La Peste relue à l’heure du Covid-19. Comment le pessimisme de Camus aurait-il appréhendé notre après-pandémie ?

Though never empirically verified, it is the general consensus among social psychologists that cognitive dissonance is no longer an actively researched area. In contrast, attribution theory is currently regarded as continuing to have a major influence in social psychological research. In order to examine this widely held belief, Leon Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance and Fritz Heider's Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (1958) were used as source indicators for dissonance and attribution theory, respectively, and citations to these two targets were tabulated for the years 1958-1987 using the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. As expected, the rate of citation to dissonance theory has decreased substantially during the past 15 years, while citations to attribution theory have remained relatively steady. The pattern of differential citation rates is even more evident within subsets of general psychology journals and social psychology journals. The results are discussed in terms of intellectual, methodological, and theoretical differences between the two theories.

Dans cet article, nous proposons une revue de la littérature identifiant l’apport central de la psychologie sociale à l’analyse économique. Nous précisons tout d’abord le champ recouvert par la psychologie, ses centres d’intérêt, ses méthodes et ses outils d’analyse. Nous montrons ensuite comment l’introduction des processus interpersonnels décrits par les psychologues – dissonance cognitive, heuristiques mentales, erreur fondamentale d’attribution, diffusion de la responsabilité, pensée magique, biais de faux consensus, croyance en un monde juste – permet de mieux cerner les environnements dans lesquels la rationalité de la décision économique s’opère et ceux dans lesquels les autorités publiques peuvent intervenir pour rendre la décision plus efficace. Nous nous centrons ensuite sur le rôle majeur de l’influence sociale (conformisme, leadership), de la formation des groupes (identité, discrimination) ou encore des liens sociaux (famille, amis), dans la prise de décision économique individuelle et collective. Notre revue montre que la collaboration entre économistes et psychologues, la mise en commun de leur pratique et de leur expérience, peut déboucher sur des outils plus performants de politique publique.

Reviewed by: Command Failure in War: Psychology and Leadership Joseph W. Ryan Command Failure in War: Psychology and Leadership. By Robert Pois and Philip Langer. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-253-34378-X. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. xiv, 282. $29.95. Indiana University Press chose an apt dust jacket for Command Failure in War. Juxtaposed against formal military photographs of Robert E. Lee and Douglas Haig are Confederate dead at Gettysburg and the mudscape of Ypres. Apparently the publishers caught one of the authors' themes: psychological dysfunction is nowhere more costly than in commanders at war. The late Professor Pois (1940–2004) and Professor Langer, both of the University of Colorado, combined their interests in history and psychology to offer an insightful look into the minds of commanders. Pois and Langer choose to explain rather than excuse, and refrain from finding a paranoid schizophrenic behind every saber. On the contrary—the work is more historical narrative than post-mortem psychoanalysis, and its strength lies in its inquisitive approach. Illuminating the actions of Frederick the Great, Napoleon, McClellan, Lee, Hood, Haig, Churchill, and "Bomber" Harris, as well as Hitler, the authors show us men who suffered from a rigidity that "constrains an individual's freedom of thought beyond acceptable limitations." From research into a broad range of sources—from Hans Delbrück to Tim Travers—the [End Page 1223] authors have fashioned a valuable inquiry; one that helps readers to see commanders not as two-dimensional "goods" or "bads," but as human beings. Additionally, Pois and Langer create their models from the historical evidence, and acknowledge that there is no "overarching psychological explanation" for the rigidity they observe. Moreover, they examine their subjects in discrete situations—Napoleon in Russia, Hood at Franklin, etc., and show additional respect for their readers by a limited use of psychological jargon and an assumption of general knowledge. Few readers would be unfamiliar with the brutalization of Frederick and Hitler by their fathers, and the authors show how these men use aggression both as a military tactic and as a means of addressing personal issues. However, the authors do not claim this aggression is solely caused by paternal drubbings. Refreshingly, enemy incompetence is also seen as a factor in the success of all the commanders considered. Clearly Pois and Langer understand context. (Haig may indeed have suffered from cognitive dissonance. In 1917, however, he also had more artillery shells than his opponent, and could be expected to use them to the exclusion of other options.) While individual chapters could use more analysis within the historical narrative, and while the authors might have included an ancient or medieval commander or two, the conclusions are first rate because they are framed with the acknowledgement that attempting to explain human behavior is a perilous undertaking indeed. Even so, the concluding chapter justifies what Pois and Langer call "personal schema impenetrable to choice," and reminds readers that "a common response to heavy stress is to cling to established beliefs or patterns of behavior." The book is a valuable contribution to the literature because it offers no checklists à la Jomini or any of the hundreds of current "leadership" works, but rather leans toward a dialectic of sorts. Still, the authors' simple insights, ignored in practice, show us why we have Confederate dead at Gettysburg and a muddy Ypres: "The one inescapable fact is that regardless of advances in equipment, there remains that human element which can subvert the contributions of any technology." Just so. Joseph W. Ryan Montverde Academy Montverde, Florida Copyright © 2005 Society for Military History

The decolonization movement has prompted cultural heritage museums worldwide to critically reexamine the ways they collect, curate and historically narrate cultural artifacts. While notable initiatives have emerged, from repatriation programs to community-driven exhibitions, the term “decolonization” itself remains deeply contested and ambiguous, carrying a buzzing ring to it. This chapter critically interrogates what is truly at stake in the decolonization process: are we witnessing a genuine transformation in practice, a foundational change, or merely shifts in rhetoric and the strategic rebranding of established norms?Through two cases with critical reflections — one interrogating decolonial efforts in Western museums, the other addressing decolonial efforts in African museums themselves — the chapter explores the intersecting issues of repatriation, curatorial authority, community participation, and the enduring influence of colonial epistemologies. It argues that while surface-level reforms have generated positive visibility, deeper challenges persist, often masked by the language of inclusivity and reconciliation.This chapter aims to contribute to a more globally inclusive understanding of decolonization in museums by uniquely examining African cultural heritage in both Western and African contexts together. It contends that without addressing underlying foundational issues— including asymmetries of power, control over narratives, and the political economy of heritage institutions — beyond geographical and institutional barriers, the discourse risks devolving into little more than tokenism and a conceptual placeholder. In doing so, the chapter contributes to the broader project of imagining what a decolonized, globally just museum might look like. Ultimately, it invites reflection on how museums might reimagine their roles: not as custodians of people’s historical and cultural heritage, but as participants in cultural repair, restitution, and future-making.Keywords – decolonization, cultural heritage, rhetoric, inclusiveness, historical narratives, transforming heritage, cognitive dissonance, community-driven

The purpose of this study is to compare the portrayal of Genghis Khan, a significant world historical figure, in the works of Kazakh, Turkish, and Kyrgyz writers. Specifically, it examines Rakhimzhan Otarbayev’s Tears of Genghis Khan, Abdullah Ziya Kozanoglu’s Red Flag, and Chingiz Aitmatov’s White Cloud of Genghis Khan. This study employs postcolonial theory and the method of interpretation to analyze how each author presents Genghis Khan’s image within their respective cultural and historical contexts. The research highlights the differences in how Genghis Khan’s personality and legacy are depicted across these works. In Tears of Genghis Khan, Kazakh writer Rakhimzhan Otarbayev explores the human aspects of Genghis Khan, portraying not only his fierce and dominant persona but also his internal struggles, emotional suffering, and existential dilemmas. In contrast, Turkish writer Abdullah Ziya Kozanoglu’s Red Flag presents a nationalist image of Genghis Khan, emphasizing his role as a unifying leader of the Turkic world. Meanwhile, in White Cloud of Genghis Khan, Kyrgyz writer Chingiz Aitmatov delves into the psychological dimensions of Genghis Khan, reflecting on his inner conflicts, vision, and moral dilemmas. This comparative study demonstrates how historical narratives are shaped by national perspectives and cultural influences. It also reveals how the legacy of Genghis Khan continues to be a subject of debate and reinterpretation, reflecting broader historical and ideological shifts in Kazakh, Turkish, and Kyrgyz literature.

In spite of the fact that Henry of Gent (†1293) had a major and lasting influence on the developments at the University of Paris after the condemnation of the errores philosophorum in 1277, the Gandavistae – pupils of Henry of Gent – are hardly known by their proper names in the history of philosophy. As a member of the theological and philosophical faculty, Henry broke with the predominant Averroistic approach to Aristotle’s conception of science and concentrated, instead, on the Aristotelian tradition. He defended a revised version of the Aristotelian doctrine of the categories along the lines of the pseudo-Boethian Liber de sex principiis and ascribed fundamental eminence to relatio, a category which was considered ontologically “debilissimus” among the Aristotelians. John de Polliaco († p. 1321) was a pupil of Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Gent and Godfrey of Fontaines during the seventies of the 13th century. In his Quodlibet I, q. 7, dating from 1307, he gave a controversial account of the notion of relation that was favoured by Henry’s adherents: “Does the relation, expressed as a (modal) respect, differ from the respects (respectus) expressed by the six principles?” In this discussion he attacks the intentional and modal interpretation given by the Gandavistae and calls them non-reales. Is this accusation already an indication of the rise of 14th century nominalism?

Price is a major influence on travel purchases; however, traveler reviews have also become a prevalent source of influence. Theories of social influence and cognitive dissonance provide insight into consumer decisions. This research investigated the effect of social influence in the form of traveler reviews and price on consumer decisions and postdecision dissonance. Student subjects evaluated two resorts for a Spring Break vacation in Cancun using a 2 (valence: positive or negative) × 2 (unanimity: unanimous or nonunanimous) × 3 (price: same, slightly lower, much lower) experimental design. The results reveal that social influence had a strong effect on both resort evaluations and postdecision dissonance. Nonunanimous reviews reduced the prevailing valence of reviews, but increased dissonance. The lack of results for price suggests that price may not be the predominant influence on decisions, as previously thought. This research provides new insight into the effect of traveler reviews on decisions by evaluating the unanimity of social influence, the effect of price differences, and the extent to which consumers engage in postdecision dissonance reduction.

Study of attitudes and persuasion remains a defining characteristic of contemporary social psychology. This review outlines recent advances, with emphasis on the relevance of today's work for perennial issues. We reiterate the distinction between attitude formation and change, and show its relevance for persuasion. Single- and dual-process models are discussed, as are current views on dissonance theory. Majority and minority influence are scrutinized, with special emphasis on integrative theoretical innovations. Attitude strength is considered, and its relevance to ambivalence and resistance documented. Affect, mood, and emotion effects are reviewed, especially as they pertain to fear arousal and (un)certainty. Finally, we discuss attitude-behavior consistency, perhaps the reason for our interest in attitudes in the first place, with emphasis on self-interest and the theory of planned behavior. Our review reflects the dynamism and the reach of the area, and suggests a sure and sometimes rapid accumulation of knowledge and understanding.

Aristotle frequently discusses specific material constraints on memory and recollection. This essay reinterprets his fluid physiological psychology of memory, which depends on the stability of bodily movements or traces, in light of his general theory of mixture. It proposes new ways to link memory and metaphysics in the Aristotelian tradition; counters a popular historical narrative which sets Aristotle at the origin of a static Western ‘archival model’ of memory; and suggests the relevance for contemporary philosophy and science of Aristotle’s view of the potential existence of movements in memory.

Humor in a Time of Science Wars: Rereading Isabelle Stengers

<i>The Skin of Our Teeth</i>, PlayMakers Repertory Company, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

In the field of terrorism research, the violent radicalisation of individuals towards perpetrating acts of terror has been the subject of academic enquiry for some time. One core focus by social scientists has been the role of narratives in this process. Narratives have the ability to present a socially constructed version of reality which serves the interest of the narrator(s). In the context of terrorism, by depicting violence as a viable antidote to individual vulnerabilities, the narratives purported for propagandistic purposes have the potential to thwart perceptions of instrumentality (a key characteristic of violent radicalisation). In order to prevent this from happening, researchers and counter-terrorism practitioners have increasingly sought to explore the potential for counter-narratives; targeted interventions that challenge the rationalisation(s) of violence purported in dominant narratives which, in turn, reconstructs the story. However, there is overwhelming consensus in both government and academic spheres that the concept of the counter-narrative is underdeveloped and, to date, there has been no synthesis of its effectiveness at targeting violent radicalisation-related outcomes. The objective of this review was to provide a synthesis of the effectiveness of counter-narratives in reducing the risk of violent radicalisation. After a scoping exercise, the literature was identified through four search stages, including key-word searches of 12 databases, hand searches of reference lists of conceptual papers or books on the topic of counter-narratives, as well as direct contact with experts and professional agencies in the field. Studies adopting an experimental or quasiexperimental design where at least one of the independent variables involved comparing a counter-narrative to a control (or comparison exposure) were included in the review. Accounting for duplicates, a total of 2,063 records were identified across two searches. Nineteen studies across 15 publications met the inclusion criteria. These studies were largely of moderate quality and 12 used randomised control trial designs with varying types of controls. The publication years ranged from 2000 to 2018, with the majority of studies published after 2015. The studies represented a range of geographical locations, but the region most heavily represented was North America. In most cases, the dominant narrative(s) "to-be-countered" comprised of hostile social constructions of an adversary or "out-group". The majority of studies challenged these dominant narratives through the use of stereotype-challenging, prosocial, or moral "exemplars". Other techniques included the use of alternative accounts, inoculation and persuasion. In terms of risk factors for violent radicalisation, there was some disparity on intervention effectiveness. Overall, when pooling all outcomes, the intervention showed a small effect. However, the observed effects varied across different risk factors. Certain approaches (such as counter-stereotypical exemplars) were effective at targeting realistic threat perceptions, in-group favouritism and out-group hostility. However, there was no clear reduction in symbolic threat perceptions or implicit bias. Finally, there was a sparse yet discouraging evidence on the effectiveness of counter-narrative interventions at targeting primary outcomes related to violent radicalisation, such as intent to act violently. The review contributes to existing literature on violent radicalisation-prevention, highlighting the care and complexity needed to design and evaluate narrative-based interventions which directly counter existing, dominant narratives. The authors note the challenges of conducting high-quality research in the area, but nonetheless encourage researchers to strive for experimental rigour within these confines.

This article investigates the resilience of the docility and brutality myths attributed to African Americans as demonstrated by three fairly recent film renditions. The focus is on the historical origins and the continued relevance of these tropes through white scopophilia and cognitive dissonance. The myths are analyzed in terms of their role in justifying racial hierarchies and reinforcing white supremacy within historical and contemporary contexts. Through a critical examination of historical texts by Lerone Bennett Jr. and portrayals in films such as Django Unchained and Twelve Years a Slave, the study demonstrates how these stereotypes are alternately emphasized or diminished to maintain white dominance. It argues that white America constructs African American identities with a strategic oscillation between docility and brutality to sustain control and alleviate white guilt. This manipulation is facilitated by psychological mechanisms that allow white individuals to hold contradictory beliefs about race without recognizing their inconsistencies. By detailing the dynamic usage of these myths, the article highlights how they are not static, but are strategically deployed to reaffirm white moral and authoritative supremacy as needed. The conclusion calls for a critical reassessment of racial representations in media and historical narratives to disrupt these enduring racial myths.

This study examined the changes following conformity, deviation and concession, using majority influence paradigm. Ss were 69 female junior college students who encountered unanimous majority displaying wrong responses. Conformers changed their private opinion to meet the opinion advocated by majority. Deviates perceived majority and themselves negatively. Concessive persons modified their private opinion like the conformers, and, like the deviates, perceived the majority and themselves negatively. These results were discussed from the point of view of intra-interpersonal discrepancy and cognitive dissonance.

Archiving the Algerian Revolution in Zineb Sedira's <i>Gardiennes d'images</i>