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
Liu, JH, Paez, D, Hanke, K, Rosa, A, Hilton, DJ, Sibley, CG, Cabecinhas, R, Zaromb, F, Garber, IE, Leong, C-H, Moloney, G, Valchev, V, Gastardo-Conaco, C, Huang, L-L, Quek, A-H, Techio, E, Sen, R, van Osch, Y, Muluk, H, Wagner, W, Wang, F, Khan, SS, Licata, L, Klein, O, Laszlo, J, Fulop, M, Cheung, JC-K, Yue, X, Youssef, SB, Kim, U, Park, Y, Puch-Bouwman, J, Hassall, K, Adair, J, Unik, L, Spini, D, Henchoz, K, Bohm, G, Selart, M, Erb, H-P, Thoben, DF, Leone, G, Mastrovito, T, Atsumi, T & Suwa, K 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 thirty societies', Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 251-272.
Published version available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022110390926
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.