Moralized Memory: Binding Values Predict Inflated Estimates of the Group’S Historical Influence
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Memory ISSN: 0965-8211 (Print) 1464-0686 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pmem20 Moralized memory: binding values predict inflated estimates of the group’s historical influence Luke Churchill, Jeremy K. Yamashiro & Henry L. Roediger III To cite this article: Luke Churchill, Jeremy K. Yamashiro & Henry L. Roediger III (2019): Moralized memory: binding values predict inflated estimates of the group’s historical influence, Memory, DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2019.1623261 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1623261 View supplementary material Published online: 30 May 2019. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pmem20 MEMORY https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1623261 Moralized memory: binding values predict inflated estimates of the group’s historical influence Luke Churchill, Jeremy K. Yamashiro and Henry L. Roediger III Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Collective memories are memories or historical knowledge shared by individual group members, Received 10 January 2019 which shape their collective identity. Ingroup inflation, which has previously also been referred to Accepted 20 May 2019 as national narcissism or state narcissism, is the finding that group members judge their own KEYWORDS group to have been significantly more historically influential than do people from outside the Collective memory; collective group. We examined the role of moral motivations in this biased remembering. A sample of 2118 ’ narcissism; binding values; participants, on average 42 from each state of the United States, rated their home state s moral foundations theory; contribution to U.S. history, as well as that of ten other states randomly selected. We demonstrated cognitive attractor an ingroup inflation effect in estimates of the group’s historical influence. Participants’ endorsement of binding values – loyalty, authority, and sanctity, but particularly loyalty – positively predicted the size of this effect. Endorsement of individuating values – care and fairness – did not predict collective narcissism. Moral motives may shape biases in collective remembering. In a widely publicized 2016 speech at Texas A&M Univer- – romantic couples, sports teams, problem-solving groups sity, Richard Spencer, an influential figure in the American – Ross and Sicoly (1979) demonstrated that individuals pre- white supremacist Alt-Right movement, pronounced that ferentially remembered their own contributions to joint “as Europeans we are, uniquely, at the center of history” tasks at the expense of the contributions made by other (Edwards & Stevens, 2016). Although most may readily group members. People also attributed a greater pro- dismiss white nationalists’ revisionist telling of history, a portion of responsibility for collective outcomes to them- basic psychological phenomenon underlying Spencer’s selves, relative to other group members. Individuals’ ethnocentric rendering of the past may very well character- perception of their own influence was inflated. This ize historical remembering more generally. That is, people inflation arose partly due to the availability heuristic, in may represent history in a way that exaggerates their which one’s own actions are more accessible in memory group’s historical significance. Psychologists have most fre- than the actions of other people, and so are more likely quently studied collective narcissism – a strong emotional to be used when making judgments of responsibility investment in exaggerating the group’s greatness – as it (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). relates to self-esteem, perception of threat posed by outsi- Egocentric biases in availability and attribution as ders, the willingness to forgive historical wrongs, and as a described by Ross and Sicoly (1979) may also be found at predictor of intergroup aggression (e.g., de Zavala, the group level. Putnam, Ross, Soter, and Roediger (2018) Cichocka, Eidelson, & Jayawickreme, 2009). In other asked nearly three thousand Americans to estimate the words, psychologists have studied collective narcissism’s proportion of U.S. history that could be attributed to their impact on intergroup relations. We are interested in exam- home state and then make such estimates for ten other ining two somewhat different aspects of collective narcis- randomly selected U.S. states. Mean in-state ratings were sism: how a group-centric bias might manifest when reliably higher than corresponding out-of-state ratings for people think about history, and how group-oriented all states except Washington.1 That is, people inflated moral values might play a role in motivating such biases their own state’s historical contribution above and in collective memory. beyond what might be considered a reasonable baseline calculated from an aggregate, national consensus. The mean out-of-state rating for each state allowed Putnam Group-centric bias in collective remembering et al. to control for historical contingency, in that people It is well established that people tend to over-claim respon- from certain states genuinely did exert a greater degree sibility for positive outcomes. Across several types of group of historical influence than people from others (e.g., Virgi- CONTACT Jeremy K. Yamashiro [email protected] Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences – Campus Box 1125, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899, USA Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at http://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1623261. © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 L. CHURCHILL ET AL. nia or Massachusetts vs. South Dakota or Idaho). Putnam most people endorse individuating values to similar et al. termed this psychological inflation of the ingroup’s degrees, people vary considerably in the extent to which historical influence state narcissism and characterized it as they are motivated by the group-oriented binding values. a group-centric bias in collective memory analogous to For instance, conservatives are more likely than liberals to Ross and Sicoly’s(1979) egocentric bias. Instead of moralize loyalty towards other members of their groups inflating their own influence relative to other ingroup and respect for legitimate social hierarchies, as well as to members, participants inflated their group’sinfluence rela- sanctify group symbols like the nation’s flag (Graham, tive to that of other groups. Haidt, & Nosek, 2009). Such inflated perceptions of the group’s historical influence also appear at the level of nations. As part of Memory and morality the 35 country World History Survey, Zaromb, Liu, Hanke, Putnam, and Roediger (2018) asked participants to esti- In the current study, we proposed that people higher in mate the proportion of world history for which their own binding values should be more likely to think of history country was responsible. Across thousands of years of in a way that centres their own group – that is, in which human civilization and countless nations (193 modern the ingroup is perceived as more powerful, influential, countries are in the UN, for instance, and many more and special relative to other groups. Moral values should than that have existed historically), even very influential shape collective remembering in such characteristic ways countries should realistically claim relatively small in part because, by definition, binding values lead people amounts of credit. Nevertheless, members of the 35 to attribute more value to their groups in general. If tested nations reported extraordinarily high estimates for ingroup affection and ego-protection are two of the poten- their nation’sinfluence; collectively, Zaromb et al.’s partici- tial mechanisms driving ingroup inflation (the other being pants claimed responsibility for 1156% of world history. the availability heuristic; Putnam et al., 2018, 2019), and In all demonstrations to date of national or state narcis- people higher in binding values experience greater sism effects, the effect is unevenly distributed. That is, there ingroup affection, they should also show greater ingroup is considerable regional variation in the size of the effect. inflation in collective memory. Zaromb et al. (2018) speculated that systematic differences This inquiry is in part inspired by Zaromb et al.’s(2018) in people’s image of their nation’s history could be driven speculation that some of the variance in national narcis- by differences in cultural values. They did not, however, sism from their multi-national sample might be attributed test for this proposed mechanism. A similar question to variations in cultural values. In their study, participants arises from Putnam et al.’s(2018) data on U.S. states, from cultures sharing traditional and survival values which likewise showed a fair amount of regional variability (versus secular/rational and self-expressive values; Ingel- in the average size of their state narcissism effects. Cogni- hard & Welzel, 2010) tended to show the most national nar- tive factors such as the availability heuristic undoubtedly cissism in collective remembering. As established above, do play an important role in explaining state and national the group-oriented binding values of loyalty, authority, narcissism effects (Putnam, Sterling-Maisel, & Ross, 2019), and sanctity tend to be more heavily endorsed among but what would