网范文：“An Experimental Study of Culture and Cognition” 在一个特定的社会情境，英语论文，如何来塑造一个人的思维，感觉和行为，英语论文，这篇社会范文探讨了高夫曼的框架略论,提出了变量内容,因此,社会价值框架获得主导地位。假设来源于实验支持的论点,结果将导致进一步的探讨。可以选择借鉴高夫曼与其他学者最近的想法和发现。根据高夫曼理论背景基础,社会情境如何进行框架转换。首先,必须通过广义文化模式有意义的参与。
文化意义的线索必须可见，高夫曼的见解与其他行探讨有助于对社会价值框架过程的把握。虽然迪马吉奥(1997)没有引用高夫曼的说法,但他的部分文化与高夫曼的视角产生共鸣。在一些情况下两个理论家表明强烈的概念相似之处。下面的范文进行详述。
Abstract
How and why does a given social value come to shape the way an individual thinks, feels, and acts in a specific social situation? This study links ideas from Goffman’s frame analysis to other lines of research, proposing that dramatic narratives of variable content, vividness, and language-in-use produce variation in the accessibility of schematic, internal cultural frameworks, and, thereby, variation in the social value frames that gain situational primacy. Hypotheses derived from the argument are experimentally supported, and results encourage further research on the process of social value framing, which operates as a person crosses boundaries in the complex subcultural mosaic.
INTRODUCTION
How and why does a given social value come to shape the way a person thinks, feels, and acts in a specific social situation? An important part of the answer to this question lies in the way the social situation is culturally framed. The classic sociological statement on framing processes is Goffman’s Frame Analysis (1974), and his work shapes important aspects of the present study. Ideas selectively borrowed from Goffman are integrated with recent ideas and findings by other scholars. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Foundations According to Goffman, framing transforms the meaning of a social situation. We limit our focus here to two conditions underlying such a transformation. First, “the materials” of the situation must be already meaningful to participants by virtue of a generalized cultural “schema of interpretation.” Second, culturally meaningful “cues” must be available in the situation to demarcate boundaries around when and where the meaning transformation will occur1 (Goffman 1974:45). Linking Goffman’s insights to other lines of research expands our grasp of the social value framing process.
Framing, Culture, and Cognition
While Dimaggio (1997) does not cite Goffman, parts of his culture and cognition analysis resonate closely with Goffman’s dramaturgical perspective. In several instances, even the language used by the two theorists suggests strong conceptual parallels between their accounts. For example, Dimaggio’s (1997:277) logic of action, “an interdependent set of representations or constraints that influence action in a given domain,” has a strong affinity with Goffman’s “already meaningful (cultural) schema for interpretation.”
Further, Dimaggio’s (1997) “schematically organized internal cultural toolkit” (Also see Swidler 1986) strongly resembles Goffman’s (1974:13) cultural “organization of experience—something that an individual actor can take into his mind.” Finally, Goffman’s (1974: 45) focus on the part played by culturally meaningful cues in framing a specific situation is closely echoed by Dimaggio’s focus on the “ways in which differing cultural frames or understandings may be situationally cued” (Dimaggio 1997: 265). Goffman’s and Dimaggio’s analyses, while developed independently, reinforce one another strongly and mutually. We now bridge their analyses to other recent lines of research in the attempt to further clarify the process through which a social value is framed to define a social situation.
Procedure and Hypotheses
The dramatic narratives read by the research subjects were designed to serve as cultural primers. These brief vignettes depicted a central female character in a social life situation, where a sequence of events requires her to make a significant decision. The first part of each of both vignettes was identically written. The dramatic content of this first vignette part was designed to render “communal-family-collectivism,” that is, an intrinsic social value concern, highly accessible within the situation at hand. The second part of each vignette was written to systematically vary the motivation underlying the central character’s decision. In the first vignette, the central character’s motivation clearly fits the intrinsic social value frame, while in the second vignette her motivation clearly fits an opposing, extrinsic social value frame.8
Summary
When an intrinsic social value frame was rendered highly accessible, subjects emotionally identified more strongly with a narrative character whose thoughts, feelings, and actions fit that frame than with a character whose thoughts, feelings, and actions fit an alternative frame. Also, the data demonstrated that a concrete-high-vivid narrative had a larger impact on subjects’ emotional identification with a depicted character than an abstract-low-vivid narrative.
And, finally, the research showed that language-in-use, manipulated by the language in which the dramatic narrative was written and read by subjects, interacted significantly with the intrinsic versus extrinsic social value frame factor and the concrete-high-vividness versus abstract-low-vividness narrative factor to produce variation in subjects’ emotional identification. These findings are consistent with the theoretical argument regarding the conditions that shape the relative accessibility of a cultural framework, and therefore the relative primacy of a social value concern, for an individual in a specific social situation. Directions for Future Research These results encourage further work along the lines of the study ed here. Theoretically, a dramatic narrative might be designed to render an opposing cultural framework relatively more accessible, thus granting primacy to an alternative social value concern. For example, an extrinsic instead of intrinsic value concern might be granted social situational primacy, in which case subjects would be predicted to display greater emotional identification with a character whose thoughts, feelings, and actions fit the extrinsic than intrinsic value frame. Demonstrating such a result experimentally would complement the present research and lend additional strength to the basic theoretical argument proposed here.
Finally, future research should explore the language-in-use variable more fully across subcultural variations. Although the focus on the formal Spanish vs. English bilingualism of Latina Americans permitted a strategic test of the relevant hypothesis in the present study, language-in-use might be construed with greater subtlety and conceptual richness across subcultures. Individuals speak not only a formal language (English, Spanish, or another language), but they also employ different dialects, jargon, argots, slang, or vernacular associated with varying subcultures based on region, age, occupation, sexual orientation, and so on. Subcultural variations in these aspects of language-in-use would also produce variations in cultural frame accessibility and social value primacy across varying social situations. Demonstrating such sub-cultural variation in language-in-use would strengthen the present findings and foster further progress in understanding the social value framing process as it operates across the complex cultural mosaic.()
网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文作品权归所有；未经官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯作品权现象，保留一切法学追诉权。()
更多范文欢迎访问我们主页 当然有需求可以和我们 联系交流。-X()
|
