Have Schemas Been Good To Think With?*

Abstract

Schemas are one of the most popular explanatory concepts in cultural sociology, and are increasingly used in sociology more broadly. In this article we ask the question: have schemas been good to think with? We answer this question by analyzing the ontological, epistemic, and methodological bases of schemas, including the conceptualizations, claims, assumptions, and methods that underpin the use of schemas in sociological inquiry. We show that sociologists have developed two distinct, contradictory, and often conflated perspectives on schemas, what we refer to as culturalist and cognitivist perspectives. We suggest that schemas have acquired a polysemic character in sociology, and that they have become a (more narrow and consequently more scientifically legitimate) proxy for Culture, and that these features have (paradoxically) facilitated the popularity of schemas within the discipline. Sociologists have recently begun to make the necessary advancements to turn schemas into a more useful explanatory concept, through both analytical improvements (by distinguishing schemas from both public culture and other forms of nondeclarative personal culture), and methodological innovations (for better deriving schemas from survey data, texts, and experiments). Yet, some challenges remain, and the analytical value of schemas remains promissory. We conclude by offering some guidelines for making more specific and measured claims about schemas in sociological research.

Machine Learning as a Model for Cultural Learning: Teaching an Algorithm What it Means to be Fat

“…We also contribute to the body of work on the measurement of schemas. Schemas are challenging to measure directly, and no single approach is thought to measure all aspects of schemas (Boutyline and Soter 2021;Leschziner and Brett 2021). One key tactic is to aggregate individuals' responses on surveys and interviews, and then identify patterned ways of responding in this aggregate data (Boutyline 2017;Goldberg 2011; but see Martin 2000).…”

“…To organize this section, we draw inspiration from how cognitive scientists structure their accounts of information processing systems in minds and machines (Marr 1982; for sociological applications see Boutyline and Soter 2021; Foster 2018; Leschziner and Brett 2021). Cognitive scientists aim to be explicit about the level of granularity at which they describe (and/or computationally model) a cognitive phenomenon.…”

“…Sociological work often theorizes the existence and functions of schemas (Hunzaker and Valentino 2019; Leschziner and Brett 2021; Shepherd 2011; Taylor and Stoltz 2020; Vaisey 2009; Wood et al 2018). It also documents empirical evidence for their existence and impact, often in the form of stereotypes, implicit associations, patterned responses on surveys and interviews, and biases in information transmission (e.g., Boutyline 2017; Goldberg 2011; Hunzaker 2014, 2016; Hunzaker and Valentino 2019; Jacobs and Quinn 2022; Vaisey 2009).…”

Fight‐or‐Flight for America: The Affective Conditioning of Christian Nationalist Ideological Views During the Transition to Adulthood1,2

“…2016). Much of this work focuses on tacit cognitive structures or “schemas” (e.g., Boutyline and Soter 2021; Hunzaker and Valentino 2019; Leschziner and Brett 2021; Rotolo 2020; Wood et al. 2018).…”

“…4 These insights have led many sociologists interested in motivation and enculturation to shift focus to nondeclarative culture, or culture that is implicit, habituated, and deployed quickly and automatically (Lizardo 2017;Lizardo et al 2016). Much of this work focuses on tacit cognitive structures or "schemas" (e.g., Boutyline and Soter 2021;Hunzaker and Valentino 2019;Leschziner and Brett 2021;Rotolo 2020;Wood et al 2018). As a result, sociologists have developed better explanations of how people think, judge, and act prior to conscious evaluation.…”