Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

TitleCross-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
Author(s)Liu, James H.
Paez, Dario
Hanke, Katja
Rosa, Alberto
Hilton, Denis J.
Sibley, Chris G.
Cabecinhas, Rosa
Zaromb, Franklin
Garber, Ilya E.
Leong, Chan-Hoong
Moloney, Gail
Valchev, Velichko
Gastardo-Conaco, Cecilia
Huang, Li-Li
Quek, Ai-Hwa
Techio, Elza
Sen, Ragini
Van Osch, Yvette
Muluk, Hamdi
Wagner, Wolfgang
Wang, Feixue
Khan, Sammyh S.
Licata, Laurent
Klein, Olivier
László, János
Fülöp, Márta
Cheung, Jacky Chau-kiu
Yue, Xiaodong
Youssef, Samia Ben
Kim, Uichol
Park, Youngshin
Puch-Bouwman, Jen
Hassall, Katayoun
Adair, John
Unik, Lauren
Spini, Dario
Henchoz, Karine
Böhm, Gisela
Selart, Marcus
Erb, Hans-Peter
Thoben, Deborah Felicitas
Leone, Giovanna
Mastrovito, Tiziana
Atsumi, Tomohide
Suwa, Ko-ichi
KeywordsWorld history survey
Perceptions of history
Cross-cultural dimensions of meaning
Evaluation of historical events
Historical calamities
Historical progress
Historical resistance to oppression
Willingness to fight for one’s country
evaluation o.h.storical events
perceptions o.h.story
willingness t.f.ght for one's country
Issue date2012
JournalJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
CitationLiu, J.H., Paez, D., Hanke, K., Rosa, A., Hilton, D.J., Sibley, C.G., Cabecinhas, et al. (2012) “Cross-cultural dimensions of meaning in the evaluation of events in world history? Perceptions of historical calamities and progress in cross-cultural data from 30 societies”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.43, 251-272, doi: 10.1177/0022022110390926
Abstract(s)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
Publisher version
AccessOpen access
Appears in Collections:CECS - Artigos em revistas internacionais / Articles in international journals

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Liu et al (2012) world history JCCP.pdfDocumento principal317,58 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Partilhe no FacebookPartilhe no TwitterPartilhe no DeliciousPartilhe no LinkedInPartilhe no DiggAdicionar ao Google BookmarksPartilhe no MySpacePartilhe no Orkut
Exporte no formato BibTex mendeley Exporte no formato Endnote Adicione ao seu ORCID