Educational Acmeology. Developmental Psychology

Izvestiya of Saratov University.

ISSN 2304-9790 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9013 (Online)

For citation:

Emelyanova T. P., Misharina A. V. Differences in Generations’ Collective Memory: a Socio-Psychological Approach. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Educational Acmeology. Developmental Psychology, 2019, vol. 8, iss. 4, pp. 334-340. DOI: 10.18500/2304-9790-2019-8-4-334-340

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
Full text:
(downloads: 100)
Article type: 

Differences in Generations’ Collective Memory: a Socio-Psychological Approach

Emelyanova Tatiana P., Institute of Psychology RAS
Misharina Anna V., Ltd “Curaprox"

The purpose of the study presented in the article is to investigate the collective memory features of four generations of Russians in relation to the current situation in the country. Presumably, the generations of baby-boomers, X, Y, and Z, differently assess Russian history periods and view them as possible models for the present, while socio-psychological characteristics of generations are associated with a certain modality of collective memory images. The article presents the results of a survey, which involved representatives of 4 generations (N = 407): baby boomers and generations X, Y, and Z. It is shown that the choice of exemplary periods for modern Russia history is very diverse and specific to generational cohorts (according to the Kruskal–Wallis H test (p = 0.01)). For the baby boomer generation respondents, the period of Peter the Great’s transformation is the closest to the exemplary period, while for generation X, it is the Brezhnev period and the Khrushchev’s thaw. Generation Y rates perestroika and the Stalin period higher, while generation Z rates the Russian Revolution, perestroika and Yeltsin period higher. We distinguished groups of respondents by the modality of their assessments of different periods in the Russian history: “Supporters of the European Path” – the most numerous group (52% of the entire sample), “Supporters of liberalization” (10.6%), “Adherents of totalitarianism” (9.3%), “Adherents of Political Transformation” (5.2%) and the “Undecided” (23%). Representatives of each of these groups have certain socio-psychological characteristics. The first group shows critical attitude towards the authorities, skepticism about serving people and society; the second one shows high indicators of social cynicism and low values of tolerance of uncertainty; the third one shows weak involvement in current developments, lack of faith in their own strengths and the desire to remain safe, as well as weak tolerance of uncertainty; the fourth group is characterized by more successful coping with stress, mental and somatic health, subjective well-being and success in activities. The revealed socio-psychological status of these groups may act as a predictor of their current political sympathies and a possible direction of social activity

  1. Shuman G., Skott Zh. Collective Memory of Generations. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological studies], 1992, no. 2, pp. 47–60 (in Russian, trans. from English).
  2. Emel’yanova T. P., Belykh T. V., Shabanova V. N. Images of Past, Present and Future by Representatives of «Baby Boomers» Generation. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. Seriya: Psikhologicheskie nauki [Bulletin of Moscow Region State University. Series: Psychology], 2018, no. 3. pp. 75–85 (in Russian). DOI:
  3. Nestik T. A., Drobysheva T. V., Emel’yanova T. P., Pisarenko P. Yu. Collective Memory and Image of Future: Intergenerational Differences. In: Psikhologiya cheloveka kak sub»ekta poznaniya, obshcheniya i deyatel’nosti [Human Psychology as Subject of Cognition, Communication and Activity], By ed. V. V. Znakov, A. L. Zhuravlev. Moscow, Psychology Institute RAS Publ., 2018. pp. 783–790 (in Russian).
  4. Verch Dzh. Kollektivnaya pamyat’ [Collective Memory]. In: Mezhdistsiplinarnye issledovaniya pamyati [Interdisciplinary Memory Studies]. Ed. by A. L. Zhuravlev, N. N. Korzh. Moscow, Psychology Institute RAS Publ., 2009, pp. 33–46 (in Russian, trans. from English).
  5. Gaskell G. Group differences in memory for a political event. In: Collective memory of political events: Social psychological perspectives. Mahwah, New Jersey, Erlbaum, 1997, pp. 175–189.
  6. Emel’yanova T. P. Kollektivnaya pamyat’ o sobytiyakh otechestvennoy istorii: sotsial’no-psikhologicheskiy podkhod [Collective Memory of Events of National History: Socio-Psychological Approach]. Moscow, Psychology Institute RAS Publ., 2019. 299 p. (in Russian).
  7. Halbwachs M. La Mémoire collective. Paris, PUF. 1950. 204 р. (in French).
  8. Marcel J.‑Ch. Un fondement du lien social: la mémoire collective selon Maurice Halbwachs. Technologies. Idéologies. Pratiques. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 1999, vol. 13, no. 2. pp. 63–88 (in French).
  9. Bartlett F. Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: CUP. 1932. 317 p.
  10. Liu J. H., Hilton D. J. How the past weighs on the present: Social representations of history and their role in identity politics. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2005, vol. 44, no. 4, рр. 537–556.
  11. Paez D., Borovic M., De Guismé L., Liu J., Licata L. Mémoire collective et représentations sociales de l’Histoire. Les représentations sociales. Théorie, méthodes, et applications. Coordonné par G. Lo Monaco, S. Delouvée, P. Rateau. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur. 2016, pp. 539–552 (in French).
  12. Wagoner B. Collective remembering as a process of social representation. In: The Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations. G. Sammut et al. Cambridge. 2015. P. 143–162.
  13. Rikel’ A. M., Tychinina M. I. Intergenerational Differences of Strategies of Interpersonal Relationships. Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya [Psychological Studies], 2017, vol. 10, no. 51, p. 9. Available at: (accessed: 15 July 2019) (in Russian).
  14. Shamis E., Antipov A. Generation Theory. Marketing. Menedzhment [Marketing. Management], 2007, no. 6, pp. 42–46 (in Russian).
  15. Fantalova E. B. Diagnostika i psikhoterapiya vnutrennego konflikta [Diagnosis and Psychotherapy of Internal Conflict]. Samara : BAKHRAKH Bh., 2001. 128 p. (in Russian).
  16. Tatarko A. N., Lebedeva N. M. Study of Social Axioms: Structure and Relationships with Russians’ Socio-Economic Attitudes. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki [Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics], 2008, vol. 5, no. 4, pp.135–143 (in Russian).
  17. Leung K., Bond M. H. Social axioms: A model for social beliefs in multicultural perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2004, no. 36, pp. 119–197.
  18. Osin E. N., Rasskazova E. I. Resilience Test Short: Psychometric Characteristics and Application in Organizational Context. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 14 Psikhologiya [Moscow University Psychology Bulletin], 2013, no. 2, pp. 147–165 (in Russian).
  19. Leont’ev D. A., Osin E. N., Lukovitskaya E. G. Diagnostika tolerantnosti k neopredelennosti D. McLain [Diagnosis of Tolerance to Uncertainty by D. McLain]. Moscow, Smysl Publ., 2016. 60 р. (in Russian).
  20. Daudrikh N. I. Social Identity: Methodical Aspect. Sotsiologiya [Sociology], 2000, no. 12. pp. 77–95 (in Russian).