Research Reports

Peace-Oriented Mindset and How to Measure it

Ryszard Praszkier*1, Agata Zabłocka2, Paige Munnik3
[1] Institute for Social Studies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. [2] Faculty of Psychology in Warsaw, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland. [3] School of Psychology, University of Buckingham, Buckingham, United Kingdom.

Europe's Journal of Psychology, 2023, Vol. 19(3), 232–243, https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.10445

Received: 2022-10-10. Accepted: 2023-01-13. Published (VoR): 2023-08-31.

Handling Editor: Vlad Glăveanu, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

*Corresponding author at: ul. Kopernika 11 m. 25, 00-359 Warsaw, Poland, Tel. +48 502 771 406. E-mail: ryszardpr@gmail.com

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This article presents the concept of a Peace-Oriented Mindset (POM), based on peace psychology and the significance of conflict-related context. It highlights the role of preventing conflicts through creating an enabling and peace-supportive milieu, facilitated by individuals with specific peace-oriented capabilities. The phenomenon of POM is analyzed, as well as delineated in the context of the current knowledge in this field. Next, the method used to construct a questionnaire measuring the POM is presented. The POM scale is verified on an N = 1074 representative sample, documenting high reliability. Factor analysis confirms the conjecture that there are three dimensions of the POM: Cognitive, performative, and doability conviction. Moreover, social norms are documented. A cross-segment comparison delivers several insights, e.g., that women have a higher POM level than men and that those who consider themselves leaders or innovators and those who are involved in social activities have a higher POM level than those who do not. The POM concept and scale are valuable resources for identifying future peacebuilders, especially from conflicted communities, as well as for training future youth leaders in the field of peacebuilding. Finally, indications for future studies are discussed, e.g., for verifying the hypothesis that individuals who score high in POM also have higher levels of empathy and compassion.

Keywords: peacebuilding, peace psychology, conflict prevention, milieu-based approach, peacemaking

This article explores the essence of a Peace-Oriented Mindset (POM), as well as the ways to measure it. Peace-orientation is an important characteristic in the social and educational contexts (e.g., Clarke-Habibi, 2005; Danesh, 2006). In this vein, it seems critical to analyze the nature and structure of this characteristic, as well as to develop an evaluation method.

A POM is especially critical when facing active or dormant conflicts, being a tall order for the individuals, families, groups, and societies involved (Praszkier & Munnik, 2022). This significance will be presented below, in the context of peacebuilding and prevention.

Peacebuilding and Conflict Prevention

Peacebuilding and conflict prevention,1 especially in the area of intractable conflicts, require a specific psychology, namely, developing trust and cooperation (i.e., social capital; see: Coleman, 2000; Fukuyama, 1996; Putnam, 1993); indeed, some people have the propensity for building social capital (Zabłocka et al., 2016). Similarly, conflict prevention requires specific sensitivity for detecting lurking conflicts and empathy in order to preclude their outbreak.

Often, the conflict-related psychological atmosphere is one of mistrust and suspicion; hence, to make resolution attempts more effective, conflict parties need to be psychologically ready to enter a peace process (Rifkind & Yawanarajah, 2019). Sustaining peace, if seen as a durable process, requires a specific psychological context (Halperin, 2016; MacNair, 2012).

Along these lines, a process that changes individuals’ and groups’ perceptions about one another, in a way that reconciles them and transforms their relationships, would be desirable. The challenge is to transform the socio-psychological context so that it becomes a peace-enforcing environment (Lederach, 1996, 2003) whilst reaching beyond the actual conflict itself (Miall, 2004). This milieu-based approach would likely be more efficient than focusing directly on the history of conflict escalation, which may lead to setbacks and reverse the dynamics (Kelman, 1990).

Peacemakers should have the capability to identify and initiate cooperation in a neutral field, outside of the conflict area. In the dynamical approach, these neutral fields of cooperation are called “alternative attractors,” i.e., a set of factors that solidify the dynamics around a given equilibrium (Praszkier et al., 2010; Vallacher et al., 2010; Vallacher & Nowak, 2007).

In this vein, peace-orientation should be desired in an individual’s life, as people often face open or potential conflicts on many levels: Personal, social, national, etc. (Bar-Tal, 2015; Coleman, 2003, 2006; Kriesberg, 1993). It would also be an asset in training future peacebuilding activists, as they should aim at the creation of a safe space, helping to abandon rigid emotional attachments to people’s positions and achieve a state of psychological readiness (Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006).

Another critical aptitude for building peace is listening to the individuals or parties involved in the conflict (Baglione, 2008; Johansson, 2021). Moreover, the key is to understand the value of operating in teams, instead of taking singlehanded actions (Blum & Grangaard, 2018).

Previous Peace-Orientation Concepts

One of the early attempts, in the 1980s, to measure attitudes toward peace was the Ironemeter scale (Bardis, 1984). Though its reliability appears to be good enough, there has been no report on the items’ discrimination power. Moreover, all ten statements seem to prompt the same answer, e.g., everybody would say “Definitely yes” to “Human society does not need an occasional war,” “Peace leads to much greater progress than war does,” and “Historians should never glorify war.” Another concern relates to its all-positive wording, with no reversed (inverted) statements, which could influence respondents through the mechanism of social desirability bias.

The more advanced Peace Attitude Scale (PAS; 22 statements, N = 499) has been proven to have good psychometric properties (Broccoli et al., 2021). Factor analysis has shown that five domains appear to be relevant: Sociopolitical, personal well-being, ease with diversity, environmental attitude, and caring.

The correlations between PAS and the Big Five were analyzed by Cavarra et al. (2021) on an N = 121 sample. Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that two Big Five personality traits, namely, conscientiousness and openness to experience, correlate with peace attitudes (Cavarra et al., 2021). This indicates, above all, that individuals who are more motivated to seek out new experiences tend to show stronger peace attitudes.

Method: Developing the Peace-Oriented Mindset (POM) Concept

There seems to be a void and a need to identify the specific mindset that drives individuals to build and prevent peace. The aim of this study, therefore, was to develop the concept of a Peace-Oriented Mindset and a scale for measuring it.

A mindset is seen as framing “The running account that’s taking place in people’s heads. They guide the whole interpretation process” (Dweck, 2006, p. 215) and has a variety of definitions (see: French, 2016), e.g., delineated as “A predisposition to see the world in a particular way… a filter through which we look at the world” (Rhinesmith, 1992, p. 63). Herein, mindset is understood as a set of beliefs that shape how one makes sense of the world and oneself, influencing how one thinks, feels, and behaves in any given situation (Cherry, 2021; French, 2016)—which relates specifically, in this article, to conflict prevention and resolution.

Along these lines, a mindset has both cognitive (how one makes sense) and performative (how one behaves) dimensions. Similarly, these two dimensions are visible in Gary Klein’s definition: A mindset is a belief that orients the way we handle situations—the way we sort out what is going on and what we should do (Klein, 2016).

Considering the tall order of peacebuilding (i.e., addressing often seemingly insurmountable conflicts), there is a need for yet another dimension: Belief that difficult challenges are doable, a category defined as possibilitivity (Praszkier, 2019, 2021; Praszkier & Zabłocka, 2022).

In line with this framework, it is proposed that the POM be categorized as a three-dimensional construct:

  • Cognitive: Seeing the role of the socio-psychological context, being able to listen (at the same time as maintaining one’s own values) and understanding the significance of team working.

  • Performative: Proactively preventing dormant or lurking conflicts and building bridges between conflicted parties.

  • Doability conviction (possibilitivity): The capacity to anticipate and contain conflicts, being convinced that peace is possible, even if it seems intractable.

Along these lines, these three core dimensions were established for constructing the theoretical framework of the POM scale. A proposed breakdown into subcategories is shown in Table 1.

Table 1

The Theoretical Framework of the Peace-Oriented Mindset (POM) Questionnaire

Subcategory/Item
Cognitive
Finding neutral common ground
Opposing groups should find some neutral fields of cooperation.
Listening to others while maintaining own values
Debating with others helps me see the world from a different perspective.
Listening to others’ viewpoints without losing sight of one’s own convictions is important for creating peace.
I can maintain my own convictions, even when they differ to the majority.
One shouldn’t judge people just by listening to them.a
Ideas for conflict resolution should be related to understanding the arguments of the parties involved.a
I’d rather not adopt another’s point of view after listening to them.
Teamwork
I think that the power of peacemaking lies within teamwork.
It is best to join a peacemaking organization instead of acting singlehandedly.
Group initiative is the most important in peacemaking.a
Performative
Preventing conflict
I try to keep peaceful any situation in which conflict could arise.
I can design an appropriate reconciliation process for a conflict situation.
Indications that a conflict is looming make me think of how to prevent its outbreak.
Building trust
I often think about how to foster trust between conflicted groups.
I can think of innovative ways to build trust between individual parties of a conflict.
Doability conviction
The ability to contain conflicts
It’s possible for me to find an appropriate solution to a conflict situation.
I feel capable when I see groups in conflict.
A sense of being able to anticipate conflicts
I think that one can predict a conflict before it breaks out.

aStatement removed after validation.

Results: Statistical Analysis of the POM Questionnaire

The purpose of the following analyses is to describe the psychometric properties of the questionnaire and to analyze the differences between segments of the population.

The Sample

The sample was representative of the Polish society (N = 1074):

  • 560 women (52.1%) and 514 men (47.9%).

  • 193 subjects (17.9%) in a leadership role, and 882 not (82.1%).

  • 183 subjects (17.0%) involved in a social project, and 891 not (83.0%).

  • 218 subjects (20.3%) who perceive themselves as innovators, and 856 who do not (79.7%).

For age and education, see Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2

Age Distribution of Study Sample

Age (years) N %
18–24 138 13
25–34 217 20
35–44 174 16
45–54 202 19
Over 55 343 32
Total 1074 100
Table 3

Education Level of Study Sample

Education level N %
Primary or some high school 129 12
High school or equivalent 472 44
Bachelor’s degree or higher 473 44
Total 1074 100

Psychometric Properties of the POM Questionnaire

The first step was to analyze the psychometric properties of the questionnaire. Reliability, measured by the internal consistency method, turned out to be low (Cronbach's α = 0.681). Analysis of the correlation indicated that four items did not fit the data set.

The Initial 18-Item Questionnaire

Table 4 presents the results for the initial version.

Table 4

Item Analysis of the 18-Item Questionnaire (N = 1074)

Item Scale mean if items deleted Scale variance if items deleted Item-total correlation Cronbach's alpha if item deleted
1. Debating with others helps me see the world from a different perspective. 56.97 31.087 0.543 0.638
2. I think that one can predict a conflict before it breaks out. 57.57 34.249 0.132 0.686
3. Opposing groups should find some neutral fields of cooperation. 56.80 30.951 0.590 0.634
4. Listening to others’ viewpoints without losing sight of one’s own convictions is important for creating peace. 56.82 31.276 0.534 0.640
5. I think that the power of peacemaking lies within teamwork. 56.85 31.350 0.524 0.641
6. I feel capable when I see groups in conflict. 57.83 34.980 0.079 0.691
7. I can think of innovative ways to build trust between individual parties of a conflict. 57.38 32.047 0.421 0.652
8. I try to keep peaceful any situation in which conflict could arise. 56.99 31.466 0.516 0.642
9. Indications that a conflict is looming make me think of how to prevent its outbreak. 57.17 31.165 0.531 0.639
10. Group initiative is the most important in peacemaking. 57.94 37.057 –0.105 0.710
11. I can design an appropriate reconciliation process for a conflict situation. 57.54 32.349 0.373 0.657
12. I can maintain my own convictions, even when they differ to the majority. 56.88 32.034 0.440 0.650
13. One shouldn’t judge people just by listening to them. 58.14 39.427 –0.324 0.729
14. It’s possible for me to come up with an appropriate solution for a conflict situation. 57.67 33.544 0.244 0.671
15. It is best to join a peacemaking organization instead of acting singlehandedly. 56.95 32.101 0.420 0.652
16. Ideas for conflict resolution should be related to understanding the arguments of the parties involved. 57.92 36.509 –0.058 0.706
17. I often think about how to foster trust between conflicted groups. 57.40 31.711 0.430 0.650
18. I’d rather not adopt another’s point of view after listening to them. 57.98 37.081 –0.108 0.711

As a result, items 10, 13, 16, and 18, with the lowest correlations, were removed.

The Final 14-Item Questionnaire

After removing the above four items, the reliability (as measured by the internal consistency method) increased significantly (Cronbach's α = 0.81). This allows the questionnaire to be used not only in scientific research, but also for individual diagnosis. Table 5 demonstrates the results for the final version.

Table 5

Item Analysis of the 18-Item Questionnaire (N = 1074)

Item Scale mean if items deleted Scale variance if items deleted Item-total correlation Cronbach's alpha if item deleted
1. Debating with others helps me see the world from a different perspective. 45.94 33.937 0.572 0.787
2. I think that one can predict a conflict before it breaks out. 46.54 38.000 0.092 0.827
3. Opposing groups should find some neutral fields of cooperation. 45.77 33.791 0.620 0.784
4. Listening to others’ viewpoints without losing sight of one’s own convictions is important for creating peace. 45.79 34.052 0.573 0.788
5. I think that the power of peacemaking lies within teamwork. 45.82 34.210 0.553 0.789
6. I feel capable when I see groups in conflict. 46.80 38.355 0.073 0.827
7. I can think of innovative ways to build trust between individual parties of a conflict. 46.35 34.634 0.483 0.794
8. I try to keep peaceful any situation in which conflict could arise. 45.96 34.213 0.559 0.789
9. Indications that a conflict is looming make me think of how to prevent its outbreak. 46.15 33.791 0.585 0.786
10. I can design an appropriate reconciliation process for a conflict situation. 46.51 34.943 0.433 0.798
11. I can maintain my own convictions, even when they differ to the majority. 45.85 34.394 0.529 0.791
12. It’s possible for me to come up with an appropriate solution for a conflict situation. 46.64 36.856 0.236 0.813
13. It is best to join a peacemaking organization instead of acting singlehandedly. 45.93 35.083 0.439 0.797
14. I often think about how to foster trust between conflicted groups. 46.37 34.310 0.486 0.794

Factor Analysis

In order to verify the validity of the questionnaire, a factor analysis using the principal components method with a varimax rotation was conducted. A factor analysis method was justified since the Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin test on the standardized data showed a KMO of 0.88. Additionally, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was found to be statistically significant (χ2(91) = 4661.9, p < 0.001).

Most of the results turned out to be in line with our expectations. We obtained a three-factor solution explaining 56.83% of the variance. The factors are highly correlated, which is not surprising as they make up the global POM index (see Table 6).

Table 6

Factor Analysis With 14 Items and N = 1074

Factor
Item 1 2 3
Cognitive
Opposing groups should find some neutral fields of cooperation. 0.786
Listening to others’ viewpoints without losing sight of one’s own convictions is important for creating peace. 0.768
I think that the power of peacemaking lies within teamwork. 0.743
Debating with others helps me see the world from a different perspective. 0.660
It is best to join a peacemaking organization instead of acting singlehandedly. 0.637
I can maintain my own convictions, even when they differ to the majority. 0.624
Performative
I try to keep peaceful any situation in which conflict could arise. 0.584 0.357
I can design an appropriate reconciliation process for a conflict situation. 0.778
I often think about how to foster trust between conflicted groups. 0.753
I can think of innovative ways to build trust between individual parties of a conflict. 0.674
Indications that a conflict is looming make me think of how to prevent its outbreak. 0.450 0.609
Doability conviction
It’s possible for me to find an appropriate solution to a conflict situation. 0.793
I feel capable when I see groups in conflict. 0.784
I think that one can predict a conflict before it breaks out. 0.642

As the sample (N = 1074) was representative, this would indicate a final three-component model: Cognitive, Performative, and Doability conviction.

Norming

For norming purposes, the collected data qualified for the construction of a POM index, as well as for separate scales.

Social Norms

Due to the good psychometric properties of the questionnaire, social norms were defined as outlined in Table 7 (converting raw results into stens; the results from Stens 1 to 3 should be interpreted as low, from 4 to 6 as average, and from 7 to 10 as high).

Table 7

Social Norms

Sten Cognitive Performative Doability conviction Total Peace-Oriented Mindset
1 1.00–2.67 1.00–2.39 1.00–1.66 1.00–2.85
2 2.68–2.99 2.40–2.79 1.67–2.32 2.86–2.99
3 3.00–3.16 2.80–2.99 2.33–2.66 3.00–3.06
4 3.17–3.66 3.00–3.19 2.67–2.99 3.07–3.35
5 3.67–3.99 3.20–3.59 3.00–3.32 3.36–3.56
6 4.00–4.16 3.60–3.79 3.33–3.66 3.57–3.78
7 4.17–4.49 3.80–4.19 3.67–3.99 3.79–4.06
8 4.50–4.82 4.20–4.39 4.00–4.32 4.07–4.28
9 4.83–4.99 4.40–4.79 4.33–4.66 4.29–4.65
10 5.00 4.80–5.00 4.67–5.00 4.66–5.00

Social norms have been established for the entire Polish population, without division into normalization groups (Klein, 2015).

Creating a Societal Index

Convergence to the normal distribution was analyzed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Both skewness and kurtosis were documented to be close to zero, which allowed the use of parametric analyses (see Table 8).

Table 8

Basic Psychometric Parameters of the POM

Scale M SD Skewness Kurtosis Reliability
Cognitive 3.87 0.59 –0.314 0.17 0.83
Performative 3.45 0.61 –0.045 0.47 0.78
Doability conviction 3.06 0.69 0.024 0.57 0.61
Total Peace-Oriented Mindset 3.55 0.45 0.317 0.22 0.81

As the sample (N = 1074) was representative of the Polish society, the assembled data were eligible for constructing a societal index: The average POM level (societal index), measured as a total for all three sub-scales, was POMI = 3.55 (SD = 0.45).

Cross-Segment Comparative Analysis

Gender Comparative Analysis

To determine if women and men differ in their level of POM and its three sub-scales, an independent samples Student's t-test was performed. The analysis showed a significant difference in the cognitive, performative, and total levels, respectively: t(1042,72) = 4.48, p < 0.001; t(1072) = 3.13, p = 0.002; t(1072) = 3.8, p < 0.001.

In other words, women achieved higher POM scores than men (see Table 9). There were no significant differences on the doability conviction scale.

Table 9

Gender Comparative Analysis

Scale Gender N M SD t p
Cognitive Female 560 3.952 0.562 4.48 < 0.001
Male 514 3.791 0.611
Performative Female 560 3.513 0.603 3.13 0.002
Male 514 3.397 0.611
Doability conviction Female 560 3.049 0.706 0.67 0.502
Male 514 3.077 0.676
Total Peace-Oriented Mindset Female 560 3.602 0.447 3.8 < 0.001
Male 514 3.497 0.452

Leadership Comparative Analysis

To determine if people who are leaders differ from those who are not in terms of their level of POM and its three sub-scales, an independent samples Student's t-test was performed. The analysis showed a significant difference in all scales, respectively: t(1072) = 3.52, p < 0.001; t(1072) = 5.98, p < 0.001; t(249.31) = 3.64, p < 0.001; t(258.73) = 5.74, p < 0.001.

In other words, people who perceive themselves as leaders achieved higher scores than those who do not (see Table 10).

Table 10

Leadership Comparative Analysis

Scale Self-perception as leadera N M SD t p
Cognitive Yes 192 4.010 0.608 3.52 < 0.001
No 882 3.846 0.584
Performative Yes 192 3.692 0.613 5.98 < 0.001
No 882 3.406 0.596
Doability conviction Yes 192 3.248 0.805 3.64 < 0.001
No 882 3.022 0.657
Total Peace-Oriented Mindset Yes 192 3.733 0.494 5.74 < 0.001
No 882 3.512 0.432

aThe question prompt was, "Are you currently a leader, that is, a person who, for example, leads or leads in some field or in any project, even in something small?"

Comparative Analysis of Involvement in Social Activities

To determine if people who are involved in social activities differ from those who are not in terms of their level of POM and its three sub-scales, an independent samples Student's t-test was performed. The analysis showed a significant difference in all scales, respectively: t(1072) = 4.34, p < 0.001; t(249.53) = 6.42, p < 0.001; t(228.34) = 2.28, p = 0.024; t(238.28) = 5.78, p < 0.001.

In other words, those people involved in social activities achieved higher POM scores than those not involved (see Table 11)

Table 11

Involvement in Social Activities

Scale Current involvementa N M SD t p
Cognitive Yes 183 4.046 0.597 4.34 < 0.001
No 891 3.840 0.584
Performative Yes 183 3.716 0.639 6.42 < 0.001
No 891 3.404 0.589
Doability conviction Yes 183 3.188 0.847 2.28 0.024
No 891 3.037 0.652
Total Peace-Oriented Mindset Yes 183 3.744 0.508 5.78 < 0.001
No 183 4.046 0.597

aThe question prompt was, "Are you currently involved in any social activities?"

Comparative Analysis of Considering Oneself an Innovator

To determine if people who consider themselves innovators differ from those who do not in terms of their level of POM and its three sub-scales, an independent samples Student's t-test was performed. The analysis showed a significant difference in the cognitive, performative, and total levels, respectively: t(314.1) = 4.41, p < 0.001; t(1072) = 7.87, p < 0.001; t(305.45) = 6.53, p < 0.001.

In other words, those people who consider themselves an innovator achieved higher scores than those who do not (see Table 12).

Table 12

Considering Oneself an Innovator

Scale Self-perception as innovatora N M SD t p
Cognitive Yes 218 4.041 0.632 4.41 < 0.001
No 856 3.833 0.573
Performative Yes 218 3.739 0.617 7.87 < 0.001
No 856 3.386 0.586
Doability conviction Yes 218 3.147 0.828 1.76 0.08
No 856 3.041 0.651
Total Peace-Oriented Mindset Yes 218 3.742 0.493 6.53 < 0.001
No 856 3.503 0.428

aThe question prompt was, "Do you consider yourself an innovator, i.e., someone who, for example, introduces something new or better to some field?"

Discussion and Conclusions

Peace-orientation seems to be a desired value, both in one’s personal life and in the public sphere. It seems especially important when facing intractable or protracted conflicts.

The premise for the Peace-Oriented Mindset concept was presented as embedded in peace psychology and, more specifically, in understanding the significance of the context and milieu. In this vein, the presented study identified three dimensions of peacebuilding and conflict-preventing: Cognitive (understanding complexity, understanding others, etc.), performative (e.g., taking actions to build bridges or to prevent the outbreak of potential conflicts), and doability conviction (i.e., the belief that even if highly challenging, peace can be maintained or restored).

It was documented that the POM questionnaire (14 items) has good psychometric properties and can be used in further studies. Moreover, the research confirmed that the proposed POM questionnaire’s items can be broken down into the discussed three variables. The final questionnaire, with its good reliability, seems a fit for measuring one’s level of POM.

Interestingly, the cross-segment analysis revealed that women have a higher POM level than men; similarly, people who consider themselves leaders or innovators, as well as those involved in social activities, achieved higher POM scores than those who do not. These findings could be an opening for further research. They may be helpful, for example, when identifying the best peacebuilders among conflicted communities. Moreover, the entire POM concept and questionnaire could be helpful for verifying candidates for training in peacebuilding. Lastly, the POM questionnaire could be an indicator of the effectiveness of various peace-orientation programs.

As for future studies, it may be advantageous to see if the POM correlates with other personality traits. For example, a conjecture worth verifying is that peace-oriented individuals also have higher levels of empathy (e.g., Wakabayashi et al., 2006) and compassion (Pommier et al., 2020).

Notes

1) Peacebuilding: Action to identify and support structures that tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict. Conflict prevention: Action to prevent disputes from arising between the parties involved, to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts, and to limit the spread of the latter when they occur (Reychler, 2017; Reychler & Langer, 2020).

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding any agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Acknowledgments

This article is assigned to the Institute for Social Studies, University of Warsaw.

Competing Interests

There are no conflicts of interest.

Ethics Approval

Approved on 5 November 2021 by the Research Ethics Committee of the Institute for Social Studies, University of Warsaw.

Data Availability

Data available on request from the authors.

References

  • Baglione, L. A. (2008). Peacebuilding: A time to listen to and learn from reconciliation. Polity, 40(1), 120-135. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300094

  • Bardis, P. D. (1984). Irenometer: A scale for the measurement of attitudes toward peace. South African Journal of Sociology, 15(3), 122-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/02580144.1984.10428993

  • Bar-Tal, D. (2015). Intractable conflicts: Socio-psychological foundations and dynamics. Cambridge University Press.

  • Blum, A., & Grangaard, R. (2018). Collaborative design in peacebuilding: Lessons from the Central African Republic (Special Report 425). United States Institute of Peace. www.usip.org/publications/2018/04/collaborative-design-peacebuilding

  • Broccoli, E., Canegallo, V., Santoddì, E., Cavarra, M., & Fabio, R. A. (2021). Development and preliminary evaluation of the Peace Attitudes Scale. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 27(3), 512-517. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000508

  • Cavarra, M., Canegallo, V., Santoddì, E., Broccoli, E., & Fabio, R. A. (2021). Peace and personality: The relationship between the five factor model’s personality traits and the Peace Attitude Scale. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 27(3), 508-511. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000484

  • Cherry, K. (2021). What is a mindset and why it matters. VeryWell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-mindset-2795025

  • Clarke-Habibi, S. (2005). Transforming worldviews: The case of education for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Transformative Education, 3(1), 33-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344604270238

  • Coleman, J. S. (2000). Foundations of social theory. Belknap Press.

  • Coleman, P. T. (2003). Characteristics of protracted, intractable conflict: Toward the development of a metaframework–I. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 9(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327949PAC0901_01

  • Coleman, P. T. (2006). Conflict, complexity, and change: A meta-framework for addressing protracted, intractable conflicts–III. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 12(4), 325-348. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327949pac1204_3

  • Danesh, H. B. (2006). Towards an integrative theory of peace education. Journal of Peace Education, 3(1), 55-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400200500532151

  • Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

  • French, R. P. (2016). The fuzziness of mindsets: Divergent conceptualizations and characterizations of mindset theory and praxis. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24(4), 673-691. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2014-0797

  • Fukuyama, F. (1996). Trust. The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Free Press Paperbacks.

  • Halperin, E. (2016). Emotions in conflict: Inhibitors and facilitators of peace making. Routledge.

  • Johansson, P. (2021). Emotional practices and listening in peacebuilding partnerships. Routledge.

  • Kelman, H. C. (1990). Interactive problem-solving: A social-psychological approach to conflict resolution. In J. W. Burton & F. Dukes (Eds.), Conflict: Readings in management and resolution (pp.199–215). Macmillan.

  • Klein, G. (2016, May). Mindsets: What they are and why they matter. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/seeing-what-others-dont/201605/mindsets

  • Klein, P. (2015). A handbook of test construction: Introduction to psychometric design. Routledge.

  • Kriesberg, L. (1993). Intractable conflicts. Peace Review, 5(4), 417-421. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659308425753

  • Lederach, J. P. (1996). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse University Press.

  • Lederach, J. P. (2003). The little book of conflict transformation. Good Books.

  • MacNair, R. M. (2012). The psychology of peace: An introduction. Praeger.

  • Miall, H. (2004). Conflict transformation: A multi-dimensional task. Berghof Foundation.

  • Paffenholz, T., & Spurk, C. (2006). Civil society, civic engagement, and peacebuilding. Social Development Papers – Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction, 36, 1–46. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/822561468142505821/Civil-society-civic-engagement-and-peacebuilding

  • Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Tóth-Király, I. (2020). The development and validation of the Compassion Scale. Assessment, 27(1), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119874108

  • Praszkier, R. (2019). Working wonders: How to make the impossible happen. Cambridge University Press.

  • Praszkier, R. (2021). Possibilitivity. In V. P. Glăveanu (Ed.), Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_202-1

  • Praszkier, R., & Munnik, P. (2022). Peace-oriented mindset. In V. P. Glăveanu (Ed.), Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_264-2

  • Praszkier, R., Nowak, A., & Coleman, P. T. (2010). Social entrepreneurs and constructive change: The wisdom of circumventing conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 16(2), 153-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10781911003691633

  • Praszkier, R., & Zabłocka, A. (2022). The perception of doability and how is it measured. Mind & Society, 21(1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-021-00284-2

  • Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 4(13), 35-42.

  • Reychler, L. (2017). Peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding. International Studies. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.274

  • Reychler, L., & Langer, A. (2020). Peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding. In L. Reychler & A. Langer (Eds.), Luc Reychler: A pioneer in sustainable peacebuilding architecture (pp. 271–299). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40208-2_13

  • Rhinesmith, S. H. (1992). Global mindsets for global managers. Training & Development, 46(10), 63-68.

  • Rifkind, G., & Yawanarajah, N. (2019). Preparing the psychological space for peacemaking. New England Journal of Public Policy, 31(1), 1-11.

  • Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (2007). Dynamical social psychology: Finding order in the flow of human experience. In A. W. Kruglanski & T. E. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 734–758). Guilford Press.

  • Vallacher, R. R., Coleman, P. T., Nowak, A., & Bui-Wrzosińska, L. (2010), Rethinking intractable conflict: The perspective of dynamical systems. American Psychologist, 65(4), 262-278. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019290

  • Wakabayashi, A., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Goldenfeld, N., Delaney, J., Fine, D., Smith, R., & Weil, L. (2006). Development of short forms of the Empathy Quotient (EQ-Short) and the Systemizing Quotient (SQ-Short). Personality and Individual Differences, 41(5), 929-940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.017

  • Zabłocka, A., Praszkier, R., Petrushak, E., & Kacprzyk-Murawska, M. (2016). Measuring the propensity for building social capital depending on ties-strength. Journal of Positive Management, 7(4), 19-39. https://doi.org/10.12775/JPM.2016.020

About the Authors

Ryszard Praszkier, Ph.D., hab., Assistant Professor at the Institute of Social Studies, University of Warsaw, emeritus. Focused on the dynamics of social change, author and co-author of academic publications in that field. Consultant for ‘Ashoka: Everyone a Changemaker’ international association of social entrepreneurs.

Agata Zabłocka, Ph.D., psychologist. Vice-Dean for Didactics at the SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Warsaw. Her scientific interests concern social entrepreneurship and the role of social innovators in generating social capital and in initiating positive social change in Polish education.

Paige Munnik is a postgraduate student in the School of Psychology at the University of Buckingham, UK, and has co-authored several articles in the field of social change and peacemaking.