Identifying stories of ‘us’: A mixed-method analysis of the meaning, contents and associations of national narratives constructed by Americans

IF 2.8 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL European Journal of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2023-12-29 DOI:10.1002/ejsp.3025
Sarah Y. Choi, James H. Liu
{"title":"Identifying stories of ‘us’: A mixed-method analysis of the meaning, contents and associations of national narratives constructed by Americans","authors":"Sarah Y. Choi,&nbsp;James H. Liu","doi":"10.1002/ejsp.3025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>How do lay individuals reconstruct, appropriate or resist culturally sanctioned narratives about their nation's past? The current study examined this question through an open-ended survey administered to a US sample, stratified by age and gender (N = 399). We identified three major historical narratives that were popular among Americans. Specifically, we identified positive narratives of the nation's <i>progress</i> over time and <i>glorifying</i> narratives of American exceptionalism, alongside a popular counter-narrative that was <i>critical</i> of the nation as reproducing ongoing cycles of injustice. Representations of national origins were significantly more salient for the narratives of Progress and Glorification, while more recent and lived events were salient for Critical narratives. Progress and Critical narratives were both associated with a constructive orientation to national identity, while Glorifying narratives were associated with blind patriotism. Critical and Glorifying narratives were consistently opposed in their associated political attitudes and in their patterns of endorsement across party affiliations. Overall, it appeared that narratives of progress were most popular and least polarised. We discuss the implications of these findings through the perspective that narratives provide dynamic content for identity construction as well as the means for articulating resistance to hegemony within specific historical and political contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":48377,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsp.3025","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3025","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How do lay individuals reconstruct, appropriate or resist culturally sanctioned narratives about their nation's past? The current study examined this question through an open-ended survey administered to a US sample, stratified by age and gender (N = 399). We identified three major historical narratives that were popular among Americans. Specifically, we identified positive narratives of the nation's progress over time and glorifying narratives of American exceptionalism, alongside a popular counter-narrative that was critical of the nation as reproducing ongoing cycles of injustice. Representations of national origins were significantly more salient for the narratives of Progress and Glorification, while more recent and lived events were salient for Critical narratives. Progress and Critical narratives were both associated with a constructive orientation to national identity, while Glorifying narratives were associated with blind patriotism. Critical and Glorifying narratives were consistently opposed in their associated political attitudes and in their patterns of endorsement across party affiliations. Overall, it appeared that narratives of progress were most popular and least polarised. We discuss the implications of these findings through the perspective that narratives provide dynamic content for identity construction as well as the means for articulating resistance to hegemony within specific historical and political contexts.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
识别 "我们 "的故事:对美国人构建的国家叙事的意义、内容和关联的混合方法分析
非专业人士如何重建、采用或抵制文化认可的有关其国家过去的叙述?本研究通过一项开放式调查对这一问题进行了研究,调查对象为美国样本,按年龄和性别进行了分层(N = 399)。我们确定了在美国人中流行的三大历史叙事。具体来说,我们发现了关于美国长期进步的正面叙事和美化美国例外论的叙事,同时还发现了一种流行的反面叙事,即批判美国不断复制不公正循环的叙事。进步叙事和美化叙事对国家起源的表述明显更为突出,而批判叙事则对近期发生的事件更为突出。进步叙事和批判叙事都与国家认同的建设性取向有关,而美化叙事则与盲目的爱国主义有关。批判性叙事和美化性叙事在其相关的政治态度和不同党派的支持模式上始终是对立的。总体看来,进步叙事最受欢迎,两极分化最小。我们从叙事为身份建构提供动态内容以及在特定历史和政治背景下表达对霸权的抵制这一角度来讨论这些发现的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
84
期刊介绍: Topics covered include, among others, intergroup relations, group processes, social cognition, attitudes, social influence and persuasion, self and identity, verbal and nonverbal communication, language and thought, affect and emotion, embodied and situated cognition and individual differences of social-psychological relevance. Together with original research articles, the European Journal of Social Psychology"s innovative and inclusive style is reflected in the variety of articles published: Research Article: Original articles that provide a significant contribution to the understanding of social phenomena, up to a maximum of 12,000 words in length.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information ‘(N)One of us but all of them!’ Ingroup favouritism on individual and group levels in the context of deviant behaviour Never again: Lessons of genocide in survivor testimonies from the Holocaust, Nanjing massacre and Rwandan genocide Age of the examiner and older people's memory performances: A test of the stereotype threat theory using variations on negative age stereotypes across 18 European countries Do women only apply when they are 100% qualified, whereas men already apply when they are 60% qualified?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1