Afterthoughts on biases in history perception

• Authors: Maciej Dymkowski
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Contemporary social psychology describes various deformations of processing social information leading to distortions of knowledge about other people. What is more, a person in everyday life refers to lay convictions and ideas common in his/ her cultural environment that distort his/her perceptions. Therefore it is difficult to be surprised that authors of narrations in which participants of history are presented use easily available common-sense psychology, deforming images of both the participants of history and their activities, as well as the sequence of events determined by these activities. Which cognitive biases, how often, and in what intensity they will be presented in historical narrations depend on statements of dominating common-sense psychology. The article outlines some biases made by historian-lay psychologists, such as attributional asymmetry or hindsight effects, whose occurrence in their thinking, as formed in the cultural sphere of the West, influences history perception and conducted historical interpretations.

Keywords

EN

cognitive bias; common-sense psychology; historical interpretation; history perception

• Publisher: Committee for Psychological Sciences, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Journal: Polish Psychological Bulletin
• Year: 2010
• Volume: 41
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 84-90

Contributors

author

Maciej Dymkowski

• Warsaw School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wrocław Faculty, ul. Grunwaldzka 98, PL 50-357 Wrocław, Poland

References

• Ankersmit, F. (2004).Narracja, reprezentacja, doświadczenie. Studia z teorii historiografii[Narrative, representation, experience. Studies from theory of historiography] Kraków: Universitas.
• Bouwel, J. V. & E. Weber, E. (2008). A pragmatist defense of non-relativistic explanatory pluralism in history and social science.History & Theory, 47, 168-182.
• Christensen-Szalanski, J. J. J. & Willham, C. F. (1991). The hindsight bias: A meta-analysis.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 147-168.
• Davis, M. H. (1994).Empathy: A social psychological approach.Madison: Brown & Benchmark.
• D'Oro, G. (2009). Reclaiming the ancestors of Simulation Theory.History & Theory, 48, 129-139.
• Dymkowski, M. (2000).Między psychologią a historią. O roli złudzeń w dziejach[Between psychology and history. On role of illusions in history]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
• Dymkowski, M. (2006). Próby rozumienia uczestników dziejów jako źródło deformacji poznania historycznego [The attempts of history participants comprehension as a source of the biases in historical cognition].Historyka. Studia Metodologiczne, 36, 23-35.
• Dymkowski, M., Domin, M., Marszałek, S., & Pałasiński, M. (2007). The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment: Hindsight bias among historians.Polish Psychological Bulletin, 38, 24-31.
• Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (1991).Social cognition(2-d ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
• Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288-299.
• Guilbault, R. L., Bryant, F. B., Brockway, J. H., & Posavac, E. J. (2004). A meta-analysis of research on hindsight bias.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26, 103-117.
• Hawkins, S. A. & Hastie, R. (1990). Hindsight: Biased judgments of past events after the outcomes are known.Psychological Bulletin, 107, 311-327.
• Hempel, C. (1949). The function of general laws in history. In: H. Feigl & W. Sellars (Eds.),Readings in philosophical analysis(pp. 503-517). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Hempel, C. (1991). Laws and their role in scientific explanation. In R. Boyd, P. Gasper, & J. D. Troutt (Eds.),The philosophy of science(pp. 299-315). Cambridge-London: A Bradford Book, MIT.
• Hilton, D. J., McClure, J., & Sutton, R. M. (2010). Selecting explanations from causal chains: Do statistical principles explain preferences for voluntary causes?European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 383-400.
• Huang, C. C. (2007). The defining character of Chinese historical thinking.History & Theory, 46, 180-188.
• Ji, L. J. (2008). The leopard cannot change his spots, or can he? Culture and the development of lay theories of change.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 613-622.
• Ji, L. J., Guo, T., Zhang, Z., & Messervey, D. (2009). Looking into the past: cultural differences in perception and representation of the past.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 761-769;
• Kaye, S. T. (2010). Challenging certainty: The utility and history of counterfactualism.History & Theory, 49, 38-57.
• Lorenz, Ch. (2009).Przekraczanie granic. Eseje z filozofii historii i teorii historiografii[Bordercrossings. Essays from philosophy of history and theory of historiography]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie.
• Mey, T. D. & Weber, E. (2003). Explanation and thought experiments in history.History & Theory, 42, 28-38.
• Nisbett, R. E. (2003).The geography of thought. How Asians and Westerners think differently … and why.New York: The Free Press.
• Nisbett, R. E. & Ross, L. (1980).Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment.New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
• Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and cllectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
• Pezzo, M. V. (2003). Surprise, defense, or making sense: What removes hindsight bias?Memory, 11, 421-441.
• Rembowski, J. (1989).Empatia. Studium psychologiczne[Empathy. Psychological study]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
• Rosenfeld, G. (2002). Why do ask ‘what if?’ Reflections on the function of alternate history.History & Theory, 41, 90-103.
• Sanna, L. J., Schwarz, N., & Stocker, S. L. (2002). When debiasing backfires: Accessible content and accessibility experiences in debiasing hindsight.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 497-502.
• Sanna, L. J. & Schwarz, N. (2003). Debiasing the hindsight bias: The role of accessibility experiences and (mis)attributions,Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 287-295.
• Stannard, D. (1980).Shrinking history. On Freud and failure of psychohistory.New York: Oxford University Press.
• Stueber, K. R. (2002). The psychological basis of historical explanation: Reenactment, simulation, and the fusion of horizons.History & Theory, 41, 25-42.
• Stueber, K. R. (2008). Reasons, generalizations, empathy, and narratives: The epistemic structure of action explanation.History & Theory, 47, 31-43.
• Szaluta, J. (1999).Psychohistory: Theory and practice.New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
• Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),Psychology of intergroup relations(pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.
• Teigen, K. H. (2004). When the past becomes history: Effects of temporal order on explanations of trends.European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 191-206.
• Topolski, J. (1996).Jak się pisze i rozumiehistorię [How one writes and comprehends the history]. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza Rytm.
• Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Science, 185, 1124-1131.
• Voss, J. F. & Wiley, J. (2006). Expertise in history. In: K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.),The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance(pp. 569-584). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Wasserman, D., Lempert, R. O., & Hastie, R. (1991). Hindsight and causality.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 30-35.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10059-010-0011-5