ArticlePDF Available

Aggressiveness can be psychobiologically milded: How to achieve peace

Authors:

Abstract

The Seville Statement on Violence (SSV) was originated by an ISRA-(International Society for Research on Aggression)launched UN-Committee in the late seventies of the past century. Its final product was presented in Seville in 1986, at the VI Coloquio Internacional sobre Cerebro y Agresión (CICA). Three years later, it was endorsed by the 25th General Conference of UNESCO, in Paris. Its main message was that violence, and consequently war too, are avoidable and aggressiveness can be tamed. The present paper wants to offer its next step, showing how we can prevent the problems of violence and war and achieve a culture of peace: understanding aggression, violence and war, as well as the real meaning of peace, stressing the importance of peace education, schooling of emotions, and techniques for non-violent conflict resolution, and suggesting that the main goal for it will be the development of inner peace.
27
World Academy of Art & Science Eruditio, Issue 3, September 2013 Aggressiveness can be Psychobiologically Milded J. Martin Ramirez
ERUDITIO, Volume I, Issue 3, September 2013, 27-35
Aggressiveness can be Psychobiologically Milded:
How to Achieve Peace
J. Martin Ramirez
Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science; Universidad Complutense Madrid,
Spain; Hoover Institution, Stanford University, USA
Abstract
The Seville Statement on Violence (SSV) was originated by an ISRA-(International Society
for Research on Aggression)launched UN-Committee in the late seventies of the past cen-
tury. Its nal product was presented in Seville in 1986, at the VI Coloquio Internacional
sobre Cerebro y Agresión (CICA). Three years later, it was endorsed by the 25th General
Conference of UNESCO, in Paris. Its main message was that violence, and consequently
war too, are avoidable and aggressiveness can be tamed. The present paper wants to offer
its next step, showing how we can prevent the problems of violence and war and achieve a
culture of peace: understanding aggression, violence and war, as well as the real meaning of
peace, stressing the importance of peace education, schooling of emotions, and techniques
for non-violent conict resolution, and suggesting that the main goal for it will be the devel-
opment of inner peace.
The main message of the Seville Statement on Violence (SSV), elaborated in the early
80s of the last century by scientists from all the world and from many different disciplines
and endorsed by the 25th General Conference of UNESCO, was that peace is possible and that
wars and violence can be ended, making clear that there is nothing in biology that stands in
the way of making a world without war (Adams, 1991).
That rst ‘scientic step’ towards peace concluded that, far from condemning humanity
to violence and war, falling into the psychological trap of believing that people cannot change
and that peace is therefore impossible (Tyler, 2012), psychobiology tells us that aggressive-
ness can be tamed and consequently it is possible to end violence and war and to achieve
peace. On the occasion of an international conference in Dubrovnik on ‘Nuclear threats and
Security’ in September 2012, the Academy’s President Ivo Šlaus said that “war is useless”.
And the very same day (14 Sept 2012), during his visit in Lebanon, Pope Benedict XVI stat-
ed that, far from being peace which is the only thing that works, “violence destroys; it is not
useful at all”. We can therefore happily join the Beatles (or more specically John Lennon
and Yoko Ono), and sing with them that “War is over, if you want it” (1969).
*****
Once we are aware that violence, and consequently war too, are avoidable, that aggres-
siveness can be tamed (Ramirez, 1994, 2003, 2012), and that peace is the only thing that
works (Benedict XVI, 2012), we scientists have to analyse how to achieve a culture of peace.
Obviously achieving peace is not an easy task at all, even if the wish for peace expresses a
28
World Academy of Art & Science Eruditio, Issue 3, September 2013 Aggressiveness can be Psychobiologically Milded J. Martin Ramirez
much-felt need in our days. But we should never forget that, if
peace is possible, in order to inuence our surroundings posi-
tively, we must learn to develop inner peace within our minds,
because peace must begin in the mind of each person with the
belief that it is possible… This is the main message of the SSV,
quite in conjunction with the spirit of WAAS, expressed in the
words of Albert Einstein: “The creations of our mind shall be a
blessing and not a curse to mankind.”
*****
Within this universal and transdisciplinary task for constructing peace, scientists have a
specic role to play. The challenge is to nd the peace we are looking for. Where does one
start and how to do it in order to counteract the prevailing culture of violence which has
pervaded so many societies and to transform it into a culture of peace? Let me offer a few
precise suggestions, perhaps a little bit disjointed, and without the pretension of being com-
prehensive.
First, we have to understand the problem and its possible solutions: to know what is ag-
gression, violence and war, and what peace really means in its deepest meaning, as well as
what their interacting biological and cultural factors are.
And, second, we should emphasize the potential value of education which provides a
major contribution to the control of aggression, in the prevention of violence and in the
achievement of peace, stressing the importance of a comprehensive and global education
with a transdisciplinary approach, which may allow us to school emotions and develop inner
peace. This task is especially important during the early critical periods of development.
We should convince the society about the benets of investing adequate resources in such
extensive educative efforts, instead of limiting its resorts to control aggression and to solve
conicts by means of threats or punishment.
*****
While problems are relatively obvious, even if you are not in direct contact with aggres-
sion, you often can be indirectly affected; effective resolutions are not affected. They depend
on understanding problems. A most effective means of understanding them is a systematical
study of aggression, violence and war, utilizing scientic techniques. For example, in our
case, with a greater knowledge of the many causes and kinds of aggression, we can develop
an appreciation of the possibilities for controlling it, as well as an understanding of some of
the reasons why we have failed to effectively control it in the past, such as lack of an appro-
priate denition and measurement (Ramirez, 1997).
Here, I will just state that biology and environment taken separately are never causes of
anything in an organism’s development. The human brain should no longer be considered
as a generator of possible − or, even less, inevitably occurring − aggressive behaviour (with
improper emphasis on some humoral factor or even a single gene thought to be specically
implicated), but rather as the mediator of a dialogue which may take on an aggressive form
for reasons that can only be truly claried through joint interdisciplinary efforts. Biology is
the foundation of all behaviour only in the same way that bricks and paper are the founda-
Peace must be-
gin in the mind of
each person with
the belief that it is
possible.
29
World Academy of Art & Science Eruditio, Issue 3, September 2013 Aggressiveness can be Psychobiologically Milded J. Martin Ramirez
tions of all (traditional) libraries, but the content of the library, whilst being printed on paper,
is not otherwise dependant on the bricks and paper.
Biology is the means by which information is accumulated and transmitted both in day-
to-day interactions between people (in brain), the generation to generation transmission of
adaptations right up to speciation information (the genome). But it is the interaction with the
environment that steers these changes. It is just as true, then, to say that the environment is
the foundation of the content of behaviour and that the interaction between the environment
and the phenotype determines which behaviours will be selected i.e. reinforced. Behaviour,
then, is the selection of what can be done (the phenotype) from what is available (the envi-
ronment, including conspecics) with the ultimate goal of maximum survival of current and
future generations. In humans, survival of non-physical elements may be treated highly or
higher than the physical: one’s reputation, legacy, knowledge, religion, people, country, po-
litical belief and so on may be the object of behaviour over and above one’s physical surviv-
al, inheritance and legacy (see: Robert Karl Stonjek, evolutionary-psychology.yahoogroups,
2012). In other words, organisms are open systems in more ways than one. Behavior is con-
trolled not only by biological characteristics, mainly of the brain and nervous system, but
also in large part by external events surrounding and impinging upon that brain and nervous
system. Human beings possess biological structures conducive to use of language, true, but
without a “linguistic environment” those structures would not function.
Delimitating this assertion to our topic, an adequate control of aggression is not an unreal-
istic goal for a society, but it is certainly a reality in innumerable discrete settings. Since there
is no one factor that overwhelmingly produces aggression, what we need is a comprehensive
approach integrating different perspectives on violence, with an appreciation for the vari-
ous objectively supported contributions of biology, learning mechanisms, social experiences,
and, what is more important, their dynamic integration.
Our purpose has to begin with the process of integrating the various domains of science
that are studying the development of aggression and peace, in an attempt to use science to
guide society in its efforts to prevent and control harmful aggression. Basic scientists, within
their experimental settings, may have the luxury of separating the biology of aggression
from its psychosocial and environmental context with questions arising within their isolated
domains. But, if we want to reach the ultimate goal of application of scientic information
in the real world, we can never separate them. There is a constant and circular interaction.
As Craig Ferris likes to say, “development is 100% environment and 100% heredity”, in a
dynamic interaction (Ferris & Grisso, 1996).
Since there is no one factor that overwhelmingly produces aggres-
sion, what we need is a comprehensive approach integrating differ-
ent perspectives on violence, with an appreciation for the various
objectively supported contributions of biology, learning mechanisms,
social experiences, and, what is more important, their dynamic inte-
gration.
30
World Academy of Art & Science Eruditio, Issue 3, September 2013 Aggressiveness can be Psychobiologically Milded J. Martin Ramirez
This brings me to the next major feature. If we want to
achieve peace, we need to know what peace really means
in its deepest meaning. According to Paul VI, the new name
of peace is development because, if we understand as peace
the harmonic whole of all what people need, personally and
socially, for their happiness, development is a very good way
for achieving it. Development embraces dimensions so dis-
tinct and integrated as culture, economy, education, politics,
and promotion of the weakest, as well as a profound respect
for human dignity and human life, and of the environment in
which we live.
An optimal approach towards peace, therefore, would be
to prevent the problems of violence and war with a political,
cultural and economical intervention, alleviating poverty and
other social conditions that breed these problems (Ramirez, 1996, 2009). A true peace thus
has to be supported by development and social justice, with a more just distribution of the
world’s resources within and between societies. The only sure foundation on which to lay a
better welfare state, a happier society and a more pleasant life is a real development of hu-
manity subordinating all goods and technical resources to human dignity. Therefore, peace =
development + justice.
*****
And, since we would like to live in a permanent state of peace and well being, we have
to lay down solid foundations to make peace education available (Ramirez, 1994b). How to
achieve a culture of peace?
One way to contribute towards the transformation of a culture of war into a culture of
peace is to permanently shift attitudes, values and behaviour in order to promote peace and
social justice, and the non-violent resolution of conict and security through a transdisci-
plinary approach. This primary scope, which is the aim of the UNESCO’s Culture of Peace
Programme (1994), requires cooperation at all levels, everyone working together for peace
and reconciliation.
Education becomes a preventative measure that creates a culture that recognises the val-
ue of human life and is less conducive to aggression, informing individuals and caregivers
about how to deal with the causes of aggression and with its control (e.g. by reducing wealth
differentials, emphasizing achievement rather than competitiveness, reducing the availability
of weapons and removing other triggers for aggression) (Hinde, Nelson & Wrangham, 2010).
Starting with pre- and postnatal healthcare, it would progress through the raising and formal
education of children, and continue into adult social settings.
A very specic point which has to be raised is the in-group versus out-group issue: us vs
them. It is well known that, whereas prosociality is directed primarily towards the group to
which the individual belongs, selshness is much less inhibited towards out-group members.
This explains why acts of aggression are shown more readily to strangers and members of
other groups than to members of the same group. And its most extreme act, killing, which
One way to con-
tribute towards the
transformation of a
culture of war into
a culture of peace is
to permanently shift
attitudes, values and
behaviour in order to
promote peace and
social justice.”
31
World Academy of Art & Science Eruditio, Issue 3, September 2013 Aggressiveness can be Psychobiologically Milded J. Martin Ramirez
is morally forbidden in virtually all human societies, except where legitimized by societal
consensus, in war is sanctioned and even praised for enemies, because they are portrayed as
dangerous and even sub-human by propaganda.
Thus, much depends on where the boundaries between in-group and out-group are per-
ceived to lie. Given the genetic uniformity of the human species, there is no biological justi-
cation for feelings of in-group favoritism and out-group derogation, based on an inexistent
in-group superiority. It is possible and praiseworthy to love one’s own culture (patriotism),
but we can do it without denigrating others (nationalism). In this way, we can expand the
scope of the in-group, providing better education which gives greater emphasis to our com-
mon humanity than to cultural differences, thereby continuing to extend the perceived bound-
aries of the in-group (Hinde, et al, 2010).
This increased connectedness of peoples around the world inspires a vision of a future in
which the common humanity of all peoples will be globally recognised. This attitude matches
quite well with the already mentioned spirit of WAAS, which is seen in its 1960 founding
Manifesto: Fellows share the ambition “to rediscover the language of mutual understand-
ing,” surmounting differences in tradition, language, and social structure which, unless fused
by creative imagination and continuous effort, dissolve the latent human commonwealth in
contention and conict. It was also said within the Middle East conict by Pope Benedict
during his above mentioned visit to Lebanon: “If we want peace, we have to see in the other
a person to be respected and loved” (14 Sept 2012). Expanding the scope of the in-group can
be expected to continue to promote increased prosociality. “Instead of Us Versus Them, Us
Plus Them” (Pittinsky, 2012).
The importance of family in education should always be stressed. Rearing by a parent-g-
ure sensitive to the child’s needs and exercising rm but reasoned control is especially potent
in promoting prosociality. Consequently, a positive task would be to foster parenting pro-
grams, helping parents to improve their skills, and ensuring that parentless children are sup-
ported by others. A agship program is known as the Triple P -positive parenting program,
created by Matthew R. Sanders and colleagues at the University of Queensland in Australia.
It evolved from a small “home-based, individually administered training programme for par-
ents of disruptive preschool children” into a comprehensive preventive whole-population in-
tervention programme invested in heavily by public bodies in the UK and beyond. Although
it has been hailed as a success around the world, a new study led by Philip Wilson, at the
University of Aberdeen in collaboration with researchers from the Universities of Glasgow
and Gothenburg, assessing the outcomes of Triple P programmes of 33 English language
studies, has called into question its effectiveness, recommending a more rigourous method-
ological report. For instance, they pointed out that only mothers reported an improvement in
their children’s behaviour, but no signicant difference was noted by fathers or independent
observers of the children’s behaviour (Wilson et al., 2012). This may be another data point
in the ongoing argument about whether you can ‘re-make’ people, even if I don’t doubt at all
that some people can be helped to get along better in society. But it seems to me just another
example of people seeing what they HOPE to see in the analysis of these behavioral inter-
vention programs.
*****
32
World Academy of Art & Science Eruditio, Issue 3, September 2013 Aggressiveness can be Psychobiologically Milded J. Martin Ramirez
Besides formal education, one needs to learn how to deal with emotion, how to transform
anger and fear into love and compassion, how to develop forgiveness, how to communicate
positively with others… In one word, how to become happy, assuming we really can ‘re-
make’ people.
An important aspect of this global education is the schooling of emotions, given the in-
uenciability and malleability of the feelings, especially during the early years. The affective
education movement of the 1960s − psychological and motivational lessons were more deep-
ly learned if they involved an immediate experience of what was being taught conceptually
− has rather become the emotional-literacy movement of the turning of the century: instead
of using affect to educate, it educates affect itself. Prevention programs are far more effec-
tive when emotional and social competences are taught: such as impulse control, managing
anger and nding creative solutions to social predicaments. Emotional skills have to be also
stressed: self-awareness, identifying, expressing and managing feelings; impulse control and
delaying gratication; and handling stress and anxiety… (Goleman, 1995)
Chronic anger is a habit that can also change through education: for instance, teaching
basic elements of emotional intelligence, particularly mindfulness of anger as it begins to stir,
ability to regulate it once it has begun (substituting reasonable thoughts for cynical, mistrust-
ful ones), and empathy (for frustrating encounters, you learn the ability to see things from the
other person’s perspective). As Redford Williams said, “the antidote to hostility is to develop
a more trusting heart. All it takes is the right motivation. When people see that their hostility
can lead to an early grave, they are ready to try” (1989; see also: Ramirez et al., 2002).
Forgiveness of offenses is another of the ideas people have to ll their heads with, if one
really wants to achieve peace in the world, because it can be a powerful means to healing.
Although you still see the wound, you forget its pain. And consequently it helps you to keep
going ahead.
In its broadest sense, forgiveness encompasses a multitude of virtues. Michael Henderson
(2009) analyzes ve critical components: 1) dialogue, addressing the root causes of conicts,
instead of searching for revenge; 2) reaching out to ‘the other’, because without forgiving
and trust many good initiatives will be fated to fail; 3) moving beyond victimhood (Hen-
derson refers to a very illustrative story: an Orthodox Jew, Yitzak Frankelthal, after Hamas
kidnapped and killed his son Arik, founded an organization, Parent Circle, to bring together
parents from both sides for personal support and for meeting with governmental representa-
tives and decision makers); 4) taking responsibility; and 5) creating safe space.
Forgiveness can be considered at the personal and the public levels. Offenses are easier
to forgive to the extent that they seem small and understandable and when we see ourselves
as capable of committing a similar action to the offender. In this context, having been taught
from an early age to be more empathetic, we lean toward relationship building and do not
emphasize the vengeful side of justice (Exline et al., 2012). And, in the public realm, a pivotal
piece of forgiveness is related to historic grievances, leading to apologies and reparations.
Are we condemned to follow a wrong past, or can we make a break with it, if new situations
allow us to adopt new truths?
*****
33
World Academy of Art & Science Eruditio, Issue 3, September 2013 Aggressiveness can be Psychobiologically Milded J. Martin Ramirez
Conict resolution in a non-violent way is another interesting point that can be melio-
rated via education, fostering a deeper understanding of conict and violence prevention,
learning the many choices for dealing with conict besides passivity or aggression. Given the
futility of violence, it has to be replaced with concrete skills. When tension erupts, you can
seek out a mediator to help settle arguments that otherwise can escalate. You have to learn to
think differently about disagreements, and to recognize an expanded range of feelings.
Given the diplomatic load of this parliament, I would like to stress the importance of
an adequate training in preventive diplomacy for conict resolutions. We need outstand-
ing peacemakers, helping resolve disputes in the world: arms control, nuclear matters, hos-
tage-taking, conicts between Arabs and Israelis, wars in Africa, Middle East or wherever…,
and remembering that, as Anthony Zacharzewski of the British think-tank Demsoc, says,
“successful politics is not about nding people who agree with you. It is about making dif-
cult decisions without killing each other.” (2013)
A good agreement is one which is wise and efcient, and which improves both parties’
relationship. Wise agreements satisfy both parties’ interests and are fair and lasting, most
notably where there is a major imbalance of power. This is the approach of a technique called
“principled negotiation”, taught by Roger Fisher through his Harvard Negotiation Project
(he was 40 years on the faculty of Harvard Law School). It allows parties to decide questions
on their merits rather than on the haggling skill — or willpower — of the people involved.
“In any negotiation — even with terrorists — it is vital to separate the people from the prob-
lem; to focus on the underlying interests of both sides, ne-tuning their demands, rather than
stake out unwavering positions; and to explore all possible options before making a decision.
The parties should try to build a rapport, check each other out, even just by shaking hands or
eating together. Each should “listen actively” to what the other is saying. They should recog-
nise the emotions on either side, from a longing for security to a craving for status. And they
should try to get inside each other’s heads.” (Fisher, Ury, 1981).
Among many situations where Fisher put his theory into practice, I will mention only one,
closer to me because of family connections: his success in ending apartheid in South Africa:
the Afrikaner cabinet and ANC ofcials, trained separately by him in negotiation workshops,
agreed to end apartheid without resorting to violence.
These considerations are valid not only in a public context, but also at a personal level.
Negotiation is a fact of our daily life. Whether we want or not and whether we know it or
not, we all are negotiators. We negotiate something nearly every day: what to do today, what
to have for supper, how or where to spend the weekend. We try to agree on a price for a house
or bargain for a souvenir in a market. Who has not tried some haggling tricks in a souk:
pretending not to be interested, refusing to react to pressure, being prepared to walk away.
All are examples of questions that are decided among people with different interests. Even
if at rst look we may think they are competing, maybe they overlap, or they complement
one another and only the positions of the parties are actually at odds. Maybe by focusing on
the interests, rather than the positions, parties can invent options for mutual gain and resolve
issues to everyone’s satisfaction.
*****
34
World Academy of Art & Science Eruditio, Issue 3, September 2013 Aggressiveness can be Psychobiologically Milded J. Martin Ramirez
Finally, I have to remark that this important task of
achieving a culture of peace, which has been suggested to get
through a series of steps, such as peace education, school-
ing of emotions, and conict resolution, is not an exclusive
domain of government, police and other security forces, or
any other public institutions or authorities. On the contrary,
it demands the participation of the entire society: educational
institutions, religious movements, mass media, families and,
last but not least, everybody. Each of us has a specic part
of responsibility in this achievement because, although these
tasks may be mainly institutional and collective, they also rest
upon the consciousness of individual participants for whom
pessimism and optimism are crucial factors. Finishing with the same words of the Seville
Statement of Violence (1986), just as “wars begin in the minds of men, peace also begins in
our minds. The same species who invented war is capable of inventing peace.” The respon-
sibility lies with each of us!
On the occassion of his 1987 visit to Gdańsk, cradle of Solidarity, John Paul II told the
youth that “before there is a revolution in the world, it has to be a revolution in our hearts,
minds and characters, out of which will come truth, life and justice” (Luxmoore, Babiuch,
1999, p. 214). Even if until now we have not had time for peace, the time has come to take
on the commitment to heal our society, the world, and ourselves by the power of truth, life
and justice, especially through science. I am aware that this is really difcult to apply into our
mind and hearts, and that patience must become a habit that will help us deal with life more
‘peacefully’. But with the condence of knowing that peace is possible, we will be able to
inuence our surroundings positively and making the world better, even it is indeed a hard
task. And, in order to achieve it, we should never forget that we must learn to develop inner
peace within our minds.
Author Contact Information
Email: mramirez@med.ucm.es
Bibliography
1. Adams, D. (1991), The Seville Statement of Violence: Preparing the Ground for the Constructing of Peace, Paris: UNESCO
2. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1979), The Biology of Peace and War, London: Thames & Hudson
3. Exline, J.J., Baumeister, R., Zell, ., Kraft, A. and Witvliet , C. (2012). Not so Innocent: Does Seeing One’s Own Capability for
Wrongdoing Predict Forgiveness?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
4. Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantan Books
5. Ferris, C.F. & Grisso, T. (1996), Understanding aggressive behavior in children, New York: Annals of New York Academy
of Sciences
6. Fisher, R., Ury, W.L. (1981), Getting to Yes, Penguin Group
7. Henderson, M. (2009), No enemy to conquer: forgiveness in an unforgiving world, Waco: Baylor University Press
8. Hinde; R.A., Nelson, R.J, Wrangham, R. (2010), War is not inevitable: Aggressiveness can be tamed, unpublished Statement.
9. John Paul II (1987), Homily directed to the youth gathered in Westerplatte, Gdańsk http://jp2.wojsko-polskie.pl
10. Lorenz, K. (1963), Das sogenannte Bose. Zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression. Wien: Borotha-Schoeler
11. Luxmoore, J. Babiuch, J. (1999), The Vatican and the Red Flag: The Struggle for the Soul of Eastern Europe. New York:
Geoffrey Chapman
The time has come
to take on the com-
mitment to heal our
society, the world,
and ourselves by the
power of truth, life
and justice, especial-
ly through science.”
35
World Academy of Art & Science Eruditio, Issue 3, September 2013 Aggressiveness can be Psychobiologically Milded J. Martin Ramirez
12. Pittinsky, Todd (2012). Us Plus Them: Tapping the Positive Power of Difference. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press
13. Ramirez, J.M. (1994), Violence. Some alternatives, Madrid: Centreur
14. Ramirez, J.M. (1996), Developing in peace: poverty, migration and violence. 46th Pugwash Conference on Science and World
Affairs, Lahti 2-7 September 1996, Commissioned paper
15. Ramirez, J.M. (1997), Aggression. In: G. Greenberg & M.M. Haraway (Eds) Encyclopedia of Comparative Psychology, New
York: Garland, pp 649-658
16. Ramirez, J.M. (2003), Human Aggression. A multiphaceted phenomenon. Madrid: UCM/Centreur
17. Ramirez, J.M. (2009), Poverty as a Deterioration of Human Rights: Poverty can physically impair brain through stress, 58th
Pugwash International Conference on Justice, Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, The Hague, The Netherlands, 17-20 April
2009
18. Ramirez, J.M. (2012), Aggressiveness can be psychobiologically milded: 1. Biology does not condemn humanity to violence,
International Conference on Nuclear Threats and Security. Dubrovnik, 14–17 September 2012
19. Ramirez, J.M., Santisteban, C., Fujihara,T. & Van Goozen, S. (2002), Differences between experiences of anger and readiness
to angry action: A study of Japanese and Spanish students. Aggressive Behavior, 23(6): 429-438
20. Seville Statement of Violence (1986), Cahiers du Mouvement Universel de la Responsabilité Scientique, 5: 51-59 (1986).
21. Tyler, P. (2012), Fortress Israel: The Inside Story of the Military Elite Who Run the Country—And Why They Can’t Make
Peace. Farrar, Straus and Giroux
22. Williams, R. (1989), The Trusting Heart, New York: Random House
23. Wilson, P. et al. (2012). Past evidence of success of agship parenting programme called into question. BMC Medicine. No-
vember 5th, 2012
24. Zacharzewski , A. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.demsoc.org/
... We are now aware that violence, and consequently war too, is avoidable, that aggressiveness can be tamed (Ramirez, 1994(Ramirez, , 2003(Ramirez, , 2013, and that peace is the only thing that works. Now we scientists have to analyze how to achieve a culture of peace. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
In the late 1970s, the International Society for Research on Aggression (ISRA) launched a committee dedicated to studying whether there was anything that biologically prevents reducing violence. In 1986, more than twenty scholars from different scientific disciplines and from all corners of the world presented their final product, the Seville Statement on Violence at the VI Coloquio Internacional sobre Cerebro y Agresión (CICA) in Seville. Three years later in Paris, it was endorsed by the 25th General Conference of UNESCO. Its main message was that violence is avoidable and aggressiveness can be tamed. Our next step is to show how we can reduce the problems of violence and war and achieve a culture of peace. We hope to do this by deepening our understanding of aggression, violence, and war; explicating the meaning of peace; joining other scientists in working for human rights; stressing the importance of peace education; learning about schooling emotions; and developing techniques for nonviolent conflict resolution.
Article
In this study, the individual proneness to anger, either as an experienced emotion or as action readiness, was studied in university students of both sexes in Japan and Spain, administering the Anger Situation Questionnaire (ASQ) to 425 subjects (195 in Japan and 230 in Spain). The feelings of anger experience were higher than the readiness to action in all the samples. This difference between both variables was higher in females than in males, as well as in the Spanish sample compared with the Japanese one. An intragroup analysis in each sex in each country showed that the relative differences between males and females were similar in both countries. These constant differences between both sexes seem to be independent of the cultural context. Aggr. Behav. 28:429–438, 2002. © 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Article
Citation: Ferris, C., & Grisso, T. (eds.) (1996). Understanding aggressive behavior in children. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, v. 794). ISBN 0801860857, 9780801860850 Publisher summary: Understanding aggressive behavior in children requires the integration of data from a broad variety of fields. But all too often, researchers have proceeded in isolation from one another. In this groundbreaking volume, Craig F. Ferris and Thomas Grisso bring together experts from a variety of disciplines--neuroscience, behavioral science, medicine, psychology, sociology, and ethics--to offer a broad-based look at a topic with far-reaching consequences, not only for childhood but also for society at large.
Article
People are more forgiving toward transgressors if they see themselves as capable of committing similar offenses, as demonstrated in 7 studies. Methods included hypothetical scenarios, actual recalled offenses, individual and group processes, and correlational and experimental designs. Three factors mediated the link between personal capability and forgiveness: seeing the other's offense as less severe, greater empathic understanding, and perceiving oneself as similar to the transgressor. In terms of predicting forgiveness, it was important that people's own offenses were similar to the target offense in terms of both severity and type. The personal capability effect was independent of other established predictors of forgiveness and was more pronounced among men than women.
The Seville Statement of Violence: Preparing the Ground for the Constructing of Peace
  • D Adams
Adams, D. (1991), The Seville Statement of Violence: Preparing the Ground for the Constructing of Peace, Paris: UNESCO 2. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1979), The Biology of Peace and War, London: Thames & Hudson
Not so Innocent: Does Seeing One's Own Capability for Wrongdoing Predict Forgiveness? Emotional Intelligence Understanding aggressive behavior in children
  • J J Exline
  • R Baumeister
  • Zell
  • A Kraft
  • C Witvliet
  • D C F Goleman
  • T Grisso
  • R Fisher
  • W L Ury
Exline, J.J., Baumeister, R., Zell,., Kraft, A. and Witvliet, C. (2012). Not so Innocent: Does Seeing One's Own Capability for Wrongdoing Predict Forgiveness?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4. Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantan Books 5. Ferris, C.F. & Grisso, T. (1996), Understanding aggressive behavior in children, New York: Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 6. Fisher, R., Ury, W.L. (1981), Getting to Yes, Penguin Group 7. Henderson, M. (2009), No enemy to conquer: forgiveness in an unforgiving world, Waco: Baylor University Press 8.
Homily directed to the youth gathered in Westerplatte
  • John Paul
John Paul II (1987), Homily directed to the youth gathered in Westerplatte, Gdańsk http://jp2.wojsko-polskie.pl