But it has proved difficult, in many cases, to transfer findings from one level of psychological analysis - say the behavior of individuals - to a wholly different level, such as international conflict. Freud himself, in his response to Einstein, was dubious about the relevance of psychiatry to international conflict. 'Doves' Dominate Field

The field seems to be dominated by liberal ''doves,'' many of whom consider the arms race ''insane'' and military conflict a ''sickness'' that can be prevented by appropriate psychological treatments. If there are ''hawkish'' psychologists who believe nuclear weapons are good and military conflict a cleansing experience, they are not making their voices heard widely.

''Historically and numerically, psychology has been a liberal profession,'' says Robert B. Nichols, chief psychologist in the office of the Army's Surgeon General. Although many psychologists work for the military services, they are typically found in support roles, devising better training methods, testing recruits, counseling those with combat fatigue, or treating drug addicts. They are not generally dealing with cosmic issues of war and peace. ''Making a case for the utility of war or deciding when and where to fight is a subject that most psychologists have not turned their hands to,'' says Dr. Nichols.

The diagnoses and prescriptions offered by psychologists and other behavioral scientists vary widely. Some see the nature and behavior of man - his aggressiveness and greed and fear of strangers, for example -as perhaps the most important underlying cause of war; others believe wars result primarily from disputes over territory and natural resources or other concrete differences, with psychological factors as important secondary causes. Some believe that wars often result from misperceptions and misunderstandings; others suggest they result from an all-too-perfect understanding of another nation's hostile intentions. There are almost as many different analyses as there are psychologists and wars.

Here is a sampling of the thinking presented in recent papers and conferences: Dr. Deutsch told the political psychologists' convention that sane, decent, intelligent leaders of the two superpowers have allowed themselves to become enmeshed in a ''crazy'' and ''malignant'' social process in which the actions they take to enhance their national security end by making both sides feel less secure, much as married couples or parents and adolescents sometimes get trapped in vicious processes that lead to hostility and violence. He suggested that military actions should be taken only if they plainly increase the security of both sides. Analysis by Skinner

B.F. Skinner, the dean of American behavioral psychologists, presented a pessimistic analysis to the American Psychological Association in an address called ''Why Are We Not Acting to Save the World?'' He argued that ''something in the very nature of human behavior'' makes it difficult for people to respond to advice on how to avoid future disasters that they have not yet experienced. ''As to the possible destruction of our world,'' he said, ''the brute fact is that, left to advice, only a very few people will act'' to prevent it.

Herbert C. Kelman, a Harvard social psychologist who has had extensive contact with government leaders and scholars in the Middle East, presented an optimistic analysis of the thinking of Yasir Arafat, head of the Palestine Liberation Organization. After two extensive conversations with Mr. Arafat in 1980 and 1981, Dr. Kelman concluded that his language, images, thought processes and past actions indicated that he had the capacity and will to come to an agreement with Israel, if he was offered the necessary incentives and reassurances. The hypothesis, Dr. Kelman said, is ''well worth putting to the empirical test.''