During the first half of the presentation, Dr. Stec briefly described all the studies she based her work on. In the second half, she draw conclusions and gave the audience the results of these studies. She undertook to answer the following questions: What results and conclusions can be drawn from these studies? Are these conclusions coherent between different studies? Should they be explored further?
Dr. Stec began by reminding the audience that one of the most fundamental effects of Holocaust education should be a certain transfer of concrete knowledge about facts. But the conclusions she drew from the studies are not unequivocal. On the one hand, researchers such as Prof. Marek Kucia and Michał Bilewicz consider that a visit to a memorial site or participating in a specific program have positive impacts on participants in terms of increased awareness and knowledge of fundamental facts about the camp. For example, some declarations of participants saying that they would look for additional information on their own were noted. On the other hand, Dr. Stec quoted the research of Dr. Alicja Bartuś, who concluded in her studies on visitors to Auschwitz that such visits and participation in educational programs do not have a positive impact regarding memorizing basic facts about camps. Her research also suggests that subsequent visits have no significant impact on that either. At this point of the presentation, Dr. Stec brought forward an interesting conclusion of Prof. Kucia’s, who said it is necessary to take into account that young people have only a specific psychological absorption potential of information. An information overload translates into the fact that various experiences and facts are superimposed on one another and prevent young people from effectively memorizing specific facts.
However, Dr. Stec reminded us that Holocaust education is not only about acquiring knowledge about facts; it is also about social and civic education, acquiring specific attitudes and values, among which are the creation of empathy and humanist values. “It should make young people sensitive to the needs of others, should shape their worldview. It should value and include the responsibility for the wellbeing of others and should create more civic attitudes.”
Then she presented results about the interest from new generations about this part of history. A study by Agnieszka Praga proved a growing lack of knowledge about the fate of relatives in camps and a mental distance to the facts and things presented in the camps. An increasing number tend not to be interested in whether or not their relatives were imprisoned. One reason for this result seems to be that “media messages have actually eliminated the intergenerational transfer of knowledge from one generation to the other.” According to the research of Prof. Kucia and Mr. Szuchta, “fewer and fewer young people actually identify their parents or identify conversations with their grandparents as a source of knowledge about the Holocaust.”
Another observation resulting from these studies is that a visit to a memorial site refers to the national pride of the visitors. “It strengthens their sense of belonging to one group through common past and common history. […] This line of reference may or may not generate positive attitudes because national pride may evolve towards nationalist attitudes. […] Studies carried out by social psychologists stated that the visit to a memorial site increases the belief in the martyrdom of their own group and it also increases the social distance from Germans when it comes to the attitude towards others.”
Concerning the psychological effects of a visit on visitors, researchers concluded that a visit is strongly emotional; Dr. Stec quoted Roma Sendyka, who uses the terminology “affective experience” to describe it. “Experiencing various types of emotions related to participating in the experience of death is usually released after the visit.” As for post-traumatic stress, it can be present within a month after a visit. “This mostly concerns identification with victims, and more rarely the sense of shame, the sense of guilt and the sense of responsibility or co-responsibility.”