| Abstract: | The distinction between positive and negative goals is important in the psychology of peace because it affects the way people respond to the threat of nuclear war. An orientation toward the negative goal of avoiding war has been a priority because of the great danger of the nuclear threat and also because negative means and goals, being primarily reactive, more concrete, and more oriented to short-term objectives than positive goals, are more conducive to action. However, there are unfortunate consequences of too exclusive a concentration on avoiding war: inadequate conceptualization of a positive, more easily maintained goal of peace, and increased anxiety resulting in poor-quality thinking about ways to achieve peace. Choosing positive means of working toward peace is consonant with peace as a positive goal, and it compensates for some of the disadvantages of an exclusive focus on avoiding a nuclear confrontation. |
