Socio-cognitive aspects of war memory: the experience of Sarajevo and East Sarajevo

Glavni cilj ovog istraživanja je ispitati pristrasnost u sjećanjima za četiri ratna događaja s obzirom na položaj pojedinca i njegove/njene grupe tokom tih događaja (žrtva ili počinilac) i utvrditi da li postoji povezanost između pristrasnosti i spremnosti na pomirenje. Istraživanje je obuhvatilo ukupno 240 ispitanika, pri čemu su 80 bili Bošnjaci iz Sarajeva, 80 Srbi iz Sarajeva i 80 Srbi iz Istočnog Sarajeva. U svakoj grupi bio je zastupljen podjednak broj ispitanika mlađe generacije (15-19) godina i starije generacije (ispitanici koji su na početku rata u BiH, 1992. godine imali 18 i više godina), kao i jednak broj muških i ženskih ispitanika. U istraživanju su primijenjeni strukturirani intervju i Skala spremnosti na pomirenje (Petrović, 2004). Podaci dobiveni itervjuom su analizirani od strane dva neovisna procjenjivača koji su kodirali odgovore prema sedam indikatora pristrasnosti (datiranje događaja, opširnost opisa, prisjećanje, krivnja, viktimizacija, komemoracija i empatija). Indikatori su određeni na temelju fenomenoloških aspekata sjećanja, Schacterove teorije o pogreškama pamćenja i Bar-Talovih tema o formiranju narativa o konfliktu. Dvosmjerna ANOVA i korelacije su provedene kako bi se analiziralo prisustvo pristrasnosti u sjećanjima i njen utjecaj na spremnost na pomirenje. Rezultati su djelimično potvrdili tri hipoteze, te se zaključuje da je etničko-entitetska pripadnost značajno određivala pristrasnost u sjećanjima na događaje. Najveću pristrasnost prema bošnjačkim žrtvama i najmanju prema srpskim žrtvama pokazivali su Bošnjaci iz Sarajeva, i obrnuto: najveću pristrasnost prema srpskim žrtvama a najmanju prema bošnjačkim žrtvama pokazivali su Srbi iz Istočnog Sarajeva. Izuzetak su činili Srbi iz Sarajeva čiji rezultati nisu u potpunosti odgovarali rezultatima Bošnjaka ali ni rezultatima Srba iz Istočnog Sarajeva. Također, pristrasnot se nije jednako manifestirala kroz svih sedam indikatora, pa je tako kod datiranja, empatije, opširnosti i komemoracija dob imala značajnu ulogu, dok kod preostalih indikatora (viktimizacija, prisjećanje i krivnja) to nije bio slučaj. Rezultati su djelimično potvrdili i treću hipotezu, tj.ispitanici koji su imali više rezultate na pristrasnosti prema žrtvama iz svoje grupe (pa samim tim i prema svojoj grupi), pokazali su manju spremnost na pomirenje, što se posebno pokazalo značajnim na subskalama Oprost i Povjerenje, dok nije bilo značajnih rezultata na subskalama Saradnja i Rehumanizacija. Jedan od doprinosa ovog istraživanja je kvantitativna analiza pristrasnosti sjećanja. Također, istraživanje otvara mogućnosti za buduće studije uloge sjećanja u izgradnji mira, kao i organizaciji nastave historije kroz pedagogiju sjećanja.The main objective of this research is to examine the bias in memories of four war events with respect to the position of an individual and his / her group during those events (victim or perpetrator) and to determine whether there is a link between bias and willingness to reconcile. The survey included a total of 240 respondents, with 80 being Bosniaks from Sarajevo, 80 Serbs from Sarajevo and 80 Serbs from East Sarajevo. In each group, there was an equal number of respondents of the younger generation (15-19) and the older generation (respondents who were 18 and older at the beginning of the war in BiH in 1992), as well as an equal number of male and female respondents. The structured interview and the Scale of Readiness for Reconciliation (Petrović, 2004) were applied. Interview data were analyzed by two independent evaluators who coded responses according to seven indicators of bias (event dating, description length, retelling, guilt, victimization, commemoration, and empathy.) Indicators were determined based on phenomenological aspects of memory, Schacter's theory of memory errors and Bar-Tal’s themes on the formation of narratives of conflict. Two-way ANOVA and correlations were conducted to analyze the presence of bias in memories and its impact on readiness for reconciliation. The results partially confirmed three hypotheses, and it is concluded that the combination of ethnicity and residence (Federation Bosnia-Herzegovina or Republic of Srpska) significantly determined bias in memories of four events. Bosniaks from Sarajevo showed the greatest bias towards Bosniak victims and the least towards Serb victims, and vice versa: Serbs from East Sarajevo showed the greatest bias towards Serb victims and the least towards Bosniak victims. Exceptions were Serbs from Sarajevo, whose results did not fully correspond to the results of Bosniaks, but also to the results of Serbs from East Sarajevo. Also, bias did not manifest equally across all seven indicators, so in event dating, empathy, extensiveness, and commemoration, age played a significant role, while in the remaining indicators (victimization, recollection, and guilt) it was not the case. The results partially confirmed the third hypothesis, ie respondents who had higher results on the bias towards victims from their group (and therefore towards their group), showed less willingness to reconcile, which was especially important on the Forgiveness and Trust subscales, while there were no significant results on the subscales of Cooperation and Rehumanization. One of the contributions of this research is a quantitative analysis of memory bias. Also, the research opens opportunities for future studies of the role of memory in peacebuilding, as well as the organization of history teaching through memory pedagogy

Iron fists and velvet gloves:Investigating the associations between the stringency of governments’ responses to COVID-19, stress, and compliance in the early stages of the pandemic

To tackle the spread of COVID‐19, governments worldwide have implemented restrictive public health behavioural measures. Whether and when these measures lead to positive or negative psychological outcomes is still debated. In this study, drawing on a large sample of individuals (N (total) = 89,798) from 45 nations, we investigated whether the stringency of public health measures implemented at the outset of the COVID‐19 pandemic in March–May 2020 was associated with individuals’ levels of stress and compliance. Moreover, we addressed the question of how these associations may be moderated by the measures’ implementation lag, nations’ tolerance for unequal distributions of power (i.e., power distance), and individuals’ institutional trust. Linear mixed models suggested that slower implementation of less stringent measures was associated with higher stress and lower compliance. Also, rapid implementation of stricter measures was associated with a mild increase in stress. Such effects were especially pronounced in countries with less tolerance for inequality. Albeit significant, the moderating effect of institutional trust was very small. The results suggest that it may be important to consider the measures’ implementation lag when tackling the spread of COVID‐19, but findings should be interpreted in relation to the data collection period

Validity Testing of the Conspiratorial Thinking and Anti-Expert Sentiment Scales during the COVID-19 Pandemic Across 24 Languages from a Large-Scale Global Dataset.

In this study, we tested the validity across two scales addressing conspiratorial thinking that may influence behaviours related to public health and the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the COVIDiSTRESSII Global Survey data from 12 261 participants, we validated the 4-item Conspiratorial Thinking Scale and 3-item Anti-Expert Sentiment Scale across 24 languages and dialects that were used by at least 100 participants per language. We employed confirmatory factor analysis, measurement invariance test and measurement alignment for internal consistency testing. To test convergent validity of the two scales, we assessed correlations with trust in seven agents related to government, science and public health. Although scalar invariance was not achieved when measurement invariance test was conducted initially, we found that both scales can be employed in further international studies with measurement alignment. Moreover, both conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiments were significantly and negatively correlated with trust in all agents. Findings from this study provide supporting evidence for the validity of both scales across 24 languages for future large-scale international research

Validity testing of the conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiment scales during the COVID-19 pandemic across 24 languages from a large-scale global dataset

In this study, we tested the validity across two scales addressing conspiratorial thinking that may influence behaviours related to public health and the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the COVIDiSTRESSII Global Survey data from 12 261 participants, we validated the 4-item Conspiratorial Thinking Scale and 3-item Anti-Expert Sentiment Scale across 24 languages and dialects that were used by at least 100 participants per language. We employed confirmatory factor analysis, measurement invariance test and measurement alignment for internal consistency testing. To test convergent validity of the two scales, we assessed correlations with trust in seven agents related to government, science and public health. Although scalar invariance was not achieved when measurement invariance test was conducted initially, we found that both scales can be employed in further international studies with measurement alignment. Moreover, both conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiments were significantly and negatively correlated with trust in all agents. Findings from this study provide supporting evidence for the validity of both scales across 24 languages for future large-scale international research

Mediation analysis of conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiments on vaccine willingness

Objective: Vaccines are an effective means to reduce the spread of diseases, but they are sometimes met with hesitancy that needs to be understood. Method: In this study, we analyzed data from a large, cross-country survey conducted between June and August 2021 in 43 countries (N = 15,740) to investigate the roles of trust in government and science in shaping vaccine attitudes and willingness to be vaccinated. Results: Despite significant variability between countries, we found that both forms of institutional trust were associated with a higher willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, we found that conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiments predicted reduced trust in government and science, respectively, and that trust mediated the relationship between these two constructs and ultimate vaccine attitudes. Although most countries displayed similar relationships between conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiments, trust in government and science, and vaccine attitudes, we identified three countries (Brazil, Honduras, and Russia) that demonstrated significantly altered associations between the examined variables in terms of significant random slopes. Conclusions: Cross-country differences suggest that local governments’ support for COVID-19 prevention policies can influence populations’ vaccine attitudes. These findings provide insight for policymakers to develop interventions aiming to increase trust in the institutions involved in the vaccination process

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis.</p

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/ytbcs. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic : relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis.Peer reviewe

Socio-cognitive aspects of war memory: the experience of Sarajevo and East Sarajevo

Glavni cilj ovog istraživanja je ispitati pristrasnost u sjećanjima za četiri ratna događaja s obzirom na položaj pojedinca i njegove/njene grupe tokom tih događaja (žrtva ili počinilac) i utvrditi da li postoji povezanost između pristrasnosti i spremnosti na pomirenje. Istraživanje je obuhvatilo ukupno 240 ispitanika, pri čemu su 80 bili Bošnjaci iz Sarajeva, 80 Srbi iz Sarajeva i 80 Srbi iz Istočnog Sarajeva. U svakoj grupi bio je zastupljen podjednak broj ispitanika mlađe generacije (15-19) godina i starije generacije (ispitanici koji su na početku rata u BiH, 1992. godine imali 18 i više godina), kao i jednak broj muških i ženskih ispitanika. U istraživanju su primijenjeni strukturirani intervju i Skala spremnosti na pomirenje (Petrović, 2004). Podaci dobiveni itervjuom su analizirani od strane dva neovisna procjenjivača koji su kodirali odgovore prema sedam indikatora pristrasnosti (datiranje događaja, opširnost opisa, prisjećanje, krivnja, viktimizacija, komemoracija i empatija). Indikatori su određeni na temelju fenomenoloških aspekata sjećanja, Schacterove teorije o pogreškama pamćenja i Bar-Talovih tema o formiranju narativa o konfliktu. Dvosmjerna ANOVA i korelacije su provedene kako bi se analiziralo prisustvo pristrasnosti u sjećanjima i njen utjecaj na spremnost na pomirenje. Rezultati su djelimično potvrdili tri hipoteze, te se zaključuje da je etničko-entitetska pripadnost značajno određivala pristrasnost u sjećanjima na događaje. Najveću pristrasnost prema bošnjačkim žrtvama i najmanju prema srpskim žrtvama pokazivali su Bošnjaci iz Sarajeva, i obrnuto: najveću pristrasnost prema srpskim žrtvama a najmanju prema bošnjačkim žrtvama pokazivali su Srbi iz Istočnog Sarajeva. Izuzetak su činili Srbi iz Sarajeva čiji rezultati nisu u potpunosti odgovarali rezultatima Bošnjaka ali ni rezultatima Srba iz Istočnog Sarajeva. Također, pristrasnot se nije jednako manifestirala kroz svih sedam indikatora, pa je tako kod datiranja, empatije, opširnosti i komemoracija dob imala značajnu ulogu, dok kod preostalih indikatora (viktimizacija, prisjećanje i krivnja) to nije bio slučaj. Rezultati su djelimično potvrdili i treću hipotezu, tj.ispitanici koji su imali više rezultate na pristrasnosti prema žrtvama iz svoje grupe (pa samim tim i prema svojoj grupi), pokazali su manju spremnost na pomirenje, što se posebno pokazalo značajnim na subskalama Oprost i Povjerenje, dok nije bilo značajnih rezultata na subskalama Saradnja i Rehumanizacija. Jedan od doprinosa ovog istraživanja je kvantitativna analiza pristrasnosti sjećanja. Također, istraživanje otvara mogućnosti za buduće studije uloge sjećanja u izgradnji mira, kao i organizaciji nastave historije kroz pedagogiju sjećanja.The main objective of this research is to examine the bias in memories of four war events with respect to the position of an individual and his / her group during those events (victim or perpetrator) and to determine whether there is a link between bias and willingness to reconcile. The survey included a total of 240 respondents, with 80 being Bosniaks from Sarajevo, 80 Serbs from Sarajevo and 80 Serbs from East Sarajevo. In each group, there was an equal number of respondents of the younger generation (15-19) and the older generation (respondents who were 18 and older at the beginning of the war in BiH in 1992), as well as an equal number of male and female respondents. The structured interview and the Scale of Readiness for Reconciliation (Petrović, 2004) were applied. Interview data were analyzed by two independent evaluators who coded responses according to seven indicators of bias (event dating, description length, retelling, guilt, victimization, commemoration, and empathy.) Indicators were determined based on phenomenological aspects of memory, Schacter's theory of memory errors and Bar-Tal’s themes on the formation of narratives of conflict. Two-way ANOVA and correlations were conducted to analyze the presence of bias in memories and its impact on readiness for reconciliation. The results partially confirmed three hypotheses, and it is concluded that the combination of ethnicity and residence (Federation Bosnia-Herzegovina or Republic of Srpska) significantly determined bias in memories of four events. Bosniaks from Sarajevo showed the greatest bias towards Bosniak victims and the least towards Serb victims, and vice versa: Serbs from East Sarajevo showed the greatest bias towards Serb victims and the least towards Bosniak victims. Exceptions were Serbs from Sarajevo, whose results did not fully correspond to the results of Bosniaks, but also to the results of Serbs from East Sarajevo. Also, bias did not manifest equally across all seven indicators, so in event dating, empathy, extensiveness, and commemoration, age played a significant role, while in the remaining indicators (victimization, recollection, and guilt) it was not the case. The results partially confirmed the third hypothesis, ie respondents who had higher results on the bias towards victims from their group (and therefore towards their group), showed less willingness to reconcile, which was especially important on the Forgiveness and Trust subscales, while there were no significant results on the subscales of Cooperation and Rehumanization. One of the contributions of this research is a quantitative analysis of memory bias. Also, the research opens opportunities for future studies of the role of memory in peacebuilding, as well as the organization of history teaching through memory pedagogy