Construct Validity of Cultural Theory Survey Measures

Swedlow, Brendon; Ripberger, Joseph T.; Liu, Li‐Yin; Silva, Carol L.; Jenkins‐Smith, Hank C.; Johnson, Branden B.

doi:10.1111/ssqu.12859

Cited by 23 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 75 publications

(116 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To measure the worldviews associated with cultural theory, I draw on a set of questions used in several previous cultural theory studies (see Bundrick & Nowlin, 2020; Jackson, 2015; Jones, 2011; Moyer & Song, 2019; Nowlin & Rabovsky, 2020; Ripberger et al, 2012; Tumlison & Song, 2019). Additionally, a recent analysis of the cultural theory questions used found that they lack face and content validly; however, they possesses convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity (Swedlow et al, 2020). Respondents were asked their agreement, on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale, with three statements, presented in random order, for each cultural type.…”

Section: Data and Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who should “do more” about climate change? Cultural theory, polycentricity, and public support for climate change actions across actors and governments

Nowlin

2022

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under a polycentric approach to climate change, action is taken at different scales and across all levels of government and sectors of society. Some scholars have argued that such an approach is the best lens to view the governance of climate change and that a polycentric approach has advantages in addressing collective‐action problems. However, taking a polycentric approach would require public support for action at multiple scales. The issue of climate change is polarized across political beliefs and cultural worldviews and little research has examined how the public views climate action at one level of government relative to others as well as relative to actions by the private sector and by individuals. Using an original survey of the US public from October 2017, I explore who it is that the public thinks should "do more" about climate change and the role that the cultural worldviews posited by cultural theory—hierarchical, egalitarian, individualist, and fatalist—plays in shaping those opinions. Overall, I find support for multiple actors doing more to address climate change, but with differences in support between egalitarians and individualists for actors overall and for the federal government in particular.

show abstract

Section: Data and Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who should “do more” about climate change? Cultural theory, polycentricity, and public support for climate change actions across actors and governments

Nowlin

2022

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CT was originally developed to explain cultural differences in the perception of risks (Douglas, 1970, 1992). Since then, it has been used to examine controversial issues related to nature and other social phenomena (Gerlach and Rayner, 1988; Johnson and Swedlow, 2021; McNeeley and Lazrus, 2014; Ney and Thompson, 2000; Simmons, 2018; Slovic and Peters, 1998; Swedlow et al, 2020).…”

Section: The Narrative Policy Framework: Situating Our Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Narrative policy framework at the macro level—cultural theory-based beliefs, science-based narrative strategies, and their uptake in the Canadian policy process for genetically modified salmon

Williams

Kuzma

2022

Public Policy and Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study utilizes the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) and cultural theory to examine the use of policy narratives by coalitions (meso-level) and the institutional uptake (macro-level). We analyze Parliamentary hearings about genetically modified (GM) salmon in Canada to associate narrative strategies with certain cultural worldviews and policy-stances. We explore narrative strategies used by cultural groups with regard to whether they contain the scope of GM salmon issues to “science-only” (direct health and environmental impacts) or expand the issues to “science-plus” (to include broader economic, social, or cultural impacts). Finally, we examine whether certain framings of GM salmon issues or specific cultural narratives are preferentially taken up in the final policy documents generated after the hearings. Our findings reveal significant relationships between policy-stance (pro-vs anti-GM), the cultural disposition of a policy narrative, the narrative strategies being used, and ultimately policy uptake. For example, narratives with hierarchical cultural dispositions were more likely to expand the scope of the issue to science-plus when supporting their own policy position (typically pro-GM) but contain the scope to “science-only” when refuting an anti-GM policy-stance. With regard to policy uptake, final government documents referred more to narratives that contained the scope to “science-only” and expressed hierarchical or individualistic dispositions in comparison to the hearings. This study has practical implications for understanding whose perspectives and arguments are legitimized in national policy debates about GM foods. It also extends NPF theory to how narratives containing specific cultural dispositions and risk-based framings influence policy uptake at the macro-level.

show abstract

“…Egalitarianism: What society needs is a fairness revolution to make the distribution of goods more equal. Furthermore, Swedlow et al (2020Swedlow et al ( , p. 2332 show that even approximate measures of cultural dimensions can be used to predict attitudes and behaviors that CT hypothesizes.…”

Section: Fundingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Party Identification and Cultural Theory in Europe: Methodologically Advancing Comparative Studies of the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Hornung

Bandelow

2021

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To enhance comparative studies of the ACF, this contribution provides empirical evidence for the measurement of deep normative core beliefs and cultural theory through partisan affiliation. It assesses the interplay between cultural worldviews, partisanship, and policy core beliefs by means of linear regression analyses and correlation statistics to answer the question how deep normative core beliefs are best operationalized across and within European countries. The results methodologically advance and validate cultural theory and partisanship as conceptualizations of deep normative core beliefs and indicate that an appropriate measurement is dependent both on the national context and the policy subsystem. Under different conditions, either cultural worldviews or partisanship depict deep normative core beliefs and explain the formation of policy core beliefs as the basis for advocacy coalitions.

show abstract

Construct Validity of Cultural Theory Survey Measures

Cited by 23 publications

References 75 publications

Who should “do more” about climate change? Cultural theory, polycentricity, and public support for climate change actions across actors and governments

Who should “do more” about climate change? Cultural theory, polycentricity, and public support for climate change actions across actors and governments

Narrative policy framework at the macro level—cultural theory-based beliefs, science-based narrative strategies, and their uptake in the Canadian policy process for genetically modified salmon

Party Identification and Cultural Theory in Europe: Methodologically Advancing Comparative Studies of the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About