Measuring cultural identities in cultural theory survey research

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Social Science Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-07-11 DOI:10.1111/ssqu.13419
Branden B. Johnson, Brendon Swedlow
{"title":"Measuring cultural identities in cultural theory survey research","authors":"Branden B. Johnson, Brendon Swedlow","doi":"10.1111/ssqu.13419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveEfforts to measure cultural identities in survey research rely on self‐reported ethnic, racial, and national identities. We test how survey operationalization of grid–group cultural theory (CT) influences the classification of individuals’ (sub)cultural identities.MethodsA national online sample of Americans (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 697 for current analyses) rated items from CT indices, CT statements, and cultural cognition theory (CCT) indices in a 2016–2017 panel survey. Individuals were classified as identifying with a culture if they supported it (e.g., rating it above the scale mean or median, or in the top 35 percent of the scale distribution) or agreed with each item constituting the scale (the “midpoint method” introduced here).ResultsDifferent classification methods and cultural measures yield different proportions of support of cultural biases, yielding statistically significant differences despite most people being similarly classified. Survey measures can unequivocally assign a minority of people to a single cultural identity, with a majority so classified only if one does not require the individual to support only one bias.ConclusionsUsing a short, conceptually valid measure of culture with the novel midpoint method seems best for CT survey researchers but should have implications more broadly in cultural identity research and social science efforts to classify individuals.","PeriodicalId":48253,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Quarterly","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13419","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveEfforts to measure cultural identities in survey research rely on self‐reported ethnic, racial, and national identities. We test how survey operationalization of grid–group cultural theory (CT) influences the classification of individuals’ (sub)cultural identities.MethodsA national online sample of Americans (n = 697 for current analyses) rated items from CT indices, CT statements, and cultural cognition theory (CCT) indices in a 2016–2017 panel survey. Individuals were classified as identifying with a culture if they supported it (e.g., rating it above the scale mean or median, or in the top 35 percent of the scale distribution) or agreed with each item constituting the scale (the “midpoint method” introduced here).ResultsDifferent classification methods and cultural measures yield different proportions of support of cultural biases, yielding statistically significant differences despite most people being similarly classified. Survey measures can unequivocally assign a minority of people to a single cultural identity, with a majority so classified only if one does not require the individual to support only one bias.ConclusionsUsing a short, conceptually valid measure of culture with the novel midpoint method seems best for CT survey researchers but should have implications more broadly in cultural identity research and social science efforts to classify individuals.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在文化理论调查研究中衡量文化特性
目标调查研究中对文化身份的测量依赖于自我报告的民族、种族和国家身份。我们测试了网格组文化理论(CT)的调查操作化如何影响个人(亚)文化身份的分类。方法在 2016-2017 年的一项小组调查中,美国人的全国在线样本(当前分析中的样本数为 697)对 CT 指数、CT 陈述和文化认知理论(CCT)指数中的项目进行了评分。如果个人支持某种文化(例如,评分高于量表平均值或中位数,或位于量表分布的前 35%)或同意构成量表的每个项目(此处引入的 "中点法"),则被归类为认同该文化。结果不同的分类方法和文化测量方法会产生不同比例的文化偏见支持率,尽管大多数人的分类相似,但在统计上却存在显著差异。调查方法可以明确地将少数人归入单一文化身份,而只有在不要求个人只支持一种偏见的情况下,才能将多数人归入单一文化身份。结论使用简短、概念有效的文化测量方法和新颖的中点法似乎最适合 CT 调查研究人员,但在文化身份研究和个人分类的社会科学工作中应该具有更广泛的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.50%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Nationally recognized as one of the top journals in the field, Social Science Quarterly (SSQ) publishes current research on a broad range of topics including political science, sociology, economics, history, social work, geography, international studies, and women"s studies. SSQ is the journal of the Southwestern Social Science Association.
期刊最新文献
Domains of baseless belief and the characteristics of believers Attitudes toward abortion legality and abortion regulation: Insights from a nationally representative study An advanced learning approach for detecting sarcasm in social media posts: Theory and solutions Not ready to make nice: Congressional candidates’ emotional appeals on Twitter Climate‐related disasters and transparency: Records and the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1