Pierre Bouchat

Are attitudes toward peace and war the two sides of the same coin?: Evidence to the contrary from a French validation of the Attitudes Toward Peace and War Scale

Bizumic et al. (2013) have recently shown that attitudes towards peace and war reflect two distinct constructs rather than two poles of a single dimension. We present an attempt at validating the French version of their 16-item Attitudes toward Peace and War Scale (APWS) on five distinct (mainly Belgian) French-speaking samples (total N = 808). Confirmatory factor and criterion validity analyses confirmed that attitudes toward peace and war, although negatively related, are distinct in terms of their antecedents and consequences. On the one hand, antecedents of attitudes toward peace included egalitarian ideological beliefs and empathic concern for others, and consequences included intentions to engage in pro-peace behaviors. On the other hand, antecedents of attitudes toward war included national identification and authoritarian ideological beliefs, and consequences included intentions to engage in pro-war behaviors. Furthermore, both attitudes toward peace and war were, respectively, negatively and positively related to (a right-wing) political orientation. Unexpectedly however, attitudes toward war were positively related to nonegalitarian ideological beliefs and were not related to personal distress. Scores on the translated scale were unrelated to socially desirable responding. In terms of known-groups validity, men had, respectively, more and less positive attitudes toward war and peace than women. Finally, based on exploratory factor analyses, the inclusion of some items for the factorial structure of the measure is questioned and a shortened form of the measure is validated. Overall, these findings are in line with Bizumic et al. and suggest that attitudes toward peace and war also reflect two distinct constructs in a French-speaking population.

Do Dutch-speakers and French-speakers really disagree?: A longitudinal study of adhesion to justice principles in the context of the Belgian linguistic conflict

According to the “Waffle” model of the Belgian Linguistic Conflict (Klein et al., 2012), this conflict centres around two main dimensions: One concerns the use of language across the territory and the second concerns the distribution of resources between the two main linguistic communities, Dutch-speakers and French-speakers. The model suggests that the two groups adhere to different justice principles regarding these issues and that these disagreements are a function of the intensity of the conflict. With respect to the first dimension, Dutch-speakers are expected to adhere more to a principle of linguistic territoriality than French-speakers who should be more in favor of a free choice of one’s idiom across the territory. With respect to the second dimension, the model posits that Dutch-speakers will adhere more to an equity principle whereas French-speakers should adhere more to a need principle. We tested these hypotheses in the context of a large-scale survey involving two waves: in May 2011 in the middle of a political crisis, and in June 2014, when the conflict was appeased. The pattern of “disagreements” in a subsample that participated in both waves of the survey (N = 378) is consistent with the Waffle model and, as expected, more severe at the heart of the conflict (in 2011) than after pacification (in 2014). However, differences were driven mostly by supporters of the Flemish nationalist party N-VA. Moreover, endorsement of principles on both dimensions are predictive of separatist attitudes in the Dutch-speaking sample whereas only the first dimension plays a role for the French speaking sample.