precedes the understand of peace was replicated with West German children (ages: 7–8, 10–12, 14–16; Falk & Selg, 1982) and former-East German children (mean ages: 6, 8, 10, and 12 years; Jacob & Schmidt, 1988). Similarly, examining Canadian children’s understanding of peace and war, Covell et al. (1994) reported the understanding of peace to develop later than the understanding of war. These developmental differences were not found by Hall (1993) in his study with Australian children. The absence of age-related differences in the understanding of peace and war were explicitly emphasized by Hall (see p. 183, Table 1). Nevertheless, gender-related differences were reported by Hall for the youngest age group: more girls than boys were able to define peace, while more boys than girls could define war (p. 189). This finding may indicate an interaction between age and gender showing that with Australian boys the understanding of war developmentally precedes the understanding of peace and that with girls the understanding of peace developmentally precedes the understanding of war. On the basis of the drawings obtained from 6- and 7-year-old Dutch children, Van Kempen et al. (1986) concluded that peace and war are ambiguous concepts. In particular, the 6-year-olds hesitated much in their drawings of peace and war and it was apparently difficult for them to understand what to draw. From the age of 6 to 12, it became easier for the children to produce drawings about peace and war and they acquired a considerable knowledge about and insights into these issues during this period. Of interest is Van Kempen et al.’s finding that it was easier for these children to explain their drawings about war than their drawings about peace. Also in the study by Hakvoort and Oppenheimer (1993), the comprehension and verbal articulation of war with Dutch children was found to precede the understanding of peace by several years. By the age of 8, all children offered comprehensive ideas about war. For peace this was only the case from the age of 10. In addition, considerably more 8-year-old girls than boys were able to verbalize peace adequately. In a second study and in accordance with the previous findings, Hakvoort (1996a, 1996b) reported that all 6- to 8-year-old Dutch children showed an understanding of war. For the understanding and verbalization of peace major developmental changes were evident between the ages of 6 and 10. How-

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

371

ever, when the latter findings are compared with those of earlier studies in ˚ lvik, 1968), other countries (cf. Cooper, 1965; Hall, 1993; Rosell, 1968; A it appears that the understanding of peace with Dutch children develops at a later age than indicated for children of other nationalities. Nevertheless, these results replicated and confirmed earlier findings with Dutch children (Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1993; Van Kempen et al., 1986). An additional point of interest is a gender-related reversal in the understanding of peace in the most recent study (Hakvoort, 1996a, 1996b). Contrary to their earlier findings (Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1993), Hakvoort (1996b) reported that boys understood peace earlier than girls. Because of these contradictory findings, it is not possible to conclude unequivocally whether children of either sex understand peace developmentally earlier. Content and Age-Related Qualitative Changes Understanding peace. For young English children the image of peace was primarily filled by social activities and an end to hostile activities or states of no fighting (Cooper, 1965). After a sharp increase in references to social activities (e.g., becoming friends and being cooperative and friendly) until the age of 12, this particular image of peace became less evident. References to international activities which would lead to, for instance, respite from war, also decreased. Simultaneously personal images of ‘‘inactivity’’ rapidly increased from the age of 10 resulting in peace being predominantly defined by ‘‘inactive and personal considerations of quiet and silence’’ (Cooper, 1965, p. 5) with English adolescents. That is, ‘‘peace of mind’’ was most frequently associated with peace, while occasionally ‘‘boredom’’ and peace being ‘‘uninteresting’’ were mentioned. According to Cooper (1965), ‘‘reconciliation from war, the means of avoiding war and sustaining international goodwill’’ (p. 4) were not evident in the responses of the youngest age group and were only infrequently mentioned by adolescents in their associations with peace. Contrary to English adolescents, Japanese adolescents associated peace more often with international relationships involving respite of war as well as reconciliation. Because identical assessment procedures were used, the differences in understanding peace between English and Japanese adolescents must have other explanatory sources. We speculatively assume a cultural difference in the perception of peace and war by the English and Japanese sociocultural settings. This is also supported by Cooper’s (1965) finding that Japanese children are less concerned with consequences of war than their English peers (see below). Norwegian children understood peace primarily by the negation of war ˚ lvik, 1968). A slight age-related increase in the or a state of quietness (A understanding of peace in terms of international understanding and cooperation was evident in spite of its infrequent occurrence. These findings corre˚ lvik (1968) concluded that spond with those reported by Cooper (1965). A children were fairly well informed about concrete aspects of peace.

372

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

˚ lvik’s (1968) findings, 10- to 12-year-old children from Consistent with A Sweden (Rosell, 1968) and West Berlin (Haavelsrud, 1970) perceived peace to involve primarily the negation of war. While Rosell (1968) assumed that 14-year-olds would be able to perceive peace more as a process towards cooperation and integration, no such relationship with age could be demon˚ lvik, 1968), Swedish children and adostrated. Like Norwegian children (A lescents were well acquainted with concrete aspects of peace. With older adolescents from West Berlin (mean ages: 15 and 17 years), on the other hand, an age-related increase could be demonstrated in their understanding of peace in terms of coexistence, relationships among people, nations, and parties (Haavelsrud, 1970). Mercer (1974) noted that it was difficult to detect qualitative changes in adolescent’s associations to peace. Only ‘‘signs of a slowly emerging belief that peace may be achieved through active promotion and international cooperation, such as direct attacks on what are seen as the underlying causes of war—like poverty and over-population’’ (pp. 247–248) were found. The studies conducted in the 1960s and early 1970s show little evidence for clear qualitative age-related changes. It should be noted, however, that in these studies, the understanding of peace was typically studied by asking children and adolescents for free associations. As was noted previously, it is not inconceivable that this procedure does not result in responses beyond socially desirable or stereotypic responses. The dominant images of peace reported in the studies of the first wave referred to the absence of war and ˚ lvik’s (1968) study, written procedures friendships. In addition, in all but A were used and we already noted that such a procedure does not permit any ˚ lvik (i.e., interprompting. Based on the assessment procedure used by A views), and the inclusion of several different questions concerning peace, we might have expected age-related changes with Norwegian children. None were present. This finding may be due to the limited age range of the partici˚ lvik’s study (i.e., from 8 to 12 years). Only Haavelsrud (1970) pants in A reported a relationship with age, in particular with the 15- and 17-year-olds. The drawings of Dutch children (Van Kempen et al., 1986) showed peace to be related to harmony and to be involved in their own world and experiences. In the first-wave studies harmony was not reported as a construct. Therefore, it is important to examine more closely what is meant by harmony. With young children harmony related primarily to nature (e.g., trees, flowers, and animals), while with older children harmony was perceived within a wider context as the sum of friendly relations between people (e.g., making friends again and stopping quarrels). These children experienced peace as a harmonious situation in a safe world. In particular the perception of harmony in terms of making friends has been indicated in earlier studies as a social activity. Besides harmony, boys also mentioned a sensation of dullness or the absence of excitement. It was not until the age of 10 that children’s perceptions start to include aspects of the external outer world.

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

373

The relationship between peace and nature was also mentioned by American children (Dinklage & Ziller, 1989). When asked to make a ‘‘peace picture’’ (i.e., a photograph), these children preferred foremost views of nature. German children in this study, however, made photographs of people to represent peace pictorially (i.e., the human category). Children’s understanding of peace by social activities was described previously (e.g., Cooper, 1965) and was recurrently mentioned in other studies. Consequently, it is quite likely that social activities exist as a stereotype image of peace in different countries. For instance, Falk and Selg (1982) reported an age-related increase in positive concepts of peace (e.g., love and friendships) in West German children’s and adolescent’s associations with and definitions of peace. These social connotations of peace were mentioned more often by girls than boys. According to Jacob and Schmidt (1989), former-East German children also associated peace primarily with social aspects (e.g., happiness, pleasure, and well-being of all people). In particular the 6-year-olds in their study referred frequently to negation of war activities and objects of war in their associations. The main focus of the studies by Spielmann (1986) and McCreary and Palmer (1991) was the understanding of peace. In Spielman’s (1986) study the main difference between 10- and 14-year-olds concerned the way in which they expressed their understanding of peace in written essays (i.e., before and after Sadat’s visit to Israel). While the younger children made use of short and simple compositions, the compositions of the older children were longer and considerably more expressive. From an interpretative point of view, it can be argued that the compositions of younger children are not as advanced as those of older children. From a developmental perspective, however, the (verbal) ability to write essays differs significantly between the ages (McNeill, 1970). Spielmann (1986) did not explicitly control for this ability. McCreary and Palmer (1991) reported that three different response clusters or patterns could be discerned in children’s and adolescents’ thinking about peace. The first pattern emerged from ‘‘a wide range of positive feelings’’ which were mentioned with regard to peace and was interpreted as a pattern of ‘‘inner joy and happiness in a calm and tranquil atmosphere’’ (p. 851). A second pattern dealt with references to interpersonal relationships based on caring and sharing, understanding, cooperation, and harmony (i.e., social connotations of peace). This pattern of interpersonal relationships closely resembled the responses found with adolescents from West Berlin (Haavelsrud, 1970). A third response pattern referred to the ‘‘elimination of peace-threatening attitudes and behaviors prefaced by no (e.g., no fighting, no violence, no war, no hatred)’’ (p. 852). When adolescents were asked what changes would be necessary to make their lives more peaceful, in particular the elimination of conflict-producing behaviors (e.g., fighting) and aspects of social consciousness, such as a concern for the homeless, animals, environmental abuse, and the quality of life, were mentioned. Processes to-

374

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

ward peace involved the attainment of compromises and the establishment of cooperation. When asked how ‘‘world peace’’ could be achieved, changes in attitudes as a result of improvements in interpersonal relationships and skills were the predominant responses (e.g., improving interactions between members of families, societies, and nations, as well as the understanding of and respect for racial and religious differences). No differences in the understanding of peace between adolescents from Australia, Canada, and the United States were evident (McCreary & Palmer, 1991). Despite the use of identical written procedures, the different questions resulted in a wide range of ideas about peace. In the studies with Dutch participants (Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1993; Hakvoort, 1996a, 1996b), three distinct response patterns in the understanding of peace could be discerned when subjects were asked for associations with peace. Peace was either associated with negation of war at a global level (i.e., the absence of war), positive emotions at an individual level (e.g., being friends), or negation of war at an individual level (i.e., the absence of quarrels). The same patterns were present when participants were requested to offer definitions of peace (Hakvoort, 1996b). The response patterns involving absence of war as well as being friends closely resemble those found by McCreary and Palmer (1991). The longitudinal, time-sequential design used in the latter study (Hakvoort, 1996b) offered important insights into our understanding of age-related qualitative changes in the understanding of peace. The longitudinal data of the youngest children (i.e., 6 to 8 years old at the first assessment) showed that from the moment that understanding of peace emerged this understanding was characterized by the three response patterns. The responses to questions pertaining to strategies to attain peace demonstrated surprising shifts in the understanding of peace. Children and adolescents were requested to formulate such strategies from either an unspecified or three specified societal positions (i.e., one as national and two as international leader). For instance, all participants were requested to consider ways to attain peace as ‘‘boss’’ of the Netherlands. While peace was still predominantly understood by the absence of war (i.e., negation of war at a global level), peace understood in terms of individual levels of positive emotions and negation of war was less obvious. Most importantly, however, was the finding that the introduction of different societal positions in the strategy questions resulted in appearance of hitherto undetected levels in the understanding of peace. First, approximately one-third of all participants, irrespective of age, referred to disarmament, nature and pollution, and sharing (i.e., taking care of Third World countries and poor people) when formulating strategies to attain peace. Second, an age-related trend was observed in understanding peace in terms of cooperation and bilateral contacts between nations (i.e., positive emotions at a global level). Third, clear and systematic

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

375

age-related changes were evident showing that peace became increasingly understood in relation to human attitudes. Prior to the age of 10, issues like mutual respect and tolerance between people, or desegregation, were rarely present in the participants’ understanding of peace. From the age of 10 years, however, ample references to mutual respect and tolerance became apparent. Finally, from the age of 12 years the understanding of peace came to include universal rights as a necessary component when strategies were formulated from specified societal positions. The only clear gender-related differences in the understanding of peace reported by Hakvoort (1996b) concerned the responses to the free association and definition questions. Girls tended to refer more often to their immediate environment (i.e., the absence of quarrels or quarrelsome activities), while boys’ perceptions more frequently involved a global level. When data from Dutch and Swedish adolescents were compared (Hakvoort et al., 1998), gender differences previously discussed were replicated. Though the differences were small, Swedish female adolescents referred more frequently to being friends with others (i.e., positive emotions at an individual levels) and social relationships than male adolescents. In order to attain peace, female adolescents reported that strategies should be used which involve sharing (e.g., sending clothes and money) and taking care of and helping people. In addition, world leaders should focus upon more concrete positive and global strategies to attain peace (e.g., organizing international meetings and conferences, economical and commercial relations, and so on). While male adolescents also referred to these ‘‘female conceptions’’ about the way peace could be achieved, they did so less frequently. The preliminary results from the Malay study (Mohammad, 1996) suggested similar age-related changes for human attitudes (e.g., mutual respect and tolerance) and universal rights as reported in the Dutch study. In agreement with the previous findings (Hakvoort, 1996b), Malay children include human attitudes as elements of peace from the age of 10 only. In addition, after age 12 aspects of universal rights also became apparent in their understanding of peace. Girls appeared to be more advanced than boys. According to Covell et al. (1994), Canadian children as well as adolescents (ages 7–18 years) understood peace primarily in concrete and general terms. Nevertheless, and in agreement with findings from the Dutch studies (Hakvoort, 1996a,b; Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1993), a more frequent and abstract understanding of peace was observed with the older Canadian adolescents in particular (i.e., ages 16–18 years). While only 6.5% of the 11- to 13-year-olds showed abstract reasoning about peace, 35.1% of the older adolescents did so. According to Covell et al., findings like these ‘‘may reflect a complexity and ambiguity in the concept [of peace] itself ’’ (p. 732). In their understanding of peace, 4- to 6-year-old Australian children em-

376

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

phasized tranquillity (e.g., ‘‘It’s getting away from people,’’ Hall, 1993, p. 187). At a later age (7–10 years), a distinction became apparent between tranquillity and respite from hostility; the latter being mentioned more often by this age group. Australian adolescents emphasized primarily aspects of reconciliation (i.e., international and positive contributions to peace). Social harmony as a characteristic of peace was used more often from the age of 9, while respite from hostilities, quietness, and solitude decreased. At older ages (i.e., from the age of 11 years), female participants expressed a more complex or holistic understanding of peace than male participants (i.e., social harmony as well as reconciliation were included in the female’s understanding of peace; Hall, 1993). Understanding war. Young English children in Cooper’s study (1965) were primarily concerned with concrete aspects of war (i.e., objects of war such as guns and fighter planes) and to a lesser extent with participants involved in war, such as soldiers and countries. With age, war became understood more in terms of war activities such as fighting, killing, and dying and the recognition of the (negative) consequences of war, a shift which also corresponded with an increase in negative emotional responses (e.g., ‘‘war leads to pain and suffering’’). While Cooper did not report gender differences in English children’s understanding of peace, gender differences were present with respect to their understanding of war. According to Cooper (1965), irrespective of age, girls mentioned objects of war less and activities of war (e.g., fighting, dying, and killing) more than boys. In addition, proportionally fewer girls thought war to be justifiable and necessary and condemned war to a greater extent than boys. In contrast to these findings, Japanese children until the age of 14 understood war primarily in terms of objects of war and appeared less concerned with war activities and consequences of war than their English peers (Cooper, 1965). According ˚ lvik (1968), objects of war (e.g., weapons), war activities, and conseto A quences of war all represent tangible aspects of war. Hence, it was logical to assume that the understanding of war of most young Norwegian participants in his study, as well as of the participants in Cooper’s (1965) study would involve these concrete aspects of war. Even with Scottish adolescents, Mercer (1974) noted the dominant presence of concrete war activities in their understanding of war. Swedish participants (ages 8–11 years) also associated war primarily with war activities (i.e., concrete aspects; Rosell, 1968). However, while English participants showed an increase in references to war activities (Cooper, 1965), a decrease was present with the Swedish participants. Despite this difference, both Swedish and English 14-year-olds showed a dominant concern for consequences of war. Rosell (1968) also reported that Swedish girls mentioned consequences of war more and war activities less than boys. In the understanding of war by children and adolescents from West Berlin (Haavelsrud, 1970), no difference was present in the emphasis of objects of

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

377

war between the age groups. In contrast to Cooper (1965), Haavelsrud (1970) reported that at the ages of 15–17 years concrete objects of war (e.g., weapons) were still mentioned by approximately 20% of the adolescents. Female participants mentioned concrete objects of war less than male participants. War activities (e.g., fighting, killing, and dying), on the other hand, were mentioned more frequently by female than by male participants. In accordance with earlier findings (Cooper, 1965; Rosell, 1968), all West Berlin participants (i.e., ages 10–17 years) associated war predominantly with negative consequences of war for people. Despite a clear concern with negative consequences of war with the subjects in all age groups, a strong age-related increase was present for this concern. That is, war became more frequently evaluated negatively by the older adolescents (i.e., ages 15–17 years). Rosell (1968) also asked the Swedish participants in his study to define war to a friend. In contrast to the free associations, the definitions showed that war understood by (negative) consequences was negatively related to age, while the understanding of war as a conflict (i.e., interpersonal and between nations) showed a strong increase. These findings indicated that different assessment procedures (i.e., free associations vs definitions) appeal to different aspects of the concept of war. In the studies from the second wave, the findings of the earlier studies were replicated. For instance, Jacob and Schmidt (1988) noted that the associations of 6- to 8-year-old former-East German children consisted primarily of concrete aspects of war (i.e., objects of war and war activities). After the age of 8, children’s awareness of the negative consequences of war increased. War was primarily understood by concrete aspects of war as well as negative consequences. With the older participants in this study (ages 10–12 years) two gender differences were present. Boys mentioned concrete aspects of war more than girls, and girls mentioned negative emotions more than boys (i.e., in general, however, negative emotions were infrequently mentioned). Similarly, Falk and Selg (1982) reported that also West German children and adolescents emphasized objects and consequences of war in their free associations. Boys referred again more often to objects of war, while the infrequent use of negative emotions was more characteristic for girls than boys. When children were asked to make photographs which would represent their images of war best, Dinklage and Ziller (1989) found that German children’s photographs were more frequently related to ‘‘destruction’’ than the pictures made by American children. The contents of the pictures of the American children were more ambivalent (i.e., no clear references to destruction were present). Hall’s (1993) findings also supported Cooper’s (1965) results and led to the conclusions that ‘‘at younger ages children are preoccupied with the concrete dimensions of warfare such as military hardware, and that with maturation these are replaced by a recognition of the consequences and causes of war’’ (p. 186). Hall noted that war was understood by an undifferentiated range of interpersonal, intergroup, and interna-

378

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

tional conflicts. Likewise, Van Kempen et al. (1986) noted that Dutch children understood war primarily as a quarrel within the limited range of their own experiences. When the world of experience of these children extended, they perceived conflicts within a wider range, that is, involving larger numbers of people and quarrels escalating into conflicts. The children and adolescents in both Dutch studies (Hakvoort, 1996a, 1996b; Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1993) associated war primarily with war activities and objects of war (e.g., weapons and soldiers). While for these concrete aspects of war no gender differences were observed, Hakvoort (1996b) noted that girls and boys differed in their reasoning about war when friends were involved. Girls perceived war more often in relation to their immediate environment (e.g., quarrels among friends), while boys did not relate war with their immediate environments, but rather with distant nations, armies, and soldiers. According to Covell et al. (1994), most Canadian children understood war to involve a conflict between nations. Adolescents demonstrated a more global, as well as abstract, level of reasoning about war (e.g., war as a consequence of incompatible goals). Concrete aspects of war, which were part of some of the youngest children’s reasoning, disappeared with age. The Influence of Important Events In her study, Spielmann (1986) used Anwar Sadat’s visit to Israel to examine the impact of this event on the views on peace among children and adolescents. The essays of the 9- to 14-year-olds, obtained before Sadat’s arrival in Israel, were optimistic and ‘‘utopian.’’ Peace was associated with the possibility to realize all kinds of personal, social, and national wishes, such as organizing social activities like parties and festivals, the freedom to travel, and security. At ages 13–14, social relationships involved a strong emphasis on the desire for equality. Contrary, to these positive expectations, the 17and 18-year-old adolescents expressed a pessimistic view by pointing out problems and obstacles that could prevent the implementation of peace. Following Sadat’s visit, the positive and somewhat unrealistic view of the younger children and adolescents changed to a more realistic approach. These participants became aware of the price that had to be paid for peace. The 17- and 18-year-old adolescents demonstrated a reverse shift. After Sadat’s visit the essays from this age group were more optimistic and hopeful. No clear indications for differences between Jewish and Arab participants were reported by Spielmann (1986). McLernon et al. (1997) had the opportunity to study adolescents’ attitudes to peace and war before and after the paramilitary cease-fires in Northern Ireland. In a first exploratory inquiry that took place before the cease-fire, they requested adolescents (ages 14–15 years) to respond to a few questions pertaining to their understanding of peace and war. After the cease-fire they had the opportunity to repeat this study with the same participants. Some

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

379

significant changes in the attitudes before and after the cease-fire were reported. First, whereas the image of Northern Ireland as a country at (civil) war became less apparent after the cease-fire, no corresponding image of Northern Ireland as a country at peace was present. Instead, an increase in ambivalence was noted. Prior to the cease-fire, peace was observed to involve positive emotions at a global level (e.g., cooperation and bilateral relationships between nations, 32%) and hardly anyone mentioned universal rights (2%), whereas after the cease-fire, bilateral relationships became less apparent (10%), while issues like justice, freedom, and democracy (i.e., universal rights, 15%) were more often emphasized. In addition, an increase in concerns for nature was noted. The content of strategies to attain peace changed slightly. In particular, disarmament was mentioned more frequently as an adequate strategy after the cease-fire. With regard to war, McLernon et al. noted that the proportion of children mentioning objects of war (e.g., bombs, machine guns, and grenades) increased significantly from 9% before to 31% after the cease-fire was announced. Parallel to war being understood more often in terms of objects of war, negative consequences were also mentioned more frequently (i.e., 46% after vs 25% before the cease-fire). In addition, negative emotions increased significantly (e.g., being afraid, frightened, and pitiful). While a clear decrease was observed in understanding conflicts as nonmutual interactive outcomes between leaders, the understanding of the mutual nature of conflicts increased only marginally. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The purposes of the present review were to address the absence of a systematic review of developmental psychology research dealing with the understanding of peace and war and to integrate these findings in the formulation of a theoretical framework. The findings suggest similarities and differences in the development of and meaning attached to peace and war by children and adolescents in different countries (i.e., cultural settings). In addition, the importance of examining and clarifying the role of different measurement procedures in these findings was specified. Various variables were indicated to affect the understanding of peace and war of children and adolescents and we consider them essential for the formulation of a theoretical framework for the development of the understanding of peace and war. To integrate these variables within a theoretical framework, the variables are summarized and discussed successively in the following section. Any limitations which are encountered in this discussion automatically lead to goals for future research. Clearly, there are age-related differences in children’s understanding of peace and war. With children younger than 8 years a consistent developmental course for the understanding of peace and war is present. When differences are observed they concern the developmental priority for the understanding of war as compared to the understanding of peace. While already

380

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

at the age of 6 years children show a relatively elaborate understanding of war, peace is understood from the age of 6 onward. If no understanding of peace is yet present at this age, it will develop during the following 2 years. To further our insights into the development of the understanding of war, additional research with preschool children is essential. Including younger children in this type of research, however, will stress the importance of an adequate assessment procedure even more than has been described in this paper. The present review emphasizes the role of the questions used in the observation of qualitative changes in the understanding of both concepts. When we focus on the assessment procedure of free associations with peace and war, which is used in almost all studies, considerable similarities in children’s and adolescents’ understanding of peace and war are observed (i.e., several comparable themes are present). Irrespective of nationality, peace is generally understood as the negation of war or the negation of war activities at the macro level and as the negation of quarrels at a micro level (i.e., negative peace) and related to positive social feelings. Consequently, we can conclude that these three themes are the most salient components of peace emphasized in many different cultural settings. The positive social feelings are often expressed by social activities such as positive interpersonal interactions and relationships. Therefore, these feelings are perceived as a precursory understanding of positive peace (cf. Hakvoort, 1996b, p. 94), rather than positive peace in terms of global bilateral processes (Galtung, 1964). Furthermore, relationships are present between peace and nature (Dinklage & Ziller, 1989; Van Kempen et al., 1986) and tranquillity and silence (Cooper, 1965; Hall, 1993). In general, little evidence is found for age-related qualitative changes in the understanding of peace. The exceptions are summarized and discussed in the next paragraph. War is predominantly understood by objects of war, war activities, and negative consequences of war. While in several studies, age-related changes in the use of negative consequences of war are observed, in other studies no age-related changes are evident. These findings suggest that from the age of 6 years, children are well acquainted with concrete aspects of war. In addition, it can be argued that with the changes in the nature of the armed conflict (i.e., not a sole issue of the military, but also involving civilians) images about war including negative consequences occur more often. While a positive relation between age and the understanding of peace as a process involving reconciliation, bilateral cooperation, and integration (i.e., positive peace) was expected, only a few studies offered evidence for such a relationship (Haavelsrud, 1970; Hakvoort, 1996a,b; Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1993; Hall, 1993). These studies suggest a dependency for this type of understanding on the employed measurement procedure (e.g., type of question). A more encompassing understanding of peace as a process (i.e., positive), rather than a limited understanding of peace as a static event or as

381

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

TABLE 2 Summarized Integration for the Development of the Concept of Peace in Relation to Age and the Development of the Role-Taking Ability Negative peace concept Age a

IpUb

12–18 3 10–18 2/3 2

6–18 a b

1

Individual level

Global level

Positive peace concept Individual level Human attitudes

Disarmament Absence of quarrels Absence of war Positive emotions

Global level Universal rights Human attitudes Positive emotions Sharing Nature/pollution

Age indicates the clearly observed age effects in previous empirical studies. IpU, level of interpersonal understanding.

negative peace (i.e., the absence of war or armed conflicts between states), is present when participants are asked to formulate strategies to attain peace (Hakvoort, 1996a, 1996b; Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1993; McCreary & Palmer, 1991). Subsequently, abstract reasoning about peace showing the inclusion of issues such as mutual respect and acceptance, tolerance, the absence of discrimination, as well as democracy and universal rights, is evident in adolescents’ strategies to attain peace (i.e., influence of age). For instance, McCreary and Palmer (1991) show that only when 13- and 14year-olds are requested to describe how world peace could be achieved is reasoning present which includes issues such as the improvement of interactions between people, groups, and nations, as well as the understanding and respect for racial differences. That is, clear differences in the responses are present when participants are required to think ‘‘about strategies to attain peace’’ as compared to when they are required to think ‘‘about peace.’’ A comparable phenomenon can be indicated when people have to define war. In contrast to the free association responses to war, children’s definitions of war show that war is also understood as interpersonal or international conflicts (Hakvoort, 1996b; Rosell, 1968). So far we have seen that the most salient variable, age, offers an explanation for the observed variations in the understanding of peace in some of the studies (see Table 2). In itself, however, this is not a surprise. As was noted previously, the development of an understanding of peace is age related and emerges prior to the age of 10. While reasoning about peace in terms of the most dominant themes (i.e., the absence of war or the absence of quarrels and social activities) is not systematically related to age, some studies focus on the interaction between age and higher levels of reasoning about peace. Age-related qualitative changes, then, concern the understanding of peace from negative to positive peace and involve issues such as respect for others, integration, bilateral cooperation, reconciliation, interna-

382

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

TABLE 3 Summarized Integration for the Development of the Concept of War Concept of War Age

a

Individual level

Global level Qualitative evaluation Mutual nature of conflicts Nonmutual nature of conflicts

6–18

Negative emotions Quarrels

Activities of war; objects of war; negative consequences

a

Based on the findings of previous empirical studies no unambiguous age effects can be included. However, from a theoretical pespective age effects can be expected. That is, while children of all ages will be able to describe concrete aspects of war (e.g., quarrels, activities, and objects), it is not before the age of 10 years that the mutuality of conflicts and qualitative evaluations are also included in their reasoning about war.

tional and positive contributions to peace (Haavelsrud, 1970; Hall, 1993), equality, desegregation, and democratic processes (Hakvoort, 1996a, b; Spielman, 1986). These studies offer ample evidence for systematic agerelated qualitative changes in the understanding of peace. While early (childhood) understanding of peace is not so much replaced by a different form of understanding (i.e., later childhood or adolescent conceptions), it becomes more elaborate and includes new and more mature conceptions. In other words, the understanding of peace becomes more varied and complex as children are older, but simultaneously refers to (early childhood) issues such as disarmament, attention to nature and pollution, and sharing. More abstract, norm-related aspects of peace (e.g., human attitudes) are evident from the age of 10 years and the understanding of democratic processes from the age of 12 years. While democratic processes can be placed at the macro level, human attitudes can be defined at an interpersonal level (i.e., between two persons) as well as at a global level (i.e., referring to a more universal attitude). Therefore, this level of reasoning about strategies to attain peace, and hence, this type of conception of peace, cannot be defined as either individual or global. These findings suggest that, in particular, children and adolescents from the age of 10 should be included in studies concerning the understanding of peace. From the age of 10, the developing understanding of the complexity and mulidimensionality of the concept of peace can be observed best. With regard to the understanding of war, some indications for age-related changes are present (see Table 3). For instance, as children get older they are more concerned with the negative consequences of war and the negative emotional impact of war. In addition, war activities become more negatively ˚ lvik, 1968). As was noted previously, higher evaluated (cf. Cooper, 1965; A levels of reasoning or understanding are observed with other questions than free associations (Rosell, 1968). By asking participants to define war (Hak-

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

383

voort, 1996a,b; Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, in press) indications are found that the understanding of war changes from a static event, characterized by objects of war and activities related to war, to a dynamic process involving nonmutual conflicts in particular (i.e., the understanding that two parties or sides are involved without the recognition that the relationship is mutually affective). Older adolescents come to understand that also war involves mutual conflicts between at least two parties (i.e., involving the understanding that the relationship is mutually affective). The number of adolescents who do so, however, still remains small. Gender is the second important variable affecting the understanding of peace and war. Gender-related differences in the understanding of peace are reported in several studies (Hakvoort, 1996b; Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1993; Hakvoort et al., 1998; Hall, 1993; Van Kempen et al., 1986). Understanding peace to relate to being friends or the absence of quarrels (i.e., in relation to the immediate environment) is a characteristic of female participants, in particular. Male participants emphasize the absence of armed conflicts and the absence of war at a global level and consider disarmament more often as an appropriate strategy to attain peace. With respect to these findings, Hakvoort et al. (1998) conclude that ‘‘while male adolescents did not exclude such ‘female conceptions’ from their responses, they mentioned such conceptions less frequently. When a contrast is made between both gender groups, the female adolescents . . . . confirmed earlier findings that demonstrated females’ greater emphasis on positive social actions as effective strategies to attain peace.’’ Similarly, Hall (1993) notes that Australian girls (over the age of 10) show a more complete understanding of peace than boys and, in several studies, even gender differences in the understanding of war are reported. Most of these differences suggest identical patterns. Female participants emphasize objects of war less than boys and verbalize war more often in terms of fighting and the negative consequences of dying and killing. Hence, (negative) consequences of war are more frequently mentioned by girls than boys. These consequences relate to the negative evaluation of war. In agreement with the understanding of peace, girls more often include ‘‘quarrels’’ (i.e., the immediate environment) in their reasoning about war. Male participants understand war more often in terms of war activities. These findings parallel the gender differences observed in the understanding of peace in which male participants emphasize the absence of war. In particular in the studies by Hakvoort and colleagues (Hakvoort, 1996a, b; Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1993; Hakvoort et al., 1998), a third variable is present which relates to the developing understanding of peace and war: the development of interpersonal understanding or the role-taking ability. Within the social–cognitive perspective adapted in these studies, the findings show that the understanding of peace is structurally related to the understanding of interpersonal relationships when the effects of age are also controlled

384

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

(see Table 2). While this association is unequivocally present for the understanding of peace, the relationship with the understanding of war is more ambiguous. In some aspects of the understanding of war this association is present; with other aspects only indications for such an association are present. The discussed empirical research shows that important aspects of the understanding of peace and war among children and adolescents can be explained by age, gender, and the understanding of interpersonal relationships. In studies which made use of other theoretical frameworks (i.e., models of cognitive development and political socialization), additional variables are indicated. That is, while no empirical evidence is found for the relationship with children’s cognitive abilities (i.e., the Piagetian framework), social institutions and socialization agents (e.g., the family, the school, and the media) have been said to affect the development of the understanding of peace and war even though the relationship between socialization processes and the understanding of peace and war is primarily theoretical and rarely supported by empirical findings. A few studies offer some evidence for the impact of socialization processes and social events. For instance, the studies by Spielmann (1986) and McLernon et al. (1997) show the impact of important changes in the social environment (i.e., Sadat’s visit to Israel and the ceasefire announcement in Northern Ireland, respectively) on the understanding of peace, in particular. Also in the Dutch–Swedish comparative study (Hakvoort et al., 1998) nationality-related differences are present in the adolescents’ orientations toward strategies to attain peace. Theoretically it is argued that commonalties and variations in the understanding of peace and war by individuals from different sociocultural settings mirror similarities and differences in norms and values of the particular societies (cf. Brock-Utne, 1989; Ha¨gglund & Oppenheimer, 1995). That is, children and adolescents in different sociocultural settings emphasize different aspects of peace (cf. Brock-Utne, 1989) and socialization is then considered as a process by which knowledge, skills, beliefs, values, attitudes, and so on are transferred from one generation to the next and has the preparation of children as adapted members of society as its purpose. These values, norms, and attitudes inherent in a shared sociocultural structure are thought to become internalized (Valsiner, 1988). In the context of this socialization process, social institutions such as the family, the school, and the media ‘‘are perceived as crucial corner-stones for the continuity and maintenance of such culture-specific ideologies’’ (Ha¨gglund & Oppenheimer, 1995, p. 7). In sum, the present review shows that the study of children’s and adolescents’ understanding of peace and war has reached a stage beyond the explorative phase. The theoretical framework that has been formulated permits the deduction of hypotheses which can now be tested by systematic empirical designs. Chronological age turned out to be a reliable predictor for developmental

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

385

changes in the understanding of peace and war. Despite this finding, additional research, in which preschool-aged children are included, is necessary to examine the onset of the development of the understanding of war. Reflections on the three major theoretical frameworks used in the studies discussed lead to the conclusion that the social–cognitive developmental theory (i.e., the understanding of interpersonal relationships) presents a promising theoretical model for future research. A structural relationship exists between developing understanding of peace and the development of the understanding of interpersonal relationships. However, because this finding has been reported by Hakvoort and collegues only, there is definitely a need for additional testing of this relationship in future research. The more so, because only a trend is found for the relationship between interpersonal understanding and the understanding of war. With regard to gender, contradictory findings are reported which prevent any straightforward conclusions. Consequently, future research will have to focus on the validity of gender-related similarities and differences in the understanding of peace and war. Gender has often been used in a rather traditional way; it is referred to as a cause of differentiation without any considerations for the mechanisms underlying differentiation process. If gender is perceived as a social construction (i.e., as a special aspect of culture) and gender cultures as specific contexts for development (Ha¨gglund, 1996), gender-related differences in the understanding of peace and war may become better understood. By detailing age, interpersonal understanding, and gender as important contributing variables in children’s and adolescents’ understanding of peace and war, it should be stressed that these variables explain only part of the variation. Several studies (e.g., Cooper, 1965; Hakvoort et al., 1998) indicate that also the context of socialization processes plays an important role. To ascertain the effect of socialization agents (e.g., the family, the school, and the media) on the development of the understanding of peace and war, socialization processes need to be studied. As is noted previously, gender may represent different contexts for learning and development. Ha¨gglund (1996) reports that boys and girls are educated differently by experiencing different sets of norms and values. A systematic variation in gender marks guide the way by which boys and girls understand and integrate adequate norms, values, knowledge, and behavior. Moreover, Ha¨gglund (p. 39) notices that there is a tendency ‘‘to segregate issues of peace and war into male and female domains . . . .’’ While the concern for other human beings and social relations is highly evaluated for females, males are expected to emphasize rules and justice. Crucial questions then pertain to how, for example, families and schools qualitatively and quantitatively provide identical or different environments of learning and development for boys and girls and how these environments differentially affect the development of the understanding of peace and war.

386

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

Besides gender, national and culturally related structures can provide contextually related variables to explain the variation in children’s and adolescent’s understanding of peace and war. A greater attention to differences between sociocultural settings (i.e., cultures, nations) will enable us to test systematically whether empirical findings from one cultural setting are comparable (i.e., valid) with those from another cultural setting. However, it is not an easy task to find the appropriate indices for studying differences in cultural settings, in particular, because descriptions of the concept of culture refer to a dialectic process between people and the world they live in (cf. Vriens, 1996b). One point of departure we suggest is to determine the different roles for socialization agents across societies (cf. Oppenheimer, 1996a,b). Insights can be obtained into the characteristics of social and political environments (i.e., norms, values, and attitudes inherent in social institutions) which are shared with and internalized by children (Valsiner, 1988). For example, the division of schools in Northern Ireland along religious lines (i.e., Catholics and Protestants) are expected to lead to different social environments for learning and developing the understanding of peace and war when these schools are compared with schools in a country like Sweden, where such a division does not exist. Further, the history of a country in terms of war (e.g., level of conflict, exposure to violence) will contribute to variations in norms, values, and attitudes inherent in social institutions such as the family, schools, and the media (cf. Cairns, 1996). The influence of these social institutions on the development of the understanding of peace and war within and across different societies can be tested by studying for instance school curricula (e.g., inclusion or exclusion of peace education in formal education), adults’ (i.e., parents and teachers) conceptualizations of peace and war, as well as political systems. Adopting a contextual approach in future research on the understanding of peace and war among children and adolescents will further our insights. REFERENCES Allen, G. L. (1989). Special topic: children’s political socialization and cognition. Human Development, 32, 1–4. ˚ lvik, T. (1968). The development of views on conflict, war and peace among school children. A Journal of Peace Research, 5, 171–195. Boyd, B. J., Wallinga, C., Skeen, P., & Paguio, L. P. (1994). Children’s and adolescents’ response to the prospect of nuclear war: A review. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 697–715. Brock-Utne, B. (1989). Feminist perspectives on peace and peace education. New York: Pergamon. Bu¨ttner, C. (1983). Children’s war fantasies. The Journal of Psychohistory, 10, 491–510. Burns, R. J., & Aspeslagh R., (1996) (Eds.), Three decades of peace education around the world: An anthology. New York: Garland. Cairns, E. (1996). Children and political violence. Oxford: Blackwell. Chandler, M. J. (1977). Social cognition: a selective review of current research. In W. F.

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

387

Overton & J. McCarthy Gallagher (Eds.), Knowledge and development: Advances in research and theory (pp. 93–147). New York: Plenum. Cooper, P. (1965). The development of the concept of war. Journal of Peace Research, 2, 1–17. Covell, K. (1996) National and gender differences in adolescents’ war attitudes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 871–883. Covell, K., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Fletcher, K. (1994). Age differences in understanding peace, war, and conflict resolution. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 717– 737. Cretu, T. (1988). Peace and its most obvious meanings in preschool children’s drawings. Revue Roumaine des Sciences Sociales—Serie de Psychologie, 32, 97–99. Danieli, Y. (1996). Who takes care of the caretakers? The emotional consequences of working with children traumatized by war and communal violence. In R. J. Apfel and B. Simon (Eds.), Minefields in their hearts: The mental health of children in war and communal violence (pp. 189–205). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Danieli, Y., Rodley, N. S., & Weisaeth, L. (Eds.) (1996). International responses to traumatic stress. New York: Baywood. Dinklage, R. I., & Ziller, R. C. (1989). Explicating conflict through photo-communication. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33, 309–317. Durkin, K. (1995). Developmental social psychology. From infancy to old age. Oxford: Blackwell. Engel, B. S. (1984). Between feeling and fact: listening to children. Harvard Educational Review, 54, 304–314. Falk, A., & Selg, H. (1982). Die Begriffe ‘‘Krieg’’ und ‘‘Frieden’’ in der Vorstellung von Kindern und Jugenlichen. [The concept of war and peace in the minds of children and youths]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 29, 353–358. Galtung, J. (1964). Editorial. Journal of Peace Research, 1, 1–4. Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6, 167– 191. Galtung, J. (1981). Social cosmology and the concept of peace. Journal of Peace Research, 18, 183–199. Galtung, J. (1985). Twenty-five years of peace research: Ten challenges and some responses. Journal of Peace Research, 22, 142–158. Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by peaceful means: Peace and conflict, development and civilization. London: Sage. Haas, M. (1986). War and peace: the students’ views. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 19, 84–88. Haavelsrud, M. (1970). View on war and peace among students in West Berlin public schools. Journal of Peace Research, 7, 99–120. Ha¨gglund, S. (1996). Developing concepts of peace and war: Aspects of gender and culture. The Peabody Journal of Education, 71, 29–41. Ha¨gglund, S., & Oppenheimer, L. (1995). Developmental prerequisites for peace-building: A cross-cultural research programme on children and peace. Unpublished grant proposal. Ha¨gglund, S., Hakvoort, I., & Oppenheimer, L. (Eds.) (1996). Research on children and peace: International perspectives. Sweden: Go¨teborg University, Report No. 1996:04. Hakvoort, I. (1996a). Children’s conceptions of peace and war: a longitudinal study. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 2, 1–15.

388

HAKVOORT AND OPPENHEIMER

Hakvoort, I. (1996b). Conceptualizations of peace and war from childhood through adolescence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Hakvoort, I., & Oppenheimer, L. (in press). Understanding peace and war from childhood through adolescence. In A. Raviv, L. Oppenheimer, & D. Bar-Tal (Eds.), Children’s & adolescents’ understanding of war, conflict and peace: International perspectives. San Francisco: New Lexington Press. Hakvoort, I., & Oppenheimer, L. (1993). Children and adolescents’ conceptions of peace, war and strategies to attain peace: A Dutch case study. Journal of Peace Research, 30, 65– 77. Hakvoort, I., Ha¨gglund, S., & Oppenheimer, L. (1998). Dutch and Swedish adolescents’ understanding of peace and war. In J.-E. Nurmi (Ed.), Adolescents, cultures and conflicts: Growing up in Contemporary Europe (pp. 75–105), MSU Series on Children, Youth and Family. New York: Garland. Hall, R. (1993). How children think and feel about war and peace: An Australian study. Journal of Peace Research, 30, 181–196. Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Ishida, T. (1969). Beyond the traditional concepts of peace in different cultures. Journal of Peace Research, 6, 133–145. Jacob, A., Von, & Schmidt, H.-D. (1988). Die Konzeptualisierung von ‘‘Krieg’’ und ‘‘Frieden’’ bei sechs- bis zwo¨lf-ja¨rigen Kindern in der DDR. [Conceptualization of ‘‘war’’ and ‘‘peace’’: 6- to 12-year-old children in the DDR] Zeitschrift fu¨r Psychologie, 196, 265–277. Judd, C. M., Smith, E. R., & Kidder, L. H. (1991). Research methods in social relations. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Van Kempen, M., Peek, T., & Vriens, L. (1986). Vrede en oorlog als kinderprobleem [Peace and war as problems of children]. Unpublished research report, Utrecht, NL: Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht. Leavitt, L. A., & Fox, N. A. (1993). The psychological effects of war and violence on children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Machel, G. (1996). The impact of armed conflict on children. New York: UN report A/RES/ 48/157. McCreary J. A., & Palmer, L. L. (1991). Adolescence perspective of ways of thinking and believing that promote peace. Adolescence, 26, 849–855. McLernon, F., Ferguson, N., & Cairns, E. (1997). Comparison of Northern Irish children’s attitudes to war and peace before and after the paramilitary ceasefires. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20, 715–730. McNeil, D. (1970). The acquisition of language: The study of developmental psycholinguistics. New York: Harper & Row. Mercer, G. (1974). Adolescent views of war and peace. Journal of Peace Research, 11, 247– 249. Mohammad, H. Y. (1996). Conceptions of peace, war, and strategies to attain peace: A longitudinal study of Malay children and adolescents. Paper presented at the Workshop ‘‘Research on Children and Peace: International Perspectives,’’ Northern Ireland: October 5– 8. Neisser, U. (1989). Introduction: The ecological and intellectual bases of categorization. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development (pp. 1–10). New York: Cambridge University Press. Oppenheimer, L. (1996a). Developmental processes in socio-cultural contexts: The need for

UNDERSTANDING PEACE AND WAR

389

multidisciplinary cooperation. The Polish Quartely of Developmental Psychology, 2, 169–180. Oppenheimer, L. (1996b). A search for homogeneity in diversity. The Polish Quartely of Developmental Psychology, 2, 223–231. Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. London: Routledge. Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child’s conceptions of space. London: Routledge. Punama¨ki, R.-L. (1988). Political violence and mental health: Some theoretical considerations regarding research. International Journal of Mental Health, 17 (4), 3–15. Rinehart, M. (1995). Understanding the concept ‘‘peace’’: A search for common ground. Peace and Change: Journal of Peace Research, 20, 379–396. Rodd, J. (1985). Preschool children’s understanding of war. Early child development and care, 22, 109–121. Rosell, L. (1968). Children’s view of war and peace. Journal of Peace Research, 5, 268–276. Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical analysis. New York: Academic Press. Spielmann, M. (1986). If peace comes . . . future expectations of Israeli children and youth. Journal of Peace Research, 28, 231–235. Tolley, H., Jr. (1973). Children and war: Political socialisation to international conflict. New York: Teacher’s College Press. Torney-Purta, J. (1989). Political cognition and it restructuring in young people. Human Development, 32, 14–23. Valsiner, J. (1988). Ontogeny of co-construction of culture within socially organized environmental settings. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Child development within culturally structured environments: Social co-construction and environmental guidance in development (Vol. 2, pp. 283–297). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Vriens, L. (1989). Peace education and children: A structural dialogue about global responsibility. In WCCI FORUM, III (2), 48–67. Vriens, L. (1996a). Peace education in history. In H. Lo¨fgren (Ed.), Peace education and human development (pp. 409–429). Lund, Sweden: Malmo¨ School of Education. Vriens, L. (1996b). Postmodernism, peace culture and peace education. In B.J. Burns and R. Aspeslagh (Eds.), Three decades of peace education around the world: An anthology. New York: Garland. Vriens, L., & Aspeslagh, R. (1985). Peace education as alternating between the person and the structure. The History and Social Science Teacher, 20, 11–19. Wallensteen, P., & Sollenberg, M. (1997). Armed conflicts, conflict termination and peace agreements, 1989–96. Journal of Peace Research, 34, 339–358. Wiberg, H. (1981). Journal of Peace Research 1964–1980—What have we learn about peace? Journal of Peace Research, 18, 111–148.