Mapping Cultural Schemas: From Theory to Method

被引:66
作者
Hunzaker, M. B. Fallin [1 ]
Valentino, Lauren [2 ]
机构
[1] Duke Network Anal Ctr, Durham, NC USA
[2] Duke Univ, Kenan Inst Eth, Durham, NC 27706 USA
关键词
schemas; culture; methods; semantic network analysis; relational meaning; stratification beliefs; political attitudes; DUAL-PROCESS MODEL; POLITICAL POLARIZATION; MORAL SCHEMAS; BELIEF SYSTEM; COGNITION; ATTITUDES; POVERTY; SOCIOLOGY; CONSENSUS; THINKING;
D O I
10.1177/0003122419875638
中图分类号
C91 [社会学];
学科分类号
030301 ; 1204 ;
摘要
A growing body of research in sociology uses the concept of cultural schemas to explain how culture influences beliefs and actions. However, this work often relies on belief or attitude measures gleaned from survey data as indicators of schemas, failing to measure the cognitive associations that constitute schemas. In this article, we propose a concept-association-based approach for collecting data about individuals' schematic associations, and a corresponding method for modeling concept network representations of shared cultural schemas. We use this method to examine differences between liberal and conservative schemas of poverty in the United States, uncovering patterns of associations expected based on previous research. Examining the structure of schematic associations provides novel insights to long-standing empirical questions regarding partisan attitudes toward poverty. Our method yields a clearer picture of what poverty means for liberals and conservatives, revealing how different concepts related to poverty indeed mean fundamentally different things for these two groups. Finally, we show that differences in schema structure are predictive of individuals' policy preferences.
引用
收藏
页码:950 / 981
页数:32
相关论文
共 104 条
  • [1] Achen Christopher., 2016, DEMOCRACY REALISTS W
  • [2] Altmann, 1986, PSYCHOLINGUISTICS
  • [3] [Anonymous], 1971, The Journal of mathematical sociology, DOI [10.1016/B978-0-12-442450-0.50012-2, DOI 10.1080/0022250X.1971.9989788]
  • [4] [Anonymous], 1992, CULTURE WARS STRUGGL
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2000, WHY AM HATE WELFARE
  • [6] [Anonymous], 2011, COURSE GEN LINGUISTI
  • [7] [Anonymous], VERY START SHARP PAR
  • [8] CAML-Maximum likelihood consensus analysis
    Assfalg, Andre
    Erdfelder, Edgar
    [J]. BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2012, 44 (01) : 189 - 201
  • [9] Culture and Demography: From Reluctant Bedfellows to Committed Partners
    Bachrach, Christine A.
    [J]. DEMOGRAPHY, 2014, 51 (01) : 3 - 25
  • [10] Partisans without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion
    Baldassarri, Delia
    Gelman, Andrew
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 2008, 114 (02) : 408 - 446