bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Collective Memories of Intergroup Conflict
Authors: Bilali Rezarta 
Published: November 2011

Abstract
Each side in a conflict has a different construal of the origins and development of the conflict. Collective memories of past conflicts play an important role in maintaining intergroup violence. For instance, the collective memory of violent events may serve to justify current violence and may help perpetrate and refuel new violence. The reconciliation and conflict resolution literature suggests that addressing the past and acknowledging the harm done by the ingroup are crucial for establishing peaceful relations. However, in order to address the past efficiently it is necessary to understand how groups construe the past of intergroup conflict, and how memories of the past influence current conflict.
Collective Narcissism
Authors: de Zavala Agnieszka Golec 
Published: November 2011

Abstract
A belief that others do not appropriately recognize the superiority and special entitlements of one's own group has inspired atrocities committed against other groups, including acts of terrorism, violent revolutions, aggressive wars, and genocides. For example, Germans under the Nazi regime believed their right to a better living space and their “pure blood” were not properly appreciated by others. These beliefs were used to legitimize aggressive war and the Holocaust. Islamist terrorists believe they fight a defensive Jihad that mandates them to kill those who do not acknowledge the superiority of their values and lifestyle. In the 1970s, members of the American radical leftist group the Weather Underground believed that the exceptional nobility of their cause (ending the war in Vietnam, the advancement of social justice and equality and opposition to a regime they viewed as corrupt) entitled them to put the lives of other people in danger.
Colonialism and Postcolonialism: Psychological Dimensions
Authors: Licata Laurent 
Published: November 2011

AbstractEuropean colonial powers invaded then dominated a large part of the world from the Renaissance to the middle of the twentieth century. Across this long history and numerous geographical settings, colonialism took various forms, was associated with diverse practices, and was justified by different ideologies. However, it created unprecedented situations of encounters between the original inhabitants of the colonized countries and European colonizers, locking them in “the most complex and traumatic relationship in human history” (Loomba, 2005, p. 8). This long traumatic relationship had a tremendous influence on the psychologies of both the colonized and the colonizers, deeply affecting their views of the world, of the other peoples, and of themselves. This influence did not cease once independence treaties were signed, as the colonial experience continues to impregnate the cultures and identities of both formerly colonizing and formerly colonized peoples. As a consequence, colonialism still affects their current interactions, be it in the context of international relations or in that of contacts between majority members and immigrants or indigenous peoples in Western countries.
Conflict Escalation, Psychological Factors in
Authors: Winter David G. 
Published: November 2011

Abstract
People have speculated about the psychological causes of war at least since Thucydides, who wrote in the fifth century bce about the Peloponnesian War and concluded that “the growth of the power of Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Lacedaemon [Sparta], made war inevitable.” As the Athenians saw it, “the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must… . By a law of their nature, wherever [men] can rule, they will.”
Conflict Management, Proactive
Authors: Christie Daniel J. , Mcnamee Sarah C. 
Published: November 2011

Abstract
In this article we suggest that peace psychology is largely a reactive endeavor rather than a proactive approach to the mitigation of violence. In addition, we critique the oft‐(re) cited view of conflicts as opportunities, the view of conflict as desirable, and the tendency to conflate the meaning of conflict with violence. In light of these shortcomings of traditional conceptions of conflict, we sharply distinguish between conflict as primarily a perceptual process, and violence as an overt form of aggression. We discuss case studies that provide evidence for the proposition that proactive conflict management ‐ by which we mean the prevention of intergroup conflict (not violence) ‐ has utility that has heretofore been given little attention.
Conflict Management Styles
Authors: Wertheim Eleanor H. 
Published: November 2011

Abstract
Conflict is generally conceptualized as a normal part of human interactions and it is not in itself necessarily destructive. Rather, it is how conflict is managed that determines whether the outcomes will be constructive or destructive (Deutsch, 2006). Thus, the process of managing a dispute, and associated conflict styles of the parties involved, is important in producing satisfactory or unsatisfactory outcomes.
Conflict Resolution, Interactive
Authors: Fisher Ronald J. 
Published: November 2011

Abstract
The term interactive conflict resolution refers to a collection of small‐group discussion approaches to the analysis and resolution of intergroup conflict that bring together members of conflicting parties in dialogue and problem solving facilitated by a team of knowledgeable and skilled social scientists. The invention of this method is attributed to John Burton and his colleagues at University College, London in the mid‐1960s. They creatively combined the forum of an academic seminar with group problem solving such that the participants could enter into a mutual analysis of the sources and dynamics of their conflict, followed by the development of ideas and options that could be fed into official peace negotiations. Burton initially labeled this workshop approach as controlled communication in order to denote the non‐adversarial, open and supportive atmosphere created by the third party, but later used the term problem solving to distinguish the method from traditional negotiations (Burton, 1969).
Conflict Resolution in Nonhuman Primates
Authors: Erlich Nicole S. 
Published: November 2011

AbstractThis reconciliation sequence was one of many documented by the primatologist Frans de Waal in a chimpanzee colony at Burges Zoo in Arnhem, in the Netherlands. It is at this zoo that post‐conflict behaviors to reduce tensions among adversaries were first studied in the 1970s. Following these initial investigations in Arnham, over 27 species of nonhuman primates in captivity and the wild have been documented as showing reconciliation behavior (Aureli & de Waal, 2000). Such behavior has been found not only in our closest relatives, the great apes (including chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas), but also in a large variety of macaque monkeys, baboons, gorillas, and lemurs. The frequency of reconciliation following conflict differs quite markedly between species. Bonobos, chimpanzees, and some monkey species (e.g., sooty mangabeys, golden monkeys) have been documented as reconciling post conflict up to 50% of the time, while other monkey and prosimian species reconcile only about 10% of the time following conflicts (e.g., the rhesus monkey, the chacma baboon).
Conflict Resolution in Schools
Authors: Spears Barbara A. 
Published: November 2011

AbstractConflict, generally defined as a fight, struggle, battle, disagreement, dispute, or quarrel (Johnson & Johnson, 2009, p. 368), exists wherever human interaction occurs and is a seemingly inevitable component of any social group. It is driven by such issues as incompatibilities between the parties; perceived differences in needs, beliefs, and values; and limited resources (Johnson & Johnson 1995, 1996, 2009). Schools as institutions and as communities are therefore not without conflict when students, staff, and parents interact in and around the school. Nor are schools without aggression. Intricately interwoven with conflict, aggression becomes evident early in life; involves a deliberate intent to harm; often uses force or domination over others; and evolves from physical through verbal to indirect forms as children develop their social skills, language capabilities, and social intelligence (Tremblay, Gervais, & Petitclerc, 2008).
Conflict, Culture of
Authors: Bar‐Tal Daniel 
Published: November 2011

AbstractSocieties involved in harsh and violent conflicts such as intractable conflict evolve with time a sociopsychological repertoire that includes a well organized system of societal beliefs, attitudes, and emotions that fulfills a crucial role in meeting the challenges that such conflict poses. It facilitates adaptation to the conditions of conflict, enables coping with stressful and threatening conditions that accompany this type of conflict, and helps to withstand the enemy. This repertoire, which crystallizes into collective memories of conflict, ethos of conflicts, and collective emotional orientation, pertains to a number of crucial themes in times of conflict. It justifies the outbreak of the conflict and the course of its development, delegitimizes the rival, glorifies one's own group and presents it as the victim of the conflict, encourages mobilization for the conflict, and sets security and patriotism as highly desirable values (Bar‐Tal, 2007).
Conflict, Escalation and De‐escalation of
Authors: Pruitt Dean G. 
Published: November 2011

Abstract
Conflict is said to escalate when one or both parties (individuals, groups, organizations, or states) shift(s) to more extreme tactics — complaining instead of requesting changes, shouting instead of complaining, shooting instead of shouting. In organizations, escalation usually takes subtler forms, such as slowdowns, sabotage, and theft (Pruitt, 2007). Escalation sometimes has positive consequences. Selective escalation may signal the relative importance of certain issues in the conflict, thus fostering agreements in which both parties satisfy their high priority needs. The shock value of escalation may encourage information gathering, problem solving, and rethinking of activities or policies, which can lead to needed social change. However, escalation is often harmful, especially when it is severe. Many escalated behaviors are directly injurious — sabotage, theft, shooting. Escalation may also lead to ill‐feeling and a breakdown in relationships. In addition, it can crowd out problem solving by encouraging strategic rather than integrative thinking.
Conflict, Intractable
Authors: Bar‐Tal Daniel 
Published: November 2011

Abstract
The fact that dangerous conflicts rage continuously in various parts of the world reflects a component of the human intergroup repertoire. Vicious conflicts in Sri Lanka, Kashmir, and the Middle East are examples of severe violent confrontations that threaten the well‐being of the peoples involved and the international community. These conflicts are over real issues like territories, natural resources, self‐determination, statehood, religious dogmas, and/or basic values and it is these real issues that have to be addressed in conflict resolution. However, the fact that they are accompanied by intense psychological dynamics makes it especially difficult to resolve them. These psychological dynamics are especially prominent in intractable conflicts, which are violent and perceived as irreconcilable because they concern essential and existential goals that clash (Bar‐Tal, 2007; Coleman, 2003; Vallacher, Coleman, Nowak, & Bui‐Wrzosinska, 2010).
Conflicts, Constructive
Authors: Kriesberg Louis 
Published: November 2011

AbstractSignificantly, conflicts vary along a multidimensional continuum ranging from highly constructive to highly destructive. Conflicts are not necessarily conducted only by adversaries inflicting harm on each other and with one side gaining only at the expense of the other side. After discussing possible alternatives, the processes and factors shaping variations in conflicts are analyzed. Finally, strategies that foster constructive conflict are examined.
Constructive Controversy
Authors: Johnson David W. , Johnson Roger T. 
Published: November 2011

Abstract
To establish and maintain peace, individuals need to engage in collective decision‐making about complex and critical problems. Such collective decision‐making is known as political discourse (Johnson & Johnson, 2000). Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the other founders of the American Republic considered political discourse to be the heart of democracy. The clash of opposing positions was expected to increase citizens' understanding of the issues and the quality of decision‐making, given that citizens would keep an open mind and change their opinions when logically persuaded to do so. In order to be educated to be a citizen in a democracy students need to be educated for a culture of argument, that is, political discourse. Political discourse is the heart of democracy. Instead of the social rank within which a person is born, the basis of influence within a democratic society should be a free and open discussion characterized by conflict between ideas and opinions. The purposes of political discourse include (1) clarifying citizens' understanding of the issue, (2) helping citizens reach their best reasoned judgment as to which course of action will solve a problem, (3) increasing citizen participation in the political process, and (4) socializing the next generation into the procedures and attitudes they need to be active citizens. Constructive controversy is an instructional procedure to teach students how to engage in political discourse to make decisions about community and societal issues. Constructive controversy has been used in Azerbaijan, Armenia, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and the United States (Johnson & Johnson, 2010).
Contact Theory, Intergroup
Authors: Tropp Linda R. 
Published: November 2011

AbstractIntergroup contact theory proposes that intergroup prejudice can be reduced when members of different groups interact with each other under optimal conditions. Allport (1954) developed what has become the most influential statement of intergroup contact theory, stating that prejudice will be reduced when the contact situation embodies four primary conditions: (1) equal status between groups; (2) common goals; (3) cooperation between groups; and (4) support of institutional authorities, law, or custom. Rather than being thought of as independent factors, these conditions are typically conceived of as interrelated factors that function jointly to reduce intergroup prejudice. For example, efforts to establish equal status between groups in the contact situation can be bolstered by institutional authorities who support norms of equality and offer guidance regarding how members of different groups should treat each other. Similarly, encouraging groups to cooperate should involve some degree of interdependence, such that members of these groups must work together, and rely on each other, in order to achieve their shared goals.
Cooperative Learning
Authors: Johnson David W. , Johnson Roger T. 
Published: November 2011

Abstract
Peace may be conceptualized as having two separate dimensions (Johnson & Johnson, 2006): the first involves ending violence and hostilities in ways all parties believe are desirable, legitimate, just, and beneficial, and the second establishing relationships based on harmonious interaction aimed at achieving mutual goals, justly distributing mutual benefits (i.e., a desirable common fate), mutual dependence on each other's resources, and a mutual identity. In order to build and maintain peace, individuals must understand how to form and to sustain cooperative efforts.
Critical Security Studies
Authors: Booth Ken 
Published: November 2011

AbstractThe emergence of critical security studies (CSS) since the late 1980s has posed a significant challenge to the dominant understanding of security in academic international relations (IR). The traditional orthodoxy rested on varieties of realist theory embedded most powerfully in US academic departments of IR and think‐tanks; the challenge has come mainly from Western European universities. There is a great deal at stake: not only is the concept of security central to IR, but the practice of security has significant implications for the lives of real people in real places. Ultimately, “global realities” (like international security) are the products of collective human consciousness about how we might live globally.
Cultural Carriers
Authors: Warren Zachary , Moghaddam Fathali M. 
Published: November 2011

AbstractCultural carriers are powerful vehicles of meaning that influence continuity and change in human societies (Moghaddam, 2002). Cultural carriers can be objects, political figures, practices, and concepts that preserve or “carry” certain normative meanings over time. Often, cultural carriers sustain continuity through times of political, economic, and legal change; examples being the Islamic veil, and the American national flag. Cultural carriers wield power informally in everyday life, influencing “subjective justice,” as well as in formal institutions, influencing “black letter law.” The concept has been used to explain the paradox of revolution, where revolutionary political change fails to bring about expected changes in aspects of everyday life, or vice versa, such as when grassroots movements fail to affect macrolevel institutional change (Moghaddam, 2008a). Revolutionaries rise to power, only to maintain and often wield their power effectively the same way as the elites they overthrew. This paradox of continuity is perhaps best epitomized by the expression, “The more things change, the more things stay the same.”
Culture of Peace
Authors: de Rivera Joseph 
Published: November 2011

AbstractA culture of peace is usually contrasted with the culture of war that pervades so much of modern society. However, there are three different referents for the term. It may be used to refer to (1) the cultures of peoples who do not engage in warfare, murder, rape, and other forms of physical violence, or (2) the ideal of a global culture of peace that can replace the current system of domination with a culture of cooperation for sustainable development, or (3) the culture of peace that actually exists within current societies, a culture encouraging people to transform those aspects that reflect a culture of war. Each of these referents is discussed below.
Decision‐Making, the Role of Emotions in Foreign Policy
Authors: Renshon Jonathan , Lerner Jennifer S. 
Published: November 2011

Abstract
Long viewed as an obstacle to be overcome in the pursuit of pure rationality, emotions are now widely recognized as a critical part of the decision‐making process. As a result, any complete account of foreign policy decision‐making must account for how and when emotions impact political decision‐making. Facing difficult issues and multiple constituencies on a daily basis, political decision‐makers operate in an environment of near‐constant time pressure and stress. How they process information and make judgments involves a complex interplay between affective and cognitive factors. In this article, we present a framework for understanding the different ways in which emotions can enter into the decision‐making process and the differential effects of key emotions.
Delegitimization
Authors: Bar‐Tal Daniel , Oren Neta 
Published: November 2011

Abstract
One of the major psychological mechanisms responsible for much of the observed evil intergroup behaviors beginning with discrimination, through exploitation, slavery, mass killing, ethnic cleansing, and genocide is delegitimization of another group. Many scientists have observed the importance of this mechanism and labeled it in various ways: downgrading, devaluation, dehumanization, infrahumanization, and so on (e.g., Kelman, 1973). It is suggested that delegitimization is the term that well describes the scope and the nature of this mechanism. It is defined as the categorization of a group or groups into extremely negative social categories that exclude it or them from the sphere of human groups that act within the limits of acceptable norms and/or values (Bar‐Tal, 1990). In other words, being an extreme type of negative stereotyping, this categorization aims to deny humanity to another group and tries to push it beyond the boundaries of the accepted groups within the humane category. This aim always serves a desire, wish, intention, and course of action that are negative in their nature and that harm the other group or groups (Oren & Bar‐Tal, 2007).
Deprovincialization
Authors: Pettigrew Thomas F. 
Published: November 2011

Abstract
Provincialism refers to being unsophisticated and centered in one's own small world. One judges other people and cultures negatively, simply because they are different from your ingroup and culture. The term developed to describe one who lives in the provinces and is oblivious to the ways of the broader, outside world. The phenomenon is of interest to social psychologists because it is often involved in the development of prejudice against and negative stereotypes of other groups — basic elements at the psychological level of intergroup conflict. This link is especially strong when encounters with other groups and cultures are threatening. And provincial people are more easily threatened by new and strange experiences.
Desegregation
Authors: Schofield Janet Ward 
Published: November 2011

AbstractDesegregation refers to the elimination of racial segregation especially when the segregation was due to law rather than social custom, although the term is sometimes applied in both situations. The term is most commonly used to refer to changes occurring in the United States as a result of the civil rights movement in the 1950s. The roughly 4 million slaves in the United States at the time of the Civil War (1861–1865), the vast majority of whom were of African descent, were freed in 1865. For a little more than a decade after that, various laws were passed to protect their rights. However, in the late 1870s the pendulum swung in the other direction and a set of laws, called Jim Crow laws, was passed in the southern states where slavery had been common. These laws mandated racial segregation in virtually all aspects of life, including public accommodations, places of work, and educational institutions. The Jim Crow laws were legitimated in 1896 by the US Supreme Court'sPlessy v. Fergusondecision which declared that “separate but equal” facilities for Whites and African Americans were legal. However, although equal facilities were theoretically provided in segregated situations, in reality those provided for African Americans were generally vastly inferior to those provided for Whites.
Dialogue Methods
Authors: Tint Barbara S. 
Published: November 2011

AbstractDialogue is a group process utilized in a range of contexts to address a multiplicity of issues related to interpersonal and intergroup relations. At its most fundamental, dialogue refers to a process where parties come together with the goal of increased mutual understanding. It is distinct from other forms of group interactions in its intention, goals, structure, and process, which are designed to elicit safety, understanding, learning, and often healing and transformational shifts in conflicted contexts. Dialogue has often been used as a peacebuilding tool in conflicted societies and recent decades have shown an increase in the use of structured dialogue as a means of addressing intergroup conflict and long‐standing communal issues. Today, in fractious communities worldwide, dialogue is employed at different stages of societal fissures to increase understanding between parties and to create possibilities for relational transformation.