Two-way nostalgia and attitudes toward history among residents of six Polish cities

The included database is part of a larger research program entitled "<b>Retrieving the Lost History: Role of Social Memory of Place in Identity Formation</b>," led by Lewicka (grant from the National Science Centre OPUS NCN Nr 2011/03/B/HS6/03320). <br><br>The study was conducted in 2015 in six Polish cities (Bialystok – n = 410, Krakow – n = 414, Lodz – n = 400, Olsztyn - n = 402, Poznan - n = 401, Wroclaw - n = 401) using the CAPI method. The participants in the study were randomly selected. The total overall sample size was N = 2428. <br>The database consists of multiple variables that can be grouped as follows:<br> - <b>Sociodemographic variables</b> (e.g., age, gender, education, voivodeship, standard of living, place of interview, length of residency in the city)<br>- <b>Place Attachment Scale</b>. A five-item place attachment scale (e.g., “I miss this place when I am not there for a long time”; “This place is part of me”; Lewicka, 2010). Participants expressed their agreement with Likert’s scale items from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The scale had satisfactory reliability (α = .76) (variables: PAS1 to PAS5)<br> - <b>Lay Theories of History</b>. A 9-item scale designed to identify three different lay theories of history (Wójcik &amp; Lewicka, 2022): historical realism (three items; e.g., “In history, the most important thing is to know the truth about the past”; “We should even remember those historical events that today may give rise to conflicts and disputes”, α = .71), historical instrumentalism (three items; e.g., “Sometimes, it is better to remain silent about certain historical events in order not to weaken the image of our nation”; “Knowledge of the past should be communicated in such a way that it serves the interests of our nation today”; α = .65 ), and historical relativism (three items; e.g., “The past can never be fully understood”; “We will never know the real course of many historical events”; α = .50). Participants expressed their agreement on a 7-point Likert’s scale. (variables: LTH1 to LTH9) <br>- <b>Perceived National Group and City Continuity</b>. Sani’s shortened 8-item Perceived Collective Continuity Scale adapted to the Polish context. The scale was applied twice, to the perceived continuity of the country (Poland) and in a shorter, 6-item, version – to the perceived continuity of one’s city. The reliability of the two scales was α = .72 and α = .76. Participants expressed their agreement with the scale items from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). (variables: PCC1 to PCC8 for national group continuity and PC1 to PC9 for place/city continuity)<br> -<b>Interest in Local History</b>. A 10-item Interest in Local History Scale (Lewicka, 2012) that consisted of two subscales: interest in history (e.g., “I am interested in the history of my city”; “I like to read about the past of my city”) and focus on the present (e.g., “Sometimes it is better to pull down an old building than to invest enormous money in its renovation”; “If I were the city president, I would destroy some old buildings and make space for modern and future-oriented architecture”). Participants expressed their agreement with the scale items from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The respective reliabilities were α = .79 and .69 (variables: ILH1 to ILH10)<br> -<b>National Identity: Attachment Versus Glorification</b>. A shortened 9-item National Identity Scale (Roccas et al., 2006), with two subscales: attachment to country and glorification of country. Reliabilities of the two subscales were α = .86 and α = .78. Participants expressed their agreement with the scale items from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree) (variables: N1 to N9) <br>-<b>Need for Cognition</b>. An abbreviated version of the 7-item Need for Cognition Scale (Caccioppo &amp; Petty, 1982) that was translated into Polish and adapted to the Polish context (Matusz et al., 2011). Participants expressed their agreement with items on a 5-point scale (e.g., “I like to solve puzzles”; “I can spend many hours reflecting on an intellectual problem”). The reliability of this scale was satisfactory (α = .70) (variables: NFC1 to NFC7) <br>-<b>Nostalgia: Restorative Versus Reflective</b>. Nostalgia was measured with the abbreviated 13-item version (Prusik &amp; Lewicka, 2010) of 31-item nostalgia scale by Havlena &amp; Holak (2000). Restorative nostalgia was covered by five items (e.g., “I miss the good old days”; “The society to which I belong was better in the past than it is now”), while reflective nostalgia was covered by eight items (e.g., “I like to look at photos I have taken”, “I like to read books or watch movies about other times and places”). Participants expressed their agreement with the items on a 5-point scale. The reliability of each scale was satisfactory (restorative nostalgia, α = .76; reflective nostalgia, α = .80). (variables: INP1 to INP13)