A particular peace: Psychometric properties of the Just Peacemaking Inventory

Just Peacemaking Inventory 1

Running head: A PARTICULAR PEACE

A Particular Peace: Psychometric Properties of the Just Peacemaking Inventory

Steve Brown Kevin S. Reimer

Fuller Graduate School of Psychology Azusa Pacific University

Alvin C. Dueck Richard Gorsuch Robert Strong

Tracy Sidesinger

Fuller Graduate School of Psychology

Author Note

Steve Brown, Fuller Graduate School of Psychology, Pasadena, California. Kevin S.

Reimer, Department of Graduate Psychology, Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, California. Alvin

C. Dueck, Richard Gorsuch, Robert Strong, and Tracy Sidesinger, Fuller Graduate School of

Psychology, Pasadena, California.

This research was supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice on

Interfaith Conflict Transformation. We thank several anonymous reviewers for suggestions to

improve the manuscript.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Kevin S. Reimer, Department of Graduate

Psychology, Azusa Pacific University, 901 East Alosta Avenue, P.O. Box 7000, Azusa,

California 91702. E-mail: [email protected]


Abstract

Recognizing the moral efficacy of nonviolent exemplars such as Gandhi, recent peace scale

development emphasizes particular spiritual or religious priorities in measurement. Following

this lead, the present study considered the psychometric integrity of a peacemaking scale

constructed from a paradigm of ten practices emphasizing justice and religious virtue.

Psychometrics of the Just Peacemaking Inventory (JPI) were evaluated with a sample of 289

undergraduate and graduate students from Protestant Christian universities. Confirmatory factor

analysis indicated a five-factor model aligned with Just Peacemaking practices, including (a)

Support for Nonviolent Action, (b) Responsibility and Forgiveness, (c) Sustainable Economic

Development, (d) Cooperative Conflict Resolution, and (e) Initiative to Reduce Threats. These

findings suggest that the JPI may prove useful in identifying moral domains for targeted

peacemaking interventions with religious and secular populations.

[982 characters with spaces]

Keywords: measurement, moral identity, peacemaking, psychometrics, religion


A Particular Peace: Psychometric Properties of the Just Peacemaking Inventory

The days following the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001 offered a potent reminder

that attitudes toward peace are complicated by personal belief systems. The aftermath of the

attacks was marked with calls for retribution, often on the basis of religious justification. In this

environment peace measurement is easily entangled with moral sensitivities activated through

the appearance of extremist religious ideology on the geopolitical stage. Despite its divisive

legacy, religion may also contribute constructive elements of moral virtue that inform and

promote peace. Certainly the nonviolent activism of Gandhi and King was imbued with

dimensions of moral character attributed to particular religious influences (Shweder, Much,

Mahapatra, & Park, 1997; Walker & Reimer, 2005; Walzer, 1994). Peace measurement may

therefore require multilevel conceptualization (Anderson & Christie, 2001; Brenes & Wessells,

2001). Indeed, recent nonviolence scales have widened the measurement horizon by

operationalizing Gandhi’s spirituality (Mayton, Susnjic, Palmer, Peters, Gierth, & Caswell,

2002). This trend follows findings in contemporary moral psychology that exemplars known for

outstanding moral actions openly integrate religious virtue into their peacemaking activities. In

addition to justice concerns, peace measurement might include religious virtue toward a

conceptually richer vision of nonviolence instructive to particular faith communities and

democracies that celebrate diversity. The main goal of the present study was to consider the

psychometric properties of a peacemaking scale developed from a particular religious paradigm

known as Just Peacemaking (Stassen, 1998).

Early measurement of attitudes toward war, peace, and conflict reflected a justice ethic

linked with Western democratic priorities. The Thurstone-Peterson Attitude Scale Toward War

measured sentiments regarding political and personal dimensions of armed conflict (TPASTW;


Ericksen, 1948). The instrument was widely administered during the Second World War,

including sample groups of veterans, students, and women. Although the reliability of this scale

garnered some approval, its validity remains questionable (Edwards & Kenney, 1946; Ericksen,

1948). With the advent of nuclear proliferation, peace and conflict measurement grew to

accommodate attitudes toward an expansive, newly apocalyptic vision of warfare (Jeffries, 1974;

Kramer, Kalick, & Milburn, 1983). Werner and Roy (1985) focused their scale on attitudes

toward nuclear activism including pro-nuclear acts, anti-nuclear acts, intensity of activist

behaviors, and bipolar activism as the intensity of behavioral responses embracing pro-nuclear or

anti-nuclear ends. More recently, the Peace Test scale was developed to explore how moral

disengagement influences collective violence (PT; Grussendorf, McAlister, Sandstrom, Udd, &

Morrison, 2002; McAlister, 2001). Outcome studies suggest that aspects of moral disengagement

are significant predictors for violence, and mean scale scores among adolescents correlate with

national levels of defense spending. These measures generally favor justice-based moral

language to conceptualize attitudinal measurement variables.

A recent review of nonviolence measurement reflects a trend toward more particular

frameworks including religious virtue. The spiritually articulate peacemaking philosophy of

Mohandas Gandhi is prominent in this literature (Mayton et al., 2002). The Pacifism Scale (PS;

Elliott, 1980) is premised upon the hallmark Gandhian teaching that truth is discerned through

demonstration of love. The Pacifism Scale measures four dimensions including physical

violence, psychological violence, active value orientation, and locus of control. The Nonviolence

Test (NVT; Kool & Sen, 1984) offers a related measure in its assessment of predispositions that

differentiate violent and nonviolent participant attitudes. The Teenage Nonviolence Test (TNT;

Mayton, Diessner, & Granby, 1996) integrates the conceptual scaffold from the Pacifism Scale


with Gandhian emphasis on a truth-locus for nonviolence. The TNT additionally includes

empathy scales. The Gandhian Personality Scale (GPS; Hasan & Khan, 1983) welds personality

measures from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) with Gandhian traits

emphasizing openness and self-discipline. Finally, the Multidimensional Scales of Nonviolence

(MSN; Johnson, Adair, Bommersbach, Callandra, Huey, & Kelly, 1998) presents a nuanced,

particular framework for peace and conflict that includes Hindu ahimsa or refusal to inflict harm

upon others. An implication of this work is that peacemaking measurement includes moral

attitudes and perceptions that are diverse and contextually particular. Gandhian philosophy is

imbued with spiritual virtue reflecting peacemaking experiences across a spectrum of morally-

charged circumstances.

Toward a Particular Peace

The move to integrate religious peacemaking attitudes into psychological measurement

parallels arguments in moral psychology to consider virtue in moral functioning (Blasi, 1990;

Colby & Damon, 1992; Hart, Atkins, & Ford, 1998; Matsuba & Walker, 2004; Walker &

Hennig, 2004; Walker & Pitts, 1998; Walker & Reimer, 2005). Criticism focused on the studies

of Lawrence Kohlberg, whose singular preference for justice reasoning in morality proved

vulnerable through widespread application of his dilemma-based Moral Judgment Inventory

(MJI; Kohlberg, 1984). Kohlberg’s work was critiqued for a constrained vision of justice that

neglected particular influences in religion and culture (Blasi, 1990; Campbell & Christopher,

1996; Shweder et al., 1997; Walker & Pitts, 1998). Justice reasoning associated with the MJI

tended to miss everyday moral decisions and attitudes of which peacemaking is a paragon

constituent. Justice reasoning grows in contexts instantiated by religious and cultural influences,

which in turn place various requirements on the self as moral agent (Montiel & Boehnke, 2000;


Shweder et al., 1997; Walker & Reimer, 2005).

Efforts to consider context-specific processes associated with morality took two

pathways. Walker and colleagues focused on virtue conceptions of morality reflecting influences

such as spirituality and religion (Matsuba & Walker, 2004; Walker & Hennig, 2004; Walker &

Pitts, 1998; Walker, Pitts, Hennig, & Matsuba, 1995; Walker & Reimer, 2005). Virtue

conceptions of morality were organized around just, brave, and caring types (Walker & Hennig,

2004). Virtue conceptions functioned as social knowledge in people’s everyday moral thinking,

predicting peace-oriented attitudes in adolescents from diverse ethnic and socio-economic

backgrounds (Reimer, Furrow, Baumeister-Peters, & Roth, 2001; Walker & Hennig, 2004;

Walker & Pitts, 1998). Taken together, these studies are suggestive for virtue as a catalyst to

everyday moral functioning.

A second approach emphasized morality in self-understanding or moral identity (Blasi,

1990; Hart et al., 1998). This research considered exemplars known for exceptional altruistic and

peacemaking commitments. In a widely-acclaimed study of moral identity in nominated

exemplars, 80% of the sample unexpectedly attributed their activities to religious faith or virtue

(Colby & Damon, 1992). Follow-up studies with moral exemplar adolescents yielded additional

surprises where exemplars demonstrated a higher level of faith development than closely

matched comparisons (Matsuba & Walker, 2004). Interestingly, exemplars scored no differently

than matched comparison youth on Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Inventory (Hart & Fegley,

1995). These studies suggest that real-world peacemaking behaviors may reflect particular

influences such as religion and culture, referencing these contexts against self-understanding in

social judgments (Matsuba & Walker, 2004; Reimer & Wade-Stein, 2004). Religion is not a

prerequisite for moral identity but may influence the manner by which moral behaviors such as


peacemaking are sustained and consolidated.

The upshot of this discussion commends religious virtue as worthy of consideration in

peacemaking measurement, instructive both to faith communities and the pluralist democracies

that host them. In the American context, one strategy is proving useful for interfaith

peacemaking dialogue between Muslims and Christians. Just Peacemaking (Stassen, 1998) is a

framework that integrates justice with particular virtues from monotheistic religions in general

and Protestant Christianity in particular. Just Peacemaking is the integrative work of 23 scholars

including ethicists, theologians, international relations experts, peace activists, and conflict

mediators. Just Peacemaking advocates practices utilized by groups of concerned citizens to

address the causes of war before they fully materialize. These practices aim for the

transformation of violent or unjust situations into greater opportunities for peace. Just

Peacemaking contributors unabashedly affirm “deeply held faith perspectives” (Stassen, 1998, p.

7) as central to their theory. Ten Just Peacemaking practices are characterized as (a) support for

nonviolent direct action, (b) taking independent initiatives to reduce threats, (c) using

cooperative conflict resolution, (d) acknowledging responsibility for conflict and injustice while

seeking repentance and forgiveness, (e) advancing democracy, human rights, and religious

liberty, (f) fostering just and sustainable economic development, (g) working with emerging

cooperative forces, (h) strengthening the United Nations and international efforts for cooperation

and human rights, (i) reducing offensive weapons and weapons trade, and (j) encouraging grass

roots peacemaking (Stassen, 1998).

In summary, the present study was organized around the development and psychometric

analysis of a peacemaking scale based on the ten practices of Just Peacemaking. The scale was

designed in a manner that attempted to integrate justice with particular virtues in the interest of


tapping aspects of moral identity in participants. Owing to the religious context intrinsic to Just

Peacemaking practices, psychometric properties of the instrument were studied with a religious

sample (e.g., students at Protestant Christian universities) that might one day be targeted for

peacemaking interventions.

Method

Scale development was based on a close reading of the ten practices of Just Peacemaking

(Stassen, 1998). The ten peacemaking practices were divided among three graduate research

assistants. Research assistants were instructed to develop peacemaking statements based on

assigned practices and narrative detail explaining the genesis of each practice. Blind raters

familiar with Just Peacemaking theory and practice refined the bank of statements. At least two

items from each of the ten Just Peacemaking practices were reverse-coded for a total of 77 items.

Items were then randomized to form a survey instrument. Items were assigned a five point Likert

rating scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree or never to often depending upon

item context. Initial items from this process are provided in Appendix I.

Sample & Procedure

The sample consisted of 289 undergraduate and graduate students from Protestant

Christian universities in the United States. Students received partial course credit for

participation. 71% of student participants self-identified as European, 17% as Asian, 7% as

Hispanic, and 3% as African American. Participants ranged from 18 to 66 years of age (M = 27;

SD = 9.7), including 147 women and 142 men. Participants reported level of education as 34%

completed high school, 2% completed trade school or associate’s degree, 54% completed college

or bachelor’s degree, 8% completed master’s degree, and 2% completed doctoral degree. 64%

described themselves as single, 30% married, 4% divorced, and 2% widowed. All participants


self-identified as Protestant Christians. During class, participants were invited to complete the 77

item survey based on Just Peacemaking principles. Research assistants and instructors explained

the purpose of the study, answering questions regarding survey content. Participation was

entirely voluntary. Confidentiality was maintained by assigning code numbers to each survey

such that participant identities were never revealed.

Results

Psychometric properties of the 77 item survey were analyzed using traditional

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA was conducted in two steps to confirm factor structure

according to the ten practices of Just Peacemaking. In the first step, principal axis factoring

(PAF) with promax rotation was applied to the dataset. A ten factor solution was specified and

found to explain 42.4% of the variance. Items were subsequently eliminated on the basis of

screening criteria where (a) the item had to have a factor loading of |.40| or greater on a single

factor, and (b) the same item had to have a loading less than |.40| on other factors. Items that

failed to reach the |.40| loading threshold and items that double-loaded across factors were

discarded. In this manner 37 of the original 77 items were eliminated. On the second step, PAF

with promax rotation was applied to the shortened list of 40 survey items. Once again a ten factor

solution was specified, explaining 57.9% of the variance. Modifications were applied to the

second factor model based on theoretical considerations from ten Just Peacemaking practices.

The modification phase was characterized by effort to specify factors as closely as possible to the

original ten peacemaking practices. Factors that were not clearly related to the ten practices or

could not be conceptually collapsed with other factors were eliminated. Five factors were

identified that reflected five of the original ten Just Peacemaking practices. These factors were

tested against the first factor model with robust cross-validation. That is, the remaining five


factors from the second model clearly replicated factors from the first model with

correspondence to original Just Peacemaking practices.

Nine items were identified for the first factor. Items on the factor are characterized by the

first Just Peacemaking practice, support for nonviolent direct action. Accordingly, the first factor

was labeled Support for Nonviolent Direct Action. The second factor included three items

reflecting culpability in conflict and movement toward restitution. Responses for this factor were

aligned with the fourth Just Peacemaking practice, acknowledging responsibility for conflict and

injustice while seeking repentance and forgiveness. Consequently, the second factor was labeled

Responsibility and Forgiveness. The third factor included two items that reflected the sixth Just

Peacemaking practice in fostering sustainable economic development. As a result, the third

factor was labeled Sustainable Economic Development. The fourth factor included three items

and was reminiscent of the third Just Peacemaking practice in utilizing cooperative conflict

resolution. The fourth factor was therefore labeled Cooperative Conflict Resolution. The fifth

factor included three items and recalled the second Just Peacemaking practice in taking initiative

to reduce threats by adopting the perspectives of others. This factor was labeled Initiative to

Reduce Threats. Factor loadings for the 20 item Just Peacemaking Inventory (JPI) and

correlations among factors are provided in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Internal consistency

reliability of factor subscales (Cronbach's alpha coefficient) ranged from .66 to .81. Table 3

presents reliability coefficients for the five JPI scales along with means and standard deviations.

Discussion

What structure is intrinsic to peacemaking considered through justice and particular

religious virtue in Just Peacemaking? The present study considered the psychometrics of a

peacemaking scale generated from a paradigm influenced by religious virtue. The resulting JPI is


a first step toward a peacemaking scale endowed with moral principles taken from justice

reasoning and monotheistic religious faith. Study findings suggest that five of the original ten

Just Peacemaking practices are salient to real-world attitudes and behaviors. Provided the

instrument demonstrates adequate reliability and validity in other applications, this is a

promising development in the interest of identifying moral domains requiring focused

educational interventions in religious and secular populations. Our discussion reflects the

implications of peacemaking factor-practices for moral identity, or social judgment which

references the self in particular contexts.

Inspection of correlation values suggests an affinity between Factor 2 (Responsibility and

Forgiveness), Factor 3 (Sustainable Economic Development) and Factor 4 (Cooperative Conflict

Resolution). One way of interpreting this observation recalls moral identity coherence

understood on the basis of personality studies with exemplar caregivers and peacemakers (Colby

& Damon, 1992; Hardy & Carlo, 2005; Reimer, 2003; Walker & Hennig, 2004). Walker and

Hennig (2004) found that trait underpinnings to just and caring styles of exemplar moral

functioning are evinced through Big-5 personality factors. In particular, conscientiousness and

agreeableness factors were prominent in exemplar styles. It is more than likely that successful

peacemaking practice requires both just and caring precepts embedded in participant attitudes.

Responsibility and Forgiveness and Sustainable Economic Development factor subscales may

reflect trait conscientiousness, implying a strong sense of duty and obligation to correct potential

missteps in American foreign policy. Cooperative Conflict Resolution factor subscale may reflect

trait agreeableness, taken as a willingness to engage in cooperative solutions over individual

precedent. Latent affinity between three JPI factor subscales may suggest alignment of


underlying traits associated with coherent and exemplary moral functioning. Future research

should consider JPI factors in light of trait personality assessment from the Big-5.

The Initiative to Reduce Threats factor subscale underscores a distinctly prosocial aspect

of peacemaking commitment which may be partly motivated by empathy (Batson, 2002; Colby

& Damon, 1992). Empathic concern for oppressed or victimized individuals is reflected in the

ancient Christian practice of offering sanctuary to the disenfranchised. Indeed, one well-known

study found that when individuals took on the perspectives of others at the level of personal

needs, empathy was increased along with prosocial outcomes (Batson, Lishner, Carpenter, Dulin,

Harjusola-Webb, Stocks, Gale, Hassan, & Sampat, 2003). Empathic perspective-taking reflects

an ability to construct theories of mind regarding the cognitive and emotional experiences of

others. We note that the Initiative to Reduce Threats factor was strongly correlated with

Cooperative Conflict Resolution, supporting further argument for trait agreeableness associated

with integrated peacemaking attitudes. Initiative to Reduce Threats assumes a concrete,

relational basis for peacemaking where virtue principles are positioned in moral schemas that

reflect a temporally and ideologically continuous self (Hardy & Carlo, 2005; Lapsley & Narvaez,

2004; Reimer & Wade-Stein, 2004; Walker & Hennig, 2004). It is possible that these schemas

are related to styles of interpersonal attachment that successfully employ empathic perspective-

taking toward coherent moral identity (Reimer, 2005).

The Support for Nonviolent Direct Action factor subscale in some regards comprises the

heart of Just Peacemaking initiative. The factor subscale retained nine items, three times the

number of other JPI factor subscales. Conceptual item membership is clearly oriented toward

justice and activism, suggesting that justice reasoning in the tradition of Kohlberg looms large in

moral identity and peacemaking commitment. It is worth noting that all items for the Support for


Nonviolent Direct Action factor subscale reference the self engaging social networks and

structures, framed as first-person singular practices. Consonant with Just Peacemaking

principles, justice in this factor subscale is less affiliated with moral abstraction and more aligned

with a socially-engaged advocacy animated by respect for other human beings. In this regard,

Support for Nonviolent Direct Action is reminiscent of the virtue-laden concept of ahimsa and its

social justice correlate, satyagraha. The factor subscale is significantly correlated with

Responsibility and Forgiveness along with Cooperative Conflict Resolution. Once again, this

raises interesting possibilities from the vantage of trait personality in the Big-5.

Conscientiousness and agreeableness may provide a substrate to the enactment of social justice

through items in the Support for Nonviolent Direct Action factor subscale. There is empirical

support for this notion in Walker and Pitts (2004), who found that the just moral exemplar type

was characterized by personality that was both conscientious and agreeable. The same authors

note that trait reference to the term moral was more strongly associated with the just type over

caring and brave types. Justice intrinsic to the Support for Nonviolent Direct Action factor

subscale upholds virtue tenets of moral identity that are potentially integrated with Kohlbergian

reasoning.

We do not expect that any one individual is capable of uniformly high scores on all JPI

subscales. Moral identity implies coherent self-representation across a variety of social

situations. A recent study of exemplar Muslim and Christian peacemakers found that participants

successfully integrated virtue and religious conviction into the self while making significant

contributions to social causes and conflict processes (Reimer, Dueck, Morgan, & Kessel, in

press). Yet these individuals also demonstrated considerable moral ambivalence and awareness

of personal shortcomings relevant to their work. Few would doubt that exemplars such as Gandhi


or King entertained moral uncertainty in spite of their extraordinary behaviors. One pitfall

associated with the JPI is that it may ask participants to measure themselves against unattainable

moral and religious peacemaking imperatives. Others have observed that assessment in the moral

domain is commonly predisposed to influence from various epistemologies (Flanagan, 1991;

Walker & Pitts, 1998; Walker & Reimer, 2005). Lacking a naturalistic basis for observation and

assessment, uncritical measurement can become directed toward validation of underlying

epistemology rather than attitudes and behaviors. We do not intend the JPI to validate the

integrity or efficacy of any religious perspective but instead seek to employ this assessment in

naturalistic observation of actual people who live imperfect lives. In this preliminary sense, the

JPI demonstrates some promise in helping to identify core moral domains that might be targeted

for interventions related to the promulgation of Just Peacemaking practices.

Several limitations must be reviewed in relation to the present study. First, we considered

psychometrics of the JPI through confirmatory factor analysis. Discriminant validity or the

extent to which a measurement scale is unrelated to other measures of conceptually dissimilar

issues was not conducted. Owing to the lack of comparable measurement instruments, the

present study did not consider nomological validity or the correlation of the JPI with

theoretically related measures. Finally, the present study was conducted with a single sample

group. Adequate cross-validation of the JPI scales will require reliability analysis with multiple

samples in varied contexts. Because of these limitations, our observations and interpretations

must be viewed as introductory and tentative. Further research is required in order to determine

the efficacy of peace measurement incorporating justice with religious virtue. The JPI attempts to

harness Just Peacemaking precepts in a manner designed to identify behaviors and attitudes

relevant to peacemaking practice. The five-factor structure of the JPI appears to highlight a


moral nexus of just peacemaking practices evident in Protestant Christian attitudes towards peace

and conflict. The findings may facilitate targeted peacemaking curricula aimed at Americans

who potentially share virtues intrinsic to Just Peacemaking. Peacemaking measurement

incorporating virtues particular to Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and other religious traditions will

doubtless complement the JPI and offer insight regarding convergent peacemaking beliefs with

broad appeal and understanding.

References

Anderson, A., & Christie, D. (2001). Some contributions of psychology to policies promoting

cultures of peace. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7, 173-185.

Batson, C. (2002). Addressing the altruism question experimentally. In S. Post, L. Underwood, J.

Schloss, & W. Hurlbut (Eds.), Altruism and altruistic love: Science, religion, and

philosophy in dialogue (pp. 89-105). New York: Oxford.

Batson, C., Lishner, D., Carpenter, A., Dulin, L., Harjusola-Webb, S., Stocks, E., Gale, S.,

Hassan, O., & Sampat, B. (2003). ‘As you would have them do unto you’: Does

imagining yourself in the other’s place stimulate moral action? Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1190-1201.

Blasi, A. (1990). How should psychologists define morality? Or, the negative side effects of

philosophy’s influence on psychology. In T. Wren (Ed.), The moral domain: Essays in

the ongoing discussion between philosophy and the social sciences (pp. 38-70).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Brenes, A., & Wessells, M. (2001). Psychological contributions to building cultures of peace.

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7, 99-107.


Campbell, R., & Christopher, J. (1996). Moral development theory: A critique of its Kantian

presuppositions. Developmental Review, 16, 1-47.

Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives of moral commitment. New

York: Free Press.

Edwards, A., & Kenney, K. (1946). A comparison of the Thurstone and Likert techniques of

attitude scale construction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 72-83.

Elliott, G. (1980). Components of pacifism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24, 27-54.

Ericksen, S. (1948). A skeptical note on the use of attitude scales toward war: III. In 1946. The

Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 79-90.

Flanagan, O. (1991). Varieties of moral personality: Ethics and psychological realism.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Grussendorf, J., McAlister, A., Sandstrom, P., Udd, L., & Morrison, T. (2002). Resisting moral

disengagement in support for war: Use of the “Peace Test” scale among student groups in

21 nations. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 8, 73-83.

Hardy, S., & Carlo, G. (2005). Identity as a source of moral motivation. Human Development,

48, 232-256.

Hart, D., Atkins, R., & Ford, D. (1998). Urban America as a context for the development of

moral identity in adolescence. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 513-530.

Hart, D., & Fegley, S. (1995). Prosocial behavior and caring in adolescence: Relations to self-

understanding and social judgment. Child Development, 66, 1346-1359.

Hasan, Q., & Khan, S. (1983). Dimension of Gandhian (nonviolent) personality. Journal of

Psychological Research, 2, 100-106.


Jeffries, V. (1974). Political generations and the acceptance or rejection of nuclear warfare.

Journal of Social Issues, 30, 119-136.

Johnson, P., Adair, E., Bommersbach, M., Callandra, J., Huey, M., & Kelly, A. (1998, August).

Non-violence: Constructing a multidimensional attitude measure. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: Vol. 2. The psychology of moral

development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kool, V., & Sen, M. (1984). The nonviolence test. In D. Pestonjee (Ed.), Second handbook of

psychological and social instruments (pp. 48-55). Ahmedabad, India: Indian Institute of

Management.

Kramer, B., Kalick, S., & Milburn, M. (1983). Attitude towards nuclear weapons and nuclear

war: 1945-1982. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 7-24.

Lapsley, D., & Narvaez, D. (2004). A social-cognitive approach to moral personality. In D.

Lapsley & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development, self, and identity (pp. 189-212).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Matsuba, M., & Walker, L.J. (2004). Extraordinary moral commitment: Young adults involved

in social organizations. Journal of Personality, 72, 413-436.

Mayton, D., Diessner, R., & Granby, C. (1996). Nonviolence and values: Empirical support for

theoretical relationships. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 2, 245-253.

Mayton, D., Susnjic, S., Palmer, B., Peters, D., Gierth, R., & Caswell, R. (2002). The

measurement of nonviolence: A review. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace

Psychology, 8, 343-354.


McAlister, A. (2001). Moral disengagement: measurement and modification. Journal of Peace

Research, 38, 87-98.

Montiel, C., & Boehnke, K. (2000). Preferred attributes of effective conflict resolvers in seven

societies: Culture, development level, and gender differences. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 30, 1071-1082.

Reimer, K. (2003). Committed to caring: Transformation in adolescent moral identity. Applied

Developmental Science, 7, 129-137.

Reimer, K. (2005). Revisiting moral attachment: Comment on identity and motivation. Human

Development, 48, 262-265.

Reimer, K., Dueck, A., Morgan, J., & Kessel, D. (in press). A peaceable common: Collective

wisdom from exemplar Muslim and Christian peacemakers. In. M. Abu-Nimer & D.

Woodbury (Eds.), Conflict Grant Project, Pasadena, CA: Fuller Seminary Press.

Reimer, K., Furrow, J., Baumeister-Peters, B., & Roth, N. (2001, March). Naturalistic

conceptions of morality, spirituality, and religiousness in urban youth. Poster Symposium

on Religion and Adolescence, Society for Research on Child Development Bi-Annual

Conference, Minneapolis, MN.

Reimer, K., & Wade-Stein, D. (2004). Moral identity in adolescence: Self and other in semantic

space. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 4, 229-249.

Shweder, R., Much, N., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. (1997). The “big three” of morality

(autonomy, community, divinity) and the “big three” explanations of suffering. In A.

Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health (pp. 119-169). Florence, KY: Taylor &

Francis/Routledge.


Stassen, G. (1998). Just Peacemaking: Ten Practices for Abolishing War. Pilgrim Press:

Cleveland, Ohio.

Walker, L.J., & Hennig, K. (2004). Differing conceptions of moral exemplarity: Just, brave, and

caring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 629-647.

Walker, L.J., & Pitts, R. C. (1998). Naturalistic conceptions of moral maturity. Developmental

Psychology, 34, 403-419.

Walker, L.J., Pitts, R., Hennig, K., & Matsuba, K. (1995). Reasoning about morality and real-life

moral problems. In M. Killen & D. Hart (Eds.), Morality in everyday life: Developmental

perspectives (pp. 371-407). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walker, L.J., & Reimer, K. (2005). The relationship between moral and spiritual development. In

P. Benson, P. King, L. Wagener, & E. Roehlkepartain (Eds.). The handbook of spiritual

development in childhood and adolescence (pp. 213-245). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Walzer, M. (1994). Thick and thin: Moral argument at home and abroad. Notre Dame, IN:

University of Notre Dame Press.

Werner, P., & Roy, P. (1985). Measuring activism regarding the nuclear arms race. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 49, 181-186.


Table 1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model of Just Peacemaking Items Factor Loading _______________________________________________________

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Support for Nonviolent Direct Action 1. I have been involved in actions designed to isolate an .70 individual, group, or nation to cause change for the sake of justice. 2. I have been involved in actions designed to isolate an individual, .69 group, or nation to express disapproval for injustice. 3. I spend considerable time, energy, or money to gain public .64 attention for my protests and the people I am trying to protect. 4. I engage in protest and collaborative actions against practices .59 relied on by groups that violate human rights. 5. I have acted to bring secret information to public attention for .57 the sake of justice. 6. I am part of a small group of people who meet regularly to .57 advocate for those not in our immediate community. 7. I have been involved in mass public demonstrations to dramatize .57 an injustice.


Factor Loading _______________________________________________________

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8. I am involved in spreading information about my cause to people .52 who see things differently. 9. I have joined others to break a law because I perceived it to be .40 unjust. Responsibility and Forgiveness 1. America has antagonized others in a manner leading to terrorist .81 attacks. 2. An effective response to the 9-11 terrorist attacks would have .80 been to go to the leaders of Muslim countries and apologize for American antagonism. 3. I think that major military intervention should not happen unless .47 it can get the approval of the United Nations or an international organization. Sustainable Economic Development 1. I support the use of tax dollars as relief funds for Iraqi and .86 Afghani civilians. 2. It is better to spend money assisting our potential enemies in time .43 of need so that money need not be spent later in war with them.


Factor Loading _______________________________________________________

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Cooperative Conflict Resolution 1. I accept third-party mediation in resolving disputes. .86 2. I am prepared to abide by third-party solutions. .74 3. I am ready to serve as an independent reporter of abuses .43 perpetrated by governments. Initiative to Reduce Threats 1. I understand the needs and concerns of those who oppose me. .78 2. I try to understand the perspectives of those who oppose me. .71 3. I listen carefully and withhold judgment when interacting .42 with others who oppose me. % variance explained 14.83 8.12 6.69 5.18 4.31


Table 2 Correlations of JPI Factors ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Factor 1 2 3 4 5 Support for Nonviolent Direct Action -- Responsibility and Forgiveness .20** -- Sustainable Economic Development .13* .31** -- Cooperative Conflict Resolution .24** .23** .30** -- Initiative to Reduce Threats .15* .08 .15* .24** -- *p < .05 (2-tailed)

**p ≤ .01 (2-tailed)

***p < .001 (2-tailed)


Table 3 Factor Reliabilities, Means, and Standard Deviations ______________________________________________________________________________ Factor Alpha Mean Standard Deviation Nonviolent Direct Action .81 17.01 5.78 Responsibility and Forgiveness .69 8.84 2.64 Sustainable Economic Development .68 7.42 1.68 Cooperative Conflict Resolution .71 10.36 2.48 Initiative to Reduce Threats .66 12.47 1.74


Appendix I Unanalyzed Just Peacemaking Items 1. Nonviolent action is a critical step in situations where injustice is a problem. 2. I have been involved in actions designed to isolate an individual, group, or nation to express

disapproval for its injustice. 3. I have been involved in actions designed to isolate an individual, group, or nation to cause

change for the sake of justice. 4. I have been involved in mass public demonstrations to dramatize an injustice. 5. I have joined with others to break a law because I perceived it to be unjust. 6. I believe that information able to change public opinion about injustice is kept secret. 7. I believe that it is important to bring secret information to public attention for the sake of

justice. 8. I have acted to bring secret information to public attention for the sake of justice. 9. I am involved in spreading information about my cause to people who see things differently. 10. I believe it is important to physically protect victims to help provide safety. 11. I believe it is important to offer a place of sanctuary in order to secure safety for victims. 12. I believe it is important to decrease others’ distrust of me or my people. 13. I have not broken a law even though I perceived it to be unjust. 14. I believe it is important to make partnerships or coalitions with other groups in order to solve

our disputes. 15. I am not involved in spreading information about my cause to people who see things

differently. 16. I try to understand the perspectives of those who oppose me. 17. I understand the needs and concerns of those who oppose me. 18. I listen carefully and withhold judgment when interacting with others who oppose me. 19. I share some of the responsibility for conflict between myself and others who oppose me. 20. I believe it is not important to decrease others’ distrust of me or my people. 21. In a conflict, one party is usually right and another is usually wrong. 22. I do not try to understand the perspectives of those who oppose me. 23. Nonviolent coercion should be used against those who are opposing me only to enable

negotiations to safely take place. 24. My efforts are aimed at long-term peace in addition to resolving current conflicts. 25. I attempt to implement prevention strategies. 26. I do not share responsibility for conflict between myself and others who oppose me. 27. Peace and justice require each other. 28. I work with those who oppose me to help them in their negotiations. 29. Aggression is important to raise awareness of individual suffering between conflicting

groups so that enemies can understand their opponents. 30. Aggressiveness is the result of feeling oppressed. 31. I do not attempt to implement prevention strategies. 32. Smaller mediation groups produce greater change than larger groups. 33. I support the establishment of a new international institution having the military means to

deal effectively with aggression. 34. I am prepared to unilaterally declare an end to hostilities in times of war and conflict.


35. I refer to people in conflict with my beliefs and values as the enemy. 36. A physical wall between people is sometimes needed to keep the peace. 37. I accept third-party mediation in resolving disputes. 38. I am prepared to abide by third-party solutions. 39. I am ready to serve as an independent reporter of abuses perpetrated by governments. 40. I engage in protest and collaborative actions against practices relied on by groups that

violate human rights. 41. I spend considerable time, energy, or money to gain public attention for my protests and the

people I am trying to protect. 42. I am in favor of the creation of institutions, norms, and practices to protect minorities and

human rights. 43. If it serves the national interest I will support aid to governments that regularly violate

human rights. 44. I believe in religious freedom for peoples of all religions. 45. I think that major military intervention should not happen unless it can get the approval of

the United Nations or an international organization. 46. I believe development refers not to material accumulation but to the growth and flourishing

of human persons and communities. 47. I believe in helping the poor obtain the ability to sustain their own development. 48. I think that the poor and uneducated should be invited to make decisions at each stage of

development projects in which they are involved. 49. I am not prepared to abide by third-party solutions. 50. I will not support aid to governments that regularly violate human rights. 51. I support the use of tax dollars as relief funds for Iraqi and Afghani civilians. 52. It is better to spend money assisting our potential enemies in time of need so that money need

not be spent later in war with them. 53. Spending money on education and industry in foreign countries is the moral duty of countries

with financial power. 54. I am part of a small group of people who meet regularly to advocate for those not in our

immediate community. 55. I think that fighting for peace and justice is something best done as an individual, not as a

group. 56. I believe that transforming the spiritual and ideological framework of the Iraqis and Afghanis

is more important than helping them to build an infrastructure. 57. I do not support the use of tax dollars as relief funds for Iraqi and Afghani civilians. 58. Helping meet physical needs is at least as important as helping others experience spiritual or

ideological transformation. 59. Spending money on education and industry in foreign countries is not the moral duty of

countries with financial power. 60. If we give our enemies assistance, they will use it against us. 61. America has antagonized others in a manner leading to terrorist attacks. 62. An effective response to the 9-11 terrorist attacks would have been to go to the leaders of

Muslim countries and apologize for American antagonism. 63. Swift and hard military retaliation was a necessary response to the 9-11 terrorist attacks. 64. I would be willing to engage in an exchange project with those from Arab or Muslim society

(Westerner) or a Western society (Arab or Muslim).


65. I have spent time with people from other religions and cultures, experiencing their way of life.

66. America has antagonized others in a manner leading to terrorist attacks. 67. I understand why the faith of others makes sense given their life experience. 68. I am willing to engage in prayer services and peace vigils with those of other faiths. 69. I would be willing to break the laws of my own country, if necessary, to promote just

relations with other countries. 70. The presence of peacekeeping troops in other countries is important even if some are killed. 71. I think that the only valid way to experience human potential is through the path laid out by

my religion. 72. I think that other religious paths may be equally valid for finding God and fulfilling human

potential. 73. I am unwilling to engage in prayer services and peace vigils with those of other faiths. 74. My own faith is helping me toward fulfilling my human potential. 75. I believe my side should take initiatives to reduce the threat of the other side and build trust

even though the other side is not taking initiatives and might misunderstand them as weakness.

76. Some violence may be used against those who are opposing me only to enable negotiations to safely take place.

77. We need enforceable agreements that people and nations will not get more offensive weapons, including my own nations.

A particular peace: Psychometric properties of the Just Peacemaking Inventory

Documents

Transcript of A particular peace: Psychometric properties of the Just Peacemaking Inventory