Culture and competition: A critical test of homophily and distinction explanations for cultural niches

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/282706
Title:
Culture and competition: A critical test of homophily and distinction explanations for cultural niches
Author:
Mark, Noah, 1971-
Issue Date:
1998
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
Why do different kinds of people like different kinds of culture? I examine two answers to this question: the homophily model and the distinction model. These models are alternative explanations for the finding that different cultural tastes and practices are concentrated within different sociodemographic segments of society. To determine which model is the preferred explanation, I identify conflicting predictions generated by the models. The models imply different ecological processes. The homophily model predicts that cultural forms compete with each other for people: People are a scarce resource on which cultural forms depend; cultural forms are not a scarce resource for people. The distinction model predicts a dual ecology: Cultural forms compete with each other for people, and people compete with each other for cultural forms. Empirical tests with 1993 General Social Survey data support the homophily model and disconfirm the distinction model.
Type:
text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
Keywords:
Sociology, Theory and Methods.; Sociology, Social Structure and Development.
Degree Name:
Ph.D.
Degree Level:
doctoral
Degree Program:
Graduate College; Sociology
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Advisor:
McPherson, J. Miller

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.titleCulture and competition: A critical test of homophily and distinction explanations for cultural nichesen_US
dc.creatorMark, Noah, 1971-en_US
dc.contributor.authorMark, Noah, 1971-en_US
dc.date.issued1998en_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.abstractWhy do different kinds of people like different kinds of culture? I examine two answers to this question: the homophily model and the distinction model. These models are alternative explanations for the finding that different cultural tastes and practices are concentrated within different sociodemographic segments of society. To determine which model is the preferred explanation, I identify conflicting predictions generated by the models. The models imply different ecological processes. The homophily model predicts that cultural forms compete with each other for people: People are a scarce resource on which cultural forms depend; cultural forms are not a scarce resource for people. The distinction model predicts a dual ecology: Cultural forms compete with each other for people, and people compete with each other for cultural forms. Empirical tests with 1993 General Social Survey data support the homophily model and disconfirm the distinction model.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.subjectSociology, Theory and Methods.en_US
dc.subjectSociology, Social Structure and Development.en_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineSociologyen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.advisorMcPherson, J. Milleren_US
dc.identifier.proquest9901668en_US
dc.identifier.bibrecord.b38806782en_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.