Cross-Cultural Dimensions of Meaning in the Evaluation of Events in World History?

Abstract

The universality versus culture specificity of quantitative evaluations (negative-positive) of 40 events in world history was addressed using World History Survey data collected from 5,800 university students in 30 countries/societies. Multidimensional scaling using generalized procrustean analysis indicated poor fit of data from the 30 countries to an overall mean configuration, indicating lack of universal agreement as to the associational meaning of events in world history. Hierarchical cluster analysis identified one Western and two non-Western country clusters for which adequate multidimensional fit was obtained after item deletions. A two-dimensional solution for the three country clusters was identified, where the primary dimension was historical calamities versus progress and a weak second dimension was modernity versus resistance to modernity. Factor analysis further reduced the item inventory to identify a single concept with structural equivalence across cultures, Historical Calamities, which included man-made and natural, intentional and unintentional, predominantly violent but also nonviolent calamities. Less robust factors were tentatively named as Historical Progress and Historical Resistance to Oppression. Historical Calamities and Historical Progress were at Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 43(2) the individual level both significant and independent predictors of willingness to fight for one's country in a hierarchical linear model that also identified significant country-level variation in these relationships. Consensus around calamity but disagreement as to what constitutes historical progress is discussed in relation to the political culture of nations and lay perceptions of history as catastrophe. Keywords cross-cultural dimensions of meaning, evaluation of historical events, perceptions of history, World History Survey, Historical Calamities, Historical Progress, Historical Resistance to Oppression, willingness to fight for one's country A major contribution of cross-cultural psychology to the global science of psychology has been the identification of dimensions of cultural variation on which national cultures can be located. Two of the most sophisticated investigations of this type have converged on the finding that while cultures may differ on average as to the extent that members endorse certain values (Schwartz, 1992) or beliefs (Leung & Bond, 2004), there is substantial universality in the associational meaning

A Cultural Perspective on Intergroup Relations and Social Identity

“…One promising avenue to incorporate societal level processes, and hence culture into the psychological study of intergroup conflict is to study social representations of history (Hilton & Liu, 2008;. Research on the content of popular representations of history across cultures (Liu, 1999;Liu et al, , 2009Liu et al, , 2012 has revealed that intergroup conflict is at the core of how mass publics reconstruct the past.…”

“…Political groups and leaders are well aware of this, and so immediately after an event occurs the dominant group and leaders in power attempt to present their version of the events as authoritative (Igartua & Paez, 1997;Reicher & Hopkins, 2001). They may attempt to forget an event entirely (or at least seek historical closure, see Hanke et al, 2012), or to present themselves positively. Sometimes, an event is so important as to warrant commemoration (Frijda, 1997;Olick & Robbins, 1998), as it generates a sufficient level of emotion-driven conversations in society as to create a new representation (Rimé, 1997).…”

“Narratives of our past:” Taking a journey through history for collective well‐being

“…The history of a nation is the shared heritage of a citizenry; it is not a mere objective repository of temporal facts but a portrait of narratives preselected with factual accounts designed to give a common frame of understanding (Liu & Hilton, 2005;Misztal, 2003;White, 1984). History also can be used as a lens to examine the will of the nationhood whereas both contemporary events and global dynamics affect the interpretation of the narrative (Liu et al, 2012). In that regard, both the past and the present are constantly interacting, and the framing of one influences the perception of the other (Bartlett, 1932).…”

“…The social representation of history is posited as a collective memory of the past, and is actively drawn upon by people living in the same geographic space-usually demarcated at the national level-as a means of ingroup identification; there is a tendency to view one's group more favourably than other groups to derive a positive sense of distinction or pride (Liu & Hilton, 2005;Moscovici, 1988;Wertsch, 2008). Often, personal and discrete memories of these historical events are woven together to form a coherent narrative (Liu et al, 2012(Liu et al, ,2009).…”

Uncovering the diverse cultural bases of social identity: In-group ties predict self-stereotyping among individualists but not among collectivists.

“…This meta-analysis showed that, in general, people from English-speaking countries are more individualistic, more relational, and less collectivist than people from non-English-speaking countries, and that English-speaking countries comprise an "overarching Western culture" (p. 13). Hence, we categorized participants as individualists if they were nationals of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, the USA, or White South Africa (for a similar approach, see Bos, Picavet, & Sandfort, 2012;Liu et al, 2012;Rubin, 2013).…”