Can Cultural Worldviews Influence Network Composition_Lizardo and others

7/28/2019 Can Cultural Worldviews Influence Network Composition_Lizardo and others

1/25

Can Cu l tu ra l W or ldv iews In fluence N e tw ork Com pos ition?Stephen Vaisey, University of California, BerkeleyOniiir Lizatdo, University of Notre Dam eMost sociological research assumes that social network composition shapes individualbeliefs. Network theory and research has not adequately considered that internalizedcultural worldviews m ight affect network composition. Drawing on a synthetic, dual-process theory of culture and two waves of nationally-representative panel data, thisarticle shows that woridvlews are strong predictors of changes in network compositionamong U.S. youth. These effects are robust to rhe influence of other structural factors,including prior network composition and behavioral homophlly. By contrast, thereis little evidence that networks play a strong proximate role in shaping woHdviews.This suggests that internalized cultural dispositions play an im portant role in shapingthe interpersonal environment and that the dynamic link between culture and socialstructure needs to be reconsidered.

I n t r o d u c t i o nWith the recent consolidation ofthe "cultural turn" in American sociology (Jacobsand Splllman 2005; Fricdiand and Mohr 2003) the perennial tension betweenculture and social structure has returned with renewed urgency. While this prob-lem has always been a core sociological concern , what is distinctive ab ou t the newcultural sociology is its bold att em pt to move beyond the well-worn ways in w hichthe answer to this issue was formulated in the classical tradition. The new cultura lsociology rejects the simple privileging of sttucture over culture and examines theways in which "social being" and "social morph ology " are shaped and transformedby mobilization of meaningful collective symbols and the deployment of practicalpatterns of appreciation and evaluation in interaction (Alexander and Smith 2003;Spillman 2002; Eliasoph and Lichterman 2003).

This rejection, however, does no t in any way constitute a return to a "Parsonian"account in which cultural patterns-embodied in ideas, symbols and values-arethe primary drivers of social structure. In the new cultural sociology, culture andsocial structure must be kept empirically and analytically distinct (Archet 1996;see also Kroeber and Parsons 1958). The issue ofthe structural determination ofculture and the cultural formation of structure cannot be solved by appealing toa single, general formula (Sewell 2005); they must be reopened and subject toempirical specification and theoretical reformulation in concrete social contexts.


2/25

1596 SociaForces m^)toward moral evaluation-and social network composition. We follow networktheory (Breiger 2004; Wellnian 1988) and recent developments in culturalsociology in thinking of social structure as "influential and persistent sets ofinterrelationships among actors."(SpiUman 1995:132)' We also move beyondthe current emphasis on culture as publicly available texts, objects and arti-facts (Geertz 1973), and conceive of it as involving broad orientations toward

"meanings and values" as well (Spillman 199 5:13 1). We focus on w hat Griswo ld(2004) has called "implicit culture" in distinction to the "explicit culture" em-bodied in expressive objects. This view of culture is comparable to the broadorientations toward the social and physical worlds-usually referred to as "cos-mologies"-which have been a core concern in anthropology {Douglas 1978;Sahlins 1994; see also Davis and R obinson 20 06 ).

"Ihe case of the relationship between cultural worldviews and social networksis an important test case for the analytical approach afforded by the new culturalsociology. Network theory, at least in the United States, generally relies on aone-sided "morphological determinism" that emphasizes persistent patterns ofrelations as the "efficient" causes of ephemeral cultural contents (Emirbayer andGoodwin 1994). Due to this strong presupposition, the effect of culture on net-work relations has received surprisingly little empirical consideration.

We advance a mo de! that allows analyzing the interplay of culture and netwo rkrelations. We begin with a critical review of the models of "culture in action"found in contemporary network analysis. We then go on to identify plausiblemechanisms that may link the culture and network domains. As a test of thevalue of our framework, we use panel data from the National Study of Youthand Religion to examine changes in ego network composition over a three-yearperiod among a sample of over 2000 U.S. adolescents. Specifically, we examinepredictors of changes in the number of respondents' strong ties who use controlledsubstances, who get in trouble in school, and who volunteer in the community.We focus on these outcom es because much research has focused on the imp ortanceof peer networks in promoting both deviance (Akers, Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce andRadosevich 1979) and volunteering behaviors (McAdam 1986). We find strongevidence that moral orientations play a decisive role in shaping future networkcomposition, net of previous network composition and other structutal controls.We conclude by discussing the implications of the model and empirical findingsfor cultural sociology and network theory.


3/25

C u l t u ra l W o r ld v i e w s a n d S o c i a l N e t w o r k s 1 5 9 7tions as "psychological and not sociological in character... [S]tructural analysts[instead] first seek explanations in the regularities of how peop le and collectivitiesactually behave ra ther th an in the regularities of their beliefs abo ut how they oughtto behave... [A]ccounting for individual motives is a job better left to psycholo-gists." Instead of concerning themselves with cultural motives, network analysts

"...interpret behavior in terms o structural constraints on activity!' Instead of "as-suming that inner forces... impel actors in voiuntaristic, sometimes teleological,behavior toward desired goals... [network analysts] treat norms as effects of struc-tural location, o r-itf."(italics added) Gou ld (2003:258 ) perceptively no tes tha t

"network analysts have something in common... with materialists who see peopleas servants of historical forces that they did not themselves create."

This collapse of culture into social structure is an attempt to resolve the struc-ture-culture problem by fiat. By assuming


4/25

1 5 9 8 S o c i a l F o r c e s 8 8 \ A )This assumption has two implications. First, network theory's lack of explicit at-

tention to cultural meanings leaves an action-theore tic vacuum that is usually filledby a rational-actor model. Purely structuralist models, DiMaggio (1993 :122) argues,

"treat network membership and the access of each m ember to relations asfixed,[and]actors as having a keen sense of their utility functions." Such models generalize asingle mo tivatio n-ins trum enta l gain -acro ss contexts and ignore the potential roleof culture in shaping the character of social relations (see also Smith 2003).^

Second, network theory relies on assumptions about the culture-action link thatare rarely made explicit. DiMaggio argues that this implicit framework "bears anaffinity to a perspective on action... that is distinct both from rational-choice ap-proaches and the Parsonsian [sic] tradition," regarding culture "as a mystifying systemof post hoc accounts used by aaors to normalize or explain interaction rather thanto shape it." Thus the "cultural vocabulary" that corresponds to network analysis isprimarily one of "typifications, scripts, systems of classifications and accounts."(121)

The tendency to define "motives" as "vocabularies" produced in local interac-tions continues even in network theory's "cultural turn," as exemplified by itsleading exponent, H arrison W hite . For W hite (199 7:64), talk of persons, internalmotivations and value-orientations is not relevant, because "interactions, ties insocio-cultural context, are coming to supplant persons as building blocks-and aperson may come to be seen as a knotted vortex among social networks." Thus,even though White reconsiders the importance of culture in social networks, hisstructuralist sociology con tinues to conceive of culture as a post hoc com m enta ryon ongo ing projects of con trol in concrete social contexts {White 1992 ; Emirbayerand Goodwin 1994). Identities and meaningful narratives are assumed to be theproduct o these enacted control projects rather than the cause.

Although both DiMaggio's (1993) and Whites (1992) arguments are con-cerned with network structure, the same considerations apply to research on net-work composition (McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook 2001). On this view, anyobserved association between disposition and behavior is spurious, because bothare transmitted through localized network connections (Mark 1998; McPherson2004). Both Wellman (1988) and Erickson (1982) rely on this "transmissionplus influence" model to explain cultural homogeneity in informal "cliques."According to this model "people acquire norms, as they do other pieces of infor-mation, through n etwork ties."(Wellman 1988:35) Any hom ogen eity of attitudesand normative orientations among actors is thtis understood to be the result of


5/25

C u l t u ra l W o r ld v i e w s a n d S o c ia l N e t w o r k s 1 5 9 9

Given the confidence with which network theorists advance such claims, onemight expect to find a long series of empirical studies substantiating the powerof network influence. Though there are many cross-sectional studies that inferinfluence on the basis of positive associations between alter's and ego's attitudesand orientations (see Haynie 2001 fora recent example), the bulk of them do no tproperly consider that ego and alter may have already displayed substantial cultur-al similarity prior to forming a tie (Lazarsfeld and M erton 195 4). The few studiesthat do take prior ego-alter cultural similarity into account find that "conformity"efl^ects are greatly deflated, sometimes by more than half (Cohen 1978, 1983;Kandel 1978). Thus, as Cohen (1978:238) concluded in a much neglected study,

"while uniform ity pressures clearly do operate, they are by no m eans the sole sourceof uniformity in c liqu es ... it is rather likely that pa ir of relations also achieve m uchof their homogeneity through homophilic choice." Kandel (1978:435) arrivesempirically at a similar conclusion: "[pjrior homophily on a variety of behaviorsand attitudes is a determinant of interpersonal attraction... friendships that willdissolve are less similar than friendships in the process of formation."

These studies are consistent with Schneiders (1987) influential attraction-selec-tion-attraction model of organizational behavior, which regards persons' prior dispo-sitions as a key variable in de term ining their choice of social context. Organizationalenvironm ents are shaped by the prior choices of compatible persons to join the orga-nization and by the higher probability that persons with incompatible dispositionswill select themselves out. More broadly, recent critiques of structuralist networkapproaches to contact selection and relationship formation in the management lit-erauire show that such ignored individual-level "psychological" factors a s personalityplay a key role in explaining systematic differences in network composition, rangeand local structure (Mehra, Kildufl"and Brass 2001).

Given the thin empirical record of the primary mechanism through whichsocial network theorists envision "network effects" on culture (but see McFarlandand Pals 2005), we argue that the question of reciprocal effects between culturalorientations and network composition is much more open than most contempo-rary network theory leads us to believe.Culture, Cognition and the Formation of Social TiesA D u a l -P r o c e s s M o d e l o f C u l t u r eInstead of thinking of culture exclusively as disembodied scripts or "vocabularies


6/25

1600 Soc ia l Forces 8m)Our rejection of the "culture as post-hoc rationalization" model (DiMaggio

1 993) in favor of this new m odel is based primarily on recent advances in cognitivescience. Ih e culture-as-rationalization view is based on implausible assumptionsabout where the cognitive links between culture, motives and conduct should besough t. Most scholars have assumed that, to be mo tivational, culture would haveto be "stored " consciously as ideologies, propositions, preferences, values or storiesand have assumed tha t if cultural con tents functioned as network-in dep end entmotives, we would find consistency between the beliefs people articulate andtheit conduct (see e.g., Collins 1981; Swidler 1986). In the absence of consistentevidence for either articulacy or consistency, most network theorists concludetha t cultural systems of meaning and value canno t m otivate action. Instead, as wedemonstrated above, they regard both action and ctilture as the spurious productof prior netw ork structtires.

There arc, however, important reasons to rethink the assumption that culturalmotives must be conscious (Vaisey 2009). The cognitive and behavioral sciencesrecognize two analytically distinct levels of mental functioning-the conscious andthe automatic (Nisbett and Wilson 1977; Shiffrin and Schneider 1977; Sloman1996; Chaiken and Trope 1999; Smith and DeCoster 2000; Evans 2008). Wenow know tha t most judgm ents - including social ones (Chaiken and Trope 1 999;Smith and DeC oster 20 0 0 )-o cc ur below the level of conscious awareness. In thesocial sciences, this ins ight is central to most versions of practice theory (Bourdieu1990; Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina and Savigny 2001).

Most salient to our argument, there is now strong evidence that mor a l i n t u -i t ions vary systematically between nations (see Haidt and Joseph 2004) and be-tween subcultures in a given co untry (H aidt 20 0 7; Haidt and Craham 20 0 7). Toanalyze such differences, Richard Shweder and his colleagues outlined a typol-ogy of three analytically distinct areas of moral concern: the ethic o au t on omy ,concerned with harm, tights and fairness; the ethic o community^ concerned pri-marily with role obligations; and the ethic odivinity., concerned with maintain-ing spiritual pu rity and uph olding the "natural" or divine order (Shweder 20 0 3).This typology is quite similar to the individualist, community-centered, andreligious typology developed by Beilah and colleagues (1 98 5) . Tho ugh Shw eder(like Beilah) talks about these ethics mainly in terms of "discourse," psychologi-cal research has associated Shwedet's "big three" with different intuitions aboutright and wrong in experimental and observational research (Haidt 2001 ). These


7/25

C u l t u r a l W o r l d v i e w s a n d S o c i a l N e tv w o r k s 1 6 D 1

of deliberating and rationalizing when required by the demands of social interac-tion (see Vaisey 200 8, 200 9) . Though this model is simple, it differs significantlyfrom conventional models that define culture as epiphenomenal a priori or thatset a cognitively misguided standard for detecting cultural influence.The dual-process model combines Bourdieu's definition of "culture as embod-ied schemes," which has become central to cognitive anthropology (e.g., Straussand Q uin n 1997; Bloch 1991), with the "analytical dualism" of recent culturaltheory, which regards culture and social structure as analytically distinct. Someproponents of this "anti-conflarionist" approach regard culture as mainly "objecti-fied" and transindividual (e.g.. Archer 1996), but this is not a necessary postulateof analytical dualism. O ur version of the dualist approach distinguishes "subjectivestructures" that have been internalized from the "objective structures" in which"encultured" individuals come to be emb edded , including objectifiable patterns ofsocial relationships (see Bourdieu 1996). Our model thus enables an investigationof how individuals come to acquire durable dispositions, and how those disposi-tions go on to shape their objective structural environments.CulturalWorldviews a n d t h e Formation of SocialNetworks

Most longitudinal studies reveal surprisingly high levels of instability in personalnetworks, with approximately 30 to 60 percent of the personal network experiencingturnover in a years time (see Bidart and Degenne 2 00 5; Suitor and Keeton 1 9 9 7 ; seealso Wellman et al. 1997 for a synoptic review of recent longitudinal network stud-i e s ) . Suitor and Keeton (1997), usin ga sam ple of 56 married wom en, report that 52percent of the alters nam ed by respondents in the original interview were not namedagain ac either the 1-year or 10-year follow up. Morgan et a l (1997:14) conclude thatthere is "a considerable degree of instability in who is present in the network overtime. In particular, the average overlap of 5 5 % means that just over half of thosewho were named in one interview or the other appeared in both." These studiesshow that old ties are constantly being deleted and new ones formed throu gho ut thelife course (Suitor, Wellman and Morgan 1997) and that friendship selection andnetwork "fine tuning" represent important-if ill-understoodprocesses throughwhich people shape their relational micro-environment.

We suggest that cultural worldviews-defined as implicit schemes of percep-tio n- se rv e to process information regarding a potential alters com patibili tywith ego. In Mary Douglas' (197B) terms, we regard the friendship choice


8/25

1602 Soc ia l Forces 8m )structurally. Instead, we see this as a "fast" and "hot" cognitive-affective processthat determines whether two persons "click" as friends.

DiMaggio (1993:125-27; emphases added) recognizes the importance of thisprocess during the early stages of network formation, suggesting that alters' ' 'at-tributes (including biographical information)... enable... [ego] to Tadk.G. sna p judgments i^owx^ their suitability." We suggest tha t these "snap judg ments" reflect, intera l i a , moral intuitions. DiMaggio makes clear the moral dimension of friendshipchoice when he argues that ego's judg m entsare the pro duc t of "the ways in which[alters] express themselves-the v a l u e s , n or ms , or att i tudes that can be read intotheir utterances and more elusive aspects of style." DiMaggio concludes that it ispossible to "conceive of the assessment of sympathy as a cultural ma tc h i n g p r oc e s s .,in which actors rely subliminally on verbal and nonverbal cues to estimate culturaloverlap, experienced as com fort/discom fort and confidence/unease."

Though DiMaggio highlights the largely ins t rumental puxsmi of ties in hisown illustration, there is no reason that this framework cannot be extended torelational ties in general. As Bourdieu (1 98 4:2 41 , italics added ) rem arks, "Thesocial sense is guided by the system of mutually reinforcing and infinitely redun-dant signs of which each body is the bearer-clothing, pronunciation, bearing,posture, ma nne rs-an d which, unconsciously registered, a r e t he basis of 'ant ipathieor ' sympathies ' ; the seemingly m ost immedia te 'elective affinities' are always partlybased on the unconscious deciphering of expressive features."Empirical i mpl i ca t i onsFollowing the dual-process model of culture, we view the observable cues con-nected to the tastes and expressive styles of others as inp uts to culturally-biasedcognitive structures. The degree of fit between social input and cultural biasproduces emotion-laden judgments of "liking" or "not-liking," thus serving asa crucial determinant of tie "decay" (Burt 2000) or persistence. We hypothesizethat cultural worldviews will have considerable effects on the over-time compositiono fth e fo c a l actor's local relational e n v i r on me n t Ana that these effects will not proveto be the spurious byproduct of the personal network's pre-existing characteris-tics. Specifically, we expect t ha t ties to alters wh ose behaviors, tastes or expressivestyles are incompatible with the focal actor's moral-cultural worldview will tendto decay more quickly than ties with others who exhibit compatible cues, evenafter accounting for prior network composition and other attributes indicative


9/25

C u l t u r a l W o r ld v i e w s a n d S o c i a l N e t w o r k s 1 6 0 3

DataThe data for the empirical portion of this research come from the 2002 and 2005waves of the N ational Study of Youth and Religion. The first wave of the NSYR isa random sample of 3,290 English- and Spanish-speaking teenagers (ages 13-17)in the United States. The Wave 2 survey was an attempt to contact all of the teenrespondents from Wave 1, who were then 15 to 20 years of a g e . The retention ratebetween waves w a s about 78 percen t. We employ an appropriate w eight for all analy-s e s . Because of missing data, the N for each analysis varies between 2,100 and 2,140 .

These surveys are particularly w ell-suited to the question of cultural influenceson network composition for three reasons. First, they contain information onseveral measures of network composition at two time points. Second, they providetwo measures of moral-cultural worldview that have been successfully employedin previous research (Baker 2005; Hunter 2000). Tliird, they contain a widevariety of socioeconomic, demographic and behavioral data that might also bepredictive of changes in network composition, thus allowing adequate controlsfor confounding factors.' DMeasures and ModelsDependent VariablesNetwork Composition: The outcomes of interest here are the number of each re-spondents friends who (1. "do drugs or drink a lot of alcohol," (2. "have been introuble in school for fighting, cheating, or skipping classes," and (3. "regularly dovolunteer work or community service." This value was generated by asking therespondent to name up to five "closest friends," and asking which of those friendsengaged in the activities in question. This data w a s collected in 200 5, during Wave 2.Independent VariablesLagged Dependent VariablesThese measures reflect the composition of the respondent's social network at Wave 1of the survey (200 2). They were constructed identically to the measures at Wave 2.Moral-Cultural WorldviewThe NSYR provides two ways of measuring moral-cultural worldview. The first wasderived from Hunter's (2000) operationalization of the expressivist-utilitarian-civic-


10/25

1 6 0 4 S o c i a l F o r c e s 8 B { A ]ideal, of course, and the available responses d o not cover all conceivable possibilities.It is nonetheless well-matched to the Bellah typology and was explicidy designed tomeasure this typology in youth samples. Hunter (2000) found that this questionpredicted other survey responses In a large number of domains with a high degreeof discrimination. We therefore hypothesize that these differences will also leadto differences in social networks. Because drug use and "getting into trouble" aredeviant acts at this age, we expect that the more traditional com munity and theisticworldviews (compared to the individualist ones) will lead to networks with feweralters engaged in such behaviors. On the other hand, because both community andtheistic moralities are more "collectivist" (Hitlin 2003; Oishi, Schimmack, Dienerand Suh 1998) we should expect that they will be positively associated with acquir-ing or maintaining strong ties to regular community volunteers.

The second measure of moral worldview is an indicator of moral absolutismand relativism that closely resembles that used on the World Values Survey (Baker2005). Ihis question asks, "Some people say that morals are relative, that thereare no definite rights and wrongs for everybody. Do you agree or disagree?" Theresp ond ent could agree (1) or disagree (0). Because research in this area shows tha trelativists are m ore likely to accept practices th at have been trad itionally frownedupo n (such as abo rtion or prem arital sex; see Baker 2005) and less likely to derivea sense of community from others (Ryle and Robinson 2006), we hypothesizethat relativists will develop or maintain more network ties to controlled substanceusers and maintain fewer network ties to regular volunteers than will absolutists."*Other Con trolsIn ad dition to the usual demograph ic controls, we include several other factors toattempt to rule out potential spurious associations. To exclude the possibility thatadult network connections are driving the community worldview response, wecontrol for closeness to parents and adult network closure around the respondent.^To rule out the possibility that religious networks or institutions are driving thetheistic response, we control for religious service attendance, religious traditionand the num ber of close friends w ho share the respon dent's religious beliefs. Thesesocio-demographic and network controls should accou nt for the m eso- and micro-level context that is usually held to shape beliefs, networks and action in the sociol-ogy of culture (D iMaggio 1997; Lichterman 1996; Swidler 2 0 0 1 ) . We also controlfor relevant behavior at Wave 1 (frequency of using marijuana and getting drunk


11/25

C u lt u ra l W o r ld v i e w s a n d S o c i a l N e t w o r k s 1 6 0 5

effect of a durable state (moral worldview) on change in network compositionbetween survey waves, we use a lagged dependent variable model rather than afixed-effects specification (Haiaby 20 04) . Tho ugh the longitudina l design ensurescausal order, the models estimated here assume that the specified lag (two-and-a-half to three years) is an appropriate one for detecting the hypothesized causalrelationships. Although this assumption may not be tenable in all cases, it seemsplausible for investigating cultural effects on network change in this population.

In addition to estimating coefficients and test statistics, we com pare effect sizesusing percent changes in the estimated count. For dichotomous variables, wedefine effect size as the associated percentage change in estimated count. For theother variables, we use the percentage change associated with a one-SD changein the predictor (Long 1997). These values will allow comparing the relative netstrength of each predictor.ResultsDo Cu ltural Worldviews Affect SocialNetwork Composition?Table 1 shows the results of regression models predicting Wave 2 network com-position. The table is largely self-explanatory, but there are several results worthhighlighting. Unsurprisingly, network composition in 2002 is a good predictorof network composition in 20 05 . We cannot know whether or not the same indi-viduals are in the tietwo rk, bu t there is a tendency for netw ork characteristics to re-main the same. We should not overstate the durability of such networks, how ever;the polychoric correlations (not shown in the table) between Wave 1 and W ave 2network com position are .47 for controlled substance use, .29 for trouble and .33for volunteering. Althoug h there are clear continuities in netwo rk characteristics,there is plenty of variation between survey waves. The multivariatc models alsoshow that prior behavior (e.g., getting drunk, cheating, volunteering) is a goodpredictor of future n etwork co mposition, indica ting an expected tendency towardbehavioral homophily (consistent with Pearson et a l . s [2006] results). People ten dto develop ties with individuals who are similar to themselves in terms of habitsand lifestyle (McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook 2001).

In addition to continuity and homophily, only o n e other factor w a s significantin all three models: moral worldview. Compared to the community-orientedreference category ("follow the advice of an adult"), young people choosing theexpressivist response ("makes me happy") are more likely to develop or maintain


12/25

1606 Social Forces m^)

cooo.Eoo.oNW

CM>raE"G" Ofl>a .enOenraa>a:o

enoco* . COoce

c3O>

enOiCO

" oo

1 ^ 'In

ena>buoj

oc' I D0 )uCQt n3tf

tuNt n, CJII1

N

C Q

t urMt o, CJ0 )** UJ

IM

c a

d )t o"oUJ

M

a i

COCD _CM CMCNCT) aqC7 >

CNCOCO O IfCNI IO COCO 1-^ ^ o

0 0m

LTiCOhCOCOO

CMCDCM

CstCOCOOOOC3OO r. C Oo CO - ^o o

COoo' i foo - ^ COCO oo -ci-CM ^CN

COCO CD CD lO COCD TT CD CO h - - ^ CMCO CO CDCM i r i CO

CO r CO COo r CM OCM CD CM C3-< - T- CO cnCD ^ CO COCD CD CZ) C3

C7> COCM r^

CO r^ CM CM CDCO CVI t CM CJio t- o o o

OOCO ocri

COCD 1 - UO T -CN CZ) ' ^CNJ 1 - ^ CM

t oCO ^ CD CO CDr-~ 1 CO CD>- ' . ^ -^CD LOCD CDCN - ^

CTl C DCM OO


13/25

Cultural Worldviews and Socia l Networks 1607

-> unC3

LO CNCO -^

CM "d- CO UT- cn '^ COcn CD T- oLO COCD COCD C D

CO r CO r^ CO ^ C D < o o r^

CM CD CO CN CD t - ^CN r-- CD CD T- m CNC N c n CiD T CD ' cn

CT)CTJCM

< O CN t-; CM CM CO C Dt - ^ C N ^ - ' ^ - ' C N ^--'C M

cnCD^CslCMCDC-JOCD

^ cn CO Ln CO CD COC O C T> C O l O C O C Z i C OC D C D C D C O < - t - < -c o c D o 3 rCOCMCOLOCOLOCMi-CDi-'


14/25

1 6 0 8 Soc ia l Forces Bm)2 1 percent of teenagers who identify with the theistic worldview are not identicalto the teens one might otherwise call "religious" based on behavioral measures. Ifsome form of "social contro l" is at work here, it is a social con trol over and aboveadult connections, parent monitoring, religious tradition, nerworks of religiousfriends and church attendance. These youth seem to be those that have inter-n a l i ze d s c h e m e s of perception and action consistent with theistic cultute in theUnited States (Hunter 2000).

The "effect size" column for each model allows comparing the relative strengthof the significant predictors. These comparisons seem surprising from a stan-dard network approach, but are consistent with the arguments of Emirbayer andGoodwin (1994) and the findings of Lizardo (2006). Moral worldview has alarger (in some cases much larger) net effect on Wave 2 network compositionthan a change of one (or several) standard deviations in either Wave 1 networkcomposition or previous behavior. In this population at least, worldview predictschanges in the content of social networks much better than race, sex, householdincome, parents' education and a host of other factors. To better illustrate theseresults. Figure 1 shows predicted coun ts by worldview for Wave 2 netw ork char-acteristics holdin g all othe r covariates at their means . Taken together, these resultsare certainly no tew or th y- a single, relatively abstract m oral question, asked nearlythtee years earlier, is more predictive of future friendship networks than eitherprior n etworks, behavioral hom oph ily or demog raphic characteristics. Such a pos-sibility is seldom, if ever, acknowledged in the literature on networks and culture(Erickson 1988; Wellman 1988).A d d i t io n a l A n a l y s is : D o S o c i a l U le t w o r k s A f fe c t C u l tu r a l W o r ld v i e w s ?We have argued that cultural sociology and network theory need to move beyon ddeterministic and "conflationist" views of the culture-structure relationship toinvestigate empirically their dynamic relationship. Though the emphasis hereis exploring the role that moral-cultural worldviews play in shaping networkchange, we also briefly consider the oth er side of the process: how networks influ-ence changes in worldview. From Wave 1 to Wave 2, 54 percent of respondentschanged their response to the moral woridview question, though only 33 percentmade the substantively larger change (in either direction) between an individualistresponse and e ither of the no n-individualist responses. W ith only one item, thesefigures und oub tedly reflect substantial m easurem ent error, bu t we should be able


15/25

C u l t u r a l W o r ld v i e w s a n d S o c ia l N e t w o r k s 1 6 0 9Figure 1. Predicted N um ber of Strong Ties at Wave 2 by Worldview2

Expressiv istUtil itarianCommun i t yTheist ic

Drugs TroubleType of Strong T ie

Volunteer

here to interpret each coefficient, but note only those findings that are directlyrelevant to our theoretical concerns.

The best predictor of worldview at Wave 2 is worldview at Wave 1. Given ourclaim about the durability of cultural worldviews, this is perhaps no t surprising.'' Thestrong tie variables are not significant predictors of these changes, again suggestingthe relative robustness of cognitive structures to proxim ate peer influence. TTiere is,however, evidence of some structural effects on worldview change. Adult networkclosure around tlie respondent is associated with a lower probability of either indi-vidualist response. A dense network of adult supp ort seems to dispose teenagers toadopting or maintaining a less individualistic worldview. A similar pattern emergesfor parental monitoring, with greater supervision negatively associated with choos-


16/25

1610 Social Forces m^)Table 2: Wave 1 Predictors of Wave 2 Worldview

Prior WorldviewExpressivistUtilitarianTheisticCommunity (reference)Morai relativistPrior Network CompositionUsing strong tiesIn trouble strong tiesVolunteering strong tiesPrior BehaviorFrequency of drunkennessFrequency of smoking potFrequency of cheatingFrequency of cutting classEver suspendedFrequency of volunteeringOther Network CharacteristicsSame religion strong tiesAdult network closureDatingNumber of strong tiesFamily CharacteristicsParent monitoringTwo-parent biological familyCloseness to parentsReligious ParticipationChurch attendanceConservative ProtestantBlack ProtestantMainline ProtestantCatholicJewishMormon (LDS)Other religionIndeterminate religionNo Religion (reference)

Expressiveb1.106***.534**

.553**

.225-.009-.006.049.015.161.117*.057

-.203.045.018

- . 1 6 2 ".035.177

-.153*-.165-.009-.054-.307-.255.350-.120-.177-.448.466.488

Dem ographic and Other CharacteristicsGender (female = 1)A g e ( W I )BlackOther race

-.049-.065-.411-.287

Utilitarianb.876***.848***.733**

-.120-.081-.172-.020.153.392**.015.160.254

-.025-.040-.168*.034.270*

-.117.029-.034

-.028.182-.356.411.122-1.478-.025.654

1.164*

-.286- .161*.499

Theisticb.025.205

1.242***

- .391**.015-.067.082.072.031.111*.141

-.243-.121.058.061

-.150-.028.122

-.047.024.142***.536-.239.375-.440.671.682

1.065*.632

. 444**-!ooi.247

WaldTest

***********

*

**

***


17/25

C u l tu r a l W o r l d v i e w s a n d S o c i a l N e t w o r k s 1 6 1 1

and change. To illustrate the value of this model, we investigated some of its keyimplications empirically. Consistent with a "dual process" model, our resultsstrongly suggest that cultural beliefs play an independent causal role in the trans-formation of the local interactional environment.These results have important implications for conceptualizing the dynamicinterplay of culture and social structure. With few exceptions, contemporarynetwork theory relies on the metaphor of networks as durable "conduits" or "pipes"through which ephemeral cultural contents are transmitted (Borgatti 2005). Wehave argued that this conduit model, while applicable in some circumstances,cannot be the basis of a general theory of networks and culture for two reasons:first, personal networks are hardly sturdy "structures" but are in a constant stateof flux. Moreover, tastes, dispositions, an d worldviews may be m ore durab le andstable than network ties (Lizardo 2006). Second, because individuals are con-standy dropping old ties and adding new ones, processes o{ contact selection andrelationship formation are continually in progress. Current network theory doesnot ha ve -a nd given its metatheoretical presuppositions, cannot p ro vi de - a coher-ent account of self-selection into relational environments (Cohen 1983; Schneider1987). Nor can it account for how actors select among possible candidates forentry into their intim ate circle of relationships. By contrast, we have shown thatimplicit cultural worldviews seem to play a crucial role in this contact selectionprocess,"" and we have argued tha t embodied culture serves as a kind o f relational

filter that shapes the evolution of persona! networks.**It is im po rtan t to be clear about ou r definition of culture. W hile we a gre e-f ol-

lowing Geertz ( 1 9 7 3 ) - that a lot of culture is public and symbolic, we do not viewculture solely through the "text" metaphor. We see such an approach as abdicat-ing the primary responsibili ty-and promise-of a cultural sociology, which is totmderstand how culture shapes action. Though our approach is consistent withassertions about the "autonomy" of ctilture, we do not understand this autonomyas ^^ autonomy froni' some other social domain (e.g., the economy, the polity) butrather as a species o causal autonomy. That is, we see culture as autonomousinsofar as it figures as a causally relevant, "locally in depend en t" factor tha t shapespatterns of conduct and affiliation.

We in no way deny the causal autonomy of the objective relational environ-ment. In fact, we see the causal autonomy of objective structures as implied bythe causal autonomy of culture. By structuring one's exposure to systematic pat-


18/25

1 6 1 2 S o c i a l F o r c e s 8 8 { A )time. By investigating the cond itions in which culture is decisive for shaping socialstruc ture, ou r approach w ill necessarily also lead to a better un derstanding of thosecontexts within which "network effects" on culture are most likely to be observed.

The network paradigm has an "elective affinity" with a problematic definitionof culture as primarily linguistic and discursive, compo sed of ad hoc rationaliza-tions of the eifects of social structure. We agree that post hoc rationalizations foraction are ubiquitous, but we do not agree that culture is reducible to justifica-tions (Boltanski and Thvenot 2006), "accounts" (Scott and Lyman 1968) or

"vocabularies of motive."(Mllls 1940) "Sense-making" discourse is the tip of thecultural Iceberg; subm erged in less-accessible regions is a realm of implicit cultureencoded in non-linguistic form, stored in procedural zn not declarative memory,with the potential to shape our perceptions and reactions to events, including afairly mundane type of event-friendship selection.

M ore generally, empirical research in a wide variety of dom ains is needed to es-tablish the conditions un der which cultural m atching processes tend to determ inethe fate of newly-formed relational connec tions and und er w hich conditions thisprocess is dampened and overridden by "structural" factors. This is entirely withinthe spirit of recent calls to go beyond the view of social networks as "condu its" andto focus on "mechanisms of relation formation in conversationa l settings."(Mische2003:25 9) A lthough most sociologisrs now agree both that "networks ma tter" andthat "culture ma tters," we think tha t it is time to analyze the cultural an d cogn itiveprocesses related to the formation of social networks and vice versa. The ultimategoal of research in this area will be to develop powerful models of the dynamicinterplay between culture, cognition and social structure. We hop e this study hastaken a useful step in that direction.Notes1 . There are other contemporary theoretical traditions of "network theory." Mostinfiuential have been recent attempts by Castells (1997) and Urry (2002) ro cast

the network metaphor as a broad way to characterize recent cultural and structuraltransformations in late-modern societies. While we recognize this tradition oftheorizing as impo rtant, our main concern in this article is with the more em piricallyoriented line of research associated with "American" network analysis (see Freeman2004 for an enlightening history).

2 . White (1997:59-60) recognizes and welcomes this deveiopment, noting that "[T]herecent resurgence of 'rational actor' models is not inconsistent with my view since


19/25

C u l t u r a l W o r l d v i e w s a n d S o c i a l N e t w o r k s 1 6 1 35 . See the Ap pend ix for descriptive statistics an d definitions for all variables.6. O ne reviewer pointe d out that the between-wave change in moral worldview was

"closer to completely random than completely stable." This is true. If the wave 1 andwave 2 responses were completely random, we would expect 29.7% to give the samespecific answer and 52.6% to give the same category of answer (individualist or non-individiialist) at both waves. The acmal consistency-46% and 66% respectively-isbetter than this, but only covers 24 % and 32 % of the distance between total randomnessand total stability. This does not underm ine our argu ment, however, for c w o raisons: firsc,there is an unknown quantity of real change in the data, which is to be expected withrespondents of this age; second, measurement error-especially U'lth a single subjectiveitem-makes approaching perfect consistency unrealistic under any conditions.

7 . This is course not to deny that individuals som etim e consciously seek out new friendsand sometimes even consciously consider the pros and cons of certain relationalpartne rs. However, our main a rgum ent is that this type of friendship selection processis the exception and not the rule (DiMaggio 1993). Furthermore, the dual-processmodel predicts that even when individuals are processing information in the moretraditional "rule-based" form (Sloman 1996), the biases induced by incorporatedmoral and cognitive dispositions will still lead to biases in decision-making (e.g.,partial consideration of the evidence, diFerential weighting of attributes, etc.).

8. In this respect, "ho mo phily " may in fact be the end result of this process of culturallymediated contact selection rather than being its cause (Lewis et al 2008).

ReferencesAkers, Ronald L., Marvin D. Krohn, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce and Marcia Radosevich. 1979.

"Social Le arning and De viant Behavior: A Specific Test of a General Theory." AmericanSociological Review 44(4):636-'55.

Alexander, Jeffrey C , and P hilip Smith. 2003. "The Strong Program in Cultural Sociology;Elements of a Structural Hermeneutics." Pp. 1 1 - 2 6 . T h e Meanings of Social Life: ACultural Sociology. Oxford University Press.Archer, Margaret S. 1996. Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory.Cambridge University Press.

Baker, Wayne E. 2005. America's Crisis of V alues: Rea lity and Percep tion. PrincetonUniversity Press.

Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler and Steven M.Tipton. 1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Com mitment in American Life.University of California Press.

Bidart, Claire, and Alain Degenne. 2003 . "Introduction: The Dynamics of PersonalNetworks." Social Networks 27(4):283-87.

Boltanski, Luc, and Laurent Thvenot. 2006. On Justification: Economies of Worth.


20/25

1614 Social Forces Sm)Bunt, Van De, Gerhard G. Marijtje, A.J. Van Duijn and Tom A.B. Snijders. 1999.

"Friendship Networks Through Time: An Actor-Oriented Dynamic Stat ist icalNetwork Model." Com putational & Mathematical O rganization Theory '^{2):\G7-92.

Burt, Ronald S. 2000. "Decay Funcrions." Social Networks 22(\):l-28.Chaiken, S., and Y. Trope. Editors. 1999. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. GuilfoGohen, Jere. 1978. "Conformity and Norm Formation in Small Groups." Pacific

Sociological Review 21 (4):441 -66.Collins, Randall. 19 81 . "O n the Microfound ations of Macrosociology." The American

Journal of Sociology 86(5):984-1014.. 1983. "Peer Influence on College Aspirations with Initial Aspirations Controlled."

American Sociological Review 48{5);728-34.Davis, Nancy, and Roherr V Ro binson . 200 6. "The Egalitarian Face of Muslim O rtho do xy :Suppo rt for Islamic Law and Econom ic Justice in Seven M uslim-M ajority Nations ."

American Sociological Review 71 ( 1 ) : 197-90.DiMaggio, Paul. 1993. "Nadel's Paradox Revisited: Relational ;md Cultural Aspects of

Organizational Structure." Pp. 118-42. Networks and Organizations. N. Nohria andR.G. Eccles, editors. Fiarvard Business School Press.

Douglas, Mary. 1978. Cultural Bias. Royal Anthropo logical Institute.Eliasoph, Nina, and Paul Lichterman. 2003. "Culture in XmeiTcon" Am erican Journal

ofSociology \m%.75'b-%.Emirbayer, Mustafa, and Jeff Goodwin. 1994. "Network Analysis, Culture, and the

Problem of Agency." American Journal of Sociology 99(6): l4l 1-54.Erickson, Bonnie H. 1982. "Networks, Ideologies and Belief Systems." Pp. 159-72. Social

Structures and N etwork Analysis. P Marsden and N. Lin, editors. Sage.. 198 8. "The Relational Basis of Attitude s." P p. 99-121. Social Structures a Network

Approach. B. Wellman and S.D. Berkowitz, editors. Ca m bridge University Press.Evans, Jona than St. B.T. 200 8. "Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Jud gm ent, and

Social Co^nion." Annual Review of T^sychology 59( l ) :255-78.Fernandez, Roberto M., and Doug McAdam. 1988. "Social Networks and SocialMovements: Multiorganizational Fields and Recruitment to Mississippi Freedom

Summer." Sociological Forum 3(3):357-82.Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of C ultures. Basic B ooks.Gould, Roger V. 2003. "Uses of Network Tools in Comparative Flistorlcal Research." Pp.

241-69. Comparative Analysis in the Social Sciences. D. Rueschemeyet and J. Mahoneyeditors. Cambridge University Press.

Griswold, Wendy. 2004. Culture and Societies in a Changing World. Pine Forge Press.Haidt, Jonathan. 2001. "The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social IncuitionistApproach to Moral Judgment." Psychological Review ]08(4):814-34.


21/25

C u l t u r a l W o r l d v i e w s a n d S o c i a l N e t w o r k s 1 6 1 5

Haynie, Dana L. 2001. "Delinquent Peers Revisited: Does Network Structure Matter?"American Journal of Sociology 106(4): 1013-57.Hitlin, Steven. 2003. "Values as the Core of Personal Identity: Drawing Links between

Two Theories of Self." Social Psychology Quarterly 66(2): 118-37.Hunter, James Davison. 20 00. T h e Death of Character: Moral Education in an A g e withoutGood o r Evil. Basic Books.

Ignatow, Gab tiel. 20 07 . "Theories of Embod ied K nowledge: New D irections for C ulturaland Cognitive Sociology?" Journal or the Theory of Social Behaviour 37(2): 115-35.

Jacobs, Mark D., and Lyn Spillman. 2005. "Cultural Sociology at tbe Crossroads of tbeDiscipline," /'oific.f 33(1): 1-14.

Kandel, Denise B. 1978. "Homopblly, Selection, and Socialization in AdolescentFriendships." American Journal of Sociology 84(2):427-36.

Kroeber, A.L., and Talcott Parsons. 1958. "The C once pts of C ulture and Social System."American Sociological Review 23(5):582-83.Lazarsfeld, Paul R, and Rob ert K. M erton . 195 4. "Friend ship as a Social Process: A

Substantive and Methodological Analysis." Pp. 18-66. Freedom and Control inModern Society. M. Berger, T. Abel and C. Page, editors. Van Nostrand.Lewis, Kevin, Jason K aufman, M arco Gonzalez, Andreas W im m er a nd Nicbolas

Christakis. 2008. "Tastes, Ties, and Time: A New Social Network Dataset UsingFacebook.com." Social Networks 30(4):330-42.

Licbterman, Paul. 1996. 7 / j e SearchJor Political Community: American Activists ReinventingCommitment. Cam bridge University Press.Lizardo, Omar. 2004. "The Cognitive Origins of Bourdieu's Habittis." Journa l for the

'Theory of Social Behaviour 34(4):375-4OI.. 2006. "How Cultural Tastes Shape Personal Networks." American Sociological

Review 7 \{5):778-807.Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Modelsr Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables.

Sage Publications.Mark, Noah R 1998. "Birds of a Feather Sing Together." Social Forces 77 2):453'S5.McAdam, Doug. 1986. "Recruitment to High-Risk Activism: The Case of FreedomSumm er." American Journal ofSociology 92i\):64'90.McFarland, Daniel, and Heili Pals. 2005. "Motives and Contexts of Identity Change: A

Case for Network EiFects." Social Psychology Quarterly 68(4):289-315.McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin and James M. Cook. 2001. "Birds of a Feather:

Homophily in Social Networks." Annual Review of Sociology 27 i'\.):4\5-4:4.Mills, C. Wright. 1940. "Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive." American

Sociological Review 5(6):904-]3 .M ische, Ann. 2003. "Cross-talk in Mo vements: Reconceiving the Cu lture-Netw ork Link."

P p . 258-80. Social Movements and Networks: R elationalApproaches t o Collective Action.


22/25

1616 Social Forces mA)Oishi, Shigehiro, Uhich Schimmack, Ed Diener and Eunkook M. Suh. 1998. "The

Measurement of Values and Individualism-Collectivism." Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin 24(11):1177-89.

Pearson, Michael, Christian Steglich and Tom Snijders. 2 006 . "Ho mo phily and Assimilationamong Sporr Active Adolescent Substance Users." Connections TJ{ 1 );47-63.Ryle, Robyn R., and Robert V. Robinson. 2006. "Ideology, Moral Cosmology and

Community in the United States." City and Com munity 5( l ) :53-69.Sahlins, Marshall. 1994. "Cosm ologies of Capitalism: The Trans-Pacific Sector of the 'W orld-

System'." Pp. 425-69- Culture in Practice: Selected Essays. M. Sahlins, editor. Zone BooSchatzki, Theodore R ., Karin Kn orr-Cetina and Eike von Savigny. 200 1. The Practice Turn

in Contemporary Theory. Routiedge.Sco tt, M arvin B., and Stanford M . Lyman. 196 8. "Accounts." American Sociological

Review 5%\)M-G1.Sewell, William H. 2005. Logics of History. University of Chicago Press.Shiffrin, Richard M., and Walter Schneider. 1977- "Controlled and Automatic Human

Information Processing: II. Perceptual Learning, Automatic Attending, and a CeneralTheory." Psychological Review 84{2):\27-90.

Shweder, Richard. 2003- Why Do Men Barbecue? Recipes for Cultural Psychology. HarvarUniversiry Press.

Sloman, Steven A. 1996. "The Empirical Case for Two Systems of Reasoning." PsychologicalBulletin \l%\y.3'22.Smith, Christian. 2003. Moral, Believing Animals: Hum an Personhood and Culture. OxfordUniversity Press.

Smith, Elliot R., and Jamie DeCoster. 2000, "Dual-Process Models in Social andCognitive Psychology: Conceptual Integration and Links to Underlying MemorySystems." Personality and Social Psychobgy Review 4:108-31.

Spillman, Lyn. 1995. "Culture, Social Structure, and Discursive Fields." CurrentPerspectives in Social Theory 15:129-54.

. 2002. "How are Structures Mcaningfui? Cultural Sociology and Theories ofSocial Structure." Pp. 63-83. Structure, Culture, and History: Recent Issues in SociaTheory. S.C. Chew and J.D. Knottnerus, editors. Rowman and Littlefield.

Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1965. "Social Structure and Organizations." Pp. 142-93.Handbo ok of Organizations. J.G. March, editor. Rand McNally.

Strauss, Claudia, and Naomi Quinn. 1997. A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning.Cambridge University Press.

Suitor, J. Jill, Barry W ellman and David L. Morgan . 1997. "It's About Tim e: How , Why ,and When Networks Change." Social Networks I 9 ( I ) : l - 7 .

Suitor, J. Jill, and Shirley Keeton. 1997. "Once a Friend, Always a Friend? Effects o f Hom ophily


23/25

Cultural Worldviews and Social Networks 1617.. 200 9. "M otivation and Justification: A Dual-Process Model of Cu lture in Action."

American Journal of Sociology 114(6): 1675-713 .Wellman, Barry. 1988. "Structural Analysis: from Method and Metaphor to Theory and

Substance." Pp. 19-61. Social Structures a Network Approach. B. W ellman and S.D.Berkowitz, editors. Cambridge University Press.

Wellman, Barry, and S.D. Berkowitz. 1988. "Introduction: Studying Social Structures."Pp. 1-18. Social Structures a Network Approach. B. W ellman and S .D. Berkowitz,editors. Cambridge University Press.

Weilman, Barry, Renita Yuk-Lin Wong, David Tindall and Nancy Nazer. 1997. "A Decadeof Network Change: Turnover, Persistence and Stability in Personal Communities."Social Networks 19(l):27-50.

White, Harrison C. 1992. Identity and Control. Princeton University Press... 1997. "Can Mathematics Be Social? Flexible Representations for InteractionProcess and Its Sociocultural Constructions." Sociological Forum 12(1):53-71.

W hite , Harrison C , Scott A. Boorm an and Ronald L. Breiger. 197 6. "Social Structurefrom Multiple Networks: 1, Blockmodels of Roles and Positions." American Journal


24/25

1618 Social Forces m^)Append ixMost of the control variables used in the analyses (see Table Al) are either self-explanatory or can be found in the documentation at youthandreligion.org. Wenote variables cons tructed especially for these analyses:

Parent closeness is the maximum value of the closeness variable reported by therespondent for either parent. The resulting value was standardized (in the fullsample) to have mean = 0 and SD = 1 .

Network closure was constructed from three variables that were asked of eachrespondent's social network. For each reported friend, the respondent was asked,which of these friends, (1. "(do/does) your [PARE NT TYPE] not really know thatwell;" (2. "have parents who know YOU by name;" (3. "have parents who knowyour [PARENT TYPE] well enough to call (him/her/them) on the phone." Theseresponses were com bined (the first was reverse coded) to give a sense of how muchadult networks were closed around the respon dent. Th e resulting sum (0-13) wasdivided by 3 to make it comparable to the other netwotk measures.

GPA was constructed from the variable "grades" (y91), which asked, "Whatkind of grades do you usually get in school?" The original responses were 10ordinal categories ranging from "all As" to "mostly Fs" with an additional categoryfor "mixed" (n ^ 159). The GPA scale tised in these analyses was made into a scalewith range 0 to 4 hy rescahng the 10 point ordinal scale and setting the "mixed"responses to the sample mean.

Parent education is the highest level of education for either parent, measuredon a 12-point ordinal scale.


25/25

Copyright of Social Forces is the property of University of North Carolina Press and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Can Cultural Worldviews Influence Network Composition_Lizardo and others

Documents

Transcript of Can Cultural Worldviews Influence Network Composition_Lizardo and others