Cross-Cultural Dimensions of Meaning in the Evaluation of Events in World History?
Dados Bibliográficos
| AUTOR(ES) | |
|---|---|
| AFILIAÇÃO(ÕES) | Inha University, Incheon, Korea, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, Logistics, India, Sun-Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, University of the South Pacific, Fiji, University of Minho, Portugal, University of Rome, Italy, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, Victoria University, University of the Basque Country, Spain, University of Lausanne, Switzerland, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan, University of the Philippines-Diliman, Philippines, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, National University, Tiradentes University, Brazil, Tilburg University, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain, University of Toulouse II, Le Mirail, France, Saratov State Socio-economic University, Russia, Southern Cross University, Australia, University Of Malaya, Humanities Research Cluster Research Cluster Office Level 7, Research Management & Innovation Complex University Of Malaya 50603 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, University of Indonesia, Indonesia, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, Tunisia, University of Bergen, Norway, NHH, Norway, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany, Osaka University, Japan |
| ANO | 2012 |
| TIPO | Artigo |
| PERIÓDICO | Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology |
| ISSN | 0022-0221 |
| E-ISSN | 1552-5422 |
| EDITORA | Annual Reviews (United States) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022022110390926 |
| CITAÇÕES | 1 |
| ADICIONADO EM | 2025-08-18 |
| MD5 |
b985be897ab96616089068e823a46a01
|
Resumo
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.