Developmental Psychology and Peace Gabriel M. Velez and María Cecilia Dedios Developmental psychologists have long explored and detailed how young people form attitudes, behaviors, and orientations as members of societies. In this chapter, we focus on the individual’s developmental process as they form identities related to peace. Research dating to the 1960s shows that as children age, their understandings and conceptions about peace change with cognitive and social development (Ålvik 1968; Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1998). Concurrently, peace psychologists have more clearly defined the field as a discipline that “seeks to develop theories and practices aimed at the prevention and mitigation of direct and structural violence… peace psychology promotes the nonviolent management of conflict and the pursuit of social justice” (Christie, Wagner, & Winter, 2001, p. 6). Over the last 50 years, peace psychology has evolved, research on peace in relation to young people has expanded, and peace education has become a widely used tool. Yet, peace psychology has lacked a cohesive foundation connecting developmental processes with the formation of peacebuilding attitudes, ideas, behaviors, and identities. Theories of development have been adopted within the area of peace education, but mostly with specific focuses. Peace education generally aims to address the prevention and resolution of all forms of conflict and violence and promote harmony, tolerance, and human rights by Fountain (1999). It has been employed by varied organizations and educational institutions across a wide geographical range. The use of developmental insights, however, has been limited, and is mostly focused on promoting skills like conflict resolution and empathy. Despite the increasing focus on peace education and the continued evolution of the field of peace psychology, there still exists a theoretical gap linking peace to individual psychological development. We propose that the literature at the G. M. Velez (*) University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA e-mail: gmvelez@uchicago.edu M. C. Dedios London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 M. G. C. Njoku et al. (eds.), The Psychology of Peace Promotion, Peace Psychology Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14943-7_8 115 116 G. M. Velez and M. C. Dedios intersection of peace and developmental psychology can be advanced by situating understandings of children and peace within broader psychosocial processes, identity formation, and citizenship outcomes. By deepening the connection between developmental psychology, peace, and education, this framework would provide valuable support for the continued advancement of peace education and its impacts. In this chapter, we present an ecologically grounded theoretical framework to study how young people come to form ideas, behaviors, and identities related to peace as part of their development. Our perspective is informed by a focus on positive peace, i.e., social and cultural transformation through individual behaviors, attitudes, and identities that work to combat all forms of violence (Christie et al., 2001; Galtung, 1969). We argue that Spencer’s Phenomenological Variant of the Ecological Systems Theory (Spencer, Dupree, & Hartmann, 1997; PVEST) provides an effective conceptualization of how young people form understandings of peace and their roles as peacemakers. We then review work at the intersection of peace and developmental psychology, including work done in peace education. Finally, we present an empirical study to demonstrate the utility of PVEST for research incorporating peace and developmental psychology. A Developmental Lens on Peace Developmental psychology has much to offer peace psychology and education by providing theories and empirical evidence about how people develop attitudes, behaviors, and identities. Individuals form these aspects of the self as they process experiences in different contexts (homes, schools, communities). Individual outcomes in turn influence broader systems. Individuals and contexts thus interact bidirectionally; people form societies, while societal structures, histories, and processes contribute to psychological development (Spencer et al., 1997). A developmental perspective connects to peace psychology by considering and integrating multiple levels (internal mental states, interpersonal relations, and structural aspects of society) and situating the roots of these processes in childhood and adolescence. This approach is also strongly linked to theoretical approaches in community psychology in that it frames how individuals understand their societies, themselves as members of communities, and how social harmony is achieved personally, locally, and nationally (see Jason et al., 2016). These processes rely on individual characteristics such as empathy and conflict resolution skills, but also on ecological factors like values and just social arrangements. Previous Theoretical Connections As context for the connection between peace and developmental psychology, three branches of theory on childhood and adolescence have been related to peace attitudes, behaviors, and identities. First, based in Piaget’s stage theory of child Developmental Psychology and Peace 117 development, a cognitive approach focuses on how individual maturation and everyday experiences drive the formation of increasingly complex ways of processing the world (Muir, 1999). Development is an uneven, stage-like process of restructuring understandings of the world. Individuals integrate new experiences with emerging mental abilities to increasingly understand the complexities of their physical and emotional worlds. A second approach focuses on socialization. Becoming an active peacebuilder is part of a broader acquisition of political attitudes and orientations. Norms, expectations, and ideas about peace and conflict may operate in different social contexts, but the developing individual is exposed to them through interactions with socializing agents in each (i.e., parents, teachers, media). These actors and milieu influence how individuals understand themselves as political agents and underlie their actions as citizens and peacebuilders (Hakvoort & Oppenheimer, 1998). Finally, a third branch, the social-cognitive approach, situates personal maturation within contexts. Development is neither driven by internal psychological maturation nor dependent on socialization, but rather is a dynamic interaction between the two (Selman, 1980). In peace studies, this approach has been used, for example, to study how young people describe war and peace. When children are first able to distinguish between different perspectives, they may be less likely to see war and peace as static and concrete, and instead as involving interpersonal relations. These changing ideas can also be influenced by the types of relationships they experience and the ways they see people treating each other (Hakvoort 1996). The three theoretical branches highlight a number of elements in developmental processes that are important for peace psychology. Evolving cognitive and social capacities can be linked to different orientations toward others and broader communities. In the early years, children may focus on concrete and physical understandings of peace and violence and construct attitudes and behaviors related to peace mainly based on lived interpersonal relationships. Through these experiences children begin to manifest violent behaviors and bullying (Lodge & Frydenberg, 2005). In this sense, peer relations are a developmental factor on how children begin to think about how people treat each other. This occurs even before children consciously process these experiences as related to abstract concepts like peace (Verbeek & de Waal, 2001). As children become adolescents, they develop the capacity to think more critically and abstractly. They start to consider the role of systems and structures, as well as less explicit types of violence (Arnett, 2001). While socialization influences are not deterministic, contexts and important people in their lives influence the experiences, expectations, supports, and challenges that young people face as they form attitudinal responses and identities (Spencer et al., 1997). The Developing Citizen and Peace The rich literature on the emergence of civic attitudes and behaviors is also applicable to the field of peace psychology. In many ways, citizenship is integrally linked to behaviors, attitudes, and identities at the heart of the study of peace 118 G. M. Velez and M. C. Dedios psychology. Examples include concern for others and being connected and committed to a community. There is a particular link in conflict and post-conflict contexts where peace education has become increasingly prominent (McGlynn et al., 2009). Governments and civil societies in these settings often attempt to rebuild the ties between the state and its citizens that are often ruptured by violence and social turmoil (Bickmore, 2008). Peacebuilding efforts require the active involvement of diverse members of society in order to foster positive relationships between citizens (Galtung, 1969). Young people’s civic development also relates to peace. Though children may not understand abstract political and social groups, they begin to internalize salient collective categories like “the nation” and civic norms (Hess & Torney, 2005). As children age, these ideas take deeper hold through identity processes in which young people begin to form values and a sense of self (Erikson, 1968). They also begin to tackle identity-based questions like, how do I feel about my society, my connection to it, and my roles within in it (Nasir & Kirshner, 2003)? Citizenship development is thus inherently linked to identity development (Haste, 2004). This perspective situates the individual within contexts that influence their attitudes and behaviors in relation to other individuals and societies. Notably, this development is inherently linked to identity formation processes as children become adult citizens. The outcomes are vital for how young people orient themselves toward supporting positive peace as social actors. Identity formation thus offers an effective development framework for peace psychology. PVEST as a Framework for Integrating Developmental and Peace Psychology Evolving from the work of Erikson (1968), developmental psychology offers insightful approaches to frame identity formation. This literature connects to peace psychology through a focus on personal development and values, interpersonal behavior, and understandings of and orientations toward society. A clearer developmental orientation could provide a stronger foundation for peace education and peace psychology. Ecological systems theory is one possible framework. It situates development within multiple contexts that influence attitudes, concepts, and behaviors related to peace and violence (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Spencer’s PVEST extends this by highlighting individual interpretation; developmental outcomes are not simply a result of context, but rather of how individuals process and respond in relation to their evolving cognitive capacities, changing biologies, and maturation (Spencer, 2006). Furthermore, this perspective builds as well on community psychology as a discipline that seeks to understand the relationship between contexts and differing psychological processes and perspectives (Jason et al., 2016). Utilizing this approach, peaceful or violent outcomes connect to psychological processes Developmental Psychology and Peace 119 involved in the interpretation of context (e.g., community or family violence, social discourses around peace, histories of peace and conflict). PVEST is based on the idea that environmental risk and protective factors are not deterministic; rather, they are perceived and processed based on personal characteristics and experiences. Risk and protective factors may thus be experienced as challenges or supports. Individuals then develop reactive coping strategies involving attitudes and behaviors that serve as responses both to the evaluation of the social environment and one’s own needs. These coping strategies may be adaptive or maladaptive to the particular context. As the individual enacts these responses, others around the individual respond and thus create a feedback loop. In other words, reactive strategies provoke responses in others, which shape how the individual understands the attitudes and behaviors that they enacted. Through this iterative and bidirectional process, coping strategies change and become more solidified as emergent identities that may have positive or negative psychosocial effects on the individual. Finally, these identities, and not the original environmental contexts, are linked to productive or unproductive outcomes as members of societies (Spencer, 2006; Spencer et al., 1997). PVEST highlights that youth process events and discourses in the media, their family and friend networks, and their lived experiences. As children age, they begin to form more lasting senses of their places in communities and societies, as well as personal values and ideologies (Flanagan, 2003). A developmental approach can be leveraged to promote not only skills and behaviors related to peace, but also the construction of deeper orientations toward being a peacebuilder. Fostering identities as peacebuilders has important consequences for broader societal trajectories and may offer greater possibilities for intervention, as young people may be more willing to embrace peace and their roles in it (Bekerman, 2009). This theory could thus contribute to the extensive literature on children and youth that exists in peace psychology. Developmental Psychology and Peace: Research and Practice Within peace psychology, there has been a focus on children and youth because violence may disproportionately affect them and they hold tremendous potential in the present and future as they mature into adult citizens (Schwartz, 2010). This work has not included comprehensive theories of individual development in relation peace, but does draw on developmental approaches with the goal of supporting specific peacebuilding skills and values. In this section, we briefly review four such areas: the formation of ideas about war and peace, interpersonal relations, resilience, and peace education. While peace education often encompasses the treatment of others and one’s role as a member of a community, we separate it because of its critical role in the application of strategies to promote young people’s role in positive peace. 120 G. M. Velez and M. C. Dedios Developmental Understandings of War and Peace Beginning in the 1960s, researchers have explored how young people understand war and peace as concepts. The studies assert that these ideas are a precursor to peaceful or violent behaviors and that conceptual understandings link with later outcomes (Boulding, 2000). Drawing on a range of studies, Hakvoort and Oppenheimer (1998) produced a comprehensive summary of this research within a social-cognitive theoretical framework. They find that children tend to have concrete and material conceptions of war and peace. They refer to physical violence or its absence between countries or friends, a perspective that can be linked to cognitive capacities and age-appropriate environmental experiences. In early adolescence, individuals refer more often to general interpersonal relations, referencing respect, tolerance, and similar values in their definitions of peace. They note the reciprocal nature of interactions between people and groups, and how these can devolve into violent conflict. With more abstract thinking in later adolescence, individuals less frequently mention negative peace and instead invoke immaterial notions and social systems such as human rights, democracy, or cultural violence. All ages describe peace with positive emotions (e.g., happiness, tranquility) and war with negative ones. Understandings of peace and war are related to capacities and salient interpersonal experiences at different points in childhood and adolescence. Increasingly complex cognitive abilities open up new ways of thinking about war and peace. Interactions with friends, family, and others in the community influence how young people experience the social world and make meaning of it (e.g., if societal peace is possible). Within this research, there have been few differences across cultures and more variability by socioeconomic status within a given area. This variation speaks to the role of context as an influence on ideas about war and peace. Interpersonal and Intergroup Relations A second fruitful area of study for peace psychology has been the experiences and understandings of interpersonal and intergroup relations across childhood, adolescence, and into adulthood. In particular, peace psychologists have explored how conflict resolution, empathy, and peer influences are related to individuals’ ideas, behaviors, and attitudes. Conflict resolution Conflict arises inherently in human relations and occurs between individuals and groups. At the individual level, positive responses to interpersonal tension include drawing on internal peace (i.e., mental tranquility), responding with stable emotions, and peacebuilding actions like dialogue (Christie and Knoll 2012). At young ages, for example, children in Head Start have benefited from teachers learning how to guide problem-solving and decision-making in peer interactions (Vestal & Jones, 2004). As another example, with teenagers in situa- Developmental Psychology and Peace 121 tions like community reconciliation, researchers have demonstrated the importance of involving these young people and fostering their collective identities as a support for building peace in these moments (Wessells, 2009). This work is developmental because it focuses on age-appropriate skills and approaches needed to foster positive orientations toward others and abilities to help oneself, others, and groups manage conflict. In early childhood, interpersonal relationships are focused on a limited number of others. Still, children can be supported in learning how to negotiate and transform conflict (Verbeek & de Waal, 2001). As children grow, social negotiation increases and they begin to situate themselves in broader social spheres and new relationships. Teenagers develop ways to manage tension in sexual partnerships, navigate social structures, and form identities in relation to group dynamics. As another example, emotional self-control is a key developmental task related to peace that changes across the life course. Impulsivity peaks in late adolescence, making self-management skills a particular priority in middle and late adolescence (Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). Differences in personality and social skills matter, but early experiences and learning can significantly influence later outcomes (Laursen et al., 2001). Programs that employ these developmentally situated methods have been shown to offer considerable benefits to children and adolescents. One example is the Peacemaker Program, meant for kindergarten through high school: “The developmental advantage includes positive effects on actualizing one’s potential, improving the quality of one’s relationships, and enhancing life success. Individuals skilled in resolving conflicts constructively tend to make and keep more friends, and be more liked by and popular with peers” (Johnson et al., 2012, p. 45). In this sense, these programs support individuals in learning to promote peace by managing tension in interpersonal relations. Additionally, the developmental benefits of this growth will support other areas of competence and adjustment as well (Vestal & Jones, 2004). Empathy A second, related area of interpersonal relations is empathy. While empathy is invoked in conflict resolution as a way to bridge divides between different people, it is also touted in its own right as a critical pillar for the development of peaceful attitudes and behaviors. Empathy is used to refer to an effective response in which one understands the perspective and emotions of another (Deutsch, 2015). It is related to increased altruism, greater compassion for others, and fewer displays of antisocial emotions (Hoffman, 2000). While the cognitive capacities of younger children may limit direct instruction in empathy at an early age, the emergence of empathy as individuals mature has been shown to correlate positively with prosocial behaviors, morality, and self-control (Sagkal et al., 2012). Peer Influences A third area is contextual influences, especially from peers. Children’s psychological development is impacted by factors across many domains, though research demonstrates a strong correlation between the behavior of children and their friends and classmates. Adolescents are especially responsive to peers (Prinstein & Dodge, 2008). In studies of this phenomenon, children, adolescents, and adults were asked to choose between antisocial actions promoted by peers and 122 G. M. Velez and M. C. Dedios prosocial ones of their own choosing. Across childhood, the rate of choosing the peer-influenced option increases, peaks around age 14, and then attenuates (Berndt, 1979; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). In relation to peace, this research provides insight into how youth may develop deviant behaviors as well as key factors that may promote involvement in violent activities. While it is difficult to separate the possibility that some violent young people may be drawn to similar peers, these studies indicate that the influence of such friends may lead to further increases in antisocial behavior. Significant mediators include age, gender, relationships with parents, and attitudes toward delinquent behavior. For peace psychology, this research indicates that peer influences can be harnessed in developmentally contextualized interventions to promote peaceful outcomes, or in other words, prosocial behaviors, nonviolence, and empathy as members of communities (Gifford-Smith et al., 2005). Experience of Conflict and Resilience In both clinical practice and research, an extensive literature has explored the effects of experiencing violence on young people. This work has focused on two areas: different forms of violence in key developmental contexts and the impact of being a violent actor (e.g., a soldier or gang member). An extensive review is beyond the scope of this chapter, but a number of key insights contribute to the relationship between peace and development. In particular, these findings relate to developmental processes involved in forming attitudes, behaviors, and identities that promote positive peace. First, risk is not deterministic. Children and adolescents may be exposed to violence, but this experience does not dictate violent and antisocial outcomes. A child may live in a city torn apart by civil war, but have a supportive environment within the home. Or, a child may fight in a militia, but experience a sense of belonging, agency, and purpose in fighting what they consider to be unjust structures. This is not to deny the consequences of experiencing violence; while the physical, psychological, and emotional effects of violence are powerful, it is important to note that factors across various levels may shape how violence impacts children (Wessells, 2009). Within these multiple systems, the individual also responds to intimate experiences of violence in relation to personal characteristics like personality and coping strategies (Buka, Stichick, Birdthistle, & Earls, 2001). Second, researchers have explored what factors correlate with resilience and positive outcomes for these individuals. Within this usage, resilience and positive outcomes can be understood as young people who “function in one or more life domains better than one would expect given their vulnerability and exposure to one or multiple risk factors” (Aisenberg & Herrenkohl, 2008, p. 303). As has been noted, different systems can play pivotal roles on how the individual interprets experiences of violence and peace. Key ecological factors that can support resilient outcomes are connected to the type of violence and the risks and supports in the environment (Ungar et al., 2007). In summary, research on exposure to violence highlights the importance of understanding individual development within multiple systems. This work also details the interaction between these contexts and individual factors as children and Developmental Psychology and Peace 123 adolescents mature. For a discussion of a developmental lens on peace psychology, these findings lay the groundwork for the role of context as individuals develop. We return to these points in arguing for PVEST as an effective theoretical model that can incorporate this relationship into an understanding of the underlying psychological processes that lead to peace-promoting individual outcomes. Peace Education and Development Peace education has emerged as a critical area for the application of a developmental perspective on peace. Nevertheless, peace education is expansive and encompasses diverse approaches that are linked but lack a clear, cohesive theoretical lens. Harris (2004) identifies five educational branches of the field that are both distinct, complementary, and wide-ranging: international, human rights, development, environmental, and conflict resolution. In this section, we first briefly survey work in the area of peace education as a foundation for then offering a theoretical perspective that we argue has utility as an underlying core developmental framework. Peace education defies bounds often placed on subject material in education. It is not based in knowledge transmission, but rather in fostering perspectives on the world and humanity that require a different, holistic approach. It is about changing emotions, attitudes, and ideas. To this end, its motivating goals focus on shaping students’ worldviews, bolstering engagement, and promoting empathy, justice, and efficacy on how young people act as members of a community and society (Van Oord, 2014). Daniel Bar-Tal (2002) has argued that to achieve these goals, proponents of peace education must orient the field around five aims: making peace education a primary focus, being open-minded, making it relevant, incorporating experiential learning, and being reflective about how it is taught. These pillars emerge from a rich literature on what effective instruction is like and how education can be harnessed to support positive academic, personal, and interpersonal outcomes. To this end, the curriculum and the teacher must truly engage with students and involve them in activities and lessons that fit with their age-appropriate cognitive capacities and salient concerns (Van Oord, 2014). Within peace education, a number of programs directly incorporate developmental approaches, especially with a focus on interpersonal relations. These resources and curricula offer concrete ways to promote peaceful outcomes by drawing on theoretical and empirical findings. Consistent evidence demonstrates that schools can influence the formation of cooperation and conflict resolution skills (see Deutsch, 1993; Johnson et al., 1994). Peace education programs build on this understanding by offering methodologies for classrooms and educational institutions to promote cooperative learning, peer mediation, self-control, and perspective taking. These elements can positively influence relationships with others, psychological adjustment, and academic performance. One example is the Aulas en Paz program in Colombia that uses targeted interventions to promote conflict resolution across various ages. Evaluations have demonstrated that the program promotes prosocial 124 G. M. Velez and M. C. Dedios behavior, harmonious and empathetic classroom climates, and stronger peer relationships (Chaux, 2007). Other programs utilizing violence prevention and intergroup understanding curriculum may also help promote positive socio-emotional developmental trajectories for children and adolescents with aggressive or violent tendencies in school (Aber et al., 2003). These approaches share a foundational understanding that while multiple systems may affect the development of attitudes and behaviors for children, curriculum and programs in educational contexts have a unique potential to influence how young people begin to think about themselves as peacemakers. Peace education and developmental psychology are connected. Still, the bridge between the two has mainly involved specific areas (see Harris, 2004) and lacks an underlying theory to depict more fundamentally how individuals construct identitybased orientations toward peace or violence. Developmental understandings are used in reference to a particular skill, like perspective taking, or end, like conflict resolution. A theoretical foundation could frame broadly how individuals integrate context, experiences, and socialization with personal characteristics and evolving capacities to develop identities as peacebuilders. Appling PVEST: Colombian Adolescents Meaning Making and the Peace Process Our research on adolescents demonstrates the utility of PVEST for peace psychology. Drawing on PVEST, Colombian adolescents may be influenced by people and experiences in family, peer groups, and schools, as well as the more distal impacts of broader discourses (e.g., a peace education law shaping school curriculum). Our empirical work explores how these young Colombians develop civic identities by focusing on how they make meaning and develop responses to discourses around “peace.” Therefore, we situate the construction of meaning around peace as part of the formation of identities that links the context (i.e., Colombia’s historical development, current peace process, and the salient discourses about peace) with youth’s individual outcomes as citizens (which can impact the broader societal trajectory). This approach highlights the individual’s psychological processing, i.e., how the individual makes meaning as they experience local social worlds in relation to broader messages about citizenship and peace. The theoretical framework thus incorporates influences of schools, family, and friends that have been shown to be important spaces of civic socialization (e.g., Torney-Purta, 2000), but does this by focusing on how individuals interpret and respond to these contexts. Violence has deeply marked Colombia’s history as a country though there have often been attempts to negotiate peace between the government and armed actors. Most recently, in 2012, President Juan Manuel Santos began peace accord negotiations with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (the FARC) to end over five decades of internal warfare. In 2016, the two sides came to an agreement and these accords were voted on in a popular plebiscite. Though on October 2nd the Developmental Psychology and Peace 125 electorate voted down the accords in a close 50.2% to 49.8% vote, the peace process has continued to progress through the legislature and judicial systems. Linked to these efforts to bring negative peace to Colombia—that is, to end the physical armed conflict between these two sides—the government has also promoted an agenda to build positive peace. This has included extensive workshops, events, trainings, reforms, and support for local initiatives. A particular focus has been on children and youth, who are often described as future peacebuilders. For example, in 2015, the government passed a law mandating schools to include 2 of 12 peace education themes in their curriculum in order to give youth the tools to be leaders in peacebuilding. Additionally, both the government and civil society have rhetorically called on youth to lead the construction of a peaceful future, while devoting a wealth of resources to programs working to develop peacebuilding skills and interest in young people. Our research explores how Colombian adolescents begin to see themselves as citizens. Colombia’s civic discourse is, and has been for many years, imbued with a focus on peace. There have been multiple peace processes (failed attempts with the FARC and completed ones with other groups) in addition to the current one that began in 2012. Using extensive interviews with Colombian adolescents, we utilized PVEST to study how young people’s meaning making of peace relates to their identities and understandings of their roles in building peace. This approach brings a developmental lens to studying adolescents and peace, while also situating this research within civic development. The outcomes of these processes are understood to be consequential for the broader societal trajectory since youth orientations in relation to peace and peace processes have been shown to affect the success of peacebuilding efforts (Schwartz, 2010). Applying PVEST, meaning is understood as part of a broader identity process that links context (i.e., Colombia’s violent history, the current peace process, and discourses about peace) with developmental outcomes as citizens. Individual’s psychological interpretation and response reveal how adolescents make meaning and develop coping responses that lead to deeper identity-based outcomes. Focusing on interpretation and response, we address not simply the roles of schools, family, and friends in civic socialization, but also how these factors are experienced and internalized by adolescents. This developmental lens also incorporates specific themes that are salient as part of adolescence; identity formation and understanding one’s role in the broader society is linked to increasing social awareness and interactions with broader systems during this time in the life course (Haste, 2004; Hoffman, 2000). Our work draws on two datasets involving semi-structured interviews that we conducted with adolescents between the ages of 15 and 18 (see Velez, 2019; Velez & Dedios, 2018). The first dataset included 51 participants from a low-resource neighborhood in Barrancabermeja. The area of the city where these adolescents live has been marked by gang violence and armed militias that are not connected to the government or the FARC. The second dataset involved 96 interviews in and around the capital city of Bogota. These respondents came from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds and were chosen using a maximum variance approach to cover a wide range of communities and social positions. 126 G. M. Velez and M. C. Dedios Our analyses produced four major themes about how these participants understood peace and their own role in its construction: convivencia, self-expression, personal agency, and levels of peace. Convivencia is more than the English translation (coexistence) and instead refers to respect and harmony within interpersonal relations. Peace in this sense meant actively accepting, embracing, and interacting in positive ways with other people who may think or feel differently. Second, many participants connected peace with self-expression and feeling like they could be themselves. Adolescence is a time when identity and being able to act and be accepted for one’s self are salient concerns (Arnett, 2001). It thus makes sense that these adolescents placed importance on peace as freedom from repression or societal injustices like inequality, racism, or discrimination. Third, while participants in both groups felt that they could participate in the construction of peace, how they talked about this personal agency was markedly different. In Barrancabermeja, respondents mentioned that they constructed peace through concrete activities in the community. This mobilization provided a space to counter violence, which may be indicative of these youth’s involvement in a peace program. Participants in and around Bogota, in contrast, described their roles in peace as through interpersonal relationships such as avoiding or managing conflict between individuals. Lastly, personal agency also connected to the final theme, as participants distinguished different levels of peace. A majority of Bogotá adolescents noted that while national peace was about the peace process (and thus did not impact their local contexts), peace as a general social state began with each individual. Each person must achieve inner tranquility that they then bring to others in local contexts. In this way, societal peace begins within—and thus is the responsibility of—each individual, rather than as connected to structural or systemic issues like poverty or inequality. This perspective can be understood as the roots of an identity as a peacebuilding citizen; these respondents were beginning to see themselves as able to work toward a broader positive peace by their actions in their intimate contexts. While our participants held diverse viewpoints, we highlight these to demonstrate how a developmental approach focused on meaning making and identity can be utilized to support peacebuilding. As these Colombian adolescents make meaning from contexts, socialization, and experiences, they develop ideas about peace that shape how they understand their roles as citizens and peacebuilders. Many defined true peace as utopic, but they also asserted that peace began with individuals and within oneself. Also, many of these adolescents in Bogota emphasized the role of interpersonal relationships in building peace, citing conflict resolution, convivencia, and self-expression as integral elements of peace. Our findings are intertwined with adolescent development and can be interpreted as pointing toward implications for individual outcomes. If these young people are not provided with emotional and mental support to maintain a sense of inner peace, they may struggle to develop efficacy as peacebuilders. Similarly, it may be necessary to provide them with concrete strategies to handle conflict, as well as spaces to practice and enact these roles and feel empowered to define and assert their senses of self. These results have important implications for peace education, especially within the current climate in Colombia. For example, the twelve themes of the peace edu- Developmental Psychology and Peace 127 cation law include Historical Memory and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, which could be the only two areas a given school enacts. While these topics are valid and more broadly involved in peace, our research on how Colombian adolescents understand peace demonstrates a need to connect or supplement with other supports that are attentive to the salient issues and developmental concerns involved in these young people’s meaning making in relation to themselves as citizens and peacebuilders. Our findings also indicate that young people may feel more efficacious as peacebuilders when daily experiences and contexts facilitate beliefs that peace is possible and that individual actions matter. As part of their development as peacebuilders, young people should be given opportunities to actively engage with local problems related to conflict resolution, active listening, and other applied skills that link broader peace to their roles as community members. Importantly, youth are not passive recipients of socialization, and so focusing on providing spaces for active construction of peacebuilder identities may be more effective than simply stating or teaching that young people are important in these roles. Conclusion Over the last few decades, peace psychologists have focused on children and adolescents for theoretical and applied understandings of how to promote cultures of peace (Sarrica & Wachelke, 2010). This work has demonstrated that developmental processes, which are linked to personal factors, contexts, and interpretation, play an important role on how individuals begin to understand peace, how they relate to others, and how they connect as citizens to a societal goal of peace. Nevertheless, much of this research and application has centered on specific, and at times isolated, domains within the broad umbrella of peace. We have sought to offer a glimpse into some of these varied areas in which peace and development have been integrated, including in the field of peace education. We have also described how Spencer’s PVEST can be used as a developmental theory that may help guide research and understandings in these areas. It provides an effective underlying framework for how individuals interpret and respond to ecological context as they construct identities as citizens and potential peacebuilders. Peace is a continual process requiring collaboration and effort to define, develop, and improve it. In this spirit, we present this chapter and argue for the utility of Spencer’s PVEST in order to contribute to the conversation about a developmental lens for peace psychology. Young people are a critical foundation for present and future cultures of peace. Elaborating on effective frameworks can guide insightful and impactful research and programming. Through more nuanced attentiveness to developmental processes and concerns, this foundation can be utilized to build more effective supports for young people to form attitudes, behaviors, and identities related to peace. This work alone will not bring peace to diverse societies, but can contribute to the primary and continuous goal of using psychology to promote a more peaceful world. 128 G. M. Velez and M. C. Dedios References Aber, J. L., Brown, J. L., & Jones, S. M. (2003). Developmental trajectories toward violence in middle childhood: Course, demographic differences, and response to school-based intervention. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 324. Aisenberg, E., & Herrenkohl, T. (2008). Community violence in context: Risk and resilience in children and families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(3), 296–315. Ålvik, T. (1968). The development of views on conflict, war, and peace among school children: A Norwegian case study. Journal of Peace Research, 5(2), 171–194. Arnett, J. J. (2001). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bar-Tal, D. (2002). The elusive nature of peace education. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 27–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bekerman, Z. (2009). Identity versus peace: Identity wins. Harvard Educational Review, 79(1), 74–83. Berndt, T. J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Developmental Psychology, 15(6), 608. Bickmore, K. (2008). Peace and conflict education. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 438–454). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Boulding, E. (2000). Cultures of Peace: The Hidden Side of History. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Buka, S. L., Stichick, T. L., Birdthistle, I., & Earls, F. J. (2001). Youth exposure to violence: Prevalence, risks, and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71(3), 298. Chaux, E. (2007). Aulas en paz: A multicomponent program for the promotion of peaceful relationships and citizenship competencies. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 25(1), 79–86. Christie, D. J., & Knoll, S. (2012). Children, peace and aggression. In D. J. Christie (Ed.), The encyclopedia of peace psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Christie, D. J., Wagner, R. V., & Winter, D. D. (2001). Introduction to peace psychology. In D. J. Christie, R. V. Wagner, & D. D. Winter (Eds.), Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century (pp. 1–14). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Deutsch, M. (1993). Conflict resolution and cooperative learning in an alternative high school. Cooperative Learning, 13(4), 2–5. Deutsch, M. (2015). Educating for a peaceful world. In P. T. Coleman & M. Deutsch (Eds.), Morton Deutsch: Major texts on peace psychology (pp. 89–103). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis (1st ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Flanagan, C. (2003). Trust, identity, & civic hope. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 165–171. Fountain, S. (1999). Peace education in UNICEF. New York, NY: UNICEF. Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, & peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191. Gifford-Smith, M., Dodge, K. A., Dishion, T. J., & McCord, J. (2005). Peer influence in children and adolescents: Crossing the bridge from developmental to intervention science. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(3), 255–265. Hakvoort, I. (1996). Children’s conceptions of peace and war: A longitudinal study. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 2(1), 1–15. Hakvoort, I., & Oppenheimer, L. (1998). Understanding peace and war: A review of developmental psychology research. Developmental Review, 18(3), 353–389. Harris, I. M. (2004). Peace education theory. Journal of Peace Education 1(1), 5–20. Haste, H. (2004). Constructing the citizen. Political Psychology, 25(3), 413–439. Developmental Psychology and Peace 129 Hess, R. D., & Torney, J. V. (2005). The development of political attitudes in children. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction. Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jason, L. A., Miller, S. A., Christopher, R., Gleason, K., & Franklin, R. (2016). Theories in the field of community psychology. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 7(2). Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Dudley, B., & Acikgoz, K. (1994). Effects of conflict resolution training on elementary school students. Journal of Social Psychology, 134(6), 803–817. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Tjosvold, D. (2012). Effective cooperation. The foundation of sustainable peace. In P. T. Coleman (Ed.), Psychological components of sustainable peace (pp. 15–53). New York, NY: Springer. Laursen, B., Finkelstein, B. D., & Betts, N. T. (2001). A developmental meta-analysis of peer conflict resolution. Developmental Review, 21(4), 423–449. Lodge, J., & Frydenberg, E. (2005). The role of peer bystanders in school bullying: Positive steps toward promoting peaceful schools. Theory Into Practice, 44(4), 329–336. McGlynn, C., Zembylas, M., Bekerman, Z., & Gallagher, T. (Eds.). (2009). Peace education in conflict and post-conflict societies: Comparative perspectives. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Muir, D. (1999). Theories and methods in developmental psychology. In A. Slater & D. Muir (Eds.), The Blackwell reader in developmental psychology (pp. 3–17). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Nasir, N. S., & Kirshner, B. (2003). The cultural construction of moral and civic identities. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 138–147. Prinstein, M. J., & Dodge, K. A. (Eds.). (2008). Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents. New York, NY: Guilford. Sagkal, A. S., Turnuklu, A., & Totan, T. (2012). Empathy for interpersonal peace: Effects of peace education on empathy skills. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(2), 1454–1460. Sarrica, M., & Wachelke, J. (2010). Peace and war as social representations: A structural exploration with Italian adolescents. Universitas Psychologica, 9(2), 315–330. Schwartz, S. (2010). Youth and post-conflict reconstruction: Agents of change. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press. Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press. Spencer, M. B. (2006). Phenomenology and ecological systems theory: Development of diverse groups. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 829–893). New York, NY: Wiley. Spencer, M. B., Dupree, D., & Hartmann, T. (1997). A phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST): A self-organization perspective in context. Development and Psychopathology, 9(4), 817–833. Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1996). Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 20(3), 249. Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child Development, 57(4), 841–851. Torney-Purta, J. (2000). Comparative perspectives on political socialization and civic education. Comparative Education Review, 44(1), 88–95. Ungar, M., Brown, M., Liebenberg, L., & Othman, R. (2007). Unique pathways to resilience across cultures. Adolescence, 42(166), 287. van Oord, L. (2014). Peace education beyond the mission statement. The International Schools Journal, 34(1), 8. Velez, G. (2019). Conceptualized Peace: A Study of Colombian Adolescents' Meaning Making and Civic Development (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Velez, G., & Dedios, M. C. (2018, August). “A Grain of Sand”: Colombian Adolescents’ Perspectives on Their Role in Peacebuilding. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. San Francisco, CA. 130 G. M. Velez and M. C. Dedios Verbeek, P., & de Waal, F. (2001). Peacemaking among preschool children. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7(1), 5. Vestal, A., & Jones, N. A. (2004). Peace building and conflict resolution in preschool children. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19, 131–143. Wessells, M. (2009). Community reconciliation and post-conflict reconstruction for peace. In J. de Rivera (Ed.), Handbook on building cultures of peace (pp. 349–361). New York, NY: Springer.