“This is Munich all over again!”: Such comparisons between a present situation and a past one (i.e. a historical analogy) are common in public and political discourses. Historical analogies were used for centuries but have received increased interest in the last 50 years from scholars in political science, history, and psychology. Despite existing interdisciplinary exchanges, it remains difficult to identify the variables involved in the phenomenon as different methodologies and conceptualizations are used. Hence, we review part of this voluminous literature and suggest that the various effects related to the use of historical analogies can be grouped under four independent and non-mutually exclusive categories: representing a current situation, defining the roles of current actors, making decisions, and persuading others of a message. We conclude by acknowledging the limits of this current conceptualization and emphasizing its potential as a useful heuristic tool to organize findings in a way that makes them readable across various fields.
AngströmJ (2011) Mapping the competing historical analogies of the war on terrorism the bush presidency. International Relations25(2): 224–242.
2.
Aristotle (trans. 1926) Rhetoric (Book I, trans.Freese). Available at: www.perseus.tufts.edu
3.
BarghJA (1992) Does subliminality matter to social psychology? Awareness of the stimulus versus awareness of its influence. In: BornsteinRFPittmanTS (eds) Perception without Awareness: Cognitive, Clinical, and Social Perspectives. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 236–255.
4.
BlanchetteIDunbarK (2002) Representational change and analogy: how analogical inferences alter target representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition28(4): 672–685.
5.
BrändströmABynanderFHartPT (2004) Governing by looking back: historical analogies and crisis management. Public Administration82(1): 191–210.
6.
BruckmüllerSHegartyPTeigenKH. (2017) When do past events require explanation? Insights from social psychology. Memory Studies10(3): 261–273.
7.
ButterfieldH (1951) History and Human Relations. London: HarperCollins.
8.
ChanJPaletzSBSchunnCD (2012) Analogy as a strategy for supporting complex problem solving under uncertainty. Memory & Cognition40(8): 1352–1365.
9.
DawesRM (1993) Prediction of the future versus an understanding of the past: a basic asymmetry. American Journal of Psychology106(1): 1–24.
10.
EpleyNGilovichT (2010) Anchoring unbound. Journal of Consumer Psychology20(1): 20–24.
11.
FergusonNC (2015) Paris attacks: fall of Rome should be a warning to the West. The Australian, 16November. Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/
12.
FerryV (2013) What is rhetorical certainty?Rhetor5: 35–43.
13.
FischerDH (1970) Historian’s Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
14.
FischhoffB (1975) Hindsight is not equal to foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance1(3): 288–299.
GentnerD (1983) Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science7(2): 155–170.
17.
GentnerDLandersR (1985). Analogical reminding: a good match is hard to find. In IEEE 1985 proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, pp. 607–613.
18.
GhilaniDLuminetOKleinO (2016). When the past predicts the future: The importance of causal similarity in historical-analogical reasoning. In: Transfer of Knowledge Conference: Communication at the ESCON (ESCON), Lisbon, August.
19.
GhilaniDLuminetOErnst-VintilaA. (2015) Investigating the Emotional, Attitudinal and Demographic Correlates of Historical Analogizing in the Context of the Charlie Hebdo and 13th November Terrorist Attacks in France. Manuscript in preparation.
20.
GibsonS (2012) History in action: the construction of historical analogies in televised debates concerning the Iraq war. Papers on Social Representations21(2): 1–35.
21.
GickMLHolyoakKJ (1980) Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology12(3): 306–355.
22.
GickMLHolyoakKJ (1983) Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology15(1): 1–38.
23.
GilovichT (1981) Seeing the past in the present: the effect of associations to familiar events on judgments and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40(5): 797–808.
24.
HiltonDLiuJ (2017) History as a narrative of the people: from function to structure and content. Memory Studies10(3): 297–309.
25.
HolyoakKJKohK (1987) Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition15(4): 332–340.
26.
HoughtonDP (1998) Historical analogies and the cognitive dimension of domestic policymaking. Political Psychology19(2): 279–303.
27.
HumphriesM (2015) Niall Ferguson slammed for saying the West is in danger of falling like the Roman Empire. Available at: http://historynewsnetwork.org
28.
JervisR (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
KhongYF (1992) Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
KleinOHegartyPFischhoffB (2017) Hindsight 40 years on: An interview with Baruch Fischhoff. Memory Studies10(3): 249–260.
31.
KruglanskiAWCrenshawMPostJM. (2007) What should this fight be called? Metaphors of counterterrorism and their implications. Psychological Science in the Public Interest8(3): 97–133.
32.
LevyJS (1994) Learning and foreign policy: sweeping a conceptual minefield. International Organization48(2): 279–312.
33.
McCroskeyJCCombsWH (1969) The effects of the use of analogy on attitude change and source credibility. Journal of Communication19(4): 333–339.
34.
MachiavelliN (1772 [1517]). Discourses upon the first ten (books) of Titus Livy (Book I, trans. NevilleH). Available at: http://www.constitution.org
35.
MayER (1973) “Lessons” of the past: The Use and Misuse of History in American Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
36.
NeustadtREMayER (1986) Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers. New York: The Free Press.
OttatiVCRenströmRAPriceE (2012) The metaphorical framing model: political communication and public opinion. In: LandauMJMeierBPRobinsonMD. (eds) The Power of Metaphor: Examining Its Influence on Social Life. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 179–202.
39.
ParisR (2002) Kosovo and the metaphor war. Political Science Quarterly117(3): 423–450.
40.
PerrottDAGentnerDBodenhausenGV (2005) Resistance is futile: the unwitting insertion of analogical inferences in memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review12(4): 696–702.
41.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology19: 123–205.
42.
ReadSJ (1984) Analogical reasoning in social judgment: the importance of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology46(1): 14–25.
43.
ReesJHAllpressJABrownR (2013) Nie Wieder: group-based emotions for in-group wrongdoing affect attitudes toward unrelated minorities. Political Psychology34(3): 387–407.
44.
RydgrenJ (2007) The power of the past: a contribution to a cognitive sociology of ethnic conflict. Sociological Theory25(3): 225–244.
45.
SchumanHRiegerC (1992) Historical analogies, generational effects, and attitudes toward war. American Sociological Review57: 315–326.
46.
ShimkoKL (1994) Metaphors and foreign policy decision making. Political Psychology15: 655–671.
47.
SmeekesAVan AckerKVerkuytenM. (2014) The legacy of Nazism: historical analogies and support for the far right. Social Influence9(4): 300–317.
48.
SpellmanBAHolyoakKJ (1992) If Saddam is Hitler then who is George Bush? Analogical mapping between systems of social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology62(6): 913–933.
49.
TaylorAJRourkeJT (1995) Historical analogies in the Congressional foreign policy process. Journal of Politics57(2): 460–468.
50.
TetlockPE (1998) Social psychology and world politics. In: FiskeSGilbertDLindzeyG (eds) Handbook of Social Psychology. 4th ed., Vol. 2. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 868–912.
51.
TierneyD (2007) “Pearl harbor in reverse”: moral analogies in the Cuban missile crisis. Journal of Cold War Studies9(3): 49–77.
52.
TrucG (2016) Sidérations. Une sociologie des attentatsParis: Presses Universitaires de France.
53.
VertzbergerYY (1986) Foreign policy decisionmakers as practical-intuitive historians: applied history and its shortcomings. International Studies Quarterly30(2): 223–247.
54.
VosniadouSOrtonyA (1989) Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
