Elza Techio

“Remembering” World War II and Willingness to Fight: Sociocultural Factors in the Social Representation of Historical Warfare Across 22 Societies

Students from 22 nations answered a survey on the most important events in world history. At the national level, free recalling and a positive evaluation of World War II (WWII) were associated with World Values Survey willingness to fight for the country in a war and being a victorious nation. Willingness to fight, a more benign evaluation of WWII, and recall of WWII were associated with nation-level scores on power distance and low postmaterialism, suggesting that values stressing obedience and competition between nations are associated with support for collective violence, whereas values of expressive individualism are negatively related. Internal political violence was unrelated to willingness to fight, excluding direct learning as an explanation of legitimization of violence. Recall of wars in general (operationalized by WWI recall) was also unrelated to willingness to fight. Results replicate and extend Archer and Gartners classic study showing the legitimization of violence by war to the domain of collective remembering.

Cross-Cultural Dimensions of Meaning in the Evaluation of Events in World History?: Perceptions of Historical Calamities and Progress in Cross-Cultural Data From Thirty Societies

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 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.

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

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 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.

Social representations of history, wars and politics in Latin America, Europe and Africa

Abstract This study analyzes how people perceive world history on three continents: Latin America, Europe and Africa. A total of 1179 university students form Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Guinea-Bissau, and Cape Verde were asked to evaluate world events and leaders in terms of their valence and importance. The results demonstrated that social representations of history show a Euro/North American-centric, long-term positive evaluation, recency, and socio-centric bias. Euro/North American-centric events and leaders were found to be rated as more important and were more positively perceived in general. Distant political events, like French or American Revolution, were considered to be more positive than XX century similar events, which supports the long-term positive evaluation bias hypothesis. The hypothesis on recency bias was partially substantiated. Confirming the existence of such bias, World War II was rated as more important than the previous XX century wars and revolutions. Socio-centric bias also received partial support. African participants rated Mandela as a more important leader than other participants did. Latin Americans rated Che Guevara less positively, which suggests that some leaders are generally idealized icons, not based on group belongingness. However, results did not bring support to the centrality of war hypothesis. Wars were indeed negatively evaluated and World War II was rated as an important and negative event. Nevertheless, war- and politics-related events were not perceived as more important than the Industrial Revolution, suggesting that people appraise the importance of long-term socioeconomic factors of history when responding to close-ended quantitative measures (vs. open-ended salience measures). Results are discussed in the framework of social representations of history.

From Gist of a Wink to Structural Equivalence of Meaning: Towards a Cross-Cultural Psychology of the Collective Remembering of World History:

Gibson and Noret’s (2010 [this issue]) critique of Paez et al.’s (2008) article on “remembering” World War II and willingness to fight applies social constructionist epistemologies based on hermeneutics to large-scale cross-cultural research. In criticizing our operationalization of historical experience, they privilege micro-analysis of discursive features that cannot be applied equally to different cultures; with regards to remembering, they identify the context-specific evocation of a particular aspect of collective remembering with collective memory in general. Their criticism of the wording of the central question on willingness to fight for one’s country is misplaced because this item comes from country-level data from the World Values Survey. Our work, involving 3,322 participants from 22 societies with at least 14 different majority languages, provides analysis of a general phenomenon and cannot be expected to incorporate micro-analysis of local discursive features. Cross-cultural psychology has advanced into a position of international prominence by using quantitative measures to construct nomological or associational networks that create complementary (and alternative) conceptions of meaning to the “thick descriptions” of ethnography favored by cultural anthropology. A division of labor with respect to these fields and across projects is recommended.

A focus-group research into the lives of members of four inmigrant groups in Spain

Abstract A qualitative study with people from four cultural groups living in Spain is presented. Objectives: To analyse the social psychological impact of migration, exploring perceived cultural differences and migration experiences. Design: 8 focus groups with participants from Bulgaria, Morocco, Ecuador and Colombia (n = 49 participants). Results: The most frequent discourses were related to acculturative stress: changes in social life, gender differences, and hierarchical distance. The security motive was an important reason for migrating. Problems regarding ones well-being and experiences of prejudice and discrimination were the most mentioned regarding adaptation to host country. Participants stress lower hierarchical values, more gender equality, less family orientation and collectivism in Spain compared to their country of origin. There are also differences in communication styles and modes. Conclusion: Participants perceive cultural differences between cultures regarding Individualism, Collectivism and Hierarchy, showing a dual relationship with the host culture. Legal barriers are the most important issue hindering individual and collective development.