Psychology of the world

The history of the psychology of the world begins from the middle of the first millennium BC, from the time of Pythagoras, who is called one of the first psychologists in the history of mankind. Many thinkers of antiquity and the Middle Ages expressed ideas that modern psychologists of the world consider relevant to this day ^[3] . During the XX century, scientists conducted extensive theoretical developments related to the rejection of the use of violent methods to solve problems. The stimulus for the development of this direction was the mass movement for non-violence in many countries. By the end of the 20th century, the total number of people participating in this movement in one way or another amounted to almost three billion, that is 64% of the then number of humanity ^[4] . Many classics of psychology paid considerable attention to the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Background

Psychological science as a whole has philosophical roots dating back thousands of years. The psychology of the world, in particular, is based on the long-standing thoughts of prominent thinkers regarding mental processes and their connection with war and peace . In ancient India, Siddhartha Gautama Buddha in the middle of the 1st millennium BC proclaimed that desires are the cause of suffering, and that peace can be achieved through self-denial. He pointed out several principles, including compassion and non-violence, which must be adhered to for the spiritual well-being of any person. In the III century BC. e. the warlike king Ashoka, after conversion to the Buddhist faith, immediately ceased hostilities and began to adhere to a peace-loving policy. In ancient China, Confucius argued that wars arise because of disharmony, and to prevent them, harmony and social hierarchy must be respected. Lao Tzu , on the contrary, in the treatise Tao de jing argued that people should abandon social dictatorship and seek harmony in comparing to universal orders, including balance, harmony and compassion. The ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes in the play " Lysistratus " put forward the idea that the psychology of war is due to the arrogance of men and their thirst for political power. According to the play's scenario, women from both warring parties stop the war. Among the later thinkers-predecessors, psychologists of the world mention the Czech teacher Jan Amos Komensky , the English Quaker , and the American writer Mark Twain ^[5] .

Early Period

In 1910, one of the main founders of modern psychological science, William James wrote subsequently a famous essay entitled “The Moral Equivalent of War”, in which he laid the foundations of a subdiscipline, later called “World Psychology” ^{[6 ] [7] [8] [9]} . James proposed replacing military enthusiasm with non-violent alternatives that are equally attractive from a psychological point of view. He called for replacing the desire for military exploits with the desire to eradicate poverty, underdevelopment and ignorance. James identified six key aspects that romanticize war:

1. a sense of pride arising from the awareness of one’s belonging to a certain group and one’s help to this group;
2. war is capable of giving meaning and purpose to life, which in ordinary conditions seems boring and uninteresting;
3. war allows you to escape from self-doubt and from self-loathing by projecting these feelings on other people;
4. the presence of a common enemy rallies in the face of an external threat the members of the group who, after the end of the war, renew internal strife;
5. the war provides opportunities for people to demonstrate admirable qualities: discipline, courage, self-sacrifice in the name of a higher goal;
6. military hysteria eliminates anxiety caused by a state of uncertainty.

Each of these aspects was further developed by psychologists of the world ^[10] . They often call William James the first psychologist in the world ^{[11] [12] [13]} .

In 1924, the work of social psychologist Mary Parker Follet, “Creative Experience”, was published, in which she first introduced the concept of conflict resolution through integration, rather than balancing interests ^[14] . Follet expressed the view that this approach has an advantage over dominance or compromise, as it addresses the root causes of conflict. If, under dominance, the interests of one side are infringed, and in a compromise, the interests of both parties are infringed, then integration will achieve a . Follet’s main idea is that when considering the interests, and not the positions of the parties to the conflict, these positions can be changed so that all interests are respected. Although certain conflicts are best avoided in every way, some conflicts are the result of diversity and can lead to creation. The approach proposed by Follet later became widespread in management, conflict resolution and international diplomacy. Currently, most psychologists in the world share the point of view according to which it is not necessary to eliminate conflicts, but to find ways to use them for creative purposes ^[15] .

Anglo-American psychologist William McDougall , who worked during the First World War in a British hospital, in 1925 set out his understanding of the psychological causes of war. He highlighted among them the buildup of weapons and the spirit of patriotism. Less significant reasons McDougall considered the interests of representatives of the military industry, certain business and political circles, as well as natural human grumpiness. To prevent wars, in his opinion, the creation of an international court is necessary, at the disposal of which would be international police forces and few air forces based at strategically important points ^[16] . In a paper published in 1931, McDougall made a prediction according to which the development of technology will not lead to increased security. He actually predicted the creation of nuclear weapons, stating the following: “if some physicist realized such a bright dream and taught us how to release energy from an atom, all of humanity would live under the threat of sudden destruction due to the hostility of some cynic, negligence of some kind some optimist or benevolence of some pessimist ” ^[17] .

Ivan Pavlov in 1930, together with a number of famous scientists ( Albert Einstein , Bertrand Russell , etc.) made a statement on the need to take measures aimed at preventing a military threat. This statement spoke of the danger of a global economic catastrophe and the inevitability of a new war as a result of arms buildup. It also stated that as long as governments postpone disarmament, their declarations of peace remain in vain ^[18] .

In 1936, a group of 3 thousand psychologists and representatives of related sciences in the United States created the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI), which in 1937 became an organization affiliated with the American Psychological Association, and in 1945 received the status of department 9 APA ^{[19] [20] [21]} . It ensured the development of applied psychology in areas such as war research, racial prejudice, and labor conflicts. For many decades, the Society for Psychological Research on Social Issues has become the organizational foundation for the world's psychologists. At the end of the 20th century, after the formation of the , the Society for Psychological Research on Social Issues joined it as an affiliated organization, while maintaining its independence ^[22] . The Second World War naturally increased the interest of the scientific community in issues of war and peace ^[23] . In 1945-1946 Division 19 of Military Psychology was created in APA.

Post-war period

In the postwar years, a large number of scientific papers were published that suggested the use of psychology to prevent wars ^{[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]} . In 1946, the Society for Psychological Research on Social Issues published a report in the journal , stating that atomic energy had become a psychological problem. It contained six main points ^[33] :

1. the real danger of the atomic bomb must be clarified to everyone;
2. serious and reasonable actions are required to establish friendly relations in the international sphere;
3. the use of atomic energy should be established international control;
4. the production of atomic bombs should be stopped immediately;
5. over the use of atomic energy urgently should be established civilian control;
6. it is necessary to develop the use of atomic energy for creative purposes.

These provisions have received widespread coverage and a positive response in the media. In the following decades, social activists in many countries around the world continued to oppose nuclear weapons, forming the international Anti-Nuclear Movement .
In 1947, one of the most important events of the entire post-war period, with long-term and widespread consequences, took place: the British government granted independence to India after several decades of successful non-violent resistance of the local population, including Mahatma Gandhi . This experience has been strong evidence that non-violent action is an effective strategy to achieve practical goals. It led to the emergence over the next three decades of independence movements in many colonial countries, which ultimately achieved liberation from foreign oppression. In Africa alone, from 1950 to 1968, 40 countries gained independence. The Indian Independence Movement has also been an inspirational example for the Black Civil Rights Movement in the United States . Later, similar successful campaigns were carried out in the Philippines and in Eastern European countries. All these events gave the psychologists of the world abundant material for constructing theories, concepts and practical use of the principles of psychology ^[34] .

The American Psychological Association has also taken part in peacekeeping activities. In 1957-1960 American psychologists on various occasions visited the Soviet Union on working visits, many of which were funded by APA. In 1959, APA conducted a survey of 75 psychologists representing various subdisciplines and dealing with issues of peace, in which they were invited to speak out how psychologists can contribute to peacekeeping. The results of the survey were published ^[35] in the journal and led to the creation of a special committee called the Committee on Psychology in National and International Affairs (CPNIA). This committee subsequently established relations with the executive authorities, as well as with the US Congress. He organized many meetings, conferences, research programs ^[36] .

1960s

The administration of US President Kennedy eagerly consulted with scientists, including psychologists. Senator Hubert Humphrey endorsed the involvement of psychologists in addressing international politics. Thus, in the United States in the early 1960s, very favorable conditions were created for the development of the psychology of the world. The development of psychologists in this area was discussed in detail in the American administration ^[37] .

In 1961, a psychologist at Ralph C. White, in his speech entitled “Mirror Images in the East-West Conflict”, presented a conceptual development of speech patterns of conflicting parties. He analyzed 1,400 quotes from various sources on both sides and presented a universal model of speech images, with the help of which each of the conflicting groups describes their like-minded people positively and opponents negatively, using the same terms. These terms characterize representatives of the opposite side as aggressors; their governments exploit and deceive their people; the bulk of the population does not support the regime in their country; they are not trustworthy; their policies are on the verge of insanity. Such beliefs tend to self-reinforce . When representatives of one side of the conflict regard the actions of the other side as hostile, they respond with hostility. The second side does the same, with the result that the cycle continues. This development of White received wide coverage in the American press. In The New York Times, it was set out under the heading “Psychologist Asserts that US and the Soviet Union Share Similar Illusions About Each Other”. Senator Thomas J. Dodd soon demanded White's resignation from government. The Board of the American Psychological Association in response unanimously voted in support of Uyat ^[38] .

In 1962, a book by Charles Osgood (who was the president of APA at that time) was published entitled An Alternative to War or Surrender ^[39] . Her author suggested a step-by-step approach to a strategy to reduce tension - de-escalation. The main idea was to reverse the arms race while maintaining its dynamics, so that as a result, tension would gradually weaken instead of constant strengthening. Osgood sent a copy of the book to President Kennedy and received a personal notice from his secretary that Kennedy had read the book. Kennedy’s further policy testifies to the influence of Osgood’s ideas on him ^[40] .

In 1969, the Norwegian sociologist (known as the founder of ) put forward two ideas that had a great influence on the development of world psychology: the difference between the negative world and the positive world; distinction between direct violence and structural violence ^[41] . Negative peace means the absence of war and other forms of direct violence. A positive world implies the conditions under which non-violence, social justice and environmental security eliminate the causes of violence. Direct violence means intentional harm to individuals with their own hands or through subordinates. Structural violence is carried out through social structures. It is not aimed at specific individuals, but creates unfavorable conditions for them - poverty, industrial safety violations or illnesses caused by environmental pollution. One of the reasons Galtung created the concept of structural violence was because peace defenders were often accused of supporting an unfair status quo by resisting a violent revolution. Due to the fact that harmful social situations began to be regarded as a form of violence, the fight against violence has become more complete. Both ideas of Galtung contributed to the expansion of the subject of the psychology of the world, as they led to the understanding that to ensure peace is not enough to simply prevent wars, genocide and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If earlier the movement for the abandonment of violent methods could be considered a threat to peace as a result of its contribution to the growth of tension and the creation of conflicts, thanks to the ideas of Galtung it became possible to consider it as a force contributing to the achievement of a positive peace by counteracting structural violence ^[42] .

In the late 1960s, political upheavals occurred in the United States, during which the APA board expressed outrage at the brutality of the police against anti-war demonstrators in Chicago in 1968. It decided to move the next APA annual meeting from Chicago (where it was due to take place) to another city. In addition, American psychologists during these years actively spoke on the issues of the Vietnam War, militarism, racism, protection of the rights of the mentally ill, etc.

1970s

During the 1970s, psychologists in the world created a number of conceptual developments and conducted important empirical studies. In 1971, the American psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues conducted the famous Stanford prison experiment . Its essence was to simulate prison conditions for two weeks, but the experiment was terminated after six days due to the fact that the experimenters witnessed the excessive survival of the participants in the role of prisoners and overseers. The experimenters were especially surprised by the fact that they themselves, along with the participants in the experiment, began to think in prison categories ^[43] .

Around the same time, Stanley Milgram conducted his famous experiments on the destructive subordination of authority ^[44] . They showed an alarmingly high level of subordination to authority, by the order of which some participants in the experiment were supposed to expose other participants to the effects of electric discharges, despite the clearly visible suffering of the latter. Milgram's research helped to understand why so many people tend to obey orders entailing participation in atrocities. For several years, social psychologists conducted similar experiments to elucidate factors that influence the level of subordination. Ultimately, these experiments were banned by regulatory authorities due to unethicality. However, Milgram was able to prove that cultural differences have little effect on the level of subordination ^[45] .

In 1972, published a work entitled Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes ^[46] . In this work, Janis introduced a new psychological concept of “ group thinking ” to analyze US foreign policy defeats, like an unsuccessful operation in the Gulf of Pigs resulting from mistakes made by the presidential administration. The concept of group thinking has proven useful in understanding many military and political situations. She explains why, in some cases, the irrationality of decisions made by a group is much higher compared to decisions that would be taken individually by individuals in the group. Such factors as group consensus, dispersal of responsibility, etc., exert psychological pressure on group members ^[47] .

In the same years, extensive psychological research was conducted on non-violence. In 1972, the American philosopher in his book Psychology and the Strategy of Nonviolent Resistance of Gandhi, provided a psychological justification for the political concept of Mahatma Gandhi ^[48] . In 1973, American political scientist Gene Sharp published a fundamental three-volume work entitled "The Politics of Non-Violent Activities", which examined political processes, history and psychological components ^[49] . Sharpe described in detail the psychological basis of political power and provided an explanation of why people obey the authorities until a certain moment and why they can stop obeying at a certain moment. Leroy Pelton, in his 1974 book Psychology of Non-Violence, used methods of social psychology to explain the success of non-violent activity, including the need for cognitive consistency to prevent cognitive dissonance ^[50] . Subsequently, an attribution theory was used to justify the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance methods, according to which people attribute their bad behavior to external circumstances, and their good behavior to personal qualities. For participants in nonviolent campaigns, an interpretation was used that allowed them to explain their violent actions with the external environment, and non-violence with their personal noble motives ^[51] .

Later Period

In the USA

For a later period in the development of world psychology, a broadening of the range of issues is characteristic. In addition to the causes of war and other forms of violence, representatives of this discipline began to pay great attention to the psychological consequences of violence both for participants in violent acts and for their victims. In 1980, the concept of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was finally formed, which was later included in the Guide to the Diagnosis and Statistics of Mental Disorders ^{[52] [53] of the} American Psychiatric Association , as well as in the WHO International Classification of Diseases ^[54] . Since then, scientists to this day have continued active research on PTSD and its symptoms. In addition to war veterans and victims, PTSD research is being conducted on refugees and victims of crime. PTSD can occur with any kind of injury, but it has been experimentally proven that the symptoms of PTSD are most pronounced if the injury is caused by a person, and not as a result of an accident or natural disaster ^[55] .

In 1982, the independent non-profit organization Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) was created, the main purpose of which was to prevent nuclear war. This organization is still one of the most influential associations of psychologists dealing with peace in the United States. In the same year, the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution in which it called for the freezing of weapons, the restoration of a productive civilian economy and called on APA members to engage in political activity to achieve these goals ^[56] . The resolution was widely covered in the press and in public forums. The APA Science Council opposed the resolution, expressing the view that a scientific organization should not be involved in social propaganda, but the resolution remained valid.

In 1981, the clinical psychologist Alan Nelson, after completing the symposium at the annual meeting of the APA, sponsored by SPSSI, put forward a plan to create a department of world psychology in the APA (he proposed the term “world psychology” ^[57] ). He convinced Karl Rogers and some other well-known psychologists to create such a department, collecting more than 200 signatures in support of this idea. Soon, Nelson was provided with organizational assistance by like-minded psychologists, and by 1985 several hundred signatures of APA members had been collected. However, by this time, the number of APA members had grown, so that the percentage of supporters of the Nelson plan was less than required (it was necessary to collect 1% of the vote of the number of members of the APA, i.e. more than 600 votes). In addition, under the Cold War, funding for the department was difficult. In addition, many members of the APA Council of Representatives expressed concern about the excessive politicization of this area of ​​psychology. Moreover, a number of American mainstream psychologists have expressed doubts that the psychology of the world is a “real” psychology. Thus, the psychology of the world was marginalized ^[58] . Although such well-known scholars as Karl Rogers and Burres Frederic Skinner expressed their support for the creation of the World Psychology Department in APA, in 1987 the APA Council of Representatives rejected the official petition for its formation. Since the APA Council of Representatives imposed a two-year moratorium on the creation of new departments in 1988, the world's psychologists now have time to coordinate actions. The radical foreign policy changes associated with Gorbachev's reforms in the USSR helped strengthen recognition of this area of ​​psychology in the American academic environment. On August 13, 1989, the APA Council of Representatives approved the second petition on the creation of a department of world psychology ^[59] . The official birthday of the World Psychology Department of APA is August 11, 1990 ^[60] . The full name of this department is Division 48: Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association. Since 1995, APA Division 48 has been publishing its quarterly journal called Peace and Conflict: The Journal of Peace Psychology. In recent years, American psychologists in the world have significantly expanded the scope of this discipline, adapting to new realities. They began to pay much attention to the problem of terrorism, which is connected with the events of September 11, 2001.

In other countries

The psychology of the world, like many other areas of psychological science, relies heavily on developments made in North America. Moreover, it is actively developing in other parts of the world. In Europe, research in the field of world psychology is being conducted in parallel with research in the USA. They relate to local issues - such as ethnic-ethnic conflicts in Northern Ireland and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, the Greek-Turkish conflict in Cyprus, the conflict in Estonia and others. In recent years, world psychologists in Europe, like their colleagues from the USA, have paid great attention to the problem of terrorism, which is connected with terrorist acts in Madrid in 2004 and in London in 2005 ^[61] .

The psychology of peace in Asia is influenced by local characteristics, which include a low standard of living in the vast majority of countries in this region, as well as a high level of religiosity in the Asian population. Psychologists of the world in Asia are developing approaches to solving the problems of interethnic, interreligious and interstate conflicts, taking into account local political history and local cultural traditions of peacekeeping ^[62] . The development of world psychology as an academic discipline in the Asian region is manifested in the creation in recent years of programs with the assignment of an MA in world psychology at the universities of Indonesia and Malaysia. In addition, in many universities in Pakistan, Japan, Indonesia, and the Philippines, the psychology of the world is taught in the framework of training courses without assigning degrees in it ^[63] .

The psychology of peace in Australia has been greatly influenced by the history of the colonization of this continent. Since before the first settlers from Britain arrived in Australia, its territory was inhabited by Aboriginal tribes, Australian psychologists in the world have to solve the problems associated with this. In addition, the psychology of peace in Australia is forced to take into account the local conditions of multiculturalism ^[64] . In 1984, the Psychologists for Prevention of War (PPOW), which is now called Psychologists for Peace, was created in the . PFP) ^{[65] [66]} .

African psychology has made a significant contribution to several areas of world psychology, such as intergroup relations, peaceful philosophy of life, the practice of conflict resolution. In Africa, there are a number of traditional societies whose way of life and worldview contribute to peace, cooperation and non-violent conflict resolution. These societies preserve the remnants of ancient traditions of peacebuilding, which were mostly destroyed by colonial intervention, which destroyed the relative stability and previously dominated the peaceful coexistence of many tribes on the African continent ^[67] .

In 1989, Bulgaria hosted the first International Symposium on the Contributions of Psychology to Peace, which was attended by world psychologists from many countries. In the future, similar symposia began to be held annually in Germany, the USA, South Africa, Australia, Costa Rica, the Philippines and other countries. In 1994, UNESCO approved supporting materials from the Committee for Psychological Peace Research of the , which recognized the contribution of psychology to peace and social justice. ^[55]

The psychology of the world stood out as an independent direction in psychological science in the 1980s ^[68] . Previously, it developed in the framework of other sciences, with which it maintains a close relationship at the present time. For this reason, many authors consider the psychology of the world an eclectic mix of concepts borrowed from various disciplines (social psychology, dynamic psychology, interpersonal psychology, etc.) and applied to irenology. Italian psychologists Antonella Sapio ( University of Florence ) and Adriano Zamperini ( University of Padua ) disprove this view, characterizing the psychology of the world as an interdisciplinary direction with its own unique theoretical, methodological and practical approaches that challenge traditional psychological approaches. According to them, the use by psychologists of the world of the concept of non-violence produced the “ Copernican revolution ” in the understanding of power relations ^[69] . Based on the concept of structural violence, psychologists of the world declared the deviant nature of power relations, which inevitably give rise to human suffering. A. Sapio and A. Zamperini identified three types of problems in Western psychological science, the solution of which led to the emergence of the psychology of the world as an “alternative psychology” ^[70] :

1. Lack of social relevance, expressed in the inability of psychology to offer adequate approaches to solve many social problems;
2. Придание универсальной валидности локальным исследованиям искусственно выбранных групп населения;
3. Стремление к научной нейтральности, следствием которого стал отказ от этического измерения.

Они указывают, что мир в психологии мира является не объектом исследования, а краеугольным камнем принципиально нового эпистемологического подхода. Традиционная психология и психиатрия, начиная с психоанализа , базируются на предположении, что объектом медицинского ухода является пациент, страдающий какой-либо формой психического расстройства и нуждающийся в помощи терапевта. На этом положении основана и клиническая модель терапевтических отношений, ставящая пациента в зависимость от терапевта и отчуждающая их друг от друга. При разрешении конфликтов традиционная психология стремится примирить стороны без устранения отчуждения. Психология мира предлагает альтернативный подход, основанный на подлинной эмпатии и направленный на трансформацию взаимодействия между конфликтующими сторонами путём изменения условий их жизни. Предложенный Йоханом Галтунгом подход под названием TRANSCEND (пропагандируемый одноимённой организацией ^[71] ), может быть сведён к трёхчастной «мантре»: эмпатия, ненасилие, творчество ^[72] .

Для описания различий между традиционной психологией и психологией мира А. Сапио и А. Дзамперини представили следующую схему ^[73] :

В число практических методов, используемых психологами мира, входят групповые тренинги, нацеленные на личностное и коллективное развитие путём принятия ненасилия. Эти тренинги не являются психотерапевтическими, они способствуют раскрытию ненасильственного потенциала личности в целях трансформации её социального взаимодействия ^[74] . Другой применяемый психологами мира практический метод — психосоциальная фасилитация. Она представляет собой практику распределения опыта с участием социально незащищённых групп населения в целях трансформации аспектов структурного насилия, свойственных локальным социальным системам. Техники психосоциальной фасилитации пока не успели пройти широкой апробации и получить достаточную известность. Но, невзирая на недостаток научного признания этих техник, психологи мира считают их весьма перспективными ^[75] .

Психология мира в значительной степени опирается на качественные методы, которые рядом учёных считаются ущербными с точки зрения строгости научной методологии ^[76] . Психологи мира используют различные эпистемологические подходы, рассчитанные как на лабораторные исследования, так и на , а также на ряд других научных методов. Для представителей данной дисциплины характерно стремление противостоять редукционизму , свойственному многим отраслям современной науки ^[77] . Разнообразие подходов в психологии мира отражается в утверждениях её представителей, которые говорят, что определение психологии мира зависит от гео-исторического контекста, и что правильнее говорить о «психологиях мира», а не о «психологии мира» ^[78] .

Британский психолог Герберт Блумберг ( Голдсмитский колледж ) отмечает, что психология мира связана с удивительно большим количеством дисциплин. В число этих дисциплин входят не только отрасли науки, но и философия, этика, теология, а также различные виды искусства ^[79] .

Психологи мира обращают внимание на факт наличия религиозных оснований во многих войнах. С другой стороны, религия определённо входит в число движущих сил ряда кампаний по ненасильственному разрешению конфликтов ^[80] . Психологи мира в ряде работ подробно рассматривают аспект ненасилия религиозных доктрин, а также его применимость в рамках своей научной и прикладной деятельности ^{[81] [82] [83]} .

Норвежский социолог Чарльз Вебель ( Университет Тромсё ) отмечает, что, хотя все философы и психологи на словах являются сторонниками мира, те из них, кто пытается заниматься исследованиями в области мира на профессиональном уровне (по крайней мере, в англоязычных странах), рискует подвергнуться маргинализации и даже остракизму . Вебель утверждает, что психологи мира, как и их единомышленники-философы, работают на периферии (on the margins) своей дисциплины, как правило, занимаясь дополнением более «строгих, научных» исследований. Именно это, по его мнению, стало причиной создания в течение последних пятидесяти лет ряда специализированных организаций, в которых учёные могли бы заниматься исследованиями в области мира без риска академической и профессиональной изоляции. Создание отдела психологии мира в Американской психологической ассоциации он рассматривает в качестве одного из сдвигов в данном направлении ^[84] .

Американский психолог Майкл Нильсен ( ) отмечает, что психология мира пока является небольшой областью в сравнении с такими субдисциплинами как психология развития и клиническая психология . При этом он указывает на её растущее признание, используя в качестве критериев количество подписчиков журнала «Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology» в сопоставлении с некоторыми другими журналами АПА, меньший процент принятых к публикации в журнале «Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology» рукописей в сравнении с некоторыми другими журналами АПА, а также появление академических программ по психологии мира в колледжах и университетах ^[68] .

Согласно информации организации «Психологи за социальную ответственность», академические программы по психологии мира преподаются в весьма ограниченном количестве университетов. Для студентов, желающих специализироваться на психологии мира, такая возможность предоставляется в рамках некоторых программ по политической психологии, по социальной психологии и по разрешению конфликтов. Несколько университетов в США присваивают степени MA и PhD по смежным с психологией мира дисциплинам ^[85] . На кафедре психологии в 2004 году была введена программа с присвоением степени PhD по социальной психологии со специализацией по психологии мира ^[86] . Это единственная программа подобного рода в США ^[87] .

Ведущие американские психологи мира в статье, опубликованной в журнале в 2008 году, высказали мнение, что хотя число публикаций по психологии мира за последние десятилетия значительно выросло, психологическое сообщество в целом расценивает данную дисциплину как нарождающуюся. Они также указали на противоречие между наличием нескольких тысяч публикаций по психологии мира в специализированных базах данных (включая PsycINFO) и отсутствием хотя бы одного учебника по психологии, в котором психологии мира была бы посвящена отдельная глава ^[77] .

В Психологической энциклопедии Корсини, изданной в 2010 году, отмечается, что отдел психологии мира в Американской Психологической Ассоциации за свою относительно короткую историю успел оказать значительное влияние на эту организацию через участие его членов в правлении и комитетах АПА. Журнал Peace and Conflict: The Journal of Peace Psychology существенно поспособствовал увеличению признания психологии мира как самостоятельной психологической дисциплины по всему земному шару ^[88] .

В предисловии к Энциклопедии психологии мира, изданной в 2012 году, говорится, что на сегодняшний день поразительно большое число психологов по всему земному шару идентифицирует себя как психологов мира или же называет психологию мира частью области своих интересов ^[89] .

• Bondurant, Joan Valerie. Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict. With a new epilogue by the author . — revised. — Princeton University Press, 1988. — 288 p. — ISBN 978-0-691-02281-9 .
• MacNair, Rachel M. The Psychology of Peace: An Introduction . — 2, revised. — ABC-CLIO, 2011. — 259 p. — ISBN 978-0-313-39723-3 .
• Mayton II, Daniel M. Nonviolence and Peace Psychology . — New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 2009. — 294 p. — ISBN 978-0-387-89347-1 .
• Sapio, Antonella and Zamperini, Adriano. Peace psychology: theory and practice // Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies / edited by Charles Webel and Johan Galtung. — 1 edition. — Routledge, 2007. — P. 265-278. — 424 p. — ISBN 978-0-415-39665-4 .
• Smock, David R. Religious perspectives on war: Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Attitudes toward force . — Revised. — Washington: United States Institute of Peace, 2002. — ISBN 1-929223-37-4 .
• Wessells, Michael G. A History of Division 48 (Peace Psychology) // Unification Through Division: Histories of the Divisions of the American Psychological Association / Dewsbury, Donald A. (Ed.). — Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1996. — Vol. I. — P. 265-294. — 317 p. — ISBN 978-1-55798-379-4 .
• Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century / Christie, DJ, Wagner, RV, & Winter, DD (Eds.). — Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2001. — 426 p. — ISBN 9780130968210 . Архивная копия от 25 июня 2014 на Wayback Machine