Beyond Social Contagion: Associative Diffusion and the Emergence of Cultural Variation

Abstract

Network models of diffusion predominantly think about cultural variation as a product of social contagion. But culture does not spread like a virus. In this paper, we propose an alternative explanation which we refer to as associative diffusion. Drawing on two insights from research in cognition-that meaning inheres in cognitive associations between concepts, and that such perceived associations constrain people's actionswe propose a model wherein, rather than beliefs or behaviors per-se, the things being transmitted between individuals are perceptions about what beliefs or behaviors are compatible with one another. Conventional contagion models require an assumption of network segregation to explain cultural variation. In contrast, we demonstrate that the endogenous emergence of cultural differentiation can be entirely attributable to social cognition and does not necessitate a clustered social network or a preexisting division into groups. Moreover, we show that prevailing assumptions about the effects of network topology do not hold when diffusion is associative. * Direct all correspondence to Amir Goldberg: amirgo@stanford.edu; 650-725-7926. We thank Rembrand M. Koning, Daniel A. McFarland, Paul DiMaggio, Sarah Soule, John-Paul Ferguson, Jesper Sørensen, Glenn Carroll and Sameer B. Srivastava for helpful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.

A systems approach to cultural evolution

“…This approach complements and generalises some recent models that have also adopted a strategy of modelling multiple traits and their interrelationships. Goldberg and Stein (2018), for instance, employ a similar framework to explore the role of what they call 'constraint satisfaction' in changing the trait interrelationships in a small trait pool (what they call a 'semantic network'). This work explores how the compatibility and incompatibility of traits can be socially constructed and modified over time.…”

“…Relationships can also vary and be endogenous. A recent and related model specifically representing preferences (Goldberg and Stein, 2018) finds cultural variation divided into two clusters also when the compatibility between traits evolves culturally, through associative diffusion that takes place by pairwise displays and observations of cultural traits. When agents see two traits used together, they increase their association between them and make their preferences for them more similar, resulting in a cluster of traits that a part of the population likes and another cluster that they dislike, with the other part of the population having opposite preferences.…”

Duality in Diversity: How Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Cultural Heterogeneity Relate to Firm Performance

“…This suggests that organizations play an important societal role in bridging or reinforcing cultural boundaries between different social groups, especially if increased labor market mobility is leading employees toward greater exposure to cultural multiplicity. Under some circumstances such exposure begets intrapersonal cultural breadth (Morris, Chiu, and Liu, 2015), but under others it serves to narrow cultural repertoires and entrench cultural divisions (Bail et al, 2018;Goldberg and Stein, 2018).…”

What can cognitive neuroscience do for cultural sociology?

“…For instance, binding is involved in the generation of implicit (or explicit) associations between previously unrelated cultural elements (Goldberg and Stein, 2017;Shepherd, 2011); the link between cognitive representations of objects, events, properties, and specific affective values (e.g. linking "men" and "powerful" or "success" and "good" (Robinson et al ., 2006)); the integration of singular or concrete representations (e.g.…”

“…This is the difference between what Lakoff (2009) refers to as obligatory (characteristic of perceptual bindings such as an apple's shape and color specifications) and nonce bindings (put together on the fly and determined by characteristics of context). This approach suggests that some lines of research in cultural sociology may be on the right track in conceptualizing culture as an individual's repertoire (i.e., procedural memory) for forming coherent representations as situations arise rather than storing them ready-made (Lizardo and Strand, 2010;Martin, 2010), and thinking of cultural change as the diffusion of metaphors, objects, and dispositions reflecting novel bindings between previously unassociated concepts and practices (Goldberg and Stein, 2017).…”