Malleable national collective memories among Black and White Americans.

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1037/xge0001613
Travis G Cyr, William Hirst
{"title":"Malleable national collective memories among Black and White Americans.","authors":"Travis G Cyr, William Hirst","doi":"10.1037/xge0001613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How do groups remember their shared past? Are there individual differences within a group? How easy is it to change collective memories? The present article addresses these questions by focusing on differences within national subgroups, exploring how national collective memories might differ for Black and White Americans, how individual differences and external influences might moderate or alter any differences, and the temporal extent of any changes that might occur due to external influences. Across four studies, participants were asked to identify the five \"most important\" events in U.S. history and then asked about their political ideology and racial and national identification, though not in every study. Although individual differences emerged, Black and White participants differed in the types of events they identified as important in U.S. history, with Black participants identifying more race-relevant events than White participants and White participants identifying more traditional founding events than Black participants. As to changes in collective memory, in response to a minimal identity salience manipulation, the murder of George Floyd, and July 4th celebrations, national collective memories evidenced malleability only after the murder of George Floyd. In this instance, the mention of race-relevant events increased, even as the frequency of mention of traditional founding events remained stable. The observed increase in race-relevant events was temporary, however. Findings are discussed in relation to contemporary discussions on collective memory, especially with respect to group differences, individual differences within groups, and mnemonic inertia. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001613","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How do groups remember their shared past? Are there individual differences within a group? How easy is it to change collective memories? The present article addresses these questions by focusing on differences within national subgroups, exploring how national collective memories might differ for Black and White Americans, how individual differences and external influences might moderate or alter any differences, and the temporal extent of any changes that might occur due to external influences. Across four studies, participants were asked to identify the five "most important" events in U.S. history and then asked about their political ideology and racial and national identification, though not in every study. Although individual differences emerged, Black and White participants differed in the types of events they identified as important in U.S. history, with Black participants identifying more race-relevant events than White participants and White participants identifying more traditional founding events than Black participants. As to changes in collective memory, in response to a minimal identity salience manipulation, the murder of George Floyd, and July 4th celebrations, national collective memories evidenced malleability only after the murder of George Floyd. In this instance, the mention of race-relevant events increased, even as the frequency of mention of traditional founding events remained stable. The observed increase in race-relevant events was temporary, however. Findings are discussed in relation to contemporary discussions on collective memory, especially with respect to group differences, individual differences within groups, and mnemonic inertia. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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
美国黑人和白人中可塑的民族集体记忆。
群体如何记忆共同的过去?群体内部是否存在个体差异?改变集体记忆有多容易?本文针对这些问题,将重点放在国家亚群体内部的差异上,探讨美国黑人和白人的国家集体记忆可能有何不同,个体差异和外部影响可能如何缓和或改变任何差异,以及由于外部影响而可能发生的任何变化的时间范围。在四项研究中,参与者被要求找出美国历史上五个 "最重要 "的事件,然后被问及他们的政治意识形态以及种族和民族认同,但并非每项研究都是如此。虽然出现了个体差异,但黑人和白人参与者在认定美国历史上重要事件的类型上有所不同,黑人参与者比白人参与者认定了更多与种族相关的事件,而白人参与者比黑人参与者认定了更多传统的建国事件。至于集体记忆的变化,在对最低身份显著性操作、乔治-弗洛伊德谋杀案和七月四日庆祝活动的反应中,只有在乔治-弗洛伊德谋杀案之后,国家集体记忆才表现出可塑性。在这种情况下,提及种族相关事件的频率增加了,而提及传统建国事件的频率却保持稳定。不过,所观察到的种族相关事件的增加是暂时的。本文结合当代有关集体记忆的讨论,特别是有关群体差异、群体内个体差异和记忆惯性的讨论,对研究结果进行了讨论。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
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
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
期刊最新文献
Vitamin B12: prevention of human beings from lethal diseases and its food application. Current status and obstacles of narrowing yield gaps of four major crops. Cold shock treatment alleviates pitting in sweet cherry fruit by enhancing antioxidant enzymes activity and regulating membrane lipid metabolism. Removal of proteins and lipids affects structure, in vitro digestion and physicochemical properties of rice flour modified by heat-moisture treatment. Investigating the impact of climate variables on the organic honey yield in Turkey using XGBoost machine learning.
×
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