首页> 外文OA文献 >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
【2h】

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

机译:世界历史事件评估中意义的跨文化维度?对三十个社会的历史灾难和跨文化数据的了解

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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
机译:使用从30个国家/地区的5800名大学生中收集的世界历史调查数据,对世界历史上40项事件进行定量评估(阴性-阳性)的普遍性与文化特异性。使用广义过程分析进行的多维标度表明,来自30个国家的数据与总体均值配置的拟合度较差,表明在世界历史上事件的关联意义上缺乏普遍共识。层次聚类分析确定了一个西方和两个非西方国家聚类,它们在项目删除后获得了适当的多维拟合。确定了三个国家集群的二维解决方案,其主要方面是历史灾难与进步的对立,而较弱的第二方面是现代性与对现代性的抵抗。因子分析进一步减少了物品清单,以识别具有跨文化等价结构的单一概念,即历史灾难,包括人为和自然,有意和无意,主要是暴力但也包括非暴力的灾难。较弱的因素暂时命名为“历史进步”和“历史对压迫的抵抗”。在层次上的线性模型中,历史灾难和历史进步是个人和国家争夺意愿的重要和独立预测因素,该线性模型也确定了这些关系在国家/地区之间的重大差异。围绕灾难达成共识,但就什么构成历史进步,就各国的政治文化进行了讨论,并把历史视为灾难

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号