Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation

Abstract

Preferences come from the most ubiquitous human activity: living with other people. Support for and opposition to different ways of life, the shared values legitimating social relations (here called cultures) are the generators of diverse preferences. After discussing why it is not helpful to conceive of interests as preferences or to dismiss preference formation as external to organized social life, I explain how people are able to develop many preferences from few clues by using their social relations to interrogate their environment. The social filter is the source of preferences. I then argue that culture is a more powerful construct than conceptual rivals: heuristics, schemas, ideologies. Two initial applications—to the ideology of the left-right distinctions and to perceptions of danger—test the claim that this theory of how individuals use political cultures to develop their preferences outperforms the alternatives.

The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis

“…For example, our value orientations can change following interactions with people who reinforce or challenge our beliefs (Wildavsky 1987). Further, the major premise of Simon's behavioural rationality was that: 'humans do have priorities and goals, but they are not generally effective in judging the connections between those goals and the complex reality they face' (Jones and Thomas 2017: 49).…”

“Elective Affinities”: On the Psychological Bases of Left–Right Differences

“…The idea that leftists are motivated by a desire for big government is a rhetorical invention of the political right, and leftists have lost considerable political ground by failing to dispel the claim. Wildavsky (1989) also rejected the notion that leftright differences have anything to do with advocating versus resisting social change (see also Greenberg & Jonas, 2003):…”

The impact of a changing financial climate on a UK local charitable sector: voices from the front line

“…It is important to recognize that these classifications are not goals or targets, but a tool to provide insight into attitudes and behaviours relating to risk. Grid/group dynamics over time can define organizational cultures (Deal and Kennedy, 2000), and each subculture has a specific set of preferences in how they act, what they value, and how they view the world (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1983;Wildavsky, 1987;Stoker, 2003). The potential for conflict between cultural types is high owing to differences in their inherent values and in how they view the world.…”

“…Grid/group theory (sometimes referred to as 'cultural theory') (Thompson et al, 1990;Douglas, 1992) is used as a lens to explore the complexity of socio-cultural forces influencing the individual and group action of local charities. In the context of the study grid/group theory (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1983;Wildavsky, 1987: Douglas, 1996, this rovides an explanatory framework for evaluating how individuals and charities view the financial and funding climate, and allows an examination of their consequent behaviours (Loffi et al, 2015). The results of the study contribute to the public administration field by providing a fine-grained analysis of the differing responses of charitable organizations to their funding environment.…”