IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v99y2018i4p1377-1389.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultural Worldviews and Political Process Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Chad M. Zanocco
  • Michael D. Jones

Abstract

Objectives Cultural theory (CT) is often leveraged to explain policy preferences and risk perceptions. While scholars often make claims regarding CT's relationship with political process preferences, these remain largely untested. This study explores the relationship between CT and individual preferences toward the process in which political decisions are made. Methods Using national survey data (n = 900), we identify two political process preference dimensions in exploratory factor analysis: compromise and expediency. To operationalize CT, survey items from cultural cognition theory are formed into cultural measures. We use bivariate and multivariate analysis to explore key relationships. Results Those with more egalitarian/communitarian worldviews value compromise in political decision making, while those with individualist/hierarchical worldviews are less likely to value compromise. We find no relationship between expediency and cultural worldviews. Conclusion This research suggests that CT is useful for understanding some, but not all, dimensions of political process preferences. While those with egalitarians/communitarian worldviews may be more accepting of policy decisions produced under compromise, other common tropes regarding the relationship between CT and process preferences should be carefully applied.

Suggested Citation

  • Chad M. Zanocco & Michael D. Jones, 2018. "Cultural Worldviews and Political Process Preferences," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1377-1389, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:99:y:2018:i:4:p:1377-1389
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12500
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12500
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12500?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yang, Fiona X. & Li, Leona Shao-Zhi & Yang, Gongyan & Yuan, Jia, 2023. "Political ideological distance and tourism demand: The cultural–political interplay," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    2. Miroslawa Czerniawska & Joanna Szydlo, 2020. "Conditions for Attitudes towards Native Culture, Religion and Church and Religiously Motivated Ethics," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 123-134.
    3. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2024. "Scale reliability of alternative cultural theory survey measures," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 527-557, February.
    4. Matthew C. Nowlin, 2022. "Who should “do more” about climate change? Cultural theory, polycentricity, and public support for climate change actions across actors and governments," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 468-485, July.
    5. Aaron Smith-Walter & Michael D. Jones & Elizabeth A. Shanahan & Holly Peterson, 2020. "The stories groups tell: campaign finance reform and the narrative networks of cultural cognition," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 645-684, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:99:y:2018:i:4:p:1377-1389. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.