Derleme

Psychological Approaches to Peace; Peace in Modern Psychology

Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2 30 Temmuz 2018
PDF İndir
EN TR

Psychological Approaches to Peace; Peace in Modern Psychology

Öz

Peace is an interdisciplinary subject matter. Peace is mostly studied and addressed in the fields such as international relations, political sciences, psychology, sociology and educational sciences. It is essential to present psychological foundations of peace besides psychological theories of peace since peace occupies such a broad field. The aim of the current study is to introduce the historical development and psychological approaches to peace. Review approach was adopted in this study as it is based on literature review. In the end of the study, the researcher addressed psychological approaches to peace and the places of these approaches in the literature in the course of history. The current study is thought to redound to the literature in the way that it will raise awareness about peace and peace psychology. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Peace,Peace Psychology,Peace Theories

Kaynakça

  1. Christie, D. J., Tint, B. S., Wagner, R. V. and Winter, D. D. (2008). Peace psychology for a peaceful world. American Psychologist, 63(6), 540-552.
  2. Galtung, J. (1967). Theories of peace, a synthetic approach to peace thinking. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute.
  3. Graf, W., Kramer, G. and Nicolescou, A. (2006). Conflict transformation through dialogue: From Lederach’s rediscovery of the Freire method to Galtung’s “Transcend” approach. Journal Für Entwicklungspolitik, 22(3), 55-83.
  4. Özkeçeci-Taner, B. (2002). The myth of democratic peace: theoretical and empirical shortcomings of the “Democratic Peace Theory”. Alternatives, Turkish Journal of International Relations, 1(3), 40-48.
  5. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
  6. Spillmann, K. R. and Kollars, N. D. (2010). Herbert Kelman’s contribution to the methodology of practical conflict resolution. Peace and Conflict, 16, 349-360.
  7. Vezzali, L. and Stathi, S. (2017). The present and the future of the contact hypothesis, and the need for integrating research fields. In A. E. R. Bos (Ed.), Intergroup contact theory (pp. 1-7). London: Routledge Taylor and Francis.
  8. Vinayak, S. and Sharma, A. (2016). Peace psychology in today’s era. Santosh University Journal of Health Sciences, 2(1), 33-38.
  9. Weber, A. (2006). Feminist Peace and Conflict Theory. Routledge Encylopaedia on Peace and Conflict Theory.

Kaynak Göster

APA
Yıldırım, A. (2018). Psychological Approaches to Peace; Peace in Modern Psychology. R&S - Research Studies Anatolia Journal, 1(2), 385-388. https://doi.org/10.33723/rs.440697
AMA
1.Yıldırım A. Psychological Approaches to Peace; Peace in Modern Psychology. R&S - Research Studies Anatolia Journal. 2018;1(2):385-388. doi:10.33723/rs.440697
Chicago
Yıldırım, Ahmet. 2018. “Psychological Approaches to Peace; Peace in Modern Psychology”. R&S - Research Studies Anatolia Journal 1 (2): 385-88. https://doi.org/10.33723/rs.440697.
EndNote
Yıldırım A (01 Temmuz 2018) Psychological Approaches to Peace; Peace in Modern Psychology. R&S - Research Studies Anatolia Journal 1 2 385–388.
IEEE
[1]A. Yıldırım, “Psychological Approaches to Peace; Peace in Modern Psychology”, R&S - Research Studies Anatolia Journal, c. 1, sy 2, ss. 385–388, Tem. 2018, doi: 10.33723/rs.440697.
ISNAD
Yıldırım, Ahmet. “Psychological Approaches to Peace; Peace in Modern Psychology”. R&S - Research Studies Anatolia Journal 1/2 (01 Temmuz 2018): 385-388. https://doi.org/10.33723/rs.440697.
JAMA
1.Yıldırım A. Psychological Approaches to Peace; Peace in Modern Psychology. R&S - Research Studies Anatolia Journal. 2018;1:385–388.
MLA
Yıldırım, Ahmet. “Psychological Approaches to Peace; Peace in Modern Psychology”. R&S - Research Studies Anatolia Journal, c. 1, sy 2, Temmuz 2018, ss. 385-8, doi:10.33723/rs.440697.
Vancouver
1.Ahmet Yıldırım. Psychological Approaches to Peace; Peace in Modern Psychology. R&S - Research Studies Anatolia Journal. 01 Temmuz 2018;1(2):385-8. doi:10.33723/rs.440697