Identity, narrative, and cultural–historical context in evaluating personal and public events.

Abstract

In this commentary, we suggest that a model explaining the dissociation between the evaluation of personal and public past and future events proposed by Liu and Szpunar (2023) might profit from considering more systematically the cultural-historical context of selecting and evaluating events. This would entail identifying psychological mechanisms which, in combination with contextual variation, predict the proposed dissociation or other evaluative configurations. We suggest combining self-enhancement with independent versus interdependent self-construal and current historical state of affairs to explain the evaluation of events. Second, we argue that taking into account the narrative context of events not only in theory but also methodologically might render the model more powerful. We point to intersections between individual life narratives and collective histories of nations and highlight their differences in scriptedness. These additional considerations may contribute to explaining different appraisals of personal and national events.

On the relations between personal and national event cognition: Theoretical and methodological considerations.

“…For instance, Zerr et al (2023) suggest that the valence-based dissociation between personal and collective cognition may be tied to the fluency-based cueing techniques that have dominated early studies in this area. Moreover, Zerr et al (2023) and Habermas et al (2023) suggest that additional work with narrative-based techniques is needed to better understand not just what events come to mind but the situational context, meaning, and function of those events (see also Daley et al, 2023; Hirst & Topçu, 2023).…”

“…Choi and Liu (2023) used such a method with an American sample and found that approximately 65% of the sample was able to provide an overall historical narrative. The fact that about a third of a small but stratified American sample was unable to provide a meaningful account of their historical event nominations suggests some possible limitations to Zerr et al (2023) and Habermas et al’s (2023) call for the use of more narrative-based techniques. Nonetheless, the detail (or lack thereof) with which people are able to contextualize their nationally oriented cognitions should help to further illuminate our understanding of collective cognition.…”

“…Those authors found that people characterized the future of their family as more positive than negative, whereas the future of their State of residence was characterized as more negative than positive. Shrikanth et al (2018) suggested that the valence-based dissociation between personal and collective cognition may be less about some true underlying difference between individuals and groups but rather, as Habermas et al (2023) contend, more about the extent to which one holds some sense of a connection to the groups under consideration.…”

“…Related to these points, Habermas et al (2023) also argue that valence-based differences between personal and group pasts and futures may reflect a function of self-enhancement processes (e.g., Shepperd et al, 2013), such that the future of groups with which people identify with may be seen as more positive than negative. Although we agree that this is a plausible explanation, whether the biases that we have covered in our target article reflect distinctions between self and groups or rather individuals (self or other) and groups remains to be determined through further experimentation.…”

“…Although we agree that this is a plausible explanation, whether the biases that we have covered in our target article reflect distinctions between self and groups or rather individuals (self or other) and groups remains to be determined through further experimentation. In either case, as Habermas et al (2023) argue, considerations of similarities and differences in terms of how people characterize the personal and collective past and future will need to take into consideration the relation(s) of the individual to the group(s) of interest.…”