We Made History: Citizens of 35 Countries Overestimate Their Nation's Role in World History

Zaromb, Franklin M.; Liu, James H.; Páez, Darío; Hanke, Katja; Putnam, Adam L.; Roediger, Henry L.

doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.05.006

Cited by 33 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many studies of small groups have demonstrated overclaiming of responsibility in married couples, in team sports, and in other groups (12). We extend this finding to large groups, as have others (8,9).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…The results show what has been termed "the ethnocentric bias of group self-centeredness" (26), collective narcissism (27), or national narcissism (8); people in groups often see themselves and their group in a positive light and minimize or derogate outgroups (4,28,29). Many studies of small groups have demonstrated overclaiming of responsibility in married couples, in team sports, and in other groups (12).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…After all, countries usually mandate courses on the history of the nation in their educational systems, whereas learning about the history of other nations is much less likely. When university students in 35 different countries around the world were asked what contribution their own countries made to world history, the percentages given were quite high [e.g., Russians gave 61%, India was at 50%, Italy at 40%, and so on (8)]. The total across 35 countries (of 193 in the United Nations) was 1,027%.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Competing national memories of World War II

Roediger

Abel

Umanath

et al. 2019

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assessed the knowledge of 1,338 people from 11 countries (8 former Allied and 3 former Axis) about World War II. When asked what percentage their country contributed to the war effort, across Allied countries, estimates totaled 309%, and Axis nations’ estimates came to 140%. People in 4 nations claimed more than 50% responsibility for their country (Germany, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States). The overclaiming of responsibility reflected in these percentages was moderated when subjects were asked to consider the contributions of other countries; however, Russians continued to claim great responsibility, the only country that remained well over 50% in its claim of responsibility for the Allied victory. If deaths in the war are considered a proxy of a nation’s contributions, the Soviet Union did carry much of the burden. This study points to sharp differences in national memory even across nations who fought on the same side in the war. Differing national perspectives shape diverse memories of the same complex event.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Competing national memories of World War II

Roediger

Abel

Umanath

et al. 2019

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concept of collective narcissism extends to the social level of self; the concept of individual narcissism understood as a desire for continual external validation of an inflated self‐view (Crocker & Park, ; Emmons, ; Horney, ; Morf & Rhodewalt, ; Raskin & Terry, ; Rhodewalt & Morf, ; Rhodewalt & Sorrow, ). The concept of collective narcissism is inspired by the literature indicating that the beliefs people hold about themselves (e.g., such as a belief about their self‐worth, that is, self‐esteem, Crocker & Luhtanen, ; Gramzow & Gaertner, ; Luhtanen & Crocker, ; self‐discrepancy, Bizman & Yinon, ; Bizman, Yinon, & Krotman, ; or self‐serving bias, Hornsey, ; Putnam, Ross, Soter, & Roediger, ; Zaromb, Liu, Hanke, Putnam, Roediger III, & Páez, ) have their parallels on the social level of self. As much as people can demand special recognition and privilege for themselves (as individual narcissists do), they can claim the same for the groups they belong to (as collective narcissists do).…”

Section: Concepts Pertaining To Attitudes Towards National Ingroupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective Narcissism: Political Consequences of Investing Self‐Worth in the Ingroup’s Image

Zavala

Dyduch‐Hazar

Lantos

2019

Political Psychology

122

227

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proposes a new theoretical framework for the reviewed state-of-the-art research on collective narcissism-the belief that the ingroup's exceptionality is not sufficiently appreciated by others. Collective narcissism is motivated by the investment of an undermined sense of self-esteem into the belief in the ingroup's entitlement to privilege. Collective narcissism lies in the heart of populist rhetoric. The belief in ingroup's exceptionality compensates the undermined sense of self-worth, leaving collective narcissists hypervigilant to signs of threat to the ingroup's position. People endorsing the collective narcissistic belief are prone to biased perceptions of intergroup situations and to conspiratorial thinking. They retaliate to imagined provocations against the ingroup but sometimes overlook real threats. They are prejudiced and hostile. Deficits in emotional regulation, hostile attribution bias, and vindictiveness lie behind the robust link between collective narcissism and intergroup hostility. Interventions that support the regulation of negative emotions, such as experiencing self-transcendent emotions, decrease the link between collective narcissism and intergroup hostility and offer further insights into the nature of collective narcissism.

show abstract

“…Lewicka refers to this biased perception of place's past as Bhistorical ethnocentric bias^. Recent research has shown that e.g., Americans tend to overestimate the significance of their home state in the U.S. history (Putnam et al 2018), and a similar phenomenon was shown in a study on the perceived contribution of one's home country to world history (Zaromb et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

A cognitively-gated place? The role of need for closure in a biased perception of the place’s past

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biased memory of the past is often a starting point for intergroup conflicts. In three correlational studies, we examined the relationship between need for closure (NFC) and historical ethnocentric bias, a tendency to overestimate the role of one's ethnic group in the multicultural history of the city of residence. In addition, we checked whether this relationship would be mediated by an individual preference for essentialist places. We found that higher NFC was related to increased historical ethnocentric bias. Moreover, this relation was mediated by preference for an essentialist type of a place. Our results may contribute to understanding the role of individual differences and preferred type of place in shaping a biased representation of the past. Furthermore, our research findings point to the importance of raising awareness of the multicultural past among high NFC individuals.

show abstract

We Made History: Citizens of 35 Countries Overestimate Their Nation's Role in World History

Cited by 33 publications

References 31 publications

Competing national memories of World War II

Competing national memories of World War II

Collective Narcissism: Political Consequences of Investing Self‐Worth in the Ingroup’s Image

A cognitively-gated place? The role of need for closure in a biased perception of the place’s past

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About