Page 42 - Balancing between the present and the past

Chapter 2
with Kaiser normalization also indicate that the present-oriented perspective items and historical contextualization items constituted one factor. The three items pertaining to the role of the historical agent constituted the second factor. In contrast with Hartmann and Hasselhorn (2008), our item ROA1 did not violate the simple structure.
Table 3. Principal component analysis results (rotated), Nazi Party instrument
POP1 .59 .06
POP2 .71 -.03
POP3 .72 .01
ROA1 .22 .71
ROA2 -.09 .70
ROA3 -.21 .47
CONT1 -.53 .24
CONT2 -.52 .10
CONT3 -.66 .04
Note. POP = present-oriented perspective, ROA = role of the historical agent, and CONT = historical contextualization.
Table 4. Principal component analysis results (rotated), slavery instrument
POP1 .71 -.11 .06
POP2 .77 .02 .09
POP3 .73 .01 .05
ROA1 -.04 -.16 .58
ROA2 .08 .04 .77
ROA3 .20 .12 .67
CONT1 .09 .69 .02
CONT2 -.07 .78 -.03
CONT3 -.02 .67 -.01
Note. POP = present-oriented perspective, ROA = role of the historical agent, and CONT = historical contextualization.
The PCA results for the slavery instrument data (see Table 4), however, highlight three factors extracted with eigenvalues greater than 1. They accounted for 52% of the variance (factor 1: 21%, factor 2: 18%, and factor 3: 13%). The factor loadings after Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization indicate that the present-oriented perspective items constituted one factor, the historical contextualization items represented another factor, and the items pertaining to the role of the historical agent constituted a third factor.
Furthermore, we performed a reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient to determine the internal consistency of both instruments (see Table 5). The slavery instrument showed a very low internal consistency score (α = .25), compared with the Nazi Party instrument (α = .62). Further analysis of the data showed that the historical
Items
Factor 1
Factor 2
Items
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
40