dimaggio, paul - culture and cognition, 1997

7/30/2019 DiMaggio, Paul - Culture and Cognition, 1997

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dimaggio-paul-culture-and-cognition-1997 1/26

Culture and Cognition

Author(s): Paul DiMaggioSource: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 23 (1997), pp. 263-287Published by: Annual Reviews

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952552 .

Accessed: 26/08/2013 10:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of

Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.54.67.91 on Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:17:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952552?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952552?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs



Annu.Rev.Sociol.1997. 23:263-87Copyright 1997byAnnualReviewsnc.All rights eserved

CULTUREAND COGNITION

Paul DiMaggioDepartmentfSociology, -N-2GreenHall,Princetonniversity,rinceton,NewJersey8544; e-mail:[email protected]

KEY WORDS: sociology fculture,ocialclassification,ocialcognition,chemata

ABSTRACTRecentworkn cognitive sychologynd ocialcognitionearsheavilyn con-cerns fsociologistsfculture. ognitive esearchonfirmsiews fculturesfragmented;larifieshe oles f nstitutionsnd agency; nd lluminatesupra-individualspects f culture.ndividualsxperienceulture s disparate its finformationnd as schematictructureshat rganizehat nformation.ulturecarried y nstitutions,etworks,nd social movementsiffuses,ctivates,ndselects mongvailable chemata.mplicationsor he tudy f dentity,ollectivememory,ocialclassification,nd ogicsofaction redeveloped.

INTRODUCTION

The study f cultureneverydayiferemains virtuoso ffair. nterpretive

studies fferreat nsightut ail o build noneanother. ultural heoryasbecomehighlyophisticatedutnot ully perational.heseriches eady hefield or akeoff,ikethe tudy fsocial stratificationnSorokin's ay 1957[1927]). Butbefore he tudyf ived ulture an become cumulativenter-prise, cholarsmust larifyhe ognitiveresuppositionsehindheir heoriesofwhat ultureoes andwhat eopledowitht, ndthe undamentalonceptsandunits fanalysis Jepperson Swidler 994,Wuthnow987).

Recentworkncognitivesychologynd ocial ognitionrovidesesources

forboth asks. After escribingecentonvergenceetween ulturalociol-ogy ndpsychology,his hapteronsidersessons frecent ork ncognitionfor resuppositionsbout henaturefculture;evelops mplicationsf theselessonsfor ociologicalwork n identity,ollectivememory,ocialclassifi-cation, ogicsofaction,ndframing;ndpoints okeyproblemshat emainunsolved.

263

0360-0572/97/0815-0263$08.00



264 DiMAGGIO

Rather han ffern exhaustiveeview f cognitive ociology er se (seeZerubavel1997) orwork n psychologyelevant o culturesee D'Andrade1995), emphasize ensions nd affinitiesetween ecent ognitiveesearchandwork nthe ociologyf ulture ith he imofbringinghe ormernto heservice f heatter.focus nhow eople seculture,atherhan he roductionofculture,deology,rculture mbeddednthephysical nvironment.hepoint s not opsychologizehe tudy f culture,ut o ay a foundationorview f ultures workinghroughhe nteractionf hared ognitivetructuresand upra-individualultural henomenamaterialulture, ediamessages, rconversation,or xample) hat ctivatehose tructuresovaryingegrees.

SOCIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY: POINTSOF CONVERGENCE

A handfulfsociologists ave appreciatedhepotentialfcognitivecienceto nformociologicalwork n cultureCarley 989,Cicourel 973, chwartz1981,White 992),and some social constructionistsaveanticipatedmpor-tant esults fcognitiveesearchBerger& Luckman 967,Garfinkel987

[1967], Zerubavel 991). For themost art, owever,ociologistsf culture

have gnored elevant ork y cognitivesychologists,ocialpsychologists,and public-opinionesearchers. hisomission eflects mismatch etweenthemodal ntellectualtyles fhumanistic,nterpretivelyrientedulturalo-ciologistsndexperimentallyrientedositivisticsychologists,swell s thedisappointingegacy fParsons' ffortst disciplinaryusion, hich sychol-ogizedculture,educingtto shared alues, orms,ndattitudes.

Sociology:MoreComplex iews fCultureIn recent ears, owever,ommon round etween ociology fculture ndpsychology as grown.Themajordevelopmentithinociologyhas beena shift o a more omplex nderstandingf culture.Thirty ears go,mostsociologists iewed ulture s a "seamlessweb" Swidler 997),unitaryndinternallyoherentcrossgroups nd situations.n effect,ulturewaspor-trayeds a latent ariablenfluencingncommonuchmanifestationss mediaimages, esponseso attitudeuestionnaires,nd thevalues mbodiednev-eryday ractices.ndividuals ere resumedoacquire ulturenthe ourse fsocializationnd, n the opular versocializediew Wrong 961), o enact tunproblematically.tfollowed romhis erspectivehathere as ittle easontoworrybout onstructssedtostudyulture,or nykind f"culturaltuff"could erve s an ndicatorfthe nderlyingatent ariable.

By contrast,ecentworkdepicts ultures fragmentedcrossgroups ndinconsistentcross ts manifestationsMartin 992). The viewof cultures








CULTURE AND COGNITION 265

valuesthat uffusether spects fbelief, ntention,nd collectiveifehassuccumbedo one of cultures complex ule-liketructureshat onstituteresourceshat anbe put o trategicse Bourdieu 990, ewell1992, widler1986).

This shiftmakes tudyingulturemuchmore omplicated.Oncewe ac-knowledgehat ultures inconsistent-thateople'snormsmaydeviate romwhat hemedia epresents normal,r that urpreconsciousmages nd dis-cursive ccounts f a phenomenon aydiffer-it ecomes rucial o dentifyunits fculturalnalysisnd ofocus ttentionpon he elationsmong hem.In effect,urmeasurestopbeing ndicatorsfa latent ariableculture),ndtheir elationshipoculture ecomes nalogous o that f education,ncome,andplaceofresidenceo ocial tratification:eparatehenomena,nalyticallyrelated o commonheoreticalonstruct,he elationsmonghemmatterorempiricalnvestigationD'Andrade 995notes imilarrendsn nthropology).

Similarly,nce we acknowledgehat eoplebehave s if they se culturestrategically,tfollows hathe ulturesntowhich eople re ocialized eavemuch pportunityor hoice ndvariation. husour ttentionurnso ways nwhich ifferingultural ramesr understandingsaybe situationallyued.Addressinguch ssuesrequiresmore laboratendcontestablesychologicalpresuppositionshan idthe ulture-as-latent-variableiew.

Psychology:MoreComplex iews fCognitionSuchquestionsmake t ensible orociologistsf ultureoturnopsychologyfornsightnto hemechanismshroughhich hared ulture ntersnto og-nition. etnothinguaranteeshat sychologists,hohave heir wnresearchagendas, anhelpus. Thirty ears go,behaviorism adepsychologyssen-tiallyrrelevantothe tudyf ulture. wenty ears go,psychologistsastingoff heyoke f behaviorismocused rimarilyn the cquisitionf skills ndcapacities f ittlenteresto most ociologistsfculture. vena dozenyearsago,the mplicationsor ulturalociology fmany fthe deasand researchtraditionshatremost seful odaywere till nclear.

Whathashappenedo makepsychologyseful osociologistsf culture?First, sychologistsaverejected ehaviorism,cceptednddemonstratedheexistencefmentaltructuressedtoperceive,rocess,ndretrievenforma-tion, nd foundwaysto make nferencesbout uch tructures.econd, ustas sociological esearchasdemonstratedulture'somplexityndfragmenta-tion, sychologicalesearch as demonstratedhe omplexityfmemoryndprovided limpses fthepartitioningfmentaltructuresydomain.Third,recent ociofpsychologicalesearchschemata,ategories,mentalmodels,and o on)aremuch ichernculturalontenthan he ormalperationsr n-tellectualapacities hat ncepreoccupiedognitivistsnddevelopmentalists








266 DiMAGGIO

(Rogoff Chavajay1995). Fourth,omepsychologistsavetaken otice fsuch ociological opics s cross-culturalifferencesncognitionShweder

Bourne1991,Markus Kitayama 991), lite/popularnteractionn culturalchange Moscovici1984), nd "distributedognition"i.e. the ocial divisionofcognitiveabor) Resnick t al 1991, alomon1993).

In addition oexpandinghegrounds f harednterestetween he wodis-ciplines,uchdevelopmentsave lsosoftenedwo mportantpistemologicaldifferences.Whereasmost ociologists f culture ave beensteadfastlyn-tireductionist,esistingffortsoportrayultures the ggregatef ndividualsubjectivities,sychologyas focused pon he ndividual.ncreasingly,ow-

ever, s I shall rgue, sychologicalesearch olstersndclarifiesheviewofculturessupra-individual,nd ven ddressesupra-individualspects f og-nition irectlyas inwork n pluralisticgnoranceMiller& Prentice 994)].

Second, omesociologistsfculture ejected he ubjectivistocus f psy-chological esearch,allingnstead or esearchn externalspects fcultureamenableodirectmeasurementWuthnow987). Inrecent ears, ognitivistshavedevelopedngeniousmpiricalechniquesreviewednD'Andrade 995)that ermittrongnferencesboutmentaltructures,oing ar owardlosing

the bservabilityap between xternalnd ubjectivespects fculture.Ofcourse, hefit etween hedisciplinesmustnotbe exaggerated.Mostof whatpsychologistso is irrelevanto sociologists fculture, nd muchofthe ultureociologists' tudyssupra-individual.ommon round as n-creased utwill emainimitedy he ifferentubjectmattersf he isciplines(Zerubavel 997),whichwillremainomplementsatherhan ubstitutes.

COGNITIVE PRESUPPOSITIONSOF CULTURAL SOCIOLOGY

Sociologistswhowrite bout hewaysthat ulturentersnto verydayifenecessarily ake ssumptionsbout ognitive rocesses. f we assume hatsharedymbolvokes sense f ommondentityWarner959), hat certainframe rovokes eopleto thinkbout social issue n a newway Gamson1992),that essons bout he tructuref paceandtime earnednschool regeneralizedo theworkplaceWillis1977),or that urveysan measure lass

consciousnessseeFantasia's ritique 995),weare henmaking owerfulog-nitive ssumptions.uchassumptions,hilemetatheoreticalosociologists,arekeenly mpirical rom he tandpointfcognitivesychology.t is cru-cial,then,o evaluate ur ssumptionsor adjudicate ifferencesmong hem)by microtranslatingresuppositionsCollins 1981)to the ognitiveevelandassessing heironsistencyith esultsfempiricalesearch ncognition.








CULTUREAND COGNITION 267

Coherence sFragmentationMany sociologists avecome to reject he atent-variableiewof culture s

coherent,ntegrated,ndambiguousnfavorfrepresentationsfcultures a"toolkit"Swidler 986)or"repertoire"Tilly1992): a collectionf stuffhatis heterogeneousn contentndfunction. etmuch mpirical ork n culturestillpresumeshat ultures organized round ational ocieties r cohesivesubnationalroupings,s highly hematized,nd s manifestedn similarwaysacrossmany omainsHofstede 980,Bourdieu 984).

Is culture latent ariable-a tight etworkf few bstractentral hemesandtheirmore oncretentailments,ll instantiatedo various egrees n a

range fsymbols, ituals,ndpractices?fso,thenwewould xpect o findthat roupmembershare limited umberfconsistentlements-beliefs,attitudes,ypifications,trategies-andhat henclusionf ny neelementnthe ollective ulturemplies he xclusion f nconsistentlements.

Or is culture grab-bagf oddsandends: a pastiche f mediated epre-sentations, repertoireftechniques,r a toolkit fstrategies?fso, thenwemight xpectessclusteringfculturallements ithinocialgroups,essstronginkages mong he lements,ndweaker ressuresor he xclusion f

inconsistentlements.Researchn ognitivesychologytronglyupportshe oolkitver he atent-

variable iew ndsuggestshat he ypicaloolkits very argendeed.Partic-ularly elevantere s researchsummarizedyGilbert 991)on howpeopleattributeccuracyrplausibilityo statementsffact ndopinion.Consistentwith widler's1986) contentionhat allpeopleknowmore ulturehan heyuse,"Gilberteportshat Theacceptancefanidea s a part fthe utomaticcomprehensionfthatdea, ndthe ejectionfthe dea occurs ubsequento

andmore ffortfullyhants cceptance."notherwords, urheads refull fimages, pinions,nd nformation,ntaggeds to truthalue, o whichwe areinclined o attributeccuracyndplausibility.

Researchnmemoryells similartory,evealinghatnformationinclud-ingfalse nformation)asses ntomemory ithouteing tagged"s tosourceorcredibility,ndthat ctive nferencesrequiredo dentifyhe ource ftheinformationhen t s recalled. Such nferences aybe incorrect,ieldingmisattributionsfsource ndcredibilityJohnsontal 1991).

Thisworkhasseveralmportantmplicationsor tudentsfculture. irst,itrefuteshenotionhat eople cquire culturey mbibingt andnoother)throughocialization.nstead,tdirectshe earch or ources f tabilityndconsistencyn ourbeliefsndrepresentations,irst,o schematicrganization,whichmakes ome deasor magesmore ccessible han thers; nd, econd,tocuesembeddednthephysicalndsocialenvironment.








268 DiMAGGIO

Second, earninghat eopleretainand storewith default alueof "cor-rect") lmost very mageor idea withwhich heyhave come nto ontact,rendersntelligibletherwisenomalous esearch indingsbout nconsistencyinexpressions f attitudescross ime, ultural olatilityn periods f rapidchange e.g. the all fthe oviet ystem),nd he usceptibilityf ttitudesoframingffectsSniderman Piazza 1993).

Third,he esearchxplainshe apacityf ndividualsoparticipatenmulti-pleculturalraditions,venwhenhose raditionsontainnconsistentlements.Fourth,t establisheshe apacity fpeopleto maintain istinctivend ncon-sistentction rames, hich anbe nvokednresponse oparticularontextualcues. Fifth,hiswork aises hepossibilityhat ocializationmaybe lessex-perientiallyased, ndmore ependentponmedia mages ndhearsay,hanmany four heoriesfor xample, ourdieu's abitus1990]construct)mply.

Such nferencessthese o beyondhe copeof ognitivetudies,obesure,andmuch ides nthepreciseways n which chematic rganizationmposesorder pon tored nowledgendmemory. onetheless,ecentognitivee-search tronglyeinforceshe toolkit"sopposed othe latent-variable"iewofculture nd, t thevery east, lacestheburdenfproof n thosewhode-pict ulture s stronglyonstrainingehavior r whowould rgue hat eopleexperienceultureshighlyntegrated,hatultural eaningsre tronglyhe-matized, hat ulturesbinding,ndthat ulturalnformationcquired hroughexperiences more owerfulhan hatcquired hroughthermeans.

InstitutionndAgencyCognitiveesearch analsoenhance ur ppreciationftheviewthat ultureboth onstrainsndenablesSewell 1992). Althoughhis osition as becomevirtuallyatechismicmong ociologistsfculture, e know ittle bout heconditionsnderwhich ne orthe thers the ase.Many ociologists elieve,following ramsci1990),that ulture,mbeddednlanguage ndeverydaypractices,onstrainseople's capacity o imagine lternativesoexistingr-rangements.tthe ametime,we know hat eople ctas ifthey se culturalelementstrategicallyopursue alued nds Bourdieu 990). Cognitivee-search annotnswer he ssentiallyociological uestionfwhen ulture oeseach,but tcanprovide irectiono the earch.

Thefindinghatulturesstorednmemorys an ndiscriminatelyssembledandrelativelynorganizedollection f odds andends mposes far trongerorganizingurdennactorshan idthe arlier versocializediew.Theques-tion, hen,s howthe ctor rganizeshe nformationhat he orhepossesses.Psychologicalesearchoints otwoquitedifferentechanismsr modesofcognition.









AUTOMATIC COGNITION The first,ndmost mportant,hich refer o as au-tomatic ognitions"implicit,nverbalized,apid,nd utomatic"D'Andrade1995). Thisroutine,verydayognition eliesheavily nd uncriticallyponculturallyvailable chemata-knowledgetructureshat epresentbjects revents nd provide efault ssumptionsbout heir haracteristics,elation-ships, ndentailmentsnder onditionsf ncompletenformation.

Psychologicalesearch n schematas centralothe nterestsf ociologistsbothmethodologicallydue to advances ntechniqueshat eveal aken-for-grantedssumptionsowhich ubjectsmaynothaveeasy verbal ccess) andsubstantively,orwhat t tellsus abouthowculture orks. ndeed, or omepurposes,tmaybe useful o treat he chema s a basic unit fanalysis orthestudy fculture,nd to focuson social patternsf schema cquisition,diffusion,ndmodificationCarley 991makes related rgument).

Schematareboth epresentationsfknowledgend nformation-processingmechanisms. srepresentations,hey ntail mages fobjects nd he elationsamong hem.Psychologistsse theterm roadly some would uggest oobroadlyFiske& Linville 980)]. Itcan refer osimple, ighlybstracton-cepts for xample,ontainerD'Andrade 995)];to oncretectivitiesbuyingchewing um), r tocomplex ocialphenomenagroup tereotypesr socialroles). Event chemata r scriptsAbelson1981,Garfinkel987) constitutean importantlassofschemata. pecialattentionas alsobeengiven oselfschemataMilburn 987,Markus Kitayama 994,Markust l 1997), ultur-allyvariable epresentationsfthe elf hat rovidetabilityoth o ndividualbehavior cross ime ndto social nteractionsithinhegroup.

Schemata re also mechanismshat implifyognition.Highly chematiccognitionsthe ealm f nstitutionalizedulture,f ypification,f hehabitus,ofthecognitivehortcutshat romote fficiencytthe xpense f synopticaccuracy Berger& Luckman 967,Bourdieu 990,Kahneman tal 1982).Much ognitiveesearchemonstrateshat schematic aterialominatesthermaterialn ccurate ecall,n ntrudedecall,nrecognitiononfidence,nrecallclusteringnd in resistance o disconfirmation....chemata lso facilitateinaccurateecallwhen he nformations schema onsistent"Fiske& Linville1980: 545). In schematicognition e findhemechanismsywhich ultureshapes ndbiasesthought.

People are more ikely operceive nformationhat s germane o existingschemata VonHippel t al (1993) reporthatxperimentalubjectsremorelikelyoperceiveorrectlyermshat re chematicallyelevanthan hose hatare not. Informationmbeddednexistingchemata nd nformationhatsschema-dissonantrebothmoreikelyobenoticed han nformationrthogo-nal toexistingtructuresSchneider 991). Such aboratoryindingsesonate








270 DiMAGGIO

with esultsnhistoricalociology ndculturaltudies: or xample,hegrad-ualandhaltingcceptancef nformationbout heNewWorld y arlymodernmapmakersZerubavel 992);theways nwhich rchaic hysicalmodels on-strained edical cientists'nterpretationfnew vidence bout yphilisFleck1979); and thepenchantf male biologists or eeingdominance ierarchieswhen heywatch pes andelephanteals Haraway 991).

People recall chematicallymbeddednformationore uickly Most psy-chological videncesbasedon aboratoryxperiments,hich eveal hat ub-jectsrememberongerists fwords, r nterpretmbiguoustimulimore ccu-rately,ndretrievenformationbout storyhey aveheardmore ffectively

if t srelevantopreexistingentaltructureshat enderhe nformationnter-pretableSedikides Skowronski991).But gain, here re ntriguingocio-logicalparallelsnstudieshat eportross-culturalifferencesn descriptionsofthe ontentf the amenovelGriswold 987), elevisionrogramLiebes& Katz 1990),ormovie Shively 992)that eflectollective reoccupations("chronicallyctivated entaltructures"npsychologicalarlance).

People recallschematicallymbedded nformationore ccurately When

Freemant l 1987)askedmembersf facultyorkshopo ist he eoplewhohad ttendedhe reviousmeeting,hey oundhatong-termttendersorrectlyrecalled articipantshoregularlyttended,utforgot he nfrequenttten-ders.Using very ifferentethodanalysis fWatergateranscripts),eisser(1981) reportedhatNixon aide John ean rememberedchema-consistenteventsmore ccuratelyhan ventshatwere chema-inconsistent.

People may alsely ecall chematicallymbedded vents hat idnotoccurFreeman t al's (1987) informantsememberedegularttenderss presenttthemeetingnquestionvenwhen hey adn't een here.When ubjects retold ocodesmall-groupnteractionsnd hen iven uestionnairesbout har-acteristicsfgroupmembershortlyhereafter,hepost-hocvaluations ieldmuchhigherorrelationsfschematicallyelated ehaviorse.g. criticizingorexpressingostility)han o the eal-timeodings Shweder 982).Similarconfusionf schematicepresentationsor eal eventsmaybe observednatleast omereportsf atanichild buse Hacking 995)and n omeofformerPresidenteagan's peeches.

Theparallelwith ociological ccounts f institutionss striking. ypifi-cationsmentaltructures)nfluenceerception,nterpretation,lanning,ndactionBerger Luckman 967,DiMaggio& Powell1991). Institutionalizedstructuresndbehaviorsi.e. those hat rebothhighlychematicndwidelyshared) retaken or ranted,eproducedneverydayctionGiddens' struc-turation"1984)] andtreateds legitimateMeyer Rowan1977). Indeed, n









eminentsychologistBruner 990:58)haswrittenxplicitlyf the schema-tizing ower f nstitutions."hus he sychologyfmentaltructuresrovidesa microfoundationo the ociology f nstitutions.

Researchn ocial ognitionnhances ur nderstandingfhow ultureon-strainsut oesnot upportheorieshat epict ulturesoverwhelminglyon-straining.nstead, onsistentith ontemporaryociological heorizing,orkin psychologyrovidesmicrofoundationalvidence or he fficacyf gency.

DELIBERATIVE COGNITION In contrast o automatichought,sychologistsnote quitedifferentorm fcognition, hichs "explicit, erbalized,low,anddeliberate"D'Andrade1995). When ufficientlyotivated,eoplecan

overriderogrammed odes fthoughto thinkriticallyndreflexively.Suchoverridesrenecessarilyarebecausedeliberations so inefficientn

itsrejectionfthe hortcutshatutomaticognitionffers. onsequently,hekey uestionswhy eople reever eliberative.sychologistsave dentifiedthree acilitatingonditionsn studies hatntriguinglyarallelwork n thesociology fculture.

AttentionPsychologicalesearchuggestshat eople hiftntodeliberative

modes f houghtelativelyasilywhen heirttentionsattractedoaproblem.For xample,xperimentersancreate alse ecollectionsf videotaper toryamong aboratorywitnesses"ypresentingnaccuratenformationraskingleading uestionsLoftus t al 1989). But when hetask s changed o asksubjects o thinkarefullybout he ource fparticularitsof nformation,theexperimentalffects diminishedreliminatedJohnsontal 1993). Inexperimentaltudies fattitude-behavioronsistency,erelyncreasingelf-awarenessyplacing mirrorn he ace f he ubjects he or he ompletesn

attitudeuestionnaireignificantlyncreaseshe ttitude-behaviororrelation(Abelson1981:722). Suchresults arallel he nsightsfstudentsfsocialmovements,ho havestudiedgenda-buildingndwho have also noted heeffectivenesss an organizingevice ofrefrainingssues nwaysthat allattentionoproblemsalient omovementarticipantsSnow& Benford992).

Motivation People mayalso shift romutomatic o deliberativeognitionwhen hey restrongly otivatedo do so bydissatisfactionith he tatusquo orbythemoral alienceof a particularssue. Forexample, lthoughracist chemata reaccessible o mostwhiteAmericans, hites an overridesuch chematao ome xtenthroughwarenessndreflexivityDevine1989).Marx'stheoryfclassconsciousness-which ontends hat hysically rox-imateworkersacingmmiserationill overcome alsebeliefs hroughnter-action ndreflection-is classic ociological ounterpartandsee Bourdieu1974).








272 DiMAGGIO

Schema ailure Finally, eople hiftomore eliberative odes fprocessingwhen xisting chemata ail o accountdequately ornew timuli.Researchon thepsychologyf ntergroupelationsuggests hat eople n taskgroupsinitiallyodeothersnthe asis f tereotypesut hiftomore eliberatevalu-ationswhen acedwith ery trongnconsistentvidenceSchneider 991:536,Berger t al 1980). Moscovici,whoseDurkheimianocial psychologyif-fersnmany espects rom ther sychologicalccounts f mentaltructures(Farr& Moscovici1984,Augoustinos Innes1990), rgues hat ollectivitiesconfrontedith isjunctiveocialchange onstructew ocialrepresentations(often nchorednanalogies opre-existingchemata, nd often onstructeddeliberativelyy xpertsn he ocial ciences ndmassmedia)nordero nter-pret ew timuli.uch rgumentsreparallelednGarfinkel's1967) breachingexperiments,hich orciblyndpainfullyverrodeutomaticrocessing,ndinSwidler's ontentionhatdeologies ndother onsistentultural ormsremore nfluentialuring nsettledimes 1986, Jepperson Swidler 994 onconstitutives. strategiculture).

Psychologists aynotethat havepaidscant ttentiono activedebatesaboutthe nature f mental tructuresnd have drawn oo sharp contrastbetweenutomaticnddeliberativerocessing. esearchnculture,owever,can already enefitromwhat esearch ncognitionas resolved. he notionof schemas a fair pproximationfphenomenadentifiablenfuzzy utline,ifnot harp elief, y experimentalethods; esearchn schemata dvancessociological nderstandingsfculture,speciallynstitutions;ndresearch nautomatics deliberativerocessingmayhelp ociologistsetermine hat odowith hewidely elieved ut heoreticallynert otionhat oth nstitutionandagencyre central osocial ife.

Cultures Supra-IndividualIt s nonews o ociologistshatulturexists, uigeneris,t he ollectiveevel.(The positionaken ere-that ultures alsomanifestnpeople'sheads-isprobablymore ontroversial.)onetheless,sychologicalesearchanhelpusappreciateeveral spects fculture'supra-individualharacterhat ociolo-gists fcultureometimeseglect.

PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE A livelybranch fsocial-psychologicalesearchderives rom obert . Merton's otionf"pluralisticgnorance"1957): theidea that eople ctwith eferenceoshared epresentationsfcollectivepin-ion that reempiricallynaccurate. uchresearch irects s to distinguishbetweenwosenses nwhich ultures supra-individual:s an aggregatefindividuals'eliefs rrepresentations,r s shared epresentationsf ndividu-als' beliefs. ubstantialvidence ndicateshat he attereviatesubstantially









from he ormer ith ignificantehavioralonsequencesnd hat his rocessrepresentsbasisfor he elativeutonomyf ocialnormsMiller& Prentice1996,Noelle-Neumann993).

INTERGROUP CONTRAST AND POLARIZATION The existence f group-levelculturesshared nderstandingartlyndependentf ndividualeliefs)s alsosuggestedy the endencyf groups o adoptpublicpositionsmore xtremethan hepreferencesf theirmembers,speciallywhen ctingwith eferenceto a contrastingroup.What s strikings notpolarizationer e, but he ul-tural vailabilityfpolarizedtancesrepresentationsf ollective pinion) nwhichmembers feach group anconvergeTajfel1981).

SCHEMATA AS CULTURE Not all schemata recultural o the samedegree.Some schemataeflectniversalognitiverocessesfor xample, asicobjectcategorization),hereas thersmaybe quite diosyncratic. anyschemata,however,ndthe chemata fgreatestnterestosociologists f culture,n-act widely eld criptshat ppearndependentf ndividualxperience. orexample, heresearch,ited bove, hat ound oherencenratingsf smallgroup ehaviormergingnly fter he act,ed the uthorShweder 982) to

speculatehatmuch fwhat assesas clinical esearchnpersonalitysreallyabout ulturalonstructionsfpersonhoodandseeMeyer 986).

COHERENT CULTURES AS EXTERNAL TO PERSONS Despitethis hapter's o-cus onsubjective epresentationsf culture, e must otforgethat elativelycoherentulturalorms xistndependentlyfpersonsnthebroader nviron-ment. ndeed, ne of themorenotable haracteristicsfmodern ocietiessthe xistence fa culturalivision f abor n which ntellectualroducersn-

tentionallyreate nddiffuse yths,mages,nd deasystemsDouglas1986,Farr& Moscovici1984,Swidler 997). Other elativelyoherentepresenta-tions xist essformallys narrativesr stories epeatedlynvokednpublicdiscourseDobbin1994,White 992).

AN INITIAL SYNTHESIS Some would argue hatwhateveroherence xistsflows rom uchexternallyvailable ources,.e. that ulturaloherencesentirelyxternalo theperson.As we haveseen,however,ucha positionpushes hehealthyhift romhe atent-variableothe oolkit nestep oo far.Instead,he esearch eviewed ere uggestshat ulture orkshroughhe n-teractionfthree orms. irst, e have nformation,istributedcross ersons(Carley1991). Such distributions patterned,utnothighly ifferentiating,dueto the ndiscriminantannern which its fculturereaccumulatedndstorednmemoryGilbert 991). Second,we havemental tructures,spe-cially chematicepresentationsfcomplex ocialphenomena, hich hape








274 DiMAGGIO

thewaywe attend o, nterpret,emember,ndrespond motionallyo the n-formationeencounterndpossess. Such schemata remore learly ociallypatternedhan rememoryraces. inally, e havecultures symbol ystemsexternalothe erson,ncludinghe ontentf alk, lementsf he onstructedenvironment,ediamessages,ndmeaningsmbeddedn observablectivitypatterns.

Culturenheres ot n the nformation,or n the chemata,or n the ym-bolicuniverse,utnthe nteractionsmong hem.As we have een, chematastructureur se of nformation.utpeople cquiremany chematahroughouttheirives, nd someofthese re nconsistentoth n contentnd n mplica-tions or ehavior. ow sitthat eople nvoke ne among hemany chemataavailable othem na given ituation?

To simplify reatlynorder o focusuponthe spectoftheprocessmostrelevantothe ociology fculture,elections guided yculturalues avail-able in the nvironment.lthough few chematamaybe chronicallyvail-able,more ftenheyreprimedractivated yan externaltimulusr frame(Sedikides& Skowronski991,Barsalou1992,Gamson1992:6-8, Schud-son1989). Framingffectsnsocialsurveys-e.g. hefindinghatwhites remoreikelyoaccept egativetereotypesfAfrican-Americansf he uestionis preceded ya neutraleferenceo affirmativectionSniderman Piazza1993:102-104)-are familiarxamples.But schemataan also be activatedthroughonversation,ediause,orobservationfthephysicalnvironment.Understandinghe nteractionetween wodistributions-ofhe chematahatconstituteeople'sculturaloolkits,ndofexternalultural rimershat ctas frameso evoke and, nevoking, xertingelection ressurespon)theseschemata-isa centralhallenge or ociologistsfculture.

APPLICATIONS

This section eviewswork n cognitive spects f thesociology f culturein light f theperspectiveeveloped ere.Thetopics re dentity,ollectivememory,ocialclassification,ogicsof ction,ndframing.

IdentityIdentityas become ne ofthemost ctive esearchieldsnthe ociology f

culture.t s useful odistinguishetweenwo uite ifferentinds f ollectiveidentity:he dentitiesfcollectives,nthe nehand,ndcollectivespects fthe dentitiesf ndividualsn the ther.

IDENTITIES OF COLLECTIVES At thesupra-individualevel,collectiveden-titys a shared epresentationfa collectivity.esearch tthis evelportrayscollective dentitiess highlyonstructedAnderson 983),throughxplicit








CULTURE NDCOGNITION 275

messages ndmore ubtle lementsuch s anthemsndflags Cerulo1994).Collectivedentitiesrechronicallyontested,s groups ie to produce ocialrepresentationsapable f vokingchemata avorableotheirdealormaterialinterestsMoscovici1984,Zerubavel 994,Friedland Hecht 996).

Anotherine of research,ctive nbothpsychologynd sociology, iewsidentitiesnd elves s collective epresentationshat ary ross-culturallyndhistorically.arkus tal (1996) review esearchn differencesn the ulturalconstructionf dentitynEastAsian ndWesternocieties.Meyer Jepperson(1996) contendhat hemodernelf and tsvariationsndifferentolities) s aconstructeddentityndowedwith gency n relationo the ollectivity.

COLLECTIVE ELEMENTS IN INDIVIDUAL IDENTITIES Muchresearch n collec-tivedentitysactuallybout hemore omplexssue f hewaysnwhich ocialidentitiesnternto he onstitutionf ndividualelves.Social dentityheoryviews ndividualdentitiess comprisingrioritizeddentity-setsasedonpar-ticularisticnd ole-basedroupffiliationsStryker986). Self-categorizationtheorieslsoportrayollectivedentitiess invoked yconditionshatmakeparticulardentitiesspecially alientTajfel& Turner 986). In thisview,individualdentitieseflectlaboratedroup-identitychematanproportiono

strengthndrecencyf activation. iewingdentitiess context-dependentnthisway s consistent ith bservationsf thevolatility ithwhichdentitiesmaygain nd ose salience uring eriods f ntergrouponflict.

CollectiveMemoryCollectivememorys theoutcome fprocesses ffecting,espectively,heinformationo which ndividualsaveaccess, he chemata ywhich eopleunderstandhepast, nd theexternalymbols rmessages hat rime heseschemata.Like collectivedentities,esearch ncollectivememory ortraysthephenomenonnboth upra-individualnd ndividualerms.

Several cholars ave tudiednstitutionalrocesseshatmaintainr uppressinformationspart fpublic ulture,uch s factorsetermininghe eputationandpopularityfparticularersons rartworksFine 1996,Griswold 986,Lang& Lang 1988).Much esearch,owever,ocuses pon he chematicevel,studyingtrugglesodefineheways nwhichmembers fa society nterpretwidely hared nformationbout heir ast, itherrackinghangenthewaysinwhich person rpublicfigures understoodver ime Schudson1992,Schwartz 991) oranalyzingonflict ver lternativeisions fa collectivepast Maier 1988,Zerubavel 994).

Little esearch asfocused n the nteractionetween ndividualnd col-lectivememories. nexceptions thework fSchuman Scott1989),whouse surveymethodso explore hepossibilityhat hehistoricalvents hat








276 DiMAGGIO

men ndwomen fdifferentenerationsemember ost ividlytructureheirunderstandingfcontemporaryocial ssues.

Social ClassificationThe study f ocialclassification-theocialconstructionnduse ofcategoryschemes-has burgeonedn he ast ecade. Somework asanalyzed rocessesofclassificationnhistoricalime, escribinghe mergencef stronglylas-sifiedrtistic igh ultureDiMaggio1982),ortheuse of ocialcategorizationinthe ormationnd mplementationf ocialpoliciesStarr 992). Ofparticu-lar nterests Mohr's 1994)analysis f discourseoles,"which ses tructural

equivalencenalysis oidentifyhe mplicit lassificationfsocial problemsandclient roups mbeddednself-descriptionsf ocial-servicendpoverty-relief rganizationsn early wentieth-centuryew YorkCity.

Other esearchasfocused pon ocialdifferentiationnshorterime pans.Zelizer 1989)describes heprocess ywhichwomen indways odifferenti-ate evenmoney, heuniversalmedium fexchange,n order o mbue twithsocialmeaning. amont 1992) analyzes hebases uponwhichmen f differ-entregional nd national riginsmake ocialdistinctionshat einforceheir

sense f ocialhonor.Gieryn1997)describes oundary orkwithincientificcommunities,xamining ow cientistsespond hen he tronglassificationscience/nonsciences threatened.

Zerubavel, neoffew ociologistso study lassificationrom cognitiveperspective,oints utthat hedrive o partitioncontinuous orld ppearstobe a human niversal,hough henaturefthe ategoriesonstructedayvary ignificantlymong roupsZerubavel 991,1997,Douglas1966).Rosch(1978),whosework asdominatedsychologicalhinkingnthe opic, ro-

poses withmuch xperimentalupport)hat ognitions most fficient henwe chunkmany eparate eaturesbitsofinformation)ogetherythinkingwith prototypecompletementalmage) f nobject.Prototypicalonstructsemergetthemost fficientevel f bstraction:.e.where n ncreasenspeci-ficity rovides hegreatestmarginalncrease n information.huswe haveprototypesor chair"butnot furniture"r"divan," nd for bird"butnotfor animal" r"sparrow." lthoughhe evel twhich bject rototypesormappears o berelativelyniversal,he pecificontentfa prototypeeflects

mixoftypicalityndavailabilityna givenocationD'Andrade1995).Roschappliedhermodel fprototypesorelativelyimple oncepts. elf-categorizationheoryraws n theprototype odelHogg& McGarty 990),but t remainso be seen fcomplex ocial constructsrerepresentednsuchunambiguouserms.fso, applicationorole nalysismaybeuseful,n ightofanintriguingarallel etween osch'scharacterizationfa prototypes a









coreofessential eaturesndNadel's 1957) classicdefinitionf ocialrole sconsistingf coreofentailmentsnda penumbrafoptional eatures.

Logics ofActionMany uthors aveusedthe xpressionlogicsof action" o refero an inter-dependentetofrepresentationsrconstraintshatnfluencection n a givendomain. ometimes,fcourse, he ermsused s a synonymor idealtype"(Orru1991) or, n rational-actorpproaches,orefer o situationalonstraintsthat nduce arallel ehaviorsmong layers ith imilar esourcesiven ar-ticularules fthegame Block 1990,Offe 985).

Aricher,ore

ultural,ense f

ogicshas mergednrecent orknpolitical

economy,view hatmbeds hemnthe nteractionetweenmental tructuresinstantiatednpracticaleason Bourdieu 990),on the nehand, nd nstitu-tional equirementsn theother. riedland Alford1991:248-49)providethemost horoughxpositionnddefinition,escribinginstitutionalogics"as sets"of material racticesnd symbolic onstructions"hat onstituteninstitutionalrder's organizingrinciples"nd re available oorganizationsand ndividualso elaborate."According oFriedland Alford, hese ogicsare

symbolicallyrounded,rganizationallytructured,oliticallyefinednd

technicallyndmateriallyonstrained."Similar magerys apparentnBoltanski Thevenot's otion fmodes

of ustification1991), institutionallyinked iscoursesmbodyingpecificorientationsoward ction nd evaluation. mpirical evelopmentf similarideas canbe foundnFligstein's1990)work n"conceptionsf control"ncorporateovernance,nd nStark's1990) analysis f hopfloor oliticsn aHungarianocialist actory.

Such workequires taxonomy

f nstitutions,achof which ntails dis-tinctiveogic. (ForFriedland Alford,he nstitutionsre capitalism,hestate, emocracy,amily,eligion,ndscience, ach of which as tsown x-ial principlendlinked outinesnd rituals.)Conflictrupts rom heclashof institutionalogics, s when wifeviewsherhousehold aborthroughmarketplaceogicofexplicitxchange, hereas erhusbandmposes familylogicofselfless ervice pon he ituation.

Thenotion f ogics s immenselyppealing. irst,tproposeshat xternalritualsnd stimulinteract ith nternal ental tructuresogenerateoutinebehavior.Second, t is consistent ith he viewthat ultures fragmentedamongpotentiallynconsistentlements, ithouturrenderinghenotion flimited oherence,which hematizationf clusters f rituals nd schemataaroundnstitutionsrovides.Third,tprovides vocabularyordiscussingculturalonflicts confrontationetweennconsistentogicsof ction.








278 DiMAGGIO

At the ametime, hework emains ranklyxploratoryndcalls attentiontogaps nourcurrentnderstandingf culturend cognition, hichneitherpsychologyor ociology anaddress. hese re he opics f henext ection.

KEY PROBLEMS INTHE STUDYOF CULTUREAND COGNITION

The notion f nstitutionalogics an be reinterpreteds an efforto thematizeschematand ink hemo social structure.norderoexploithe nsightshisperspectiveffers,tudentsfculture eed hreehingshatwe now ack:- nunderstandingfhow chemataggregateomore omplex ulturaltructures,or logics"; nunderstandingf ulturalhange,which,nturn,equiresclearunderstandingf heway nwhich ctors witch mongnstitutionalogics; nda theoryf analogy,which s necessaryf we are tounderstandrocesses fschematiceneralizationhathematizationnd witchingoth equire.

ModelsofSchematic ggregationPerhapshehighest riorityor tudentsfculturendcognitions to developmodels fthematization,ywhich mean heways n which iverse chemata

aggregateomore eneralnd ociologicallynterestingonstructsike houghtstyles,tories,ogics, aradigms,nd deologies. here re everal andidatesfor uchmodels.

ATOMISTICECOUPLING Thenull ypothesiss thatverydayhoughtspop-ulated yrandomlynvoked,oosely oupled chemata ith ittlernohigher-levelarchitecture.fso,thematizations simplymposed osthoc byculturalspecialistsr mbeddednthe nvironmentnd neverydayoutines. lthough

this iew s inconsistentithmostworknthe ociologyfculture,ndwouldseem ll-equippedo xplainitherxperimentalesearchn chematarmacro-culturalhange,tcannot owbe disconfirmedbsolutely.

NESTED HIERARCHY At theopposite xtremes the view ofcross-culturalpsychologistshat ultureomprises hierarchyfnested chemata,rrayedfrom bstractoconcrete, ith he atter ntailed ytheformer. or exam-ple,Markus& Kitayama1994) view a widerange fcognitive ifferences

between apanesendAmericanss flowingromundamentalifferencesnself-schemata. lthoughhey rovide ompellingvidence fsignificantn-tergroupifferences,neneednot ssume s much oherences they o.

DOMAIN-SPECIFICITYThere s considerablevidencehatnformationndschemataertainingodifferentife omainss storedndistinctreas fmem-ory,with chematicntegrationccurring ithinpecific omainsHirschfeld









& Gelman1994). Inthisview, lusters fschemata recoherentnlywithinlimited oundaries; aken ogether,hedomains re"more ike thecollecteddenizens fa tidepool than single ctopus"D'Andrade 995:249).

Thisviewhasconsiderablexperimentalupport,hough heres little on-sensusas to the size or characterfthe domains. It is temptingo equate"domain"with he nstitutionalealmsdentifiedyFriedland Alford1991)or Boltanski Thevenot1990), andtoposit hat ulturallypecificlogicsof action" rethus mbeddednschematicrganization,ut heresat presentlittlefany mpirical arrantor oing o.

IDENTITY ENTRALITY Someevidenceuggests hatffectivelyot chemata

aremore alient ndhavemore xtensiventailmentshan oemotionallyeu-tral tructures. ork n dentityWiley& Alexander987,Hogg& McGarty1990)suggestshepossibilityhat the elf"maybe anemotionallyupersat-urated luster fschemataendingowardonsistencyndstabilityver ime.Schemata hat reembeddednthe elf-schemata,hen,remore losely rtic-ulatedwith therchemata han hose hat renot ncorporatednto he elf.

ROLECENTRALITY By analogy, necan viewrolesas situationallyvoked,

emotionallyctivated,artialdentitieshat rovidentegratedhunks f chem-atic rganizationndpermitompartmentalizationfdifferentulturalontents.Thisperspectives appealing ecause t dentifiesmechanismi.e. role ac-tivation)onnectingchematicriggeringocontextualariation,nd becauseit sconsistent ith vidence or omain-specificityf chematicrganization.Moreover,ecauseroles reembeddedndistinctiveolerelations,hisviewpoints owardn integrationf cultural ndnetworknalysiswithin singleframeworkMcCall 1987).

Which fthesemodelsof schematichematizationestdescribes hepro-cessesbywhich eople ntegratechematas atpresentnybody's uess.Sig-nificant atters-thextentowhichdeologyntersnto onsciousxperience,thepatterningfculturaltyles rorientations,nd the tabilityfcognitionacross ontext-ride n tsresolution.

Cultural hangeA secondpriorityor ociologistsfcultures to create heoriesf cultural

changehatntegratedeasfromesearchnculturend ognition ithmacroso-ciological erspectives.t eastfour ifferenthange rocessesre crucial ounderstand.

THEORYOF ENVIRONMENTALRIGGERINGI haveargued hat ulture ntersinto verydayifethroughhe nteractionf environmentalues and mentalstructures.havefurtheruggested, ycombiningogic-of-actionheoriesn








280 DiMAGGIO

sociology nd domain-specificityheoriesnpsychology,hat ulturalnder-standings ay e fragmentedydomain,o thatwhen ersonsrgroupswitchfromne domain oanother,heir erspectives,ttitudes,references,nddis-positionsmay hange adically.tfollows hatarge-scaleulturalhangesmaybe causedby arge-scale, ore-or-lessimultaneousrame witches ymanyinterdependentctors.

At themicro evel,we need a betternderstandingf howandwhypeo-ple switch mongframes,ogics,ordomainsWhite1995; from rationalchoiceperspective,indenberg Frey 993).The paradigmaticork n thiscomesfromanguage,where esearchn code-switchingasdocumentedhecircumstancesordinarilyhangesn context,onversationartner,rtopic)that riggerhangen anguage rdialectGumperz 982).Atthemacroevel,the hallengestocreatemodels hatink nvironmentalhange o patternsfswitchingWhite 995).

THEORYOF SCHEMAACQUISITION, IFFUSION,ANDEXTINCTION Psycholo-gistshavecast substantialight n the cquisitionfschemata y ndividualsduring evelopmentNelson& Gruendel 981,Hirschfeld994). Sociolo-gistsof culturehould urnheir ttentionofactorseading o changen thedistributionnd evel of activationf culturalepresentationsrschematanthepopulation.uchchangemayoccur fdifferentohortscquire articularschemata tvaryingates; r fchangesnthedistributionfenvironmentalcues lead to enhanced ctivationr deactivationfparticularchematahathave lready een cquired.

Diffusionmodelsof thesort hathave beenusedto study he effects fmedia xposuren the doptionfnew echnologiesrbeliefsmaybeuseful.Diffusionhouldbe most ffectivehere esonancexistsbetween henewculturallementndexistingchematicrganizationSperber 985).

Workin the historical ociologyof cultureprovides ome guidance.Wuthnow's1989)macro-theoryf deologicalhange,which ointsothem-portancef cological ffectsntheife hances fnewbeliefs,may eusefullytransposedomoremicroevels.Tilly 1992)hasdevelopednd mplementedvaluable pproacho tudyinghange ver ime n ontentiousovementeper-toires.Buchmann Eisner 1996) presentvidence facceleratinghangein thepublicpresentationfselvesduringhesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.

A particularhallenges to understandognitivespects fmajor ollectiveeventsn whichargenumbersfpersons apidlydopt rientationshatmighthave ppearedulturallylien o hemajorityf hem shortime efore. omereligiousevivals,he mergencef apitalismfterhe all f he ovietUnion,andsome pirals fethnicntagonismredemandingasesofthiskind.









THEORY OF DELIBERATIVEOVERRIDING It s importantounderstandot nlyhow culture onstrains,uthowpersons ndgroups antranscendhebiasingeffects f culture n thought.Work n thisproblem ypsychologistsnotedearlier)must e supplementedy research n thetypes fsocial interactionthat ead largenumbers f peopleto question nd,ultimately,o revise heirschematicepresentationsf ocialphenomena.

AnalogyndGeneralizationRelated o the tudyfchange, ut o importanthat twarrantssection f tsown, s theproblemfanalogy ndgeneralization.ociological heories hatportray ersons s activelyncorporatingulturento ognitiverganization

invariablyely nsomenotionikethehabitus, hich ourdieu 1990) refersto as a "systemfdurable ransposableispositions." hekeyquestion orall of these heoriess: Underwhat onditionsredispositionsr schemataabstractedndtransposedromnedomain o another?

Almost ll cultural hange ntails hetransferf somebody of ideas orimages rom necontentreatoanother n thebasis ofsimilarityudgments.Indeed, ny ttemptocharacterizehe ulturef group r people nabstractterms-i.e., ny nalyticffortt thematization-takesor rantedhat ctors

havethe apacityodraw nalogies etween lassesofobjects, ctors, vents,oractions,ndtherebyounderstandhem nsimilarways.

Think fcultures a networkf nterrelatedchemata, ithnalogies s the"ties" hat reate aths longwhich eneralizationnd nnovationccur.Howarenew ties" reated? he iteraturerovidest east hree lternatives.

FEATURE CORRESPONDENCE In themost traightforwardodels,wo chem-ata orrelated tructuresend hemselvesoanalogy andthus ogeneralization

acrossdomains) nsofars they hareparticulareaturesLakoff Johnson1980) that reate correspondenceetween hem.Thus Swinburne'sine,"whenthe hounds f spring reon winter'sraces,"s meaningfulecauseofthecorrespondenceetweenemporalndspatial ursuitndbetween hedestructiveffectsf hounds nhares ndofspringn winter.woproblemswithhis iew re hat he orrespondencetselfs constructedatherhannnate;andthat nalogical owerwouldnot eemtovarywith he xtentfoverlapbetweenenor ndvehicle.

STRUCTURE-MAPPING Thisviewtakes s itsstartingoint heexistence fsomeform f content-relatedomain-specificity.nalogies onnect ot im-ply chemata utwhole omainsTourganeau Sternberg982),derivingheirpower rom henetworkfentailedomparisonshey rigger.hemost ow-erfulnalogies onnect omains hat re tructurallyomologous. ut notherway,generalizabilitycrossdomains s a function otofthe xtento which








282 DiMAGGIO

they hare articulareaturesn common, ut f the xtent o which elationsamong eaturesre structurallyimilarGentner 983).

EMOTIONAL RESONANCE Someresearchuggestshat ffectivelyot chemataaremore ikely obe generalizedcross omains han ffectivelyeutralche-mata. For example, nalogies re ikely o be drawn etween ituationshatelicit trongmotionaleactionsf similar ind Abelson1981:725).

POLYSEMY AND SEMANTIC CONTAGION A final ossibilitys that olysemousexpressions-those ith istinct eaningshat esonate ithmultiplechemataordomains-facilitatenalogical ransfer.akhtin'swork 1986) on textual

multivocalitys suggestiventhis egard,s is White's 1992) work n storiesandrhetorics. oss (1992) portrays eaning s emergingrom herelationsof words o one anothern speechandto activitiesn realtime. Becausethese onstantlyhange,meaningsrerarely ixed, ut nsteaddapt, iverge,andspread crossdomains hroughemantic ontagion.Thisperspectivesparticularlyttractiveecause t cknowledgesndemichangen anguagendotherymbolystemsndbecauset mbeds eneralizationn ocial nteraction.

SYMBOLS, NETWORKS,AND COGNITIONCognitivespects f ulturere nly ne-and notnecessarilyheargest-partofthe ociology fculture'somain.But t s a part hatwe cannotvoid fweare nterestednhowculturentersnto eople's ives, or ny xplanationfculture'smpact npractice ests nassumptionsbout herole ofculturencognition.have rgued hatwearebetterff fwe make uchmodels xplicitthanfwe smugglehemnthroughhebackdoor nd thatworkncognitivepsychologyndsocial cognition,lthoughnimated ydifferentuestions,offersools hatwesociologistsanuse topursue urown gendas.

Ultimately,he hallenges to ntegratehemicro erspectivesnculturee-scribed erewithnalyses f ulturalhangen argerollectivitiesverongerstretchesf ime. have rguedor perspectivehat rivilegeschematand e-lated onstructss units f nalysis,nd ttendsomechanismsywhich hys-ical, social, ndculturalnvironmentsifferentiallyctivatehese chemata.

Thisargumentasbegged he uestionfwhich spects fthe nvironmentaremostworthyfstudy.Withoutenyingheunquestionablemportancefresearch n howmedia ndactivitytructuresnteract ith ubjectiveulturalrepresentations,shall onclude y alling riefttentiononew esearchntherelationshipf ognitivend ymbolic henomenao ocial tructuresortrayedas socialnetworks.

Someresearchersavefocused ncognitiveepresentationsf social struc-ture. Fiske& Linville1980) claim hat chema heorys especially elevant









to the epresentationf socialphenomena;ndsee Howard 1994).] The deathat ocialstructuresxist imultaneouslyhrough ental epresentationsndin concrete ocial relations as central o Nadel's (1957) role theory.BoththeoristsEmirbayer Goodwin 994,Orr1995,White 992)andresearchers(Krackhardt987)areexploringhe mplicationsfthis iew.

Networksre rucialnvironmentsor he ctivationf chemata,ogics, ndframes. n a study ftheParisCommune, ould 1995) argues hat oliticalprotest etworksid notcreatenew collectivedentities,utratherctivatedidentitieshat ommunardslready ossessed.Bernstein1975) demonstratesthe mpact fnetworktructuresn ndividuals'endencyoemploy ognitiveabstraction.rickson1996),studyingecurityuards, inds correlatione-tween hecomplexityf socialnetworksnd thediversityf conversationalinterests.Vaughan 1986) describes owpeople questioning arriage ltercustomaryatternsf ocialrelationsn order ocreate ew, ndependentden-tities s prologue oseparation. uch studies oint oa new,more omplexunderstandingftherelationshipetween ulturend social structureuiltuponcarefulntegrationf micro ndmacro, nd ofcognitivendmaterial,perspectives.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks re due tothe tudentsnmyPrinceton raduate eminar ncultureandcognitionor nsightfuliscussions fmuch fthework eviewed ere;tomypsychologyolleaguesMarciaJohnson,ale Miller,ndDeborah ren-tice,whoprovided aluableguidancenmy ffortso come tospeedy ermswith ulture-relevantiteraturencognitivend ocialpsychology;ndtoBobWuthnow,aleMiller, viatar erubavel, oger riedland,ndJohnMohr or

opportunitiesopresenthese houghtstmeetingsndworkshopstPrinceton,Rutgers,antaBarbara,ndtheASA meetings. or valuable eadingsf ear-lierdrafts,am ndebtedoRoger riedland, ichele amont, ianeMackie,CalvinMorrill, bigail mith, nnSwidler,ndEviatar erubavel.

Visit heAnnualReviews ome age athttp://www.annurev.org.

Literature ited

AbelsonRP. 1981. Psychologicaltatus f thescript oncept. m.Psychol. 6:715-29

AndersonB. 1983. ImaginedCommunities:TheOrigin nd Spread fNationalism.on-don: Verso

BakhtinMM. 1986. Speechgenres.nSpeech

Genres nd Other ateEssays, d. C Emer-son,M Holquist, p. 61-102.Austin:Univ.TexasPress

Barsalou W.1992.Frames,oncepts,nd on-ceptual ields. ee Lehrer Kittay 992,pp.21-74








284 DiMAGGIO

BergerJ, osenholtzJ, elditchM. 1980.Sta-tusorganizingrocesses. nnu.Rev. ociol.6:479-508

Berger L, Luckman . 1967. The ocial Con-structionfReality. arden ity,NY: Dou-bledayAnchor

Bernstein . 1975.Social class, anguage ndsocialization. n Class, Codes and Con-trol: TheoreticaltudiesTowards Sociol-ogy of Language,pp. 170-189. New York:Schocken ooks.2nd d.

BlockF. 1990.Political hoiceandthemulti-ple logics' ofcapital.n StructuresfCapi-tal: The ocialOrganizationf he conomy,ed.S Zukin, DiMaggio, p.293-310.NewYork:Cambridge niv. ress

Boltanski , Th6venot . 1991.De la Justifica-tion: Les Economies e la grandeur aris:Gallimard

Bourdieu . 1974.Avenier e classeetcausalit6duprobable. evueFranCaise e sociologie15:3-42

BourdieuP. 1984.Distinction:A Social Cri-tique oftheJudgementfTaste.Transl.RNice. Cambridge: arvard niv. ress

Bourdieu . 1990 [1980]. Structures,abitus,practices.n TheLogicofPractice, p. 52-65. Stanford:tanford niv. ress

Bruner . 1990. ActsofMeaning.Cambridge:Harvard niv. ress

BuchmannM,EisenerM. 1996. magesoftheself. 1900-1992. Pap. presentedt Ann.Meet.Am.Sociol.Assoc.,NewYork

CarleyKM. 1989.The value fcognitiveoun-dations ordynamicocialtheory. .Math.Sociol. 14:171-208

CarleyKM. 1991.A theoryfgroup tability.Am. ociol.Rev. 6:331-54

CeruloK. 1995. dentityesigns: TheSightsand Sounds f Nation.NewBrunswick,J:Rutgers niv. ress

CicourelAV.1973.Cognitiveociology.NewYork:FreePress

CollinsR. 1981.On themicrofoundationsfmacrosociology.m.J.Sociol. 86:984-1014

D'AndradeR. 1995. TheDevelopmentfCog-nitive nthropology.ewYork:CambridgeUniv. ress

Devine PG. 1989. Stereotypesndprejudice:their utomaticnd controlledomponents.J.Pers.Soc. Psychol. 6:5-18

DiMaggioP.1982.Culturalntrepreneurshipnnineteenth-centuryoston.MediaCult. oc.4:33-50,303-21

DiMaggioP,PowellWW.1991. ntroduction.nTheNew nstitutionalismnOrganizationalAnalysis,d. WWPowell,P DiMaggio,pp.1-38.Chicago:Univ.ChicagoPress

DobbinF. 1994. Culturalmodels forganiza-tion: the social constructionf rational r-ganizing rinciples.n The ociology fCul-

ture: mergingheoreticalerspectives,d.D Crane, p. 117-42.Cambridge: lackwell

DouglasM. 1986.HowInstitutionshink.yra-cuse,NY: Syracuse niv. ress

DouglasM. 1966.Puritynd Danger London:Routledge KeganPaul

Emirbayer , Goodwin .1994.Networknal-ysis, ulture,nd he roblem f gency. m.J.Sociol. 99:1411-54

Erickson . 1996.Culture, lass andconnec-tions. m.J.Sociol.102:217-51

FantasiaR. 1995. Class consciousnessncul-ture, ction, nd social organization. nnu.Rev. ociol. 21:269-87

FarrRM, Moscovici . 1984.SocialRepresen-tations. ambridge: ambridge niv. ress

FineGA. 1996.Reputationalntrepreneursndthememory f ncompetence: eltingup-porters, artisanwarriors,nd imagesofPresident arding.Am.J. Soc. 101:1159-93

Fiske ST, LinvillePW. 1980. Whatdoes theschema oncept uyus? Pers. oc. Psychol.Bull. 6:543-57

Fleck . 1979 1935].GenesisandDevelopmentof Scientificact.Chicago:Univ.ChicagoPress

Fligstein . 1990. TheTransformationf Cor-porate Control. ambridge,MA: HarvardUniv. ress

Freeman , RomneyAK, Freeman C. 1987.Cognitivetructurend nformantccuracy.Am.Anthropol.9:310-25

Friedland ,Alford . 1991.Bringingocietyback n: symbols,ractices,nd nstitutionalcontradictions.n TheNew nstitutionalismin Organizational nalysis, d. WW Pow-ell,PDiMaggio, p.223-62.Chicago:Univ.ChicagoPress

Friedland ,HechtR. 1996.ToRuleJerusalem.NewYork:Cambridge niv. ress

GamsonWA.1992.Talkingolitics. ewYork:Cambridge niv. ress

Garfinkel. 1987 [1967].Studies ftherou-tinegroundsfeverydayctivities.nStud-ies nEthnomethodology,p.35-75.Oxford:Polity

Gentner,. 1983. Structure-mapping:the-oretical rameworkor nalogy.Cogn.Sci.7:155-70

GiddensA. 1984. The ConstitutionfSociety:Outline f Theory f tructuration.erke-ley:Univ.Calif.Press

Gieryn F 1998.Cultural artographyf ci-ence:Episodes fBoundaryWork,ociolog-icallyRendered.hicago,L: Univ.ChicagoPress.npress

Gilbert T. 1991.How mentalystemselieve.Am.Psychol. 6:107-19

Gould R. 1995. Insurgentdentities:Class,CommmunityndProtestnParis rom 848









to theCommune. hicago: Univ.ChicagoPress

Gramsci . 1990.Culturend deological ege-mony.n CulturendSociety:ContemporaryDebates, ed. J Alexander, Seidman.NewYork:Cambridge niv. ress

GriswoldW. 1986.Renaissance evivals:CityComedy nd RevengeTragedyn theLon-don Theatre, 576-1980. Chicago: Univ.ChicagoPress

GriswoldW.1987.Thefabricationfmeaning:literarynterpretationn the United tates,GreatBritain,ndthe West ndies.Am. J.Sociol. 92:1077-117

Gumperz J. 982.Discourse trategies.am-bridge: ambridge niv.Press

Hacking . 1995. RewritingheSoul: Multi-ple Personalitynd the ciences fMemory.Princeton,J:Princeton niv. ress

HarawayD. 1991. The past s the contestedzone. nSimians, yborgs,ndWomen: heReinventionfNature, p.21-42. NewYork:Routledge

HirschfeldA. 1994.Thechild's epresentationof human roups. sychol. earning Mo-tivation1:133-85

Hirschfeld,A, Gelman, A. 1994. Towardtopographyf mind:an introductiono do-main pecificity.nMapping heMind, d.LA Hirschfeld,A Gelman, p. 3-35. NewYork:Cambridge niv. ress

Hofstede . 1980.Culture's onsequences:n-ternationalifferencesnWork-Relatedal-ues. Beverly ills: Sage

Hogg MA, McGarty C. 1990. Self-categorization nd social identity. nSocial Identity heory: ConstructivendCritical dvances,d.D Abrams, AHogg,pp. 10-27. New York: pringer-Verlag

Howard A. 994.Asocial ognitiveonceptionof social structure.oc.Psychol. . 57:210-27

Jepperson , SwidlerA. 1994.Whatproper-tiesofculturehouldwe measure?Poetics22:359-71

Johnson K,Hastroudi, Lindsay, S. 1993.Sourcemonitoring.sychol. ull. 114:3-28

Kahnemann, SlovicP,Tversky. 1982.Judg-mentUnderUncertainty:euristicsnd Bi-ases. NewYork:Cambridge niv. ress

Kluegel J,Smith R. 1986. Beliefs bout n-equality:Americans iews fWhats and

What ught oBe.New York:DeGruyterKrackhardt . 1987. Cognitive ocial struc-

tures. oc. Networks:109-34Lakoff ,Johnson . 1980.MetaphorsWe ive

By.Chicago:Univ.ChicagoPressLamontM. 1992.Money,Morals,and Man-

ners: The CultureftheFrenchnd Ameri-canUpper-Middlelass.Chicago,L: Univ.ChicagoPress

Lang GE, Lang K. 1988. Recognition ndrenown: he survival f artistic eputation.Am.J.Sociol. 94:79-109

Lehrer ,Kittay F, eds. 1992. Frames, ieldsand Contrasts: New Essays in Semanticand Lexical Organization. illsdale, NJ:Lawrence rlbaum

LiebesT,Katz E. 1990. The Export fMean-ing:Cross-CulturalReadingsfDallas.NewYork:Oxford niv. ress

Lindenberg, Frey BS. 1993. Alternatives,frames,nd elative rices: broader iew frationalhoice heory. ctaSociol. 36:191-205

Loftus F,DondersK,HoffmanG, SchoolerJW.1989. Creating ew memories hat requicklyccessed nd onfidentlyeld.Mem-oryCognition 7:607-16

MaierCS. 1988. The Unmasterableast: His-tory, olocaust,nd German ational den-tity.ambridge: arvard niv. ress

Markus R, Kitayama. 1991.Culturend heself: mplicationsor ognition,motionndmotivation.sychol. ev. 8:224-53

MarkusHR. Kitayama . 1994. The culturalconstructionf selfand emotion: mplica-tions orocialbehavior.nEmotionnd Cul-ture:Empiricaltudies fMutualnfluence,ed. S Kitayama,HR Markus, p. 89-130.Washington,C: Am.Psychol. ssoc.

MarkusHR, Kitayama, , Heiman,R. 1996.Culturend basic'psychologicalrinciples.In Social Psychology:Handbook fBasicPrinciples,d. ET.Higgins, WKruglanski.New York:Guilford

MartinJ. 1992. Cultures n Organizations:Three erspectives.ew York:Oxford niv.Press

McCall GJ. 1987. The structure,ontent,nddynamicsf elf: ontinuitiesnthe tudyf

role-identities.ee Yardley Honess1987,pp.133-45

MertonRK. 1957. Social Theorynd SocialStructure.ewYork:FreePress

Meyer W. 986.Mythsf socializationndofpersonality.nReconstructingndividualism,ed.THeller, Morton, Wellberry,p.212-25. Stanford,A: Stanford niv. ress

MeyerJW, eppersonL. 1996.The actor ndthe ther: ulturalationalizationnd he n-going volutionfmoderngency. s.,Stan-ford niv.Dept.Sociol.

Meyer W, owan . 1977. nstitutionalizedr-ganizations:formal tructures mythndceremony.m.J.Sociol. 83:340-63

MilburnMA. 1987. deological elf-schemataand schematicallynduced ttitude onsis-tency. .Exp.SocialPsychol. 3:383-98

Miller T,Prentice A. 1994.Collective rrorsanderrorsbout he ollective. erson. oc.Psychol. ull.20:541-50








286 DiMAGGIO

Miller T, Prentice A. 1996.Theconstructionof social norms nd standards.andbook fSocial Psychology,d.XX,pp.799-829.XX:XX

MohrJW. 994.Soldiers,mothers,rampsndothers:discourse oles n the1907 CharityDirectory.oetics 2:327-58

Moscovici . 1984.The phenomenonf socialrepresentations.n Social Representations,ed. RM Farr, Moscovici,pp. 3-69. NewYork:Cambridge niv. ress

NadelSF. 1957.A TheoryfSocial Structure.London:Cohen& West

NeisserU. 1981.John ean's memory: casestudy. ognition:1-22

NelsonK, Gruendel .1981.Generalizedventrepresentations:asic building locks ofcognitive evelopment.nAdvances nDe-velopmentalsychology,d.ME Lamb,ALBrown, p.131-58.Hillsdale,NJ: awrenceErlbaum

Noelle-Neumann. 1993 1980].The piral fSilence: Public Opinion-OurSocial Skin.Chicago: Univ.ChicagoPress

OffeC. 1985.Disorganized apitalism. am-bridge,MA:MIT Press

Orr W.1995.Language, alues nd ocialnet-works: nmeaningnd hemicro-macroinkin structuralociology.Ms., Center or heSocialSciences, olumbiaUniv.

OrruM. 1991.The nstitutionalogicof mall-firm conomies n Italy ndTaiwan. tud.Compar nt.Dev.26:3-28

ResnickLB, LevineJM,TeasleySD. 1991.Perspectivesn SociallySharedCognition.Washington,C: Am.Psychol. ssoc.

Rogoff , Chavajay . 1995.What's ecome fresearch nthe ulturalasisof ognitivee-velopment?m.Psychol. 0:859-77

RoschE. 1978.Principlesfcategorization.nCognitionndCategorization,d.E Rosch,B Lloyd, p.27-48.Hillsdale,NJ: rlbaum

RossJ.1992.Semantic ontagion.ee Lehrer& Kittay 992,pp.143-69

SalomonG, ed. 1993. Distributedognition:Psychologicalnd EducationalConsidera-tions.NewYork:Cambridge niv. ress

Schneider J. 1991. Social cognition. nnu.Rev.Psychol. 2:527-61

SchudsonM. 1989. How cultureworks:per-spectives rommedia tudies n the fficacyof ymbols. heoryoc. 18:153-80

Schudson M. 1992. Watergaten AmericanMemory:How WeRemember,orget,ndReconstructhe ast.New York:Basic

Schuman ,ScottJ.1989.Generationsnd ol-lectivememories. m.Sociol. Rev.54:359-81

Schwartz . 1981. Vertical lassification:Studyn Structuralismnd the ociology fKnowledge. hicago:Univ.ChicagoPress

Schwartz . 1991. Social change ndcollec-tivememory:hedemocratizationfGeorgeWashington.m. ociol.Rev. 6:221-36

Sedikides , Skowronski J. 991. Thelaw ofcognitive tructurectivation. sychol. n-quiry :169-84

SewellWHJr. 992.Atheoryofstructure:ual-ity, gency,nd ransformation.m.J. ociol.98: 1-29

Shively . 1992. "Cowboys nd ndians":per-ceptions f western ilms mongAmericanIndians ndAnglos. m. ociol.Rev. 7:725-34

ShwederRA. 982.Fact nd rtifactn rait er-ception: he ystematicistortionypothesis.ProgressnExp. Personal. es.2:65-100

Shweder A, Bourne J.1991.Does the on-ceptof theperson ary ross-culturally?nThinkinghrough ultures: xplorationsnCultural sychology,d. R. Shweder, p.113-56.Cambridge: arvard niv. ress

Sniderman M, Piazza T. 1993. The Scar ofRace. Cambridge, A: Harvard niv. ress

Snow DA, Benford, D. 1992. Master ramesand cyclesof protest.n Frontiersn So-cialMovement heory,d. AD Morris, MMueller, p. 133-55. New Haven,CT: YaleUniv. ress

Sorokin A. 1957 1927].Social and CulturalMobility. ewYork:FreePress

Sperber . 1985. Anthropologyndpsychol-ogy:towardsnepidemiologyfrepresenta-tions.Man 20:73-89

StarkD. 1990. La valeur du travail t saretributionnHongrie. ctes e aRechercheen Sciences ociales 85:3-19

Starr . 1992.Social categoriesnd claims nthe iberal tate. oc. Res. 59:263-95

Stryker. 1987. dentityheory: evelopmentsand extensions.ee Yardly Honess1987,pp.89-104

SwidlerA. 1986.Culturen action: symbolsand trategies.m. ociol.Rev. 1:273-86

Swidler . 1997.Talk fLove:HowAmericansUse TheirCulture. hicago:Univ.ChicagoPress

SwidlerA, Arditi . 1994.The newsociologyofknowledge. nnu.Rev.Sociol. 20:305-29

TajfelH. 1981.HumanGroupsnd Social Cat-egories:Studiesn SocialPsychology.ewYork:Cambridge niv. ress

TajfelH, Turner C.1986.The social dentitytheoryf ntergroupehavior.nPsychologyof ntergroupelations,d. S Worchel,WGAustin, p.7-24.Chicago:Nelson-Hall.nded.

TillyC. 1992.How todetect, escribe,ndex-plain repertoiresf ontention. orkinga-perNo. 150. Cent. tud. oc. Change.NewSch.for oc. Res.








CULTUREAND COGNITION 287

Tourangeau,SternbergJ.1982.Understand-ing and appreciating etaphors.ognition11:203-44

Vaughan . 1986.Uncoupling: urningoints

in ntimateelationships.ewYork:OxfordUniv.Press

VonHippelE, Jonides ,HiltonJL,Narayan .1993.The nhibitoryffectf chematicro-cessing n perceptualncoding. .Personal.Soc. Psych. 4:921-35

WarnerWL. 1959.TheLiving nd theDead:A Study fthe ymbolic ifeofAmericans.New Haven:YaleUniv.Press

WhiteHC. 1992. dentitynd Control: Struc-tural heory f ocial Action. rinceton,J:Princeton niv. ress

White HC. 1995. Network witchingsndBayesian orks: econstructinghe ocial ndbehavioralciences. oc.Res.62:1-28

WileyMG, Alexander, N. 1987.From itu-atedactivityo selfattribution:he mpactof social structuralchemata. ee YardleyHoness1987,pp. 105-17

WillisP. 1977. Learning o Labor New York:ColumbiaUniv. ress

Wrong DH. 1961. The oversocialized on-

ception f man.Am.Sociol. Rev.26:184-93

Wuthnow. 1987.Meaning nd Moral Order:ExplorationsnCultural nalysis. erkeley:Univ.Calif.Press

Wuthnow . 1989.CommunitiesfDiscourse:Ideology ndSocial Structuren theRefor-mation,he nlightenmentndEuropean o-cialism. ambridge: arvard niv. ress

Yardley , HonessT,eds. 1987.Self nd den-tity:Psychosocial erspectives. ew York:JohnWiley

ZelizerV. 1989.Thesocialmeaningfmoney:'specialmonies.'Am.J.Sociol. 95:342-77

Zerubavel . 1991.TheFine Line.NewYork:FreePress

Zerubavel . 1992.Terra ognita:TheMentalDiscoveryqfAmerica.ewBrunswick,J:Rutgers niv. ress

Zerubavel . 1997.Social Mindscapes:An n-vitationoCognitiveociology. ambridge:Harvard niv. ress

Zerubavel . 1994. Recovered oots: Collec-tiveMemorynd theMaking f sraeli Na-tional Tradition. hicago: Univ.ChicagoPress

dimaggio, paul - culture and cognition, 1997

Documents