Encyclopedia of sociology by Edgar F. Borgatta, Rhonda J. V. Montgomery (z-lib.org)

CULTURE

socializing members for greater internal homoge- In comparison, anthropological structuralists
neity and identifying outsiders. Culture is thus in this period conceive of culture less comprehen-
treated as differentiating concept, providing rec- sively. The structuralists’ concept of culture is
ognition factors for internal cohesion and external made distinct through emphasis on a new concept
discrimination. of social structure. Largely through the efforts of
Radcliffe-Brown, a theory emerged that argues
Although this tradition of ethnographic re- social structure is more appropriately represented
search on culture tended to be internal and local- by a network or system of social relations than a set
ized, what is termed an ‘‘emic’’ approach in cogni- of norms. The structuralist argument is intended
tive anthropology (Goodenough 1956), by the 1940s to clarify how actors in a society actively produce
there emerged a strong desire among many an- and are socially produced by their cultural con-
thropologists to develop a comparative ‘‘etic’’ ap- text. By distinguishing the actors and interaction
proach to culture, that is, construct a generalized in a social system from the behavioral norms,
theory of cultural patterns. In the comparison of structuralists seek to establish a referent for social
hundreds of ethnographies written in this period, structure that is analytically independent of the
A.L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn sought to culture and artifacts produced in that system. The
build such a general definition of culture. They wrote, production of culture is thus grounded clearly in
an international framework. Norms of interaction
Culture consists of patterns, explicit and are also produced by interacting participants, but
implicit, of and for behavior acquired and the question of causal primacy between culture
transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinc- and social structure can be considered separately.
tive achievement of human groups, including The initial effort here is simply not to reify the
their embodiments in artifacts; the essential origins of culture.
core of culture consists of traditional (i.e.,
historically derived and selected) ideas and The exact relationship of culture and social
especially their attached values; culture systems structure, however, becomes the central issue of
may, on the one hand, be considered as the structuralist/culturalist debate. For example,
products of action, on the other as conditioning how to identify the boundaries of a society one is
elements of further action ([1952] 1963, p. researching is problematic when the society is not
181). an isolate. Structuralists tend to give social rela-
tions, that is, the extent of a network, priority in
Milton Singer (1968) characterized this ‘‘pat- identifying boundaries, while culturalists focus on
tern theory’’ definition as a condensation of what the extent of particular types of cultural knowl-
most American anthropologists in the 1940s and edge or practices. Since both elements are obvi-
1950s called culture. It includes behavior, cultural ously operating interdependently, the efforts to
objects, and cognitive predispositions as part of disentangle these concepts make little headway.
the concept, thus emphasizing that culture is both The arguments to establish causal priority for one
a product of social action and a process that guides concept vis-à-vis the other settle into a fairly pre-
future action. The pattern theory stated simply dictable exchange. Structuralists base their priori-
that behavior follows a relatively stable routine, ty claims on the fact that the interaction of actors
from the simplest levels of custom in dress and diet in a society is empirically preliminary to the devel-
to more complex levels of organization in political, opment and application of cultural elements.
economic, and religious life. The persistence of Culturalists respond that interaction itself is at
specific patterns is variable in different arenas and least partially cultural phenomenon, and that in
different societies, but larger configurations tend most complex societies cultural patterns have been
to be more stable, changing incrementally unless well established prior to ongoing social relationships.
redirected by external forces. In addition, the
theory emphasized that the culture from any given By the late 1950s, the concept of culture was
society can be formally described, that is, it can be becoming increasingly important to sociologists.
placed in formal categories representing different To help resolve the now tired debate over cultural
spheres of social life to facilitate comparison be- and structural foci and precedence, A.L. Kroeber
tween societies. As such, universal patterns of and Talcott Parsons published a report in the
culture can be constructed.

564

CULTURE

American Sociological Review titled ‘‘The Con- this period was how and whether to approach
cepts of Culture and Social System’’ (1958), which questions of moral values. For example, the critical
seeks to establish some ground rules for differenti- theorist Leo Lowenthal (1950) characterized this
ating the two concepts. At least for sociologists, period of social science as ‘‘applied ascetism’’ and
many of whom identify explicitly with the structur- stated that the moral or aesthetic evaluation of
al-functional theories of the anthropological cultural products and activities is not only socio-
structuralists, acknowledgement of a separate so- logically possible, but also should be a useful tool
cial system component that delimits the scope of in the sociological analysis of cultural differentiation.
culture is not difficult. More difficult is ascertaining
where the appropriate limits for the concept of These evaluative questions certainly play a
culture lie within this domain. Kroeber and Parsons part in the analysis of ‘‘mass culture,’’ a term that
suggest restricting the usage of culture to, ‘‘trans- the critic Dwight McDonald explains is used to
mitted and created content and patterns of values, identify articles of culture that are produced for
ideas, and other symbolic-meaningful systems as mass consumption, ‘‘like chewing gum’’ (McDonald
factors in the shaping of human behavior and the 1953, p. 59). A number of commentators, includ-
artifacts produced behavior’’ (1958, p. 583). This ing both sociologists and humanists, observe the
definition emphasized the predispositional aspect growth of mass culture production in the post-
of a cultural referent, limiting the scope of culture World War II United Stated with a mixture of
to a cognitive perspective, and concentrates on a distaste and alarm. The concern of McDonald and
carefully worded description of ‘‘symbolic-mean- critics like him is the decline of intrinsic value in
ingful systems’’ as the appropriate referent for cultural artifacts, a decline in quality that stems
culture. While no longer the omnibus conception from, or is at least attributed to, a combination of
of a traditional, Tylor-derived approach, this type economic and social factors associated with the
of cultural analysis is still potentially applicable to growth of capitalism. For example, mass culture
any realm of social activity. critics argue that the unchecked growth of capital-
ism in the production and distribution phases of
THE HIGH-MASS CULTURE DEBATE culture industries leads to a ‘‘massification’’ of
consumption patterns. Formerly localized, highly
In the 1950s and early 1960s, the concept of differentiated, and competitive markets become
culture became enmeshed in a new debate that dominated by a single corporate actor who merges
like the previously documented dialogue has both different sectors of the consumer landscape and
influential and significant numbers of participants monopolizes production resources and distribu-
on each side of the dispute. Sociologists, however, tion outlets. Within these giant culture industry
are more central to the discussion, pitting those organizations the demand for greater efficiency
who support a broadly conceived, anthropological and the vertical integration of production lead to a
interpretation of culture that places both com- bureaucratically focused standardization of out-
monplace and elite activities in the same category, put. Both processes function to stamp out cultural
against a humanities oriented conception of cul- differences and create greater homogeneity in
ture that equates the identification of cultural moral and aesthetic values, all at the lowest com-
activity with a value statement. This debate at- mon denominator.
tempts to do two things: to classify different types
of cultural activity, and to distinguish a purely Regardless of the causes of the mass culture
descriptive approach to the concept of culture phenomena, the critics of mass culture believe it to
from an axiological approach that defines culture be a potentially revolutionary force that will trans-
through an evaluative process. form the values of society. One critic states that
‘‘mass culture is a dynamic, revolutionary force,
That an axiological approach to culture can be breaking down the old barriers of class, tradition,
considered legitimate by a ‘‘scientific’’ enterprise taste, and dissolving all cultural distinctions. It
is perhaps surprising to contemporary sociologists mixes and scrambles everything together, produc-
entrenched in the positivistic interpretation of ing what might be called homogenized culture. . .
science, yet a central issue for many sociologists in It thus destroys all values, since value judgements
imply discrimination’’ (McDonald 1953, p. 62).

565

CULTURE

In launching this attack, mass culture oppo- and Parsons (1958) take in their differentiation of
nents see themselves as the saviors of a ‘‘true’’ or culture and social system. To do this, Jager and
‘‘high’’ culture (e.g., McDonald, Greenberg, Berelson, Selznick adopt a pragmatist perspective (Dewey
and Howe; see Rosenberg and White 1957). They 1958) that accords symbolic status to cultural ob-
argue that the consumption of mass culture under- jects or events through a social signification proc-
mines the very existence of legitimate high cul- ess. Interacting individuals create symbols through
ture, that is, the elite arts and folk cultures. With- the communication of meaningful experience, us-
out the ability to differentiate between increasingly ing both denotative and connotative processes. By
blurred lines of cultural production, the average creating symbols, interacting individuals create
consumer turns toward mass culture due to its culture. Thus the definition of culture becomes:
immediate accessibility. Further, simply through ‘‘Culture consists of everything that is produced
its creation, mass culture devalues elite art and folk by, and is capable of sustaining, shared symbolic
cultures by borrowing the themes and devices of experience’’ (Jaeger and Selznick 1964, p. 663). In
different cultural traditions and converting them establishing this sociological definition of culture
into mechanical, formulaic systems (Greenberg emphasizing the shared symbolic experience, Jaeger
1946). Thus critics of mass culture argue that it is and Selznick also seek to maintain a humanist-
critical for the health of society to discriminate oriented capability to distinguish between high
between types of culture. and mass culture without marginalizing the focus
on high culture. Following Dewey, they argue that
Defenders of mass culture, or at least those the experience of art takes place on a continuum
who feel the attack on mass culture is too extreme, of cultural experience that differs in intensity from
respond that mass culture critics seek to limit the ordinary symbolic activities, but has essentially the
production and appreciation of culture to an elitist same basis for the appreciation of meaning. Art or
minority. They contend that the elitist criticism of high culture is simply a more ‘‘effective’’ symbol,
culture is ethnocentric and that not only is mass, combining ‘‘economy of statement with richness
popular, or public culture more diverse than given of expression’’ (Jaeger and Selznick 1964, p. 664).
credit for (e.g., Lang 1957; Kracuer 1949), but also As such, art, like all culture, is identified through
the benefits of mass cultural participation far out- the normative evaluation of experience.
weigh the limitations of a mass media distribution
system (White 1956; Seldes 1957). Post-World War In sum, the high culture-mass culture debate
II America experienced an economic boom that shifted the focus on the concept of culture from a
sent its citizens searching for a variety of new question of appropriate scope to a question of
cultural outlets. The increase in cultural participa- appropriate values. From a functionalist point of
tion certainly included what some critics might call view, the health of a society’s culture is not simply
‘‘vulgar’’ activities, but it also included a tremen- an issue of what type of values are advocated, but
dous increase in audiences for the arts across the of how culture serves a moral and integrative
board. Essentially mass culture defenders assert function. Yet the mass culture critique was often
that the argument over the legitimacy of mass unable to distinguish the cultural values of elite
culture comes down to a matter of ideology, one intellectuals from the effect of these values on
that positions the elitist minority against the grow- society. To escape from this ethnocentric quag-
ing democratization of culture. mire, contemporary sociologists have generally
turned away from an evaluative position toward
To extricate themselves from this axiological culture.
conundrum, many sociologists of culture retreat-
ed from a morally evaluative stance to a normative THE CONTEMPORARY APPROACH TO
one. As presented by Gertrude Jaeger and Philip CULTURE: MAPPING THE TERRAIN
Selznick (1964), the normative sociological ap-
proach to culture, while still evaluative, seeks to As mentioned at the beginning of this essay, the
combine anthropological and humanist concep- contemporary approach to culture is quite eclec-
tions of culture through a diagnostic analysis of tic. Despite the elaborate historical lineage of the
cultural experience. The emphasis here is on elabo- concept, there is no current, widely accepted,
rating the nature of ‘‘symbolically meaningful’’ composite resolution for the definition of culture.
experience, the same focus for culture that Kroeber

566

CULTURE

Instead, culture is still currently defined through in sociology does not exclude any particular em-
an extensive variety of perspectives, sanctioning pirical forms of activity, except perhaps through
a broad, historically validated range of options. an emphasis on shared or collective practices, thus
While the omnibus definition from the cultural discounting purely individual foci. Since all collec-
anthropology tradition has been generally relegat- tive social practices are potentially symbolic and
ed to introductory texts, and the elitist attack on therefore culturally expressive, any collective ac-
mass culture has been largely replaced by an tivity can be reasonably studied under the rubric
antiethnocentric, relativist position open to a wide of the sociology of culture. This ‘‘open borders’’
spectrum of symbolic arenas and perspectives, philosophy has at times made it difficult for par-
many of the elements of these old debates still ticipants in the sociology of culture to establish any
appear in new cultural analyses. kind of nomothetic perspective for cultural theo-
ry. The vast differentiation and sheer complexity
For example, as categorized by Richard Peterson of the expression of culture in various forms of
introducing a review of new studies in cultural social life resists ready categorization. Instead,
analysis at the beginning of the 1990s, culture participants in the sociology of culture have usual-
tends to be used two ways in sociological research; ly opted for the preliminary step of surveying and
as a ‘‘code of conduct embedded in or constitutive mapping the terrain of research in the sociology of
of social life,’’ and as symbolic products of group culture with the goal of helping to define emerg-
activity’’ (Peterson 1990, p. 498). The first perspec- ing theoretical perspectives in the field. Two par-
tive is clearly indebted to the traditional cultural ticularly informative efforts are the contributions
anthropology approach and indeed is used to of John Hall and Mary Jo Neitz (1993) and Diana
analyze and characterize social units ranging from Crane (1992, 1994).
whole societies (e.g., Cerulo 1995; Bellah et al.
1985) to specific subcultures (e.g., Hebdige 1990, In Culture: Sociological Perspectives (1993), Hall
1979; Willis 1977). Empirical applications using and Neitz provide an excellent overview of the
this perspective are also made to geographically substantive and theoretical directions in which
dispersed social worlds that organize collective research in the sociology of culture has proliferat-
activities (e.g., Lofland 1993 on the peace move- ed. They identify five ‘‘analytic frames’’ (p. 17)
ment; Fine 1987 on Little League baseball; Latour through which researchers can focus on particular
and Woolgar 1979 on scientific research in biolo- aspects of culture and that emphasize associated
gy; Traweek 1988 on scientific research in phys- processes of inquiry. The first frame is a focus on
ics). The second perspective takes the more con- ‘‘institutional structures’’: that is, research on cul-
crete course of treating culture as specific socially ture specifically linked with social institutions and
constructed symbols and emphasizes the produc- such issues as the construction of social and per-
tion and meaning of these specific forms of cultur- sonal identity and conventional or moral conduct
al expression. Most examples of this latter form of (e.g., Bellah et al. 1985; Gilligan 1982; Warner
cultural research are conducted in substantive 1988). In the second analytic frame, Hall and Neitz
arenas collectively known as the ‘‘production of describe ‘‘cultural history’’ and the influence of
culture’’ (Peterson 1979; Crane 1992), however, past cultural practices on the present. Research in
the range of empirical focus for this perspective is this area includes a focus on the significance of
considerable and includes research in such areas rituals (e.g., Douglas 1973; Goffman 1968, 1971;
as the moral discourse on the abortion issue (Luker Neitz 1987), the effects of rationalization on social
1984), the politics and aesthetics of artistic evalua- processes and cultural consumption (e.g., Foucault
tion and reception (DeNora 1995; Lang and Lang 1965; Mukerji 1983; Born 1995), and the creation
1990; Griswold 1986), and the motivational and of mass culture (e.g., Ewen 1976; Schudson 1984).
ideological context of organizational, profession- In the third analytic frame, Hall and Neitz focus on
al, and work cultures (e.g., Fine 1996; Martin ‘‘the production and distribution of culture’’ with
1992; Katz 1999; Fantasia 1988; Harper 1987; a special emphasis on stratification and power
Burawoy 1979). issues. Research in this area includes work on the
socioeconomic differentiation of cultural strata
From the array of activities mentioned above, (e.g., Gans 1974; Bourdieu 1984; Lamont 1992),
it is clear that the contemporary concept of culture gender and ethnic cultural differentiation and

567

CULTURE

their effect on inequality (e.g., Radway 1984; current research in the field. Instead, she attempts
Lamont and Fournier 1992), and the production to give the reader a guide to theoretical issues in
of culture (e.g., Becker 1982; Gilmore 1987; Hirsch the sociology of culture, particularly the place of
1972; Coser, Kadushin, and Powell 1982; Faulkner the concept of culture in the discipline of sociolo-
1983; Crane 1987). The fourth analytic frame, gy as a whole, and how the centrality of culture as a
‘‘audience effects,’’ looks at how cultural objects variable in mainstream sociological models will
affect the people who consume them and the determine the significance of future research in
precise patterns of shared meaning and interpretive the field.
ideology that provide a compatible environment
for the popular and critical success of particular To start, Crane argues that culture has tradi-
cultural forms (e.g., Wuthnow 1987; Baxandall tionally been regarded as ‘‘peripheral’’ to main-
1985; Long 1985). Finally the fifth analytic frame, stream concerns in American sociology because of
‘‘meaning and social action,’’ refers to how actors its relationship to classical theory (i.e., Marx, We-
in varied mainstream and subcultural settings use ber, Durkheim). In comparison to the emphasis by
culture to guide behavior and establish social iden- these theorists on social structure, organization,
tity. In a range of ethnic, political, and ideological and market forces, cultural elements have been
contexts, participants use visible expressive sym- consistently treated as secondary in their impact
bols and styles to assert cultural difference and on peoples’ behavior and attitudes, particularly
communicate the social and personal significance surrounding significant life issues (e.g., economic
of cultural objects (e.g., Rushing 1988; Ginsberg considerations). One reason for this secondary
1990; Schwartz 1991; Fine 1987). status may be the difficulty classical and main-
stream theorists have in conceptualizing and docu-
These frames serve different purposes. For menting everyday cultural practices. Crane states,
the nonsociologist or for sociologists from outside ‘‘To American and some British structuralists, cul-
the field of culture, they provide a guide to current ture as a concept lacks a suitably rigorous defini-
cultural research and a reasonably accurate de- tion’’ (Crane 1994, p. 2). And from Archer (1988,
scriptive picture of research segmentation within p. 1), ‘‘the notion of culture remains inordinately
the field. For the sociologist of culture, however, vague. . . In every way, ‘culture’ is the poor relation
these frames represent not only a ‘‘division of of ‘structure.’’’ Thus culture, approached as the
labor in sociohistorical inquiry, in the sense that values, norms, beliefs, and attitudes of a popula-
any particular frame seems to generate bounda- tion or subgroup, is treated as ‘‘an implicit feature
ries. . . ‘‘(within in the field), as Hall and Neitz of social life. . .’’ (Wuthnow and Witten 1988, p.
claim (1993, p. 19), but a strategy to bring analytic 50–51), difficult to put one’s finger on, and there-
coherence to a field that has experienced remark- fore difficult to document through specific empiri-
able growth and empirical diffusion over a rela- cal referents.
tively short period. As such, in the future these
frames may emerge through collective activity as But Crane argues that culture in contempo-
problem areas within the field of culture that will rary society is much more than implicit features.
guide empirical and methodological tendencies She states, ‘‘Culture today is expressed and negoti-
within particular research communities and influ- ated almost entirely through culture as explicit
ence theoretical interaction, that is, co-citation social constructions or products, in other words,
among researchers. The precise impact in the through recorded culture, culture that is recorded
field, however, still remains to be seen. either in print, film, artifacts or, most recently,
electronic media’’ (Crane 1994, p. 2). Further,
A somewhat different mapping, primarily in contemporary sociologists of culture have tended
terms of theoretical emphasis, is offered by Diana to focus on this ‘‘recorded culture’’ as the princi-
Crane in her book The Production of Culture (1992) pal empirical referent through which various types
and through her efforts as editor of The Sociology of of contemporary culture are expressed and thus
Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives (1994). can easily be explored. Not surprisingly then, the
Like Hall and Neitz, Crane seeks to help codify primary direction through which the new sociolo-
research segmentation in the field of culture, but gy of culture has proliferated is in areas like art,
she does not try to accomplish this daunting task science, popular culture, religion, media, tech-
simply by producing a comprehensive survey of nology, and other social worlds where recorded

568

CULTURE

forms of culture are readily accessible. These cul- new kinds of cultural analyses that have implica-
ture subfields have become the central substantive tions for the sociology of culture. The approach to
foci through which the field as a whole has under- cultural analysis, however, is often radically differ-
taken to build theoretical coherence. ent, both empirically and theoretically, than that
conventionally used by sociologists. Cultural stud-
At the same time outside the boundaries of ies approaches range from a cultural text-based
the field of culture per se, it is also clear from analysis that interprets meaning and sources of
recent research in the 1990s that the concept of social influence directly from cultural objects (e.g.,
culture has gained significant relevance in many Hooks 1994; Giroux 1992; see Fiske 1994), to
mainstream areas of the discipline that have tradi- complex interpretative decodings of narratives
tionally been dominated by macrostructuralist ap- around issues such as identity politics (e.g., Trinh
proaches. For example, in both Ewa Morawska 1989; Hall 1992) and postcolonial repression and
and Willfried Spohn’s (1994), and Mabel Berezin’s resistance (e.g., Appadurai 1990; Grossberg et
(1994) contributions to Crane’s The Sociology of al.1992). As a consequence, the history and emerg-
Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives, the im- ing relationship of cultural studies to sociology is
pact of cultural forces are discussed in a variety of rather piecemeal. Indeed, Norman Denzin (1996)
macroinstitutional contexts. Morawska and Spohn’s characterizes the potential association to be one of
focus on examples from the historical perspective ‘‘colonization’’; that is, ‘‘the attempt to locate and
includes research on the effect of ideology in the place cultural studies on the boundaries and mar-
macrostructural analysis of revolution and social gins of academic, cultural sociology’’ (Denzin 1996,
change (e.g., Sewell 1985; Skocpol 1985; Goldstone p. XV). Others see the possibility of more recipro-
1991), issues of working-class consciousness and cal exchange with the possibility of a ‘‘revitalization’’
capitalist development (e.g., Aminzade 1981; Cal- for sociological cultural perspectives (Seidman
houn 1982), and the articulation of new forms of 1996). Whichever way the relationship develops, it
religious and ideological doctrines in a social- is clear that efforts to rethink the concept of
institutional context (e.g., Wuthnow 1989; Zaret culture, the impact of cultural values, and ap-
1985). Berezin’s chapter examines the relation- proaches to cultural analysis that take place out-
ship of culture and politics in macromodels of side of sociology and even outside of academia will
political development and state formation (e.g., have an invigorating effect on the sociological
Greenfeld 1992; Mitchell 1991). Additional exam- conceptualization of culture. These battles (i.e.,
ples in organizational or economic contexts (e.g., ‘‘culture wars’’) already have had important conse-
Dobbin 1994; Granovetter 1985) only further em- quences for policy and resource allocation in edu-
phasize the point, that the expanding application cation (e.g., Nolan 1996; Hunter 1991). There is
of cultural analysis to mainstream models means no reason to think that sociology will or should be
that for many sociologists, culture is more an immune to these external influences.
explanatory perspective than a substantive area of
study. As such, future limitations on the explanato- In sum, there is a new appreciation of the
ry potential of cultural analysis in sociology will salience of culture as an explanatory perspective in
likely be conceptual, not empirical, and the above contemporary sociological research. Whether it
research suggests a broadly fertile spectrum of involves the convention-setting influence of art
empirical possibilities. worlds, the moral authority of organizational cul-
tures, or the facilitation of class privileges through
Finally, a significant elaboration of the ex- habitus, the concept of culture is used to explain
planatory potential of cultural analysis has taken behavior and social structure from a distinct and
place in a field organized largely outside the disci- powerful perspective. The future elaboration of
pline of sociology. ‘‘Cultural studies,’’ identifying this perspective in sociology looks very promising.
a loosely connected, interdisciplinary network of
scholars from a wide spectrum of perspectives, REFERENCES
including the humanities, the social sciences, the
arts, and various status-specific programs (e.g., Alexander, Jeffrey C., and Steve Seidman (eds.) 1990
ethnic studies, feminist studies, gay and lesbian Culture and Society. Cambridge, Eng./New York: Cam-
studies), has produced a tremendous number of bridge University Press.

569

CULTURE

Aminzade, Ronald 1981 Class, Politics and Early Industri- Dewey, John 1958 Art as Experience. New York: Capri-
al Capitalism. Albany: SUNY Press. corn Books.

Appadurai, A. 1990 ‘‘Disjuncture and Difference in the Dobbin, Frank 1994 Forging Industrial Policy: The United
Global Cultural Economy.’’ Public Culture 2:1–24. States, France, and Britain in the Railway Age. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, Margaret 1988 Culture and Agency. New York:
Cambridge University Press. Douglas, Mary 1973 Natural Symbols: Explorations in
Cosmology. New York: Vintage Books.
Baxandall, Michael 1985 Patterns of Intention. New Ha-
ven: Yale University Press. Dubin, Steve 1992 Arresting Images: Impolitic Art and
Uncivil Action. New York: Routledge.
Becker, Howard S. 1982 Art Worlds. Berkeley: University
of California Press. Evans-Prichard, E. E. 1940 The Nuer. London: Oxford
University Press.
Bellah, Robert, Richard Madsen, William Sullivan, Ann
Swidler, and Steven Tipton 1985 Habits of the Heart. ——— 1937 Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the
Berkeley: University of California Press. Azande. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Benedict, Ruth 1934 Patterns of Culture. Boston: Hough- Ewen, Stuart 1976 Captains of Consciousness: Advertising
ton Mifflin. and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Berezin, Mabel 1994 ‘‘Fissured Terrain: Methodological
Approaches and Research Styles in Culture and Poli- Fantasia, Rick 1988 Cultures of Solidarity. Berkeley: Uni-
tics.’’ In Diana Crane, ed., The Sociology of Culture: versity of California Press.
Emerging Theoretical Perspectives. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Faulkner, Robert 1983 Music on Demand. New Brunswick,
Blau, Judith 1988 ‘‘Study of the Arts: A Reappraisal.’’ NJ: Transaction.
Annual Review of Sociology 14:269–292.
Fine, Gary Alan 1996 Kitchens. Berkeley: University of
Boas, Franz (1896) 1940 ‘‘The Limitations of the Com- California Press.
parative Method of Anthropology.’’ Reprinted in
Boas, Race, Language, and Culture. New York: Macmillan. ——— 1987 With the Boys. Chicago: University of Chica-
go Press.
Born, Georgina 1995 Rationalizing Culture. Berkeley:
University of California Press. Fiske, John 1994 ‘‘Audiencing: Cultural Practices and
Cultural Studies.’’ In Norman Denzin and Yvonne
Bourdieu, Pierre 1984 Distinction. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln, eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thou-
Harvard University Press. sand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Burawoy, Michael 1979 Manufacturing Consent. Chica- Foucault, Michel 1965 Madness and Civilization. New
go: University of Chicago Press. York: Pantheon.

Calhoun, Craig 1982 The Question of Class Struggle. Chi- Gans, Herbert J. 1974 Popular Culture and High Culture.
cago: University of Chicago Press. New York: Basic Books.

Cerulo, Karen 1995 Identity Designs: The Sights and Sounds Gilligan, Carol 1982 In a Different Voice. Cambridge,
of a Nation. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Universi- Mass.: Harvard University Press.
ty Press.
Gilmore, Samuel 1987 ‘‘Coordination and Convention:
Chambers, Iain 1986 Popular Culture. London: Methuen. The Organization of the Concert Art World.’’ Symbol-
ic Interaction 10:209–227.
Coser, Lewis, Charles Kadushin, and Walter Powell
1982. Books: The Culture and Commerce of Publishing. Ginsberg, Faye 1990 Contested Lives. Berkeley: Universi-
New York: Basic Books. ty of California Press.

Crane, Diana (ed.) 1994 The Sociology of Culture: Emerg- Giroux, Henry 1992 ‘‘Resisting Difference: Cultural
ing Theoretical Perspective. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Studies and the Discourse of Critical Pedagogy.’’ In
Larry Grossberg et al., eds., Cultural Studies. New
——— 1992 The Production of Culture. Newbury Park, York: Routledge.
Calif.: Sage.
Gitlin, Todd 1985 Inside Prime Time. New York: Pantheon.
——— 1987 The Transformation of the Avant-Garde. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press. Goffman, Erving 1971 Relations in Public. New York:
Harper and Row.
Denzin, Norman 1996 Cultural Studies: A Research Vol-
ume. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press. ——— 1968 Interaction Ritual. Garden City, N.Y.: An-
chor Books.
DeNora, Tia 1995 Beethoven and the Construction of Gen-
ius. Berkeley: University of California Press.

570

CULTURE

Goldstone, Jack 1991 Revolution and Rebellion in the ——— (1923) 1948 Anthropology. New York: Harcourt.
Early Modern World. Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press. ———, and Clyde Kluckhohn (1952) 1963 Culture: A
Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. New York:
Goodenough, Ward 1956 ‘‘Componential Analysis and Vintage Books.
the Study of Meaning.’’ Language 32:22–37.
———, and Talcott Parsons 1958 ‘‘The Concepts of
Granovetter, Mark 1985 ‘‘Economic Action and Social Culture and Social System.’’ American Sociological
Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.’’ Ameri- Review 23:582–583.
can Journal of Sociology 91:481–510.
Lamont, Michele 1992 Money, Morals, and Manners.
Greenberg, Clement 1946 ‘‘Avant-Garde and Kitsch.’’ Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
The Partisan Reader 378–389.
———, and Marcel Fournier (eds.) 1992 Cultivating
Greenfeld, Liah 1992 Nationalism: Five Roads to Moderni- Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Ine-
ty Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. quality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Griswold, Wendy 1986 Renaissance Revivals. Chicago: Lang, Gladys Engel, and Kurt Lang 1990 Etched in
University of Chicago Press. Memory: The Building and Survival of Artistic Reputa-
tion. Chapel Hill/London: University of North Caro-
Grossberg, Larry, et al. 1992. Cultural Studies. New York: lina Press.
Routledge.
Lang, Kurt 1957 ‘‘Mass Appeal and Minority Tastes.’’ In
Hall, John, and Mary Jo Neitz 1993 Culture: Sociological Bernard Rosenberg and David Manning White, eds.,
Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Mass Culture. New York: Free Press.

Hall, Stuart 1992 ‘‘Cultural Studies and its Theoretical Latour, Bruno 1987 Science in Action: How to Follow
Legacies.’’ In Larry Grossberg, et al., eds., Cultural Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge,
Studies. New York: Routledge. Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Halle, David 1994 Inside Culture: Class, Culture and Every- ———, and Steve Woolgar 1979 Laboratory Life. Beverly
day Life in Modern America. Chicago: University of Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Chicago Press.
Levi-Strauss, Claude (1953) 1963 Structural Anthropolo-
Harper, Douglas 1987 Working Knowledge: Skill and gy. New York: Basic Books.
Community in a Small Shop. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. Lincoln, James, and Arne Kalleberg 1990 Culture, Con-
trol and Commitment: A Study of Work Organization and
Hebdige, Dick 1990 Cut ‘N Mix: Culture, Identity, and Work Attitudes in the United States and Japan. Cam-
Caribbean Music. London: Routledge. bridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.

——— 1979 Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Lofland, John 1993 Polite Protesters: The American Peace
Routledge. Movement of the 1980s. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse Uni-
versity Press.
Hirsch, Paul 1972 ‘‘Processing Fads and Fashions: An
Organization Set Analysis of the Cultural Industry Long, Elizabeth 1985 The American Dream and the Popu-
System.’’ American Journal of Sociology 77:639–659. lar Novel. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Hooks, Bell 1994 Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representa- Lowenthal, Leo 1950 ‘‘Historical Perspectives of Popu-
tions. New York: Routledge. lar Culture.’’ American Journal of Sociology 55:323–332.

Hunter, James D. 1991 Culture Wars: The Struggle to Luker, Kristen 1984 Abortion and the Politics of Mother-
Define America. New York: Basic Books. hood. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jaeger, Gertrude, and Philip Selznick 1964 ‘‘A Norma- Malinowski, Bronislaw 1931 ‘‘Culture.’’ Encyclopedia of
tive Theory of Culture.’’ American Sociological Review the Social Sciences 4:621–646.
29:653–669.
——— 1927 Sex and Repression in Savage Society. Lon-
Katz, Jack 1988 Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual don: Routledge.
Attractions of Doing Evil. New York: Basic Books.
Martin, Joanne 1992 Cultures in Organizations: Three
Katz, Pearl 1999 The Scalpel’s Edge. Boston: Allyn Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
and Bacon.
McDonald, Dwight 1953 ‘‘A Theory of Mass Culture.’’
Kracauer, Seigfried 1949 ‘‘National Types as Hollywood Diogenes 3:1–17.
Presents Them.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly 13:53–72.
Mead, Margaret 1935 Sex and Temperament in Three
Kroeber, Alfred 1952 The Nature of Culture. Chicago: Primitive Societies. New York: Morrow.
University of Chicago Press.

571

CULTURE

——— 1928 Coming of Age in Samoa. New York: Morrow. Radway, Janice 1984 Reading the Romance. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Mitchell, Timothy 1991 Colonizing Egypt. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press. Rosenberg, Bernard, and David Manning White (eds.)1957
Mass Culture. New York: Free Press.
Morawska, Ewa, and Willfried Spohn 1994 ‘‘’Cultural
Pluralism’ in Historical Sociology: Recent Theoreti- Rushing, Andrea Benton 1988 ‘‘Hair-Raising.’’ Feminist
cal Directions.’’ In Diana Crane, ed., The Sociology of Studies 14:325–336.
Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell. Schudson, Michael 1984 Advertising the Uneasy Persua-
sion. New York: Basic Books.
Mukerji, Chandra 1983 From Graven Images. New York:
Columbia University Press. ——— 1978 Discovering the News: A Social History of
American Newspapers. New York: Basic Books.
———, and Michael Schudson 1986 ‘‘Popular Culture.’’
Annual Review of Sociology 12:47–66. Schwartz, Barry 1991 ‘‘Social Change and Collective
Memory: The Democratization of George Washing-
Munch, Richard, and Neil J. Smelser (eds.) The Theory of ton.’’ American Sociological Review 56:221–236.
Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Seidman, Steven 1996 ‘‘Revitalizing Sociology: The Chal-
Neitz, Mary Jo 1987 Charisma and Community: A Study of lenge of Cultural Studies.’’ In Norman Denzin, ed.,
Religious Commitment Within the Charismatic Renewal. Cultural Studies. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.
Seldes, Gilbert 1957 ‘‘The Public Arts.’’ In Bernard
Nelson, Cary, and Lawrence Grossberg (eds.) 1988 Marx- Rosenberg and David Manning White, eds., Mass
ism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana: Universi- Culture. New York: Free Press.
ty of Illinois Press.
Sewell, William 1985 ‘‘Ideologies and Social Revolu-
Nolan, James (ed.) 1996 The American Culture Wars: tions: Reflections on the French Case.’’ The Journal of
Current Contests and Future Prospects. Charlottesville: Modern History 57:57–85.
University of West Virginia Press.
Singer, Milton 1968 ‘‘Culture: The Concept of Culture.’’
Peterson, Richard 1997 Creating Country Music: Fabricat- In David L. Sills, ed., International Encyclopedia of the
ing Authenticity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan and Free Press.

——— 1990 ‘‘Symbols and Social Life: The Growth of Skocpol, Theda 1985 ‘‘Cultural Idioms and Political
Culture Studies.’’ Contemporary Sociology 19:498–500. Ideologies in the Revolutionary Reconstruction of
State Power: A Rejoinder to Sewell.’’ The Journal of
——— 1989 ‘‘La Sociologique de l’Art et de la Culture Modern History 57:86–96.
aux Etats-Unis.’’ L’Annegrave;e sociologique 39:153–179.
Star, Susan Leigh 1989 Regions of the Mind: Brain Re-
——— 1979 ‘‘Revitalizing the Culture Concept.’’ Annu- search and the Quest for Scientific Certainty. Stanford,
al Review of Sociology 5:137–166. Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952) 1961 Structure and Func- Swidler, Ann 1986 ‘‘Culture in Action.’’ American Socio-
tion in Primitive Society: Essays and Addresses. New logical Review 51:273–286.
York: Free Press.

572

D

DATA BANKS AND data, has been in one way or another the stimulus
DEPOSITORIES and the standard of advances in knowledge in the
many fields that later composed the social sci-
CONCEPT AND HISTORY OF DATA-BANKS ences. The systematic collection of empirical ob-
servations has been the ballast that has kept mod-
The tradition of thought that gave rise to the social ern social sciences from drowning in second-rate
sciences was based on the quest to understand the philosophy or outright ideology. Numerous social
laws or regularities governing the emerging indus- researchers and thinkers have stood up to the
trial societies with democratic political regimes. challenge of providing reliable observations on
The political and economic revolutions that were the social world. (Since every observer is also a
shaking the world substituted the relative predicta- member of society, it is not easy to stand aside and
bility of the traditional ways of handling power look at it from a fixed point of view.)
and production with the disconcerting uncertain-
ties of political consensus and the new market of In retrospect it is understandable that differ-
commodities. ent paths to the common goal of collecting system-
atic reliable data were tested with various meth-
Finding such laws was not easy. The model for odological and technical tools, not always being
scientific inquiry established by the successful en- understood as part of the same endeavor. In the
deavors in the various fields of physical and natu- latest bout of cultural dominance of Marxist theo-
ral sciences was not applicable to social science ries, Karl Marx and his school were viewed as
research. For a period social scientists believed ‘‘grand theorists’’ squarely opposed to the ‘‘ab-
that the complexity of the social object and the stract empiricism’’ of contemporary sociology. But
immaturity of the field were responsible for the this was a misconception that completely over-
failure of the natural science model. Social scien- looked the many years spent by Marx painstaking-
tists gradually became aware, however, that the ly collecting data on industrial society, and by
epistemological foundations of the social sciences desire to be a scientist like Charles Darwin—to
were different: in practical terms, because creating whom he dedicated the book produced by his
an experimental situation in social matters is ex- gigantic research effort, Das Kapital.
tremely difficult; and in theoretical terms, because
society is a moving target, readily reacting to Despite the apparent confusion and turmoil,
changes in circumstances. In the end, mainstream there was an underlying paradigm. Social sciences
social scientists learned to live with these difficulties. had to be empirical. No matter how radically
critical and antipositivistic have been the episte-
The Newtonian challenge of formulating hy- mological conclusions of the various Methodenstreiten,
potheses, collecting the relevant data, and accept- the mainstream has resisted the idea of a data-free
ing only those hypotheses that fit observational

573

DATA BANKS AND DEPOSITORIES

social science. Altogether such theoretical orienta- especially in Europe, is largely based on interac-
tion has provided this disciplinary area with a fairly tions with the institutions in charge of this type of
resilient ballast against ideological nebulosities. knowledge.
And this can be said safely without underesti-
mating the humongous and repetitive production Le Suicide by Emile Durkheim is an excellent
of irrelevant trivia in tabular or graphic form example of the advantages and drawbacks of sec-
produced over the years by the low-brows of ‘‘ab- ondary analysis of process-produced data. This
stract empiricism’’. Data, however, are a peculiar masterpiece of sociological research gave empiri-
commodity insofar that they have to be produced. cal evidence of the theoretical tenet that a cogent
Which means most of the time it is costly, painstak- collective agent can influence individual behavior
ing, and time consuming to produce data. By and even to the extreme gesture of annihilating the
large, data belong to one of two families. Primary genetic commandment. It could not have been
data are collected by the researcher himself. Sec- written without access and a hard sweated one at
ondary data are collected by other agencies, mainly that, to secondary data. No individual scientific
public and private large-scale organizations, in actor could collect data on events that are so
which case the researcher can only perform what is numerous, and so highly dispersed in time and
known as secondary analysis, and he obviously has space. On the other hand, relying on data collect-
no control over the collection of this data. In the ed by other agencies means that the researcher
latter case it is also useful to further distinguish relies on somebody else’s definition of events. One
between data collected for analytical purposes by of the most damaging critiques to Durkheim’s
agencies like the various census bureaus, and those work is that his sophisticated theoretical definition
collected for administrative purposes, such as data of suicides, is nullified by the fact that the cases of
on health collected by hospitals, or data on educa- suicides in the data used were defined by officers
tion collected by educational institutions, or mor- or judges according to completely different, and
tality data collected by governments and other uncontrollably variable, criteria.
agencies. These are process-produced data; data cre-
ated as by-products of administrative activities. The work of historians, too, would probably
not be possible without access to the organized
There are disciplinary areas that have a high knowledge embodied in the archives of agencies
degree of institutional stability and control over of all kind. The early development of economics as
their data such as physics, but also engineering, a quantitative discipline was greatly favored by the
medicine or law. The latter two fields, of course, availability of organized knowledge collected by
provided the original kernel for the development public administrations. The same applies to de-
of universities and studia generalia, in Bologna, mography, which could base itself also on data
Padova, or Salerno. Other fields are less stable, accumulated by the church, and in general to the
usually in the area of the humanities and the social whole field of statistics, which could today be
sciences. But in all cases the organized character of defined as policy sciences (Cavalli 1972).
the type of knowledge provided by academic disci-
plines is predominant. The Durkheim syndrome, the need to use data
not collected by scholars, but by public employees,
Organized knowledge is the practical rather than is a constant problem for social scientists using
speculative knowledge accumulated by govern- information coming from the realm of organiza-
ments and their administrative apparatuses, by tional knowledge. At the beginning of the nine-
corporations, political parties, trade unions, church- teenth century Melchiorre Gioja expresses the
es, and other institutions. Thomas Kuhn has been irritation of a scholar dependent on low-quality
the leading figure in analyzing innovation process- public data. He took issue with ‘‘the many ques-
es in the institutions of organized knowledge (Kuhn tions that various inept busybodies called secretar-
1962). These types of secondary data are essential ies send from the capital to the province. Ques-
for social scientists, and in fact, as noticed long ago tions that never produced other than the following
by Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Stein Rokkan, among three effects:
others (Rokkan 1976), the work of sociologists,
1. fear that the Government seeks the ba-
sis for some aggravation, and therefore
opportunistically false answers;

574

DATA BANKS AND DEPOSITORIES

2. ridicule resulting by the silliness, inconsis- soon after machine-readable cards were devel-
tency, and imprecision of the questions, oped, such as those punched with the Hollerith
and thus answers biased by contempt; code (universally known as IBM card). Cards were
easier to store than questionnaires, but it was easy,
3. heaps of paper uselessly encumbering in a routine research process, to lose the ‘‘codebook’’
archives, if the government mistrust them, of the research so that in many cases the cards
or very serious mistakes if it uses them, were useless, even if they contained relevant infor-
not to speak of the time stolen from mation (Rokkan 1976). Thus the storing, han-
the municipal or provincial administrators dling, processing, and redistributing of punched
who must prepare the answers.’’ (Gioja cards required specific skills. Furthermore, the
1852, p. 5) traditional institutional structure of universities
and research centers is not well adapted to take on
A powerful answer to these problems came these tasks. Originally social scientists turned to
from the development of survey research, particu- libraries to store their data (Lucci and Rokkan
larly from the 1940s on by American sociologists 1957), but in the late 1950s and early 1960s librar-
who developed the ‘‘art of asking why’’; namely the ies were not equipped to handle large masses of
inquiry into the rational motivations of individual data requiring mainframe computers. The big ma-
behavior. It is not surprising that these new meth- chines were housed in separate structures and
ods originally developed in two crucial areas of tended by IBM technicians. Social scientists had
behavior: the choice of candidates in an electoral limited access to the mainframe computers and
process, and the choice of a product in consump- therefore, the data, until the scientists developed
tion behavior. There has been much criticism of their own separate institutions on the model of the
mercantile attitudes in voting, and of course it is Inter University Consortium for Political Research
quite clear that some of the value motivations that at Ann Arbor, Michigan (ICPR, later turned into
are mobilized in choosing a candidate are evident- ICPSR when social research was added). In Eu-
ly not the same as those that are mobilized in rope the vision and farsightedness of scholars such
picking up one granola package rather than anoth- as Philip Abrams in the United Kingdom, Stein
er from a shelf. But the critics miss the point. The Rokkan in Norway, and Erwin Scheuch in Germa-
two areas of behavior are similar, and the inquiry ny, helped establish the first archives in Essex, the
into behavioral motivations should not be divert- Social Science Research Center, in Bergen, the
ed by undue considerations of political or ethical Norwegian Data Service, and in Koeln, the
correctness. Little wonder that scholars had to Zentralarchiv fur Empirische Sozialforschung. Later
develop new data collection tools on this type of on these archives developed their own organiza-
behavior. And equally not surprising is that politi- tions, first IFDO, International Federation of Data
cal and economic elites are willing to invest re- Organizations, and later on CESSDA, Council of
sources in the arduous enterprise of predicting the European Social Science Data Archives. Archives
aggregate outcome of individual behavior. A pru- developed in Italy at the Istituto Superiore di
dent politician today constantly monitors the opin- Sociologia of Milano (ADPSS), in Denmark (DDA),
ion of the electorate. And economists make use in the Netherlands (the Steinmetz archive), in
not only of large-scale models of the behavior of Belgium (BASS), and in France (BDSP in Greno-
macroeconomic systems, but also of assessments ble and in several other places).
of consumer behavior. Politicians, bureaucrats,
entrepreneurs, and managers would have a hard SOCIAL SCIENCE DATA ARCHIVES
time doing without the tools provided by the social
sciences. Cultural and technological changes led to the
creation of Social Science Data Archives (SSDA).
Survey data collection methods, however, pre- SSDA are scientific institutions that retrieve, store,
sented the social scientist and his institutions with and distribute large amounts of data on social
novel problems. Pollsters and survey people in science. The oldest and the most important SSDA
general produce huge quantities of individually were established in the United States—where an
uninteresting questionnaires. Punched cards were emphasis on quantitative social research is deeply
developed to hold data; at first the cards were rooted—when there was growing attention by both
processed manually as the ‘‘McBee cards,’’ but

575

DATA BANKS AND DEPOSITORIES

public administration and the scientific communi- Amsterdam Arts and Sciences Real Academy. The
ty to the use of social indicators as standards for Economic and Social Research Council Data Ar-
the population welfare level. These social actors chive (ESRC-DA) was created at the University of
turned to social indicators for help in planning, Essex in 1967. These archives specialized in public
applying, and the evaluating public-assistance pro- opinion surveys and social research, but they also
grams when it became apparent that using eco- focused attention on the great amount of data
nomic indicators alone was insufficient and complied by statistical bureaus and public agen-
inappropriate. cies (Herichsen 1989).

The first major contribution of social indica- SSDA developed a culture of data sharing;
tors is the Recent Social Trendsstudy, supervised by data exchange and the repeated use of available
the sociologist William Ogburn and prescribed by data for new research projects intensified with the
the U.S. Government toward the end of the 1920s introduction of statistical packages for the social
(Bauer 1966). In 1946 the Employment Act was sciences and more compact media for data trans-
published, which was a systematic collection of fer. As data production and SSDA grew, more
information on economy intended to affect poli- systematic acquisition policies were implemented,
cies and programs that would sustain employment and transborder cooperation resulted in the ex-
rates. Most of the studies and undertakings of the change of data processing tools and of emerging
1960s described a ‘‘great society,’’ which could archiving and service standards (Mochmann 1998).
overcome the widening economic and social gap.
In the early 1970s SSDA were created: in
The consciousness of social problems, togeth- Norway in 1971, in Denmark in 1973, and in the
er with the necessity of endowing a collection of United States (at the University of Wisconsin in
social data, prompted the publication of Towards a Madison, U.C.L.A., and the University of North
Social Report at the end of the 1960s (Olson 1974). Carolina in Chapel Hill). In the 1980s SSDA were
This publication was intended to be ‘‘a first step created in Sweden (1980), France (1981), Austria
toward the evolution of a regular system in social (1985), and then Canada, Hungary, Israel, Austral-
reporting;’’ but still, like other similar and contem- ia, New Zealand, and Switzerland (1993).
porary writings, data were used just as illustrations
supplementing the text. Currently, the most important SSDA is the
ICPSR at the University of Michigan, which has
Technological developments that contributed over 40,000 data files and gathers information
to the establishment of SSDA include previously from more than 300 institutions. Besides data
unseen data collection techniques and new quanti- retrieval, processing, researching, and transfer-
tative methods to organize and analyze those same ring, it publishes an annual catalog and a four-
data. Throughout the 1960s improvements in com- monthly bulletin, cooperates in great projects con-
puting technologies, specifically in data gathering cerning data collection (e.g. the General Social
and storing, allowed researchers to do previously Surveys and the Panel Study on Income Dynamics),
unthinkable levels of analysis (Deutsch 1970). conducts formative training (it organizes a sum-
mer school on methodology and statistics for so-
The first SSDA were born autonomously, un- cial science), and offers educational activities. The
restricted by publicly administered archives or by ICPSR has been open to foreign institutions since
the institutions traditionally related to the collec- the early 1970s.
tion and promotion of data (libraries, museums,
and data archives). The earliest SSDA were created SSDA differ on budget and staff size, func-
in the United States, where in 1947 the Roper tions, amount of data files in acrhives, and techni-
Public Opinion Research Center opened, followed cal characteristics (e.g. type of hardware and soft-
by the Inter-University Consortium for Political ware used, online data accessibility) (IFDO 1991).
and Social Research (ICPSR) in 1962 at the Univer- The SSDA network is tied, however, by interna-
sity of Michigan in Ann Arbor. In 1960, the Univer- tional associations such as the Council of Europe-
sity of Koln in Germany developed the Zentralarchiv an Social Science Data Archives (CESSDA was
fur Empirische Sozialforschung (ZA). A few years instituted in 1976 to facilitate cooperation be-
later, in 1964, the Steinmetzarchief settled in at the tween the most important European SSDA), and

576

DATA BANKS AND DEPOSITORIES

the International Federation of Data Organiza- SOCIAL SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
tions (IFDO was founded in 1977 to enhance the
cooperation already started by CESSDA). Major social survey instruments are those institu-
tionalized initiatives that have produced some of
CESSDA promoted the acquisition, archiving, the most interesting results from the autonomous
and distribution of data for social research through- research applied to problems of general interest.
out Europe, facilitated the exchange of data and The General Social Surveys, the Continuous National
technology among data organizations, and sup- Surveys, and the U.S. National Surveys are the most
ported the development of standards for study interesting examples of longitudinal studies.
description schemes to inform users about the Eurobarometers and the International Social Sur-
archival holdings, classification schemes for access vey Program (ISSP) are discussed here because,
to variables by subject and continuity guides for although not strictly comparable to general social
coherent data collections. In the 1970s and 1980s, surveys, they are two of the most comprehensive
European membership grew continuously and and continuous academic survey programs. Al-
CESSDA started to associate and cooperate with though it is not discussed here, a student of the
other international organizations sharing similar social sciences should examine the European House-
objectives. Today Europe has a good coverage of hold Panels. This project integrated national house-
CESSDA member archives, while planning proc- hold panels from Germany (since 1984), Sweden
esses are under way in several more countries that (since 1984), Luxembourg (since 1985), France
still lack a social science infrastructure. (since 1985), Poland (since 1987), Great Britain
(since 1991), and Belgium and Hungary (since
Recent trends reveal a type of limitation to the 1992). These panels include variables on house-
growth and proliferation of national SSDA. This hold composition, employment, earnings, occupa-
occurs partly through the opening of decentral- tional biographies, health, and satisfaction indica-
ized bureaus and partly through more specialized tors. (In order to create an international comparative
data file collections—ones with more well-defined database for microdata from these projects, the
inquiry areas. Exemplary regarding this last issue Panel Comparability Project (PACO) was formed).
is the Rural Data Base of the ESRC, or even the
CESSDA internal agreement aiming at a study General Social Surveys. General Social Sur-
field subdivision between the different European veys (GSS) were developed to set out data on
SSDA (Tannenbaum 1986). demographic, social, and economic characteristics
of the population, as well as opinion data on social
SSDA have been useful not only in their specif- life (e.g. family, politics, institutions, relationships).
ic field (especially retrieving, storing, gathering, This important survey instrument improved over
and making available data) but also have improved time. In the mid 1940s the Survey Research Center
general quantitative research techniques, second- of the University of Michigan conducted panel
ary analysis, statistical and administrative software studies on a national level on specific issues, such
packages, and have made available the best hard- as political behavior, socioeconomic status, and
ware in social research. Most of the SSDA publish consumers’ attitudes. In the early 1970s, the Na-
their own bulletins, organize methodology schools tional Opinion Research Center (NORC) of the
for social science, hold updating seminars, and University of Chicago organized the first GSS,
cooperate in research projects. In the second half which was immediately followed by the Continu-
of the 1980s SSDA were particularly active in ous National Surveys program.
defining the standards for the information system
to be used among these institutions. More recent- Following the consolidation of the research
ly, SSDA have been working on international ac- method based on enlarged quantitative surveys on
cess practices on two levels: developing standard a national level, some institutions committed to
study description procedures (to define each data the transfer of the results, both within the U.S.
file) and promoting access to online archives. academic community and toward universities and
research centers worldwide. One should note that
data provided by the GSS are given a particular
treatment inside the ICPSR, which, besides trans-
ferring the data, gathers the sociologists interested

577

DATA BANKS AND DEPOSITORIES

in the study and the arrangement of social indica- Gallup, Harris), university research institutes (es-
tors. The importance of the GSS in U.S. social pecially ICPSR), and also federal commissions
research is exemplified by the more than 1,000 organized to study particular phenomena. Data
publications related to GSS data analysis listed in comparability is assured by the question scheme,
the catalog prepared by NORC. which is the same of the original study.

The GSS is done through interviews of a rep- Continuous National Surveys. The Continuous
resentative sample of U.S. residents who are over National Surveys (CNS) are national studies (the
18 years old and are not institutionalized. first one dates back to 1973) conducted monthly,
Representativeness is guaranteed by a complex with the aim of supplying the various governmen-
sampling mechanism, which relies on a multilevel tal agencies with the necessary data (e.g. welfare
selection over metropolitan areas, municipalities, indicators) to schedule social programs. The sam-
regions, and individuals. Sampling criteria have ple plan consists of persons selected on the basis of
been modified throughout the course of different their living groups. On this regard, the NORC
GSS, but to keep the results comparable between has carefully prepared a master probability sam-
one edition and the following ones correctors ple of households, that is, a multi-stage sample
have been added to allow for these adjustments. to collect on a first stage municipalities or else
groups of municipalities. From them, all districts
The GSS questionnaire consists of standard or block groups are selected, and then the proper
questions that are asked each time, and sometimes cohabitational groups in which to choose the indi-
groups of questions on specific themes are includ- viduals to interview are selected.
ed. The topics treated are the ones most interest-
ing in the study of society and its trends, with a U.S. National Surveys. U.S. national surveys
particular focus on family, economic and social on representative samples of U.S. population have
status, gender and ethnic group relationships, and been held since 1974 by the Survey Research
moral questions. Political behavior and working Center of the University of Michigan. Some of
activity are not included because the former is these studies are held regularly (e.g. the Surveys of
already studied in detail through surveys organ- Consumer Finances, the Survey of Consumer Attitudes
ized by the Institute for Social Research of the and Behavior, and the Panel Studies of Income Dy-
University of Michigan, and the latter is well de- namics). In particular, the yearly Panel Study of
scribed in the research on labor forces arranged by Income Dynamics is one of the most interesting
the U.S. Bureau of the Census. surveys on income trends, and, specifically, on the
possible causes for changes in the economic status
Given that one of the fundamental aims of the both of households and single individuals.
GSS is to provide a general view of time trends, not
only in population characteristics, but also and The representative sample initially extracted
overall in opinions, evaluations, and behaviors consisted of 2,930 households, to which has been
over the most important topics describing the added 1,872 households that were already survey
social scenery, these questions are included only subjects by the U.S. Bureau of the Census on the
from time to time, so the questionnaire is not income topic in the two previous years. Each year
weighted excessively. Some questions are included these households are re-interviewed, and the sam-
only two years in three, others every 10 years, and ple has grown as members of the original sample
some only after particular and significant events. established new households. For the first time
Over 100 sociologists worked on the first draft of ever, phone interviews were tested in these re-
the questionnaire (in 1972). These sociologists searches, and since then the telephone has be-
devised a final, definite version by voting for each come broadly used in social research and panel
single question. Every year the selection of ques- studies.
tions is done by an ad hoc committee, selected by
American Sociological Association members. Eurobarometers. Eurobarometers are opinion
studies that have been held twice a year since 1973
Some questions utilized in the GSS come from in what are now the European Union countries.
the national surveys run before 1972 that were These studies sample about 1,000 individuals for
promoted by commercial research institutes (e.g. each country, which represents the population

578

DATA BANKS AND DEPOSITORIES

over 15 years-old. The aim of these comparative SSDA vary on the type and volume of data that
surveys is to learn about the attitudes of European is held and delivered and on the exact services
citizens on some broad interest topics. Questions offered. The data differ within and between SSDA
regard public attitudes toward European integra- in terms of subject matter, time period, and geo-
tion, but sometimes also address specific problems graphical area covered. The data may be individu-
of a single country or more generally economic, al or aggregate, and the variables may be cross-
political, and social conditions. Two important sectional or time series and suitable for compara-
functions of Eurobarometers are: being cross-na- tive or longitudinal analysis, or both. Charging
tional and easily comparable surveys, they helped policies differ from one SSDA to the next and
integrate social research throughout Western Eu- depend upon the type of service being provided,
rope; and, they allowed (and still allow) analysis on the specific data set demanded, and the institu-
social changes in Western Europe. As a matter of tional affiliation of the requester.
fact, there is no survey similar to eurobarometers
in what concerns a regular check over time (more Many data formats are used by SSDA to pre-
than 20 years to date) and space (every single serve and deliver the data that is increasingly
European country). Eurobarometers are now at required to be machine readable, and there is also
the disposal of the academic community thanks to an increasing demand for the archiving and dis-
the ICPSR and the ZA of Koln. seminating of machine-readable metadata.

The International Social Survey Program. The Despite the heterogeneity of SSDA, there are
International Social Survey Program (ISSP) com- common goals and tasks. Although we know more
bines a cross-national survey with a longitudinal about the SSDA in Western Europe, we hope to
time dimension by replicating particular question represent all SSDA in the following list of goals
modules, ideally in five year intervals. The first and tasks:
survey on the ‘‘role of government’’ started in
1985 in four countries (the United States, Great • To promote the acquisition, archiving, and
Britain, West Germany, and Australia). Since then distribution of electronic data for social
the ISSP has grown rapidly and now covers more science teaching and research and to
than 30 countries around the world, including exchange data and technology;
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia,
Poland, Russia, and Slovenia. Topics of the ISSP • To exploit the potential of the Internet by
have included social networks (1986), social ine- the expansion of web-based services and
quality (1987, 1992), family and changing gender the improvement of dissemination to allow
roles (1988, 1994), work orientations (1989, 1997), users more direct and immediate access to
religion (1991), and environment (1993). Role of the data;
government was replicated in 1990 and 1996. The
official data archive of the ISSP is the ZA, which • To develop and use metadata standards
makes the integrated data sets available via the for the management of data;
archival network.
• To provide users access to comparative
DEPOSITED, ACCESS PROCEDURES data and to multiple data sources across
AND USE national boundaries;

The existence of SSDA in Europe and in the • To allow users to receive all or subsets of
United States has had a positive effect on the data via download or on portable media in
scientific community because SSDA allow access one of a number of formats;
to some data that is particularly useful in second-
ary analysis. In other words, researchers can col- • To extend the users’ base beyond tradi-
lect and use data from different surveys (with tional boundaries;
particular hypothesis and conceptual frames) to
support their own works. • To better serve the needs of an increasing
number of novice users, particularly in
terms of data analysis software and im-
proved searching aids through the devel-
opment and use of social science thesauri
and user-friendly interfaces.

579

DATA BANKS AND DEPOSITORIES

The technological changes that contributed to short and in the medium term (i.e. in the period
the creation of SSDA have had far-reaching signifi- 1994–2004); b) suggesting ways to meet these pri-
cance for social scientists. The changes through- orities—with an indication of their respective costs
out the 1990s were considerable: from simple and benefits—in light of the present and expected
writing (word processing) to data production (es- availability of large installations, taking into ac-
pecially computer assisted interviewing technique); count existing and planned future international
from archiving (from punch cards to floppy disks cooperations, both within the community and out-
and CD-ROMs) to data analysis (the creation of side as well as the particular needs of researchers
various new software); from bibliographic refer- working in regions where such installations do not
ence (online access to bibliographic databases) to exist; and c) consulting representatives from mem-
communication (e-mail) (Cooley and Ryan 1985). ber states and reporting on what facilities, if any,
The boundaries of technological innovations are might be available for possible support in the
not yet clear. The compound archive of integrated frame of successor programs. A large-scale facility
data, text, images, and sounds (Garvel 1989), and has, to date, been defined as a large research
the Geographical Information System, by which installation that is rare or unparalleled in Europe
we can analyze data concerning space are exam- and that is necessary for high-level good-quality
ples of previously unimagined products that are research. Such facilities tend to have high initial
possible because of computers (Unwin 1991). These costs of investment and comparatively high oper-
instruments require high-level storing proceed- ating costs. The large-scale facilities program is
ings so that data can be a real resource in the intended to provide scientists with access to large
development of empirical knowledge. installations within and especially outside their
own countries, thereby promoting the mobility of
While social research in earlier decades la- researchers and encouraging the creation of a
mented the lack of reliable data (in the 1960s the Europe-wide research community. And likewise,
social sciences were considered data poor, and these installations are better utilized when their
infrastructural support for social research was lack- services, facilities, and knowledge are available to a
ing) the situation has changed. Thousands and wider community of users. Thus the beneficiaries
thousands of data sets, some of them dating back of the large-scale facilities program are researchers
to the 1940s, are stored for secondary analysis in who are provided with access to the facilities and
SSDA. These data sets represent a vast potential the organizations that receive support for the use
for comparative research on historical develop- and improvement of their equipment. The level of
ments and social change. support for such facilities has, to date, been based
on the quality and unique features of the facility
PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE and the value—particularly in advanced training—
to potential users.
In 1994, the European Commission recognized
Social Science Data Archives as legitimate institu- As a sequel to the work and recommendations
tions to be considered as applicants to the large- of the study panel, between 1994 and 1999 three
scale facility program for scientific research. This Social Science Data Archives, the SSRC Essex ar-
is tantamount to recognizing that the social sci- chive, the German ZA, and the NSD in Bergen
ences have infrastructure needs equal to those of have been included in the large-scale facilities
the ‘‘hard’’ sciences. This goal was originally pur- program together with other social science institu-
sued through the work of a study panel created by tions. In addition the General Directorate for
the General Directorate for Science and Tech- Science and Technology created a round table on
nology of the European Commission and particu- large-scale facilities in the social sciences. This
larly its Training and Mobility of Researchers pro- round table was constituted by the European Un-
gram. The study panel met twice, and was entrusted ion commission to suggest actions needed to sup-
with the tasks of: a) identifying the future priorities port a given field of scientific activity. The pros-
of European scientists concerning access to large pects of Social Science Data Archives are thus
installations in the social sciences, both in the quite positive, and for the first time they have been
given a tool capable of furthering their original aims.

580

DEATH AND DYING

REFERENCES related topics have been studied by sociology? 3)
What issues are currently pending that call for
Bauer, R. A. (ed.) 1966 Social Indicators. Cambridge, sociological attention?
Mass.: MIT Press.
DEATH AND DYING AS A FIELD OF
Cavalli, A. 1972 ‘‘La Sociologia e le Altre Scienze Sociali. SOCIOLOGICAL INQUIRY
Prospettive di Integrazione Interdisciplinare.’’ In P.
Rossi, ed., Ricerca Sociologica e Ruolo del Sociologo. The answer to the first question is not readily
Bologna: Il Mulino. found in the history of sociological thought, al-
though Victor Marshall once bemoaned the fact
Cooley, R. E., and N. S. Ryn 1985 ‘‘An Information that Georg Simmel in 1908 had identified but had
Technology Strategy for Social Scientists.’’ University not pursued the topic as suitable for sociological
Computing7. inquiry, and a half century later the topic was
thought to be a neglected area for sociology (Faunce
Deutsch, K. 1970 ‘‘The Impact of Complex Data Bases and Fulton 1958). On other hand, Fulton reminds
on the Social Sciences.’’ In R. L. Bisco, ed., Data us that ‘‘sociological interest in death is coexistent
Bases, Computers and the Social Sciences. New York: Wiley. with the history of sociology’’ (Fulton and Bendiksen
1994; Fulton and Owen 1988). Both Marshall and
Garvel, S. 1989 ‘‘National Archives and Electronic Rec- Fulton are correct in that the ‘‘interest’’ has typi-
ords: Where Are We Going?’’ IASSIST Quarterly 3–4. cally been peripheral. Herbert Spencer had noted
that social progress depended on the separation of
Gioja, M. 1852 Filosofia Della Statistica. Torino. the world of the living from the world of the dead,
but that was hardly his central theory. Emile
Henrichsen, B. 1989 ‘‘Data from the Central Bureau of Durkheim’s Suicide depends on an elaborate theo-
Statistics to the Social Science Community: The Nor- ry of ‘‘anomie,’’ not on any theory of death. Max
wegian Experience.’’ IASSIST Quarterly fall–winter. Weber deals with the fact of death in that it
interrupts the pursuit of one’s calling—a basic
IFDO 1991 ‘‘IFDO Survey of Computerized Catalogues.’’ observation later developed by Talcott Parsons.
IFDO News September. William Graham Sumner wrote widely about such
death-related topics as fear of ghosts, mortuary
Kuhn, T. 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. rituals, widowhood, infanticide, war, and even the
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. right to die, but all such references were illustra-
tive of some more general point. In 1956 Herman
Lucci, T., and S. Rokkan (eds.) 1957 A Library Center of Feifel chaired a conference on death for the Ameri-
Survey Research Data. New York: Columbia Universi- can Psychological Association.
ty Press.
There may well be other precursors, but a bit
Mochmann, E. 1998 ‘‘European Cooperation in Social of history suggests how and when sociology may
Science Data Dissemination.’’ Working paper, round have staked out its disciplinary claim in a field that
table meeting on infrastructures for social economic had long been cultivated by medicine, theology,
research. Koln, 29–30 June. ethics, philosophy, law, and psychology.

Rokkan, S. 1976 ‘‘Data Services in Western Europe.’’ In May 1967, as part of a new program on
American Behavioral Scientist 19:443–454. ‘‘Death Education’’ at the University of Minnesota,
Robert Fulton, a sociologist, arranged perhaps the
Tannenbaum, E. 1989 ‘‘Sharing Information Begets first interdisciplinary conference on death and
Information.’’ IASSIST Quarterly, Summer. dying in the United States. Fulton had just pub-
lished his ground-breaking book Death and Identity
Unwin, D. 1991 ‘‘Geographical Information Systems (1965), the purpose of which was to help in ‘‘pre-
and the Social Science Research.’’ ESRC Data Archive serving rather than losing . . . personal identity
Bulletin 48. . . .’’ when facing death. It was a time of broad and
diverse interest in the subject. Examples had been
GUIDO MARTINOTTI popping up in many domains: Jay Lifton’s notes
SONIA STEFANIZZI

DEATH AND DYING

This essay asks three questions about death and
dying: 1) Why should an entry on such phenome-
na, which are clearly of interdisciplinary interest,
appear in an encyclopedia of sociology? 2) What

581

DEATH AND DYING

on the Hiroshima bombing; Eric Lindemann’s deceased’s group must be reaffirmed). They at-
report on the psychiatric effects of the disastrous tacked hospital regimens that depersonalized ter-
Coconut Grove fire in Boston; Avery Weisman’s minal patients, and they challenged the medical
clinical studies of dying patients; Lloyd Warner’s profession for treating death as ‘‘the enemy’’ and
interpretation of the meaning of ceremonial events prolonging life at any cost.
that honor the dead; Herman Feifel’s work on
social taboos; Richard Kalish’s early essays on The conference produced extravagant results
teaching; Parsons’ emerging theory of the rela- in anticipating two critical issues: the norms and
tionship of social action to death, and so on. arrangements for dealing with dying persons were
Fulton, clearly aware of these varying expressions both confused and hazy; and the greater attention
of interest, was prompted to try to interpret the paid to caregivers than to dying persons. But the
diversity and ‘‘get it all together.’’ What Fulton did fact that the conference was consistent in insisting
in Death and Identity (1965) was to piece together that dying always involves at least two persons
some three dozen edited excerpts from the works turned out to be its most important message for
of a wide range of experts who had written on an the future agenda. Sociological interest in death
equally wide range of death-related topics. He and dying, of course, did not start with the Minne-
found American society to be essentially death sota Conference, but what the conference did was
denying. to underscore the often overlooked sociological
proposition that the dying process is essentially
The Minnesota Conference, 1967. At the Min- social in nature.
nesota Conference of 1967, Alber Sullivan of the
Minnesota Medical School and Jacques Choron of A REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGICAL INQUIRIES
the New School of Social Research spoke to vari-
ous medical and philosophical issues; Jeanne Quint The answer to the second question about related
from the University of California reported on the research is more straightforward. A bit of Ameri-
role of the nurse in dealing with terminal patients; can history shows the range of topics that has
Eric Lindemann of Harvard Medical School dis- received sociological attention. In the 1930s socio-
cussed the symptomatology of acute grief; Her- logical interest in death and dying had focused
man Feifel of the Veterans Administration, fa- mainly on the economic plight of the bereaved
mous for his work on taboos, emphasized that family (Eliot 1932). In the 1950s attention turned
death always carries many meanings; and Talcott to the high cost of dying and the commercializa-
Parsons from Harvard probed the topic in broad tion of funerals (Bowman 1959). Twenty years
theoretical terms. later, it shifted to a medley of popular topics of
peripheral sociological interest, with many books
It was a heady agenda but there were some written on various aspects of death and dying, such
strange omissions. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, then as On the Side of Life; On Dying and Denying; After the
known to be working on the ‘‘stages’’ of dying (On Flowers Have Gone; Widow; Caretaker of the Dead;
Death and Dying, 1969) was scarcely mentioned, Death in the American Experience; Last Rights; Some-
nor was much made of the equally influential work one You Love is Dying; The Practice of Death; Grief and
of Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (1965), whose Mourning; No More Dying; Life After Life; The Way
book Awareness of Dying had been published two We Die; Death as a Fact of Life; The Immortality
years earlier. The participants in the Minnesota Factor; Facing Death; Death and Obscenity; and Liv-
Conference were intrigued by various sociological ing Your Dying. One sociologist termed that burst
questions. They wrestled with Karl Mannheim’s of literature a ‘‘collective bustle,’’ and character-
thought experiment of what society would be like ized the ‘‘discovery’’ of death during the 1970s as
if there were no death (Mannheim 1928, 1959). ‘‘the happy death movement’’ (Lofland 1978).
They wondered what mortality and fertility rates There can be no argument that the topic had
had been historically and how they are related (cf. become more open. Furthermore, the increasing
Riley and Riley 1986). They debated Robert Blauner’s use of life-sustaining technologies dictated that the
thesis (Blauner 1966) that death in all known circumstances of dying became more controllable
societies imposes imperatives (a corpse must be and negotiable, even as increasing proportions of
looked after, property must be reallocated, vacat- all deaths were occurring in the later years.
ed roles must be reassigned, the solidarity of the

582

DEATH AND DYING

Little Theoretical Work. Interest in death and more recently, Fulton has published an essay on
dying was varied and diverse during the 1970s and ‘‘Society and the Imperative of Death’’ (1994) in
1980s, and no widely accepted conceptual frame- which he discusses the role of such customs and
work for its study emerged, except that Kathy rituals as the Mardi Gras, the bullfight, the ‘‘Dani’’
Charmaz published a seminal book titled The So- of primitive societies, and other symbolic events in
cial Reality of Death in 1980. Sociologists had been which either societal survival or individual salva-
critical both of the title and content of Kubler- tion is at stake.
Ross’s widely read book On Death and Dying (1969)
but they recognized the appeal of the subject One exception to these various theoretical
matter (Riley 1968, 1983). In earlier decades death efforts is found in the sustained work of Marshall
had been typically viewed as a social transition, as a and collaborators. Starting in 1975 with a seminal
‘‘rite de passage,’’ but new threads running through article in The American Journal of Sociology, fol-
the literature were emerging. Formal ‘‘arrange- lowed by his book Last Chapters (1980), he collabo-
ments’’ were being negotiated prior to death, dy- rated with Judith Levy in a review titled ‘‘Aging
ing persons were generally more concerned about and Dying’’ (Marshall and Levy 1990). Marshall
their survivors than they were about themselves, began his work with an empirical field study of
dying individuals were able to exercise a signifi- socialization for impending death in a retirement
cant degree of control over the timing of their village, followed by a compelling theoretical essay
deaths, tensions typically existed between the re- on age and awareness of finitude in developmental
quirements of formal care and the wishes of dying gerontology, and has been consistently engaged in
patients, and similar tensions almost always exist- such theoretical efforts. His basic postulate is that
ed between formal and informal caregivers—be- ‘‘awareness of finitude’’ operates as a trigger that
tween hospital bureaucracies and those significant permits socialization to death.
others who were soon to be bereaved (Kalish
1985a, 1985b; Riley 1970, 1983). Empirical Research Largely Topical. In con-
trast to theoretical work, the empirical literature
Little systematic attention from sociologists, shows that sociological research on death and
however, had emerged. The Encyclopedia of the dying has been, and largely continues to be, essen-
Social Sciences (1968) contained but two entries, tially topical. Studies range widely, from the taboo
both on the social meanings of death. Similarly, on death to funerals and the social ‘‘causes’’ of
there are only two indexed references in the 1988 death (Riley 1983; Marshall and Levy 1990). They
Handbook of Sociology (Smelser 1988): one to pover- include the following examples:
ty resulting from the death of breadwinners, the
other to the role of death in popular religion. Planning for Death. A national survey con-
Sociologists had failed to generate any overarching ducted in the late 1960s showed that the great
theory. There have been, however, many attempts. majority of Americans (85 percent) are quite real-
Several kernels illustrate the broad range of these istic and consider it important to ‘‘try to make
theoretical efforts. Parsons (1963) related the chang- some plans about death,’’ and to talk about it with
ing meanings of death to basic social values; those closest to them (Riley 1970). In addition,
Mannheim (1928, 1952) used mortality to explain bereavement practices, once highly structured,
social change; Renee Fox (1980, 1981) found that are becoming increasingly varied and individually
‘‘life and death were coming to be viewed less as therapeutic; dying is feared primarily because it
absolute . . . entities. . . and more as different points eliminates opportunities for self-fulfillment; and
on a meta-spectrum..a new theodicity’’; Dorothy active adaptations to death tend to increase as one
and David Counts (1985) specified the role of approaches the end of the life course (i.e. the
death in the various social transformations from making of wills, leaving instructions, negotiating
preliterate to modern societies; Paul Baker (1990), conflicts).
following Lloyd Warner (1959) and others (e.g.
Kearl and Rinaldi 1983) elaborated the long-recog- Death and Dying in a Hospital. Among such
nized theory that images of the dead exert pro- studies, a detailed account of the ‘‘social organiza-
found influences on the living, and Michael Kearl tion’’ of death in a public hospital describes rules
wrote a more general statement in 1989. And for dealing with the corpse (the body must be
washed, catalogued, and ticketed). Dignity and

583

DEATH AND DYING

bureaucratic efficiency are typically found to be at shown to experience excess mortality, whereas
odds (Sudnow 1967). A contrasting account of other investigations have reported opposite re-
hospital rules governing disposition of the body in sults. Retirement is a complex process, not a sim-
contemporary Ireland is even more sociological in ple or single event, and the mortality impact of
its emphasis (Prior 1989). In another hospital study retirement is moot.
the ‘‘caring issue’’ has been seen as the main social
problem. The selfhood of the dying person is In an era in which nursing homes play an
found to be at risk since the hospital is essentially important role in the lives of many older people,
dedicated to efficiency (Kalish 1985b). However, the mortality consequences of relocation have come
studies suggest that an increasing proportion of under critical scrutiny. Several studies have report-
deaths may now be occurring at home or under ed that the ‘‘warehousing’’ of the frail elderly
hospice care, which ‘‘mediates between the fami- results in increased mortality while in other stud-
lies and formal institutions that constitute the ies feelings of security in the new ‘‘home’’ are
social organization of death and dying’’ (Marshall shown to enhance a sense of well-being resulting in
and Levy 1990; see also Bass 1985). lower mortality. Similar caveats apply to macro-
level studies that attempt to relate such collectively
The Funeral. The funeral as a social institu- experienced stressors as economic depressions,
tion has long been of sociological concern (cf. wars, and technological revolutions to trends in
Habenstein 1968). For example, a massive cross- mortality. Advances in mathematical modelling
cultural study attests to its worldwide function in and the increasing availability of large and relevant
marking a major social transition (Habenstein and data sets make this problem an attractive area for
Lamers 1963; Howarth 1996). Durkheim had em- continuing sociological research (see Riley 1983
phasized its ceremonial role in facilitating social for details and sources).
regrouping. Later sociologists have shown that
elaborate and extravagant funeral rites may be Self-Motivated Death. Durkheim’s studies of
more reflective of commercial interests than of suicide spawned a wide, diverse, and sometimes
human grief or mourning (Parsons and Lidz 1967). confusing research literature. In most such studies
social integration is the operative concept. If the
The Bereaved Family. The now classic study theoretical relationship is believed to be unam-
(Eliot 1932) of the economic consequences of biguous, the empirical relationship is far from
death on the family stimulated a large literature tidy. The literature is vast and well beyond the
that documents the general proposition that survi- reach of this review. Apart from suicide, it is a
vors—particularly significant others—require vari- sociological truism that individuals are often so-
ous types of social supports to ‘‘get through’’ the cially motivated to influence the time of their own
period of intense personal grief and the more deaths. It has long been noted, for example, that
publicly expressed mourning. In today’s societies, both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams delayed
the time devoted to bereavement activities is gen- their dying in order to participate in Indepen-
erally shorter (Pratt 1981). This is consistent with dence Day celebrations. Several empirical studies
Parsons’s (1963) position that in societies charac- have explored this so-called ‘‘anniversary effect’’
terized by an ‘‘active’’ orientation, the bereaved in which social events of significance are preceded
are expected to carry out their grief work quickly by lower-than-expected mortality (Phillips and
and privately. Feldman 1973). Such studies rest on Durkheim’s
insight that if some people are so detached from
Social Stressors as ‘‘Causes’’ of Death. Soci- society that they commit suicide, others may be so
ologists and psychologists have investigated a range attached that they postpone their deaths in order
of individually experienced ‘‘social stressors’’ as to participate in social events of great significance
causes of death, such as bereavement and retire- (Phillips and Smith 1990). An example of the
ment. The hypothesis that a bereaved spouse is at mortality impact of personal and local events is
higher risk of death (the ‘‘broken heart’’ syndrome, seen in studies of the ‘‘birthday dip.’’ One year-
or ‘‘death causes death’’) has been widely investi- long study, in a test area, coded all obituaries for
gated but with no conclusive results. Similarly, birthdates. The results were striking. Fewer than
retirees in some longitudinal studies have been 10 percent of the deaths occurred during the three
months prior to the birth date, whereas nearly half

584

DEATH AND DYING

were reported during the following three months. roles. It is, however, the ‘‘negotiation’’ that is of
Along similar lines, several sociological investiga- sociological interest. Norms designed to reduce
tions have explored the proposition that some the perplexities in wrenching decisions or to reas-
people die socially before they die biologically. sure the decision makers (including dying per-
These studies center on the notion of ‘‘levels of sons) are generally lacking (Wetle 1994). The need
awareness’’ of death (Glaser and Strauss 1965). for relevant norms governing ‘‘the dying process’’
When both the dying person and his or her signifi- has been noted earlier (Riley and Riley 1986), and
cant others are cognizant of death as a soon-to-be- the main considerations have been specified (Logue
experienced event, the ensuing ‘‘open’’ awareness 1989). The U. S. Office of Technology Assessment
may enable them to negotiate various aspects of (1987) and the Hastings Center (1987) have issued
the final phase of life. Other research on ‘‘dying medical and ethical guidelines, respectively, on
trajectories’’ involves certainties and uncertainties the use of life-sustaining procedures. Many years
as to the time of death (Glaser and Strauss 1968). ago sociologists developed research models for
studying the social aspects of heroic operations
‘‘The Right to Die.’’ As a final and critical and the treatment of nonsalvageable terminal pa-
example in this review of disparate empirical work, a tients (Fox and Swazey 1974; Crane 1975). Yet
basic and far-reaching question is being asked: models necessary to the formation of norms capa-
Does the individual, in a society deeply committed ble of handling the ‘‘rights’’ and wishes of the
to the preservation of life, have a ‘‘right’’ to die? various parties to the process of dying are still
This has become one of the most profound, com- clearly needed. Furthermore, the conceptual prob-
plex, and pressing issues of our time (Glick 1992). lem of distinguishing between the two actors in the
It involves the ‘‘rights’’ and wishes of the dying dying process, which the Minnesota Conference
person, the ‘‘rights’’ and responsibilities of his or had emphasized, has not been resolved.
her survivors, the ‘‘rights’’ and obligations of at-
tending physicians, and the ‘‘rights’’ and constraints CURRENT ISSUES
of the law. The human side of such issues is
producing a tidal wave of expressions of public With roots in these diverse studies, a set of three
interest in television documentaries, opinion sur- issue-laden topics cry out for more research and
veys, editorials, pamphleteering, and radio talk understanding: 1) dying individuals want a clearer
shows. The issue of euthanasia is openly debated voice in how their last days are to be treated; 2)
in leading medical journals, an unthinkable topic policy questions are being raised that call attention
only a few years ago. Hospital rules, in which do to potential conflicts between the rights of indi-
not resuscitate (DNR) orders were written on black- viduals and the imperatives of society; and 3)
boards then quickly erased, are being changed. programs and campaigns designed to reduce the
Certain aspects of the issue have reached the difficulties of dying are demanding wide social
Supreme Court. A major book has proposed the action. These issues can be grouped under three
rationing of medical resources (Callahan 1987). shorthand labels: the living will; assisted suicide;
Radical movements have sprung up that advocate and the quality of dying. While these issues are of
active euthanasia and offer recipes for self-deliver- great sociological interest, they are only now be-
ance. Final Exit, the Hemlock Society’s handbook, ginning to be framed in terms for sociological
was an instant best-seller (Humphry 1991). The inquiry. The following discussions, consequently,
costs of the last days of life have been dramatized, rely largely on commission reports, conferences,
sometimes spoofed as a myth (Alliance for Ag- public forums, social commentary in the media,
ing Research 1996), and sometimes reported with brief reports in such journals as Omega, Issues in
great care (Congressional Research Service). Jack Law and Medicine, Journal of the American Geriatrics
Kevorkian, often referred to as ‘‘Dr. Death,’’ has Society, Hospice Journal, and various unpublished
become both hero and despised public enemy. In materials.
short, the problems and dilemmas inherent in the
‘‘management’’ of death have captured both popu- The Living Will. As noted above, one of the
lar and scientific attention (see various issues of most easily understood and practical developments
the Hastings Center Reports). In both instances in response to the dilemmas of dying in America is
doctors and lawyers play ambiguous but critical the ‘‘living will,’’ the so-called durable power of

585

DEATH AND DYING

attorney, or some other form of advance directive. preferences. The significance of the PSDA was
These are quasi-legal instruments, signed by the underscored by an occasionally distributed joint
patient, that instruct attending physicians (or sur- statement by the American Medical Association
rogates) as to the patient’s preferred treatment at and the Harvard Medical School:
the end of life. Such directives are widely varied as
to their specificity and the conditions of applica- Modern medicine can keep one alive long after
tion, and it is currently impossible to know how any reasonable prospect of mental, spiritual, or
many and what types of directives have been exe- emotional life is gone. The only way for a
cuted. There is, however, ample evidence that they person to retain autonomy in such a situation
are in widespread use. Simple do-it-yourself forms is to record his or her preferences for medical
are available in stationery stores, and countless care before they are needed. (Published in The
specialized directives have been developed to cov- Harvard Health Letter and elsewhere.)
er a wide variety of conditions and contingencies.
But both the effectiveness and the ethics of such The force of the PSDA, however, has not been
directives have become subject to wide debate: great and today it is generally believed that its
When and under what conditions is the withdraw- lasting importance will be found in its power to
al of food or fluids legally and medically permissi- enhance understanding of the still-developing and
ble? When may guardians or surrogates act for changing doctor-patient relationship. Indeed, the
incompetent patients? When does the constitu- drama of that relationship has now been moved to
tional right to privacy prevail? Under what condi- a larger stage that involves both assisted suicide
tions may the patient refuse treatment or take the and the quality of dying.
initiative and disconnect respirators or tubes? When
do oral directives, if ever, take precedence over Assisted Suicide. The role of law in cases
written ones? The answers to such questions tend where patients or their surrogates seek to control
to be moot, although a broad legal doctrine has end-of-life decisions has always been debated. The
been promulgated that bears on the availability early cases in the 1950s and 1960s had revolved
and use of advance directives. There must be around ‘‘informed consent.’’ This rule surfaced
‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ that the directive when medical treatments resulted in unanticipated
accurately reflects the patient’s precise intentions— negative consequences, and when it could be shown
or would in cases of incompetency. This legal that the patient had not been informed of the
dictum, however, has proved to be both burden- risks. Not surprisingly, this rule led to more com-
some and murky. The well-known Karen Anne plicated ones and, during the 1970s, the increas-
Quinlan case is illustrative. This young woman ing demand for patient control resulted in an
‘‘existed’’ in a persistent vegetative state for ten implied ‘‘right’’ to die by refusing treatment. Of
years while the legal process could determine wheth- sociological interest, it was popular experience—
er Karen’s parents had met the ‘‘clear and convinc- not statutory law or court decisions—that was
ing evidence’’ test (Karen’s parents had testified bringing about social change (see M. W. Riley 1978
that they knew their daughter well enough to be for a theoretical statement). Nor was it long before
certain that she would not wish to live in such demands for the ‘‘right’’ to receive treatments
circumstances). In another widely cited case, Nan- specifically designed to hasten death were serious-
cy Cruzan ‘‘lived’’ in a similar state for seven years ly being discussed and in some states actually
while the intricacies of the law were being debated. outlawed. As these events unfolded they have been
These and other such cases point to the need for reported by major news services, and analyzed by
more useful and practical evidentiary tests. The Hastings Center reports beginning in 1995.
Hastings Center published a special supplement
titled ‘‘Advance Care Planning’’ in 1993. In 1996 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit struck down a Washington state
In 1990, the Patient Self-Determination Act statute that had been passed specifically to deny
(PSDA) raised a set of new questions. The PSDA such a right. The presiding judge included this
requires hospitals, nursing homes, and health noteworthy statement:
providers to inform patients of their right to pre-
pare a living will or some document of end-of-life A competent, terminally ill adult, having lived
nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong
liberty interest in choosing a dignified and

586

DEATH AND DYING

humane death rather than being reduced at the life and a parallel right to receive treatment de-
end of his existence to a childlike state of signed to hasten death? Sociologists would ask:
helplessness—diapered, sedated, incompetent. What is the distinction between the acceptance of
death and its acceleration? Is the question so ab-
The case was striking not only for its human stract that it defies empirical inquiry? Both the
interest but also because it invoked the guarantee medical and legal answers to the issue are ambigu-
of personal liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment ous and have been discussed in a book by a physi-
to the U.S. Constitution. Shortly thereafter a New cian who publicly admitted helping a patient to
York statute was struck down by the U.S. Court of die. Dr. Timothy Quill not only was the main
Appeals for the Second Circuit (Quill 1996), which plaintiff in the New York case, but he has become
had argued that if physicians were allowed to help the leading medical voice on issues of assisted
people die it would put society on a slippery slope suicide. He writes with authority and sensitivity:
leading inevitably to abuse. The court pointed out, ‘‘Death seems antithetical to modern medicine—
however, that physicians are not killers if they no longer a natural and inevitable part of the life
prescribe drugs to hasten death any more than cycle, but a medical failure to be fought off, ig-
they are killers when they discontinue life supports. nored, and minimized. The dark side of this des-
perate battle has patients spending their last days
As expected, both cases were sent to the U.S. in the intensive care units of acute hospitals, tubes
Supreme Court which has, at this writing, let stand inserted into every body part, vainly trying to
state laws that prohibit any form of physician- forestall death’s inevitability. No one wants to die,
assisted suicide. But the issue is far from settled. but if we have to, there must be a better way’’ (for
The Court’s decision concluded with this surpris- an account of the issues see Quill 1996).
ing statement by Chief Justice Rehnquist:
The Quality of Dying. Sociological concern
Throughout the nation, Americans are engaged with assisted suicide has been paralleled with con-
in an earnest and profound debate about the cern for how people die. It had been hoped that
morality, legality and practicality of physician- the PSDA not only would make advance directives
assisted suicide. Our holding permits this more effective, but would also bring about better
debate to continue. communications between doctors and terminal
patients. The act, however, was deemed a failure
This statement was all the more remarkable even before it was formally put in place. An im-
since the chief justice, in his long opinion, rejected pressive experiment, of great sociological interest,
both the ‘‘liberty’’ and ‘‘due process’’ constitution- was designed to solve these basic issues. Funded
al arguments, but came far short of putting the and launched by the Robert Wood Johnson Foun-
matter to rest. Indeed, continuing developments dation, it was the advance directive problem cast in
indicate that the question of physician-assisted research terms. The ‘‘Study to Understand Prog-
suicide is not likely to go away soon. For example, noses and Preferences in Risks of Treatment’’
the State of Oregon has passed two voter referen- carried such an unwieldy title that it was quickly
da, the most recent in 1998 with a 60 percent shortened to the acronym SUPPORT (for a de-
majority support which makes Oregon the only tailed account see The Hastings Center special
state (as of 1998) to permit, under strict condi- supplement that carries the subtitle ‘‘The Lessons
tions, physician-assisted suicide. The State of Michi- of SUPPORT’’ 1995). Five teaching hospitals were
gan has rejected an Oregon-type statute and has invited to participate in this multimillion dollar
finally convicted Dr. Kevorkian of second degree project. Phase One called for baseline data on the
murder. Several other states are reported to be end-of-life experiences of some 9,000 dying pa-
experimenting with alternatives that enhance the tients. When the data were analyzed, the research-
‘‘right’’ of the individual to choose to die (for ers were not surprised to find much to criticize in
details of these developments see The Hastings various regimens of hospital care. Their main
Center reports). It may be that the law is overreaching finding, however, was that doctors and attending
its capacity to deal with such a basic and philo- nurses must attend not only to the physical com-
sophical issue. The question is profound. Is there fort and pain management needs of patients but,
any logical (or sociological) difference between more importantly, to their psychosocial needs.
the right to refuse treatment designed to prolong

587

DEATH AND DYING

Phase Two, consequently, called for experimenta- Administration, the American College of Physi-
tion. The 9,000 cases were randomized and an cians, and a host of specialized associations such as
experimental intervention consisting of a protocol the American Pain Society, the American Cancer
designed to sensitize doctors to attend more close- Society, Choice in Dying, Partnership for Organ
ly to psychosocial needs was administered to one- Donation, Memorial Societies of America, Wellness
half of the cases and withheld from the other half, Councils of America, and on and on. Former First
which had served as a control group. The experi- Lady Roslyn Carter, in a nationally broadcast
ment was continued for two years and expecta- speech, proclaimed that, ‘‘We need this coalition
tions were high. Much to the chagrin of the study so that fewer people will die alone, in pain, and
directors, when the two groups were compared, attached to machines, with the result that more
no differences were found! The experimental in- people. . . can experience dying for what it ought
tervention showed no effects. This negative find- to be. . . the last act in the journey of life.’’ The
ing was so shocking that a number of evaluation President of the Robert Wood Johnson Founda-
panels were enlisted to reanalyze the data and tion was both optimistic and enthusiastic:
scrutinize the research design. Their efforts, how-
ever, only served to corroborate the original analy- With all that is going on. . . we are seizing the
sis and Daniel Callahan (1995), then president of moment, ‘‘Last Acts’’ will be much more than
The Hastings Center, concluded with this state- platitudes about a good death. . . it will
ment, ‘‘This painstaking scrutiny into how people undertake to improve care at the end of life. . .
die only goes to show how difficult it is to make the If the campaign succeeds . . . we will find a
process any better. . . We thought that the care of significant decrease in the number of people
dying patients could be set right by . . . some good dying in pain, an increase in referrals to
talk between doctor and patient . . . we thought hospice, more people dying at home outside the
that we just needed reform . . . it is now obvious hospital, and fewer requests for physician-
that we need a revolution’’ (Callahan 1995). assisted suicide (1997).

Callahan’s dramatic statement had the effect If, however, the campaign does not live up to
of nourishing a spate of organizations and propos- expectations, the foundation will work with the
als that had sprung up to improve the care of dying American Medical Association ‘‘on helping physi-
patients. For example ‘‘Project Death in America’’ cians to work with patients on advance care plan-
(PDIA), centered at Sloan Kettering Hospital in ning, and providing opportunities for physicians
New York was funded by the billionaire George to increase their skills in palliative medicine and
Soros; the ‘‘Center to Improve Care of the Dying’’ comfort care.’’ It is too early to estimate the long-
(CICD), based in the George Washington Medical term effects of this blizzard of efforts to improve
School and originally funded by the Retirement the way people die, but it is not too early to predict
Research Foundation in 1995, enjoys wide institu- that any improvements in the quality of dying
tional support and in 1997 launched a program for based only on comfort care are likely to be short
individual advocacy, ‘‘Americans for Better Care term. But change is in the air. Dying persons are
of the Dying’’ (ABCD); the American Board of pressing for more participation in when and how
Internal Medicine (ABIM) began publishing edu- they die, and caregivers are coming under increas-
cational materials on techniques to improve care ing criticism of the limitations of their caring
of the dying in 1996; and the American Medical regimens.
Association (AMA) began alerting its members to
the most recent developments in end-of-life care. AN EVOLVING PERSPECTIVE
And finally, the Robert Wood Johnson Founda-
tion, which has long served as the collective voice As indicated by this review of past research and
for issues on dying, launched ‘‘Last Acts’’ in 1997, current issues, the limitations of both legal and
which is designed to involve the public through medical approaches to the problems of dying in
such participating organizations as the Institute of contemporary society mean that the perspectives
Medicine, the American Hospital Association, the of sociology will be brought to bear. Perhaps
Health Care Financing Administration, the Na- future sociological attention will focus on the
tional Hospice Organization, the Veterans Health uniquely sociological principle that the dying proc-
ess is not understandable in individual terms. This,

588

DEATH AND DYING

in turn, provokes a series of predictions: Sociolo- ——— 1980 ‘‘The Social Meaning of Death.’’ The An-
gists will focus on how dying persons are defined nals 447.
by their survivors and caregivers as well as on the
sociological hypothesis that dying persons are more ———1974 The Courage to Fail: A Social View of Organ
concerned for others than they are for themselves. Transplantation and Dialysis. Chicago: University of
Sociologists will be required to disentangle the Chicago Press.
concatenation of forces that has produced today’s
caregiving regimens in which terminal patients Fulton, R. 1994 ‘‘Society and the Imperative of Death.’’
tend to be treated more as objects than as persons. In I. Corless et al., eds., Dying, Death and Bereavement.
Sociologists will be asked to explain how the proc- Boston: Jones and Bartlett.
ess of socialization has seemingly been reversed,
with the individual being figuratively stripped of ——— 1965 Death and Identity. New York: John Wiley
years of social experience and defined as a nonperson. and Sons.
In effect, sociologists will be asked to explain the
historical alchemy whereby dying persons them- Fulton, R., and R. Bendiksen 1994 Death and Identity,
selves have been conned into believing that all they 3rd ed. Philadelphia: The Charles Press.
needed was palliation and comfort care.
Fulton, R., and G. Owen 1988 ‘‘Death and Society in
REFERENCES Contemporary Society.’’ Omega 18(4).

Alliance for Aging Research 1996 Uncovering the Facts Glaser, B.G., and A.L. Strauss 1965 Awareness of Dying.
about the Cost of the Last Year of Life. Washington, Chicago: Aldine.
D.C.: AAR.
——— 1968 Time for Dying. Chicago: Aldine.
Baker, Paul M. 1990 ‘‘Socialization after Death: the
Might of the Living Dead.’’ In Beth Hess and Eliza- Glick, H.R. 1992 The Right to Die: Policy Innovation and its
beth Markson, eds.,Growing Old in America. Rutgers: Consequences. New York: Columbia University Press.
Trasaction Books.
Habenstein, R.W. 1968 ‘‘The Social Organization of
Bass, David M. 1985 ‘‘The Hospice Ideology and Success Death.’’The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sci-
of Hospice Care.’’ Research on Aging 7:1. ences. New York: Macmillan and Free Press.

Blauner, Robert 1966 ‘‘Death and Social Structure.’’ ———, and M.W. Lamers 1963 Funeral Customs the
Psychiatry 29:378–94. World Over. Milwaukee: Bulfin.

Bowman, L. 1959 The American Funeral: A Study in Guilt, Hastings Center 1987 Guidelines on the Termination of
Extravagance, and Sublimity. Washington D.C.: Public Life-Sustaining Treatment and the Care of the Dying.
Affairs Press. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.

Callahan, D. 1995 ‘‘Dying Well in the Hospital.’’ Has- Howarth, G. 1996 Last Rites: The Work of the Modern
tings Center Report. Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.: Has- Funeral Director. Amityville N.Y.: Baywood Pub-
tings Center. lishing Co.

——— 1987 Setting Limits; Medical Goals in an Aging Humphry, Derek 1991 Final Exit: the Practicalities of Self-
Society. New York: Simon and Schuster. Deliverance and Assisted Suicide. Eugene Oreg.: The
Hemlock Society.
Charmaz, K. C. 1980 Social Reality of Death. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Kalish, R.A. 1985a Death, Grief and Caring Relationships.
Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.
Counts, D.A., and D.C. Counts 1985 Aging and Its
Transformations: Moving Toward Death in Pacific Socie- ——— 1985b ‘‘The Social Context of Death and Dying.’’
ties. Lanham, Md: University Press of America. In R.H. Binstock and E. Shanas, eds., Handbook of
Aging and the Social Sciences. New York: Van Nostrand
Crane, D. 1975 The Sanctity of Social Life: Physicians’ Reinhold Co.
Treatment of Critically Ill Patients. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation. Kearl, Michael C. 1989 Endings: A Sociology of Death and
Dying. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eliot, T. 1932 ‘‘The Bereaved Family.’’ Special issue, The
Annals160. ———, and A. Rinaldi 1983 ‘‘The Political Uses of the
Dead as Symbols in Contemporary Civil Religions.’’
Fox, R.C., and T.P. Swazey 1981 ‘‘The Sting of Death in Social Forces61:3.
American Society.’’ Social Service Review. March:42–59.
Kubler-Ross, E. 1969 On Death and Dying. New York:
Macmillan.

Lofland, L. 1978 The Craft of Dying: The Modern Face of
Death. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

589

DECISION-MAKING THEORY AND RESEARCH

Logue, B. 1989 Death Control and the Elderly: The Growing Wetle, T. 1994 ‘‘Individual Preferences and Advance
Acceptability of Euthanasia. Providence: Population Planning.’’Hastings Center Report. Briarcliff Manor,
Studies and Training Center, Brown University. N.Y.: Hastings Center.

Mannheim, K. 1928, 1959 ‘‘The Problem of Genera- JOHN W. RILEY, JR.
tions.’’ In P. Keeskemeti, ed., Essays in Sociological
Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. DECISION-MAKING THEORY
AND RESEARCH
Marshall, V.W. 1980 Last Chapters: A Sociology of Aging
and Dying. Belmont Calif.: Wordsworth. Decision making must be considered in any expla-
nation of individual behavior, because behaviors
———, and J. A. Levy 1990 ‘‘Aging and Dying.’’ In R. H. are based on decisions or judgments people have
Binstock and L. George, eds., Handbook of Aging and made. Thus, decision-making theory and research
the Social Sciences, 3rd ed. San Diego: Academic Press. is of interest in many fields that examine behavior,
including cognitive psychology (e.g., Busemeyer,
Parsons, T. 1963 ‘‘Death in American Society: A Brief Medin, and Hastie 1995), social psychology (e.g.,
Working Paper.’’ American Behavioral Scientist. Ajzen 1996), industrial and organizational psy-
chology (e.g., Stevenson, Busemeyer, and Naylor
———, and V. W. Lidz 1967 ‘‘Death in American Socie- 1990), economics (e.g., Lopes 1994), management
ty.’’ In E.S. Shneidman, ed., Essays in Self Destruction. (e.g., Shapira 1995), and philosophy (e.g., Manktelow
New York: Science House. and Over 1993), as well as sociology. This section
will be an overview of decision-making theory and
Phillips, D.P., and K.A. Feldman 1973 ‘‘A Dip in Deaths research. Several excellent sources of further in-
before Ceremonial Occasions: Some New Relation- formation include: Baron (1994), Dawes (1997),
ships between Integration and Mortality.’’ American Gilovich (1993), and Hammond (1998).
Journal of Sociology 87.
DECISION-MAKING THEORIES
———, and D.G. Smith 1990 ‘‘Postponement of Death
Until Symbolically Meaningful Occasions.’’ Journal of Most decision-making theory has been developed
the American Medical Association, vol. 203(14). in the twentieth century. The recency of this devel-
opment is surprising considering that gambling
Pratt, L.V. 1981 ‘‘Business Temporal Norms and Be- has existed for millennia, so humans have a long
reavement Behavior.’’ American Sociological Review history of making judgments of probabilistic events.
4:317–333. Indeed, insurance, which is in effect a form of
gambling (as it involves betting on the likelihood
Prior, Lindsay 1989 The Social Organization of Death: of an event happening, or, more often, not hap-
Medical Discourses and Social Practices in Belfast. New pening), was sold as early as the fifteenth and
York: St.Martin’s Press. sixteenth centuries. Selling insurance prior to the
development of probability theory, and in many
Quill, T.E. 1996 A Midwife through the Dying Process. early cases without any statistics for, or even fre-
Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press. quencies of, the events being insured led to bank-
ruptcy for many of the first insurance sellers (for
Riley, J.W., Jr. 1983 ‘‘Dying and the Meanings of Death: more information about the history of probability
Sociological Inquiries.’’ Annual Review of Sociology and decision making see Hacking 1975, 1990;
9:191–216. Gigerenzer et al. 1989).

——— 1970 ‘‘What People Think about Death.’’ In O. Bayes’s Theorem. One of the earliest theories
G. Brim, Jr. et al., eds., The Dying Patient. New York: about probability was Bayes’s Theorem (1764/1958).
Russell Sage Foundation. This theorem was developed to relate the proba-
bility of one event to another; specifically, the
——— 1968 ‘‘Death and Bereavements.’’ In D.L. Sills,
ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.
New York: Macmillan and Free Press.

Riley, M. W., and J.W. Riley, Jr. 1986 ‘‘Longevity and
Social Structure: the Added Years.’’ Daedalus 115:51–75.

Sudnow, D. 1967 Passing On: The Social Organization of
Dying. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment 1987
Life-Sustaining Technologies and the Elderly. Washing-
ton D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Warner, W.L. 1959 The Living and the Dead. New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press.

590

DECISION-MAKING THEORY AND RESEARCH

probability of one event occurring given the proba- Generally, people will rate the likelihood that the
bility of another event occurring. These events are cab was Blue to be much higher than .41, and often
sometimes called the cause and effect, or the the response will be .80—the witness’s accuracy
hypothesis and the data. Using H and D (hypothe- rate (Tversky and Kahneman 1982).
sis and data) as the two events, Bayes’s Theorem is:
P(H|D) = P(H)P(D|H)/P(D) [1] or P(H|D) = That finding has been used to argue that
P(D|H)P(H)/[P(D|H)P(H)+P(D|−H)P(−H)] [2] That people often ignore base rate information (the
is, the probability of H given D has occurred is proportions of each type of cab, in this case;
equal to [1] the probability of H occurring multi- Tversky and Kahneman 1982), which is irrational.
plied by the probability of D occurring given H has However, other analyses of this situation are possi-
occurred divided by the probability of D occur- ble (cf. Birnbaum 1983; Gigerenzer and Hoffrage
ring, or [2] the probability of D given H has 1995), which suggest that people are not irrational-
occurred multiplied by the probability of H then ly ignoring base rate information. The issue of
divided by the probability of D given H has oc- rationality will be discussed further below.
curred multiplied by the probability of H plus the
probability that D occurs given H has not occurred Expected Utility (EU) Theory. Bayes’s Theo-
multiplied by the probability that H does not occur. rem is useful, but often we are faced with decisions
to choose one of several alternatives that have
The cab problem (introduced in Kahneman uncertain outcomes. The best choice would be the
and Tversky 1972) has been used in several studies one that maximizes the outcome, as measured by
as a measure of whether people’s judgments are utility (i.e., how useful something is to a person).
consistent with Bayes’s Theorem. The problem is Utility is not equal to money (high-priced goods
as follows: A cab was involved in a hit-and-run may be less useful than lower-priced goods), al-
accident at night. Two cab companies, the Green though money may be used as a substitute meas-
and the Blue, operate in the city. You are given the ure of utility. EU Theory (von Neumann and
following data: (a) 85 percent of the cabs in the city Morganstern 1947) states that people should maxi-
are Green and 15 percent are Blue. (b) a witness mize their EU when choosing among a set of
identified the cab as Blue. The court tested the alternatives, as in: EU = ([Ui * Pi]; where Ui is the
reliability of the witness under the same circum- utility for each alternative, i, and Pi is the probabili-
stances that existed on the night of the accident ty associated with that alternative.
and concluded that the witness correctly identified
each one of the two colors 80 percent of the time The earlier version of this theory (Expected
and failed 20 percent of the time. What is the Value Theory, or EV) used money to measure the
probability that the cab involved in the accident worth of the alternatives, but utility recognizes
was Blue rather than Green? Using the provided people may use more than money to evaluate the
information and formula [2] above, P(Blue Cab|Wit- alternatives. Regardless, in both EU and EV, the
ness says ‘‘Blue’’) = P(Witness says ‘‘Blue’’|Blue probabilities are regarded similarly, so people on-
Cab)P(Blue Cab)/[P(Witness says ‘‘Blue’’|Blue ly need consider total EU/EV, not the probability
Cab)P(Blue Cab) + P(Witness says ‘‘Blue’’|Green involved in arriving at the total.
Cab)P(Green Cab)] or P(Blue Cab|Witness says
‘‘Blue’’) = (.80)(.15)/[(.80)(.15)+(.20)(.85)] = (.12)/ However, research suggests that people con-
[(.12)+(.17)] = .41 sider certain probabilities to be special, as their
judgments involving these probabilities are often
Thus, according to Bayes’s Theorem, the proba- inconsistent with EU predictions. That is, people
bility that the cab involved in the accident was seem to consider events that have probabilities of
Blue, given the witness testifying it was Blue, is 1.0 or 0.0 differently than events that are uncertain
0.41. So, despite the witness’s testimony that the (probabilities other than 1.0 or 0.0). The special
cab was Blue, it is more likely that the cab was consideration given to certain probabilities is called
Green (0.59 probability), because the probabilities the certainty effect (Kahneman and Tversky 1979).
for the base rates (85 percent of cabs are Green To illustrate this effect, which of these two options
and 15 percent Blue) are more extreme than those do you prefer? A. Winning $50 with probability .5
for the witness’s accuracy (80 percent accuracy). B. Winning $30 with probability .7 Now which of
these next two options do you prefer? C. Winning

591

DECISION-MAKING THEORY AND RESEARCH

$50 with probability .8 D. Winning $30 with proba- respectively, but need not be actually equal to
bility 1.0 them. The prospect with the highest value as calcu-
lated by multiplying the subjective value and the
Perhaps you preferred A and D, which many decision weight is chosen. Prospect theory as-
people do. However, according to EU, those choices sumes that losses have greater weight than gains,
are inconsistent, because D does not have a higher which explains why people tend to be risk seeking
EU than C (for D, EU = $30 = (1.0 * $30); for C, EU for losses but not for gains. Also, prospect theory
= $40 = (.8 * $50)). Recognize that A and B differ assumes that people make judgments from a sub-
from C and D by a .3 increase in probability, and jective reference point rather than an objective
EU prescribes selecting the option with the highest position of gaining or losing.
EU. The certainty effect may also be seen in the
following pair of options. E. Winning $1,000,000 Prospect theory is similar to EU in that the
with probability 1.0 F. Winning $2,000,000 with decision weight is independent of the context.
probability .5 However, recent decision theories suggest weights
are created within the context of the available
According to EU, people should be indiffer- alternatives based on a ranking of the alternatives
ent between E and F, because they both have the (see Birnbaum, Coffey, Mellers, and Weiss 1992;
same EU ($1,000,000 * 1.0 = $2,000,000 * .5). Luce and Fishburn 1991; Tversky and Kahneman
However, people tend to prefer E to F. As the 1992). The need for a rank-dependent mechanism
cliche goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the within decision theories is generally accepted
bush. These results (choosing D and E) suggest (Mellers, Schwartz, and Cooke 1998), but the spe-
that people are risk averse, because those are the cifics of the mechanism are still debated (see
certain options, and choosing them avoids risk or Birnbaum and McIntosh 1996).
uncertainty. But risk aversion does not completely
capture the issue. Consider this pair of options: G. Improper Linear Models. Distinguishing be-
Losing $50 with probability .8 H. Losing $30 with tween alternatives based on some factor (e.g.,
probability 1.0 value, importance, etc.) and weighting the alterna-
tives based on those distinctions has been suggest-
If people were risk averse, then most would ed as a method for decision making (Dawes 1979).
choose H, which has no risk; $30 will be lost for The idea is to create a linear model for the decision
sure. However, most people choose G, because situation. Linear models are statistically derived
they want to avoid a certain loss, even though it weighted averages of the relevant predictors. For
means risking a greater loss. In this case, people example: L(lung cancer) = w1*age + w2*smoking +
are risk seeking. w3*family history, where L(lung cancer) is the
likelihood of getting lung cancer, and wx is the
The tendency to treat certain probabilities weight for each factor. Any number of factors
differently from uncertain probabilities led to the could be included in the model, although only
development of decision-making theories that fo- factors that are relevant to the decision should be
cused on explaining how people make choices, included. Optimally, the weights for each factor
rather than how they should make choices. should be constructed from examining relevant
data for the decision.
Prospect Theory and Rank-Dependent Theo-
ries. Changing from EV to EU acknowledged that However, Dawes (1979) has demonstrated that
people do not simply assess the worth of alterna- linear models using equal weighting are almost as
tives on the basis of money. The certainty effect good as models with optimal weights, although
illustrates that people do not simply assess the they require less work, because no weight calcula-
likelihood of alternatives, so decision theories must tions need be made; factors that make the event
take that into account. The first theory to do so was more likely are weighted +1, and those that make it
prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky 1979). less likely are weighted −1.

Prospect theory proposes that people choose Furthermore, linear models are often better
among prospects (alternatives) by assigning each than a person’s intuition, even when the person is
prospect a subjective value and a decision weight an expert. Several studies of clinical judgment
(a value between 0.0 and 1.0), which may be func-
tionally equal to monetary value and probability,

592

DECISION-MAKING THEORY AND RESEARCH

(including medical doctors and clinical psycholo- two statements. The explanation is that mention-
gists) have found that linear models always do as ing ‘‘1’’ made it more available in memory. People
well as, if not better than, the clinical experts (see are using availability, when they make a judgment
Einhorn 1972). Similarly, bank loan officers asked on the basis of what first comes to mind.
to judge which businesses will go bankrupt within
three years of opening was about 75 percent accu- Interestingly, the third statement, which men-
rate, but a statistical model was 82 percent accu- tions ‘‘1’’ in an explicit manner, resulted in fewer
rate (Libby 1976). ‘‘1’’ responses than the first statement, which does
not mention ‘‘1’’ at all. Kubovy suggests there are
Arkes, Dawes, and Christensen (1986) demon- fewer ‘‘1’’ responses, because people have an ex-
strated this point with people knowledgeable about planation of why they are thinking of ‘‘1’’ follow-
baseball. Participants were asked to identify ‘‘which ing that statement (it mentions ‘‘1’’), so they do not
of. . . three players won the MVP [most valuable choose it, because ‘‘1’’ has not been thought of at
player] award for that year.’’ Each player’s season random. Thus, information must not only be avail-
statistics were provided. One of the three players able, but it must be perceived as relevant also.
was from the World Series winning team, and
subjects were told that 70 percent of the time the Mood. Information that is available and may
MVP came from the World Series winning team, seem relevant to a judgment is a person’s present
so if they were uncertain, they could use that mood (for a review of mood and judgment re-
decision rule. search see Clore, Schwarz, and Conway 1994).
Schwarz and Clore (1983) suggest that people will
Participants moderately knowledgeable of base- use their mood state in the judgment process, if it
ball did better than the participants highly knowl- seems relevant to that judgment. They contacted
edgeable, although the highly knowledgeable par- people by phone on cloudy or sunny days, and
ticipants were more confident. The moderately predicted that people would be happier on the
knowledgeable group did better because they used sunny days than on the cloudy days. That predic-
the decision rule more. Yet, neither group did as tion was verified. However, if people were first
well as they could have, if they had used the asked what the weather was like, then there was no
decision rule for every judgment. How a little difference in people’s happiness on sunny and
knowledge can influence judgment will be further cloudy days. Schwarz and Clore suggested that
explained in the next section on how people make asking people about the weather gave them a
decisions. reason for their mood, so they did not use their
mood in making the happiness judgment, because
DECISION PROCESSING it did not seem relevant. Thus, according to Schwarz
and Clore, people will use their mood as a heuris-
Decision theories changed because studies revealed tic for judgment, when the situation elicits actions
that people often do not make judgments that are from people as if they ask themselves, how do I feel
consistent with how the theories said they should about this?
be making judgments. This section will describe
evidence about how people make judgments. Spe- Quantity and Numerosity. An effect that is
cifically, several heuristics will be discussed, which also similar to availability was demonstrated in a
are short cuts that people may use to process series of experiments by Josephs, Giesler, and
information when making a judgment (Kahneman, Silvera (1994). They found that subjects relied on
Slovic, and Tversky 1982, is a classic collection of observable quantity information when making per-
papers on this topic). sonal performance judgments. They called this
effect the quantity principle, because people seemed
Availability. Consider the following questions: to use the size or quantity of material available to
What is the first digit that comes to mind?, What is make their judgment. The experimenters had par-
the first one-digit number that comes to mind?, ticipants proofread text that was either attached to
and What is the first digit, such as one, that comes the source from which it came (e.g., a book or
to mind? Kubovy (1977) found that the second journal) or not, which was an unfamiliar task for
statement, which mentions ‘‘1’’ in passing, result- the participants. They found that performance
ed in more ‘‘1’’ responses than either of the other

593

DECISION-MAKING THEORY AND RESEARCH

estimations on an unfamiliar task were affected by impact of one’s starting point (or anchor), when
the quantity of the task work completed. Partici- making a judgment.
pants whose work resulted in a large pile of materi-
al rated their performance higher than partici- An anecdotal example of someone trying to
pants whose work resulted in small pile. However, fight the anchoring phenomenon is a writer who
the amount of actual work done was the same. tears up a draft of what she is working on, and
Moreover, if the pile was not in sight at the time of throws it away, rather than trying to work with that
judgment, then performance estimates did not differ. draft. It may seem wasteful to have created some-
thing, only to throw it out. However, at times,
Pelham, Sumarta, and Myaskovsky (1994) dem- writers may feel that what they have produced is
onstrated an effect similar to the quantity princi- holding them in a place that they do not want to
ple, which they called the numerosity heuristic. This be. Thus, it could be better to throw out that draft,
heuristic refers to the use of the number of units as rather than trying to rework it, which is akin to
a cue for judgment. For example, the researchers pulling up anchor.
found that participants rated the area of a circle as
larger when the circle was presented as pieces that Endowment Effect. Related to anchoring is
were difficult to imagine as a whole circle than if the tendency people have to stay where they are.
the pieces were presented so that it was easy to This tendency is known as the endowment effect
imagine, and larger than the undivided circle. This (Thaler 1980) or the status quo bias (Samuelson and
result suggests that dividing a whole into pieces Zeckhauser 1988). This tendency results in people
will lead to those pieces being thought of as larger wanting more for something they already have
than the whole, and this will be especially so when than they would be willing to pay to acquire that
it is hard to imagine the pieces as the whole. That same thing. In economic terms, this would be
is, the numerosity of the stimulus to be rated can described as a discrepancy between what people
affect the rating of that stimulus. are willing to pay (WTP) and what they are willing
to accept (WTA). Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler
Anchoring. Anchoring is similar to availability (1990) found WTA amounts much higher for an
and quantity heuristics, because it involves making item already possessed than WTP amounts to
a judgment using some stimulus as a starting point, obtain that item. In their study, half of the people
and adjusting from that point. For example, Sherif, in a university class were given a university coffee
Taub, and Hovland (1958) had people make esti- mug, and half were not. A short time later, the
mates of weight on a six-point scale. Prior to each people with the mugs were asked how much mon-
estimation, subjects held an ‘‘anchor’’ weight that ey they wanted for their mug (their WTA amount),
was said to represent ‘‘6’’ on the scale. When the and those without the mug were asked how much
anchor’s weight was close to the other weights, they would pay to get a mug (their WTP amount).
then subjects’ judgments were also quite close to The median WTA amount was about twice the
the anchor, with a modal response of 6 on the six- median WTP amount: WTA = $7.12, WTP = $2.87.
point scale. However, heavier anchors resulted in Thus, few trades were made, and this is consistent
lower responses. The heaviest anchor produced a with the idea that people often seem to prefer what
modal response of 2. they have to what they could have.

However, anchoring need not involve the di- Representativeness. People may make judg-
rect experience of a stimulus. Simply mentioning a ments using representativeness, which is the tenden-
stimulus can lead to an anchoring effect. Kahneman cy to judge events as more likely if they represent
and Tversky (1972) assigned people the number the typical or expected features for that class of
10 or 65 by means of a seemingly random process events. Thus, representativeness occurs when peo-
(a wheel of fortune). These people then estimated ple judge an event using an impression of the
the percentage of African countries in the United event rather than a systematic analysis of it. Two
Nations. Those assigned the number 10 estimated examples of representativeness misleading people
25 percent, and those assigned the number 65 are the gambler’s fallacy and the conjunction fallacy.
estimated 45 percent (at the time the actual per-
centage was 35). This indicates the psychological The gambler’s fallacy is the confusion of inde-
pendent and dependent events. Independent events
are not causally related to each other (e.g., coin

594

DECISION-MAKING THEORY AND RESEARCH

flips, spins of a roulette wheel, etc.). Dependent INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
events are causally related; what happened in the
past has some bearing on what happens in the Another question about decision processing is
present (e.g., the amount of practice has some whether there are individual differences between
bearing on how well someone will perform in a people in their susceptibility to erroneous deci-
competition). The confusion arises when people’s sion making. For example, do some people tend to
expectations for independent events are violated. inappropriately use the heuristics outlined above,
For example, if a roulette wheel comes up black and if so, is there a factor that accounts for that
eighteen times in a row, some people might think inappropriate use?
that red must be the result of the next spin.
However, the likelihood of red on the next spin is Stanovich and West (1998) had participants
the same as it is each and every spin, and the same do several judgment tasks and related the per-
as it would be if red, instead of black, had resulted formance on those tasks to assessments of cogni-
on each of the previous eighteen spins. Each and tive ability and thinking styles. They found that
every roulette wheel spin is an independent event. cognitive capacity does account for some perform-
ance on some judgment tasks, which suggests that
The conjunction fallacy (Tversky and Kahneman computational limitations could be a partial expla-
1983) occurs when people judge the conjunction nation of non-normative responding (i.e., judg-
of two events as more likely than (at least) one of ment errors). Also, independent of cognitive abili-
the two events. The ‘‘Linda scenario’’ has been ty, thinking styles accounted for some of the
frequently studied: Linda is thirty-one years old, participants’ performance on some judgment tasks.
single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in
philosophy. As a student, she was deeply con- A similar suggestion is that some erroneous
cerned with issues of discrimination and social judgments are the result of participants’ conversa-
justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear dem- tional ability. For example, Slugoski and Wilson
onstrations. Following that description, subjects (1998) show that six errors in social judgment are
are asked to rank order in terms of probability related to people’s conversational skills. They sug-
several statements including the following: Linda gest that judgment errors may not be errors, be-
is active in the feminist movement. [F] Linda is a cause participants may be interpreting the infor-
bank teller. [B] Linda is a bank teller and is active mation presented to them differently than the
in the feminist movement. [B&F] researcher intends (see also Hilton and Slugoski 1999).

The conjunction fallacy is committed if people Finally, experience affects decision-making abili-
rank the B&F statement higher (so more likely) ty. Nisbett, Krantz, Jepson, and Kunda (1983)
than either the B or F statement alone, because found that participants with experience in the
that is logically impossible. The likelihood of B&F domain in question preferred explanations that
may be equal to B or F, but it cannot be greater reflected statistical inferences. Similarly, Fong,
than either of them, because B&F is a subset of the Krantz, and Nisbett (1986) found that statistical
set of B events and the set of F events. explanations were used more often by people with
more statistical training. These results suggest that
People find events with multiple parts (such as decision-making ability can improve through rele-
B&F) more plausible than separate events (such as vant domain experience, as well as through statisti-
B or F alone), but plausibility is not equal to cal training that is not domain specific.
likelihood. Making an event more plausible might
make it a better story, which could be misleading GROUP DECISION MAKING
and result in erroneous inferences (Markovits and
Nantel 1989). Indeed, some have suggested that Social Dilemmas. Social dilemmas occur when the
people act as if they are constructing stories in goals of individuals conflict with the goals of their
their minds and then make judgments based on group; individuals face the dilemma of choosing
the stories they construct (Pennington and Hastie between doing what is best for them personally
1993). But of course good stories are not always and what is best for the group as a whole (Lopes
true, or even likely. 1994). Hardin (1965) was one of the first to write
about these dilemmas in describing the ‘‘tragedy

595

DECISION-MAKING THEORY AND RESEARCH

of the commons.’’ The tragedy was that individuals in a series of PD games (social dilemmas are often
tried to maximize what they could get from the referred to as games). Each person submitted a
common and, or the ‘‘commons,’’ which resulted strategy for choosing to cooperate or not over a
in the commons being overused, thereby becom- series of interactions with the other strategies.
ing depleted. If each individual had only used his Each interaction would result in points being award-
allotted share of the commons, then it would have ed to each strategy, and the strategy that generated
continued to be available to everyone. the most points won. The winning strategy was Tit
for Tat. It was also the simplest strategy. The Tit
Prisoner’s Dilemma. The best-known social for Tat strategy is to cooperate on the first turn,
dilemma is the prisoner’s dilemma (PD), which and then do whatever the other person just did
involves two individuals (most often, although (i.e., on turn x, Tit for Tat will do whatever its
formulations with more than two people are possi- opponent did on turn x−1).
ble). The original PD involved two convicts’ deci-
sion whether or not to confess to a crime (Rapoport Axelrod suggested that four qualities led to Tit
and Chammah 1965). But the following example is for Tat’s success. First, it was a nice strategy, be-
functionally equivalent. cause it first cooperates, and Tit for Tat will coop-
erate as long as the other person cooperates. But
Imagine you are selling an item to another when the other person does not cooperate, then it
person, but you cannot meet to make the ex- immediately retaliates. That is, it responds to non-
change. You agree to make the exchange by post. cooperation with noncooperation, which illustrates
You will send the other person the item, and its second good quality. Tit for Tat is provocable,
receive the money in return. If you both do so, because it immediately reacts to noncooperation,
then you each get 3 units (arbitrary amount, but rather than waiting to see what will happen next,
amounts received for each combination of choices or ignore the noncooperation. However, if the
is important). However, you imagine that you opponent goes back to cooperating, then Tit for
could simply not put the item in the post, yet still Tat will also go back to cooperating. That is quali-
receive the money. Imagine doing so results in you ty three: forgiveness. Tit for Tat will not contin-
getting 5 units and the other person −1 units. ue punishing the other player for previous
However, the other person similarly thinks that noncooperations. All that counts for Tit for Tat is
not posting the money would result in getting the what just happened, not the total amount of non-
item for free, which would result in 5 units for the cooperation that has happened. Finally, Tit for Tat
other person and −1 for you. If you both do not put has clarity, because it is simple to understand. A
anything in the post, although you agreed to do so, complex strategy can be confusing, so it may be
you would be at the status quo (0 units each). misunderstood by opponents. If the opponent’s
intentions are unclear, then noncooperation is
Do you post the item (i.e., cooperate) or not? best, because if or when a complex strategy is
Regardless of what the other person does, you will going to be cooperative cannot be predicted.
get more out of not cooperating (5 v. 3, when the
other person cooperates, and 0 v. −1, when other Thus, a cooperative strategy can be effective
does not). However, if you both do not cooperate, even when there are clear incentives for noncoop-
that produces an inferior group outcome, com- eration. Furthermore, Axelrod did another com-
pared to cooperating (0 [0+0] v. 6 [3+3], respective- puter simulation in which strategies were reward-
ly). Thus, the dilemma is that each individual has ed by reproducing themselves, rather than simply
an incentive to not cooperate, but the best out- accumulating points. Thus, success meant that the
come for the group is obtained when each person strategy had more of its kind to interact with.
cooperates. Can cooperation develop from such a Again, Tit for Tat was best, which further suggests
situation? that a cooperative strategy can be effective and can
flourish in situations that seem to be designed for
Axelrod (1984; cf. Hofstader 1985) investigat- noncooperation.
ed that question by soliciting people to participate

596

DECISION-MAKING THEORY AND RESEARCH

Bargaining and Fairness. Bargaining and ne- Blount and Bazerman (1996) gave pairs of partici-
gotiation have received increasing attention in pants $10 to be divided between them. In absolute
decision theory and research (e.g., Pruitt and judgment (i.e., is this bargain acceptable?), the
Carnevale 1993), as has the issue of justice or money holder accepted a minimum division of $4
fairness (e.g., Mellers and Baron 1993). These for him and $6 for the other person. But asked in a
issues are involved in the ‘‘ultimatum game,’’ which comparative judgment format (i.e., do you prefer
involves two people and a resource (often a sum of this bargain or nothing?), participants were willing
money). The rules of the game are that one person to accept less (a minimum division of $2.33 for the
proposes a division of the resource between them money holder and $7.67 for the other person).
(a bargain), and the other person accepts or rejects This result suggests that considering situations
the proposal. If the proposal is rejected, then both involving the division or distribution of resources
people get nothing, so the bargain is an ultima- on a case-by-case basis (absolute judgment) may
tum: this or nothing. result in sub-optimal choices (relative to those
resulting from comparative judgment) for each
Expected utility (EU) theory suggests that the person involved, as well as the group as a whole.
person dividing the resource should offer the
other person just enough to get him to accept the Comparative and absolute judgment can be
bargain, but no more. Furthermore, EU suggests applied to social issues as adoption. There has
the person should accept any division, because any been controversy about adoption, when the adopt-
division will be more than zero, which is what the ing parents have a different cultural heritage than
person will receive if the bargain is refused. How- the child being adopted. Some argue that a child
ever, typically the bargain is a fifty-fifty split (half of should be adopted only by parents of the same
the resource to each person). Indeed, if people are cultural heritage as the child to preserve the child’s
offered anything less than a fifty-fifty split, they will connection to his or her culture. That argument
often reject the offer, although that will mean they views this situation as an absolute judgment: should
get nothing, rather than what they were offered, children be adopted by parents of a different
because that seems unfair. cultural heritage or not?

In studies, people have evaluated these bar- However, there is an imbalance between the
gains in two ways. People can rate how attractive a cultural heritages of the children to be adopted
bargain is (e.g., on a 1–7 scale). Possible divisions and those of the parents wanting to adopt. That
to be rated might be: $40 for you, $40 for the other imbalance creates the dilemma of what to do with
person; $50 for you, $70 for the other person, and children who would like to be adopted when there
so on. Thus, bargains are presented in isolation, are no parents of the same cultural heritage want-
one after another, as if each was an individual case ing to adopt them. That dilemma suggests this
unrelated to anything else. This type of presenta- comparative judgment: should children be adopt-
tion is generally referred to as ‘‘absolute judg- ed by parents of a different cultural heritage than
ment’’ (Wever and Zener 1928). their own, or should children be left unadopted
(e.g., be brought up in a group home)?
Alternatively, people may evaluate bargains in
pairs, and choose one. For example, do you prefer The answers to these absolute and compara-
a bargain where you get $40, and the other person tive judgments may differ, because the answer may
gets $40, or a bargain where you get $50, and the be that a child should not be adopted by parents of
other person gets $70? Thus, the bargains are a different cultural heritage as an absolute judg-
presented such that they can be compared, so ment, but as a comparative judgment the answer
people can see the relative outcomes. This type of may be that a child should be adopted by such
presentation is generally referred to as ‘‘compara- parents, despite the cultural differences, because
tive judgment.’’ having parents is better than not having parents.
Thus, the best answer may differ depending on
Absolute and comparative judgment have dif-
ferent results in the ‘‘ultimate’’ bargaining game.

597

DECISION-MAKING THEORY AND RESEARCH

how the situation is characterized. Such situations Ideas about rationality have also been influ-
may involve more than one value (in this case, the enced by the variability of people’s judgments.
values are providing parents for a child and pre- Generally, the idea of rationality originated with a
serving the cultural heritage that the child was theory and then examined whether people be-
born into). Typically, absolute judgements reflect haved in that way, rather than examining how
an acceptance or rejection of one value, while people behave and then suggesting what is ration-
comparative judgments reflect more than one value. al. That is, rationality has typically been examined
based on a prescriptive theory, such as Bayes’s or
GENERAL JUDGMENT AND DECISION- EU, about how people should make decisions
MAKING ISSUES rather than a descriptive theory based on how
people actually process information. When stud-
That the best solution for a situation can seem ies resulted in judgments that were inconsistent
different if the situation is characterized different- with those prescriptive theories of decision mak-
ly is one of the most important issues in judgment ing, researchers concluded that people often acted
and decision making. The theories mentioned irrationally.
above (Bayes’s, EU, prospect, and rank-depend-
ent) assume problem invariance. That is, they However, there is growing recognition that
assume that people’s judgments will not vary with study participants may be thinking of situations
how the problem is characterized. However, be- differently than researchers have assumed (Chase,
cause the characterization of the problem affects Hertwig, and Gigerenzer 1998), which has led
how people frame the problem, people’s decisions several researchers to create theories about deci-
often do vary. (Tversky and Kahneman 1981). sion processing (e.g., Dougherty, Gettys, and Ogden
in press; Gigerenzer, Hoffrage, and Kleinbolting
An implication of this variability is that elicit- 1991) and use those theories to address rationality
ing people’s values becomes difficult (Baron 1997; issues rather than the reverse. Approaches that
1998). However, different methods can produce focus on processing have been present in decision
contradictory results. For example, choice and theory for some time (cf. Brunswick 1952; Ham-
matching tasks often reveal different values prefer- mond 1955), but they have not been dominant in
ences. Choice tasks are comparative judgments: the field. The acknowledgement of multiple views
Do you prefer A or B? Matching tasks require of rationality coupled with the poor explanations
participants to estimate one dimension of an alter- of prescriptive theories for people’s actual deci-
native so that its attractiveness matches that of sion behavior may shift the emphasis to process-
another alternative (e.g., program A will cure 60 ing models.
percent of patients at a cost of $5 million, what
should B cost if it will cure 85 percent of patients?). Further consideration of the decision-making
process has led to other questions that are garner-
The difference produced by these tasks has ing increased attention. For example, how do
been extensively examined in studies of preference people make decisions within dynamic environ-
reversals (Slovic and Lichtenstein 1983). Tversky, ments? Generally, people make decisions in a
Sattath, and Slovic (1988) have suggested that the dynamic world (Brehmer 1990; Busemeyer and
dimension of elicitation (e.g., probability or value) Townsend 1993; Diehl and Sterman 1995), but
will be weighted most, so reversals can result from many decision-making theories (such as those re-
changing the elicitation dimension. Fischer and viewed above) do not account for the dynamics of
Hawkins (1993) suggested that preference reversals the environment. Also, how do people’s emotions
were the result of the compatibility between peo- affect the decision-making process? Decisions can
ple’s strategy for analyzing the problem and the involve topics that evoke emotion or have emo-
elicitation mode. Preference reversals clearly oc- tional consequences (such as regret, Gilovich and
cur, but the cause of them continues to be debated Medvec 1995). Some decision theories have tried
(cf. Payne, Bettman, and Johnson 1992). to include emotional considerations in decision

598

DECISION-MAKING THEORY AND RESEARCH

making (e.g., Bell 1982), but this topic deserves Brehmer, B. 1990 ‘‘Strategies in Real-Time, Dynamic
more attention. These questions, as well as the Decision Making.’’ In R. M. Hogarth, ed., Insights in
issues discussed above, will make decision theory Decision Making: A Tribute To Hillel J. Einhorn 262–
and research an area of continued interest and 279. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
relevance.
Brunswick, E. 1952 The Conceptual Framework of Psycholo-
REFERENCES gy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ajzen, I. 1996 ‘‘The Social Psychology of Decision Mak- Busemeyer, J., D. L. Medin, and R. Hastie 1995 Decision
ing.’’ In E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski, Social Making From a Cognitive Perspective. San Diego:
Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York: Academic.
Guilford.
———, and J. T. Townsend 1993 ‘‘Decision-Field Theo-
Arkes, H. R., R. Dawes, and C. Christensen 1986 ‘‘Fac- ry: A Dynamic-Cognitive Approach to Decision-Mak-
tors Influencing the Use of a Decision Rule in a ing in an Uncertain Environment.’’ Psychological Re-
Probabilistic Task.’’ Organizational Behavior and Hu- view 100:432–459.
man Decision Making, 37:93–110.
Chase, V. M., R. Hertwig, and G. Gigerenzer 1998
Axelrod, R. 1984 The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: ‘‘Visions of Rationality.’’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
Basic Books. 2:206–214.

Baron, J. 1994 Thinking And Deciding, 2d ed. Cam- Clore, G. L., N. Schwarz, and M. Conway 1994 ‘‘Affec-
bridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. tive Causes and Consequences of Social Information
Processing.’’ In R. S. Wyer and T. K. Srull, eds.,
——— 1997 ‘‘Biases in the Quantitative Measurement Handbook of Social Cognition: 2nd Edition. Hillsdale,
of Values for Public Decisions.’’ Psychological Bulletin N.J.: Erlbaum.
122:72–88.
Dawes, R. M. 1979 ‘‘The Robust Beauty of Improper
——— 1998 Judgment Misguided: Intuition and Error in Linear Models.’’ American Psychologist 34:571–582.
Public Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford Universi-
ty Press. ——— 1998 ‘‘Behavioral Decision Making and Judg-
ment.’’ In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey,
Bayes, T. (1764) 1958 ‘‘An Essay Towards Solving a eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed. Bos-
Problem in the Doctrine of Chances.’’ Biometrika ton: Mcgraw-Hill.
45:293–315.
Diehl, E., and J. D. Sterman 1995 ‘‘Effects of Feedback
Bell, D. 1982 ‘‘Regret in Decision Making Under Uncer- Complexity on Dynamic Decision Making.’’ Organi-
tainty.’’ Operations Research 30:961–981. zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
62:198–215.
Birnbaum, M. H. 1983 ‘‘Base Rates in Bayesian Infer-
ence: Signal Detection Analysis of the Cab Problem.’’ Dougherty, M. R. P., C. F. Gettys, and E. E. Ogden (in
American Journal of Psychology 96:85–94. press) ‘‘MINERVA-DM: A Memory Processes Model
for Judgments of Likelihood.’’ Psychological Review
Birnbaum, M. H., G. Coffey, B. A. Mellers, and R. Weiss 106:180–209.
1992 ‘‘Utility Measurement: Configural-Weight Theo-
ry and the Judge’s Point of View.’’ Journal of Experi- Einhorn, H. J. 1972 ‘‘Expert Measurement and Me-
mental Psychology: Human Perception And Performance chanical Combination.’’ Organizational Behavior and
18:331–346. Human Performance 13:171–192.

Birnbaum, M. H., and W. R. Mcintosh 1996 ‘‘Violations Fischer, G. W., and S. A. Hawkins 1993 ‘‘Strategy Com-
of Branch Independence in Choices Between Gam- patibility, Scale Compatibility, and the Prominence
bles.’’ Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Effect.’’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Processes 67:91–110. Perception and Performance 19:580–597.

Blount, S., and M. H. Bazerman 1996 ‘‘The Inconsistent Fong, G. T., D. H. Krantz, and R. E. Nisbett 1986 ‘‘The
Evaluation of Absolute Versus Comparative Payoffs Effects of Statistical Training on Thinking About
in Labor Supply and Bargaining.’’ Journal of Economic Everyday Problems.’’ Cognitive Psychology 18:253–292.
Behavior and Organization 30:227–240.
Gigerenzer, G., and U. Hoffrage 1995 ‘‘How to Improve
Bayesian Reasoning without Instruction: Frequency
Formats.’’ Psychological Review 102:684–704.

599

DECISION-MAKING THEORY AND RESEARCH

———, and H. Kleinbolting 1991 ‘‘Probabilistic Mental ———, and A. Tversky 1972 ‘‘On Prediction and Judg-
Models: A Brunswickian Theory of Confidence.’’ ment.’’ ORI Research Monograph, 12.
Psychological Review 98:506–528.
——— 1979 ‘‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Deci-
Gigerenzer, G., Z. Swijtink, T. Porter, L. Daston, J. sions Under Risk.’’ Econometrica 47:263–291.
Beatty, and L. Kruger 1989 The Empire of Chance: How
Probability Changed Science and Everyday Life. Cam- Kubovy, M. 1977 ‘‘Response Availability and the Appar-
bridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. ent Spontaneity of Numerical Choices.’’ Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per-
Gilovich, T., and V. H. Medvec 1995 ‘‘The Experience of formance 3:359–364.
Regret: What, Why, and When.’’ Psychological Review
102:379–395. Libby, R. 1976 ‘‘Man Versus Model of Man: Some
Conflicting Evidence.’’ Organizational Behavior and
Hacking, I. 1975 The Emergence of Probability. Cambridge, Human Performance 16:1–12.
U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Lopes, L. L. 1994 ‘‘Psychology and Economics: Perspec-
——— 1990 The Taming of Chance. Cambridge, U.K.: tives on Risk, Cooperation, and the Marketplace.’’
Cambridge University Press. Annual Review of Psychology 45:197–227.

Hammond, K. R. 1955 ‘‘Probabilistic Functioning and Luce, R. D., and P. C. Fishburn 1991 ‘‘Rank- and Sign-
the Clinical Method.’’ Psychological Review 62:255–262. Dependent Linear Utility Models for Finite First-
Order Gambles.’’ Journal of Risk and Uncertain-
——— 1998 Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreduc- ty 4:29–59.
ible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Justice.
New York: Oxford. Manktelow, K. I., and D. E. Over 1993 Rationality:
Psychological and Philosophical Perspectives. London:
Hardin, G. R. 1968 ‘‘The Tragedy of the Commons.’’ Routledge.
Science 162:1243–1248.
Markovits, H., and G. Nantel 1989 ‘‘The Belief-Bias
Hastie, R., and N. Pennington 1991 ‘‘Cognitive and Effect in the Production and Evaluation of Logical
Social Processes in Decision Making.’’ In L. B. Resnick, Conclusions.’’ Memory & Cognition 17:11–17.
J. M. Levine, and S. D. Teasley, eds., Perspectives on
Socially Shared Cognition, 308–327. Washington, Mellers, B. A., and J. Baron 1993 Psychological Perspec-
D.C.: APA. tives on Justice: Theory and Applications. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Hilton, D. J., and B. R. Slugoski 1999 ‘‘Judgment and
Decision-Making in Social Context: Discourse Proc- Mellers, B. A., A. Schwartz, and A. D. J. Cooke 1998
esses and Rational Inference.’’ In T. Connolly, ed., ‘‘Judgment and Decision Making.’’ Annual Review of
Judgment and Decision-Making: An Interdisciplinary Read- Psychology 49:447–477.
er 2d ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Universi-
ty Press. Nisbett, R. E., D. H. Krantz, D. Jepson, and Z. Kunda
1983 ‘‘The Use of Statistical Heuristics in Everyday
Hofstadter, D. R. 1985 ‘‘The Prisoner’s Dilemma Com- Inductive Reasoning.’’ Psychological Review 90:339–363.
puter Tournaments and the Evolution of Coopera-
tion.’’ In D. R. Hofstadter, Metamagical Themas: Quest- Payne, J. W., J. R. Bettman, and E. J. Johnson 1992
ing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern, 715–734. New ‘‘Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Proc-
York: Basic Books. essing Perspective.’’ Annual Review of Psychology
49:447–477.
Josephs, R. A., R. B. Giesler, and D. H. Silvera 1994
‘‘Judgment By Quantity.’’ Journal of Experimental Psy- Pelham, B. W., T. T. Sumarta, and L. Myaskovsky 1994
chology: General 123:21–32. ‘‘The Easy Path from Many to Much: The Numerosity
Heuristic.’’ Cognitive Psychology 26:103–133.
Kahneman, D., J. L. Knetsch, and R. H. Thaler 1990
‘‘Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and Pruitt, D. G., and P. J. Carnevale 1993 Negotiation in
the Coase Theorem.’’ Journal of Political Economy Social Conflict. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.
98:1325–1348.
Rapoport, A., and A. M. Chammah 1965 Prisoner’s
———, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky 1982 Heuristics and Dilemma: A Study in Conflict and Cooperation. Ann
Biases: Judgments Under Uncertainty. Cambridge, U.K.: Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press.
Cambridge University Press.
Samuelson, W., and R. Zeckhauser 1988 ‘‘Status-Quo
Bias in Decision Making.’’ Journal of Risk and Uncer-
tainty 1:7–59.

600

DEMOCRACY

Schwarz, N., and G. L. Clore 1983 ‘‘Mood, Misattribution, DEDUCTION/INDUCTION
and Judgments of Well-Being: Informative and Di-
rective Functions of Affective States.’’ Journal of Per- See Experiments; Quasi-Experimental Research
sonality and Social Psychology 45:513–523. Designs; Scientific Explanation; Statistical
Inference.
Shapira, Z. 1995 Risk Taking: A Managerial Perspective.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation. DEMOCRACY

Sherif, M., D. Taub, and C. I. Hovland 1958 ‘‘Assimi- Democracy is one of the most important subjects
lation and Contrast Effects of Anchoring Stimuli in the social sciences. From the work of de Tocqueville
on Judgments.’’ Journal of Experimental Psychology in the early nineteenth century through the work
55:150–155. of the best contemporary scholars, democracy has
been studied closely and debated widely (Tocqueville
Slovic, P., and S. Lichtenstein 1983 ‘‘Preference Reversals: 1969). Democracy has drawn this attention prima-
A Broader Perspective.’’ American Economic Review rily because, in spite of the fact that it is quite rare
73:596–605. historically, it has come to have enormous legiti-
macy in the eyes of many individuals worldwide.
Slugoski, B. R., and A. E. Wilson 1998 ‘‘Contribution of This has not always been the case. Democracy has
Conversation Skills to the Production of Judgmental been severely criticized by those on both the politi-
Errors.’’ European Journal of Social Psychology 28:575–601. cal right and left. But few scholars today question
whether democracy is a social good.
Stanovich, K. E., and R. F. West 1998 ‘‘Individual Differ-
ences in Rational Thought.’’ Journal of Experimental Democracy is also important because many
Psychology: General 127:161–188. historically undemocratic countries have adopted
it as a system of government. Many such changes
Stevenson, M. K., J. R. Busemeyer, and J. C. Naylor 1990 have occurred only in the years since the Cold War
‘‘Judgment and Decision-Making Theory.’’ In M. D. (Huntington 1991). By 1994, over half the coun-
Dunette and L. M. Hough, eds., Handbook of Industri- tries in the world had some form of democratic
al and Organizational Psychology, 2d ed., vol. 1, 283– governance, a doubling of the number of nation-
374. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press. states so organized within 25 years (Lipset 1994).

Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman 1981 ‘‘The Framing of At the core of most discussions of democracy
Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.’’ Science is a common understanding that democracy is a
211:453–458. method of governance or decision making for
organizations or societies in which the members of
——— 1982 ‘‘Evidential Impact of Base Rates.’’ In D. that organization or society participate, directly or
Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky, eds., Heuristics indirectly, in the decision making of that group.
and Biases: Judgments Under Uncertainty. Cambridge, Further, members affect decision making to such
U.K.: Cambridge University Press. an extent that they can be thought of as actually
governing that organization or society. In short,
——— 1983 ‘‘Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning: democracy is a system of governance in which
The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment.’’ members control group decision making.
Psychological Review 90:293–315.
Not all considerations on democracy have
——— 1992 ‘‘Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative shared this understanding. For example, those
Representations of Uncertainty.’’ Journal of Risk and working in the Marxist tradition saw any state,
Uncertainty 5:297–323. democratic or not, as the expression of a class
struggle. As such, any state was inherently un-
Tversky, A., S. Sattath, and P. Slovic 1988 ‘‘Contingent democratic, absent the creation of a classless, com-
Weighting in Judgment and Choice.’’ Psychological munist, and hence truly democratic, society (Held
Review 95:371–384.

von Neumann, J., and O. Morganstern 1947 Theory of
Games and Economic Behavior, 2d ed. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press.

Wever, E. G., and K. E. Zener 1928 ‘‘The Method of
Absolute Judgment in Psychophysics.’’ Psychological
Review 35:466–493.

EVAN THACKERAY PRITCHARD

601

DEMOCRACY

1995). Subsequent to the collapse of the Soviet involve considerations of democracy: What is the
Union and its affiliated states, and the full expo- effect of democracy on the success of organiza-
sure of the failures of those regimes, such an tions and nation-states? Does democracy promote
extreme view has been almost entirely rejected. individual liberty? What is the effect of democracy
on income inequality and social stratification? What
The common understanding of democracy as is the relationship between democracy and civil
participation by members or citizens in the deci- society? Can market economies prosper in the
sion making of an organization or society still absence of democracy? All these and more force
leaves considerable room for dispute. Two issues sociologists to consider the consequences, as well
are central: First, who are, or should be, consid- as the causes, of democracy.
ered members of the society? Second, what does,
or should, constitute a minimum level of control While the difficulties of studying democracy
over decision making by members for a system to are daunting, much significant work has been
be thought of as democratic? In short, how much done in this field. Democracy has been studied as
participation is necessary for a system to be demo- an outcome and as a cause, and has been studied at
cratic? These questions are not simply matters of both the level of the nation-state, and at the level of
empirical observation of the world, but also mat- the organization.
ters for moral and political philosophy.
To begin with, there is work in the sociology of
Three additional factors add to the difficulty democracy on the question of who is or should be
of approaching democracy as a field of sociologi- members or citizens of a democratic polity. Most
cal research. First, analysts of democracy all too systems commonly thought to be democratic have
often use different definitions of democracy, or throughout history excluded some portion of those
fail to define democracy clearly. Democratic sys- subject to the will of the democracy from participa-
tems of governance can be characterized by many tion in the decision-making process. Such exclu-
attributes—frequency of member participation, sion has occurred on the basis of race, sex, income,
the form of member participation, and so forth. relationship to property, criminal status, mental
Establishing whether a particular system of gov- health, religion, age, and other characteristics.
ernance is democratic, involves making decisions While use of many of these categories as a justifica-
about which attributes are essential to a democrat- tion for excluding individuals from participation
ic system. Where there is no specific definition of has declined in recent times, others remain, and
democracy or where definitions conflict, evalu- there is continuing disagreement about the moral
ating research on democracy can be tasking and political bases for excluding or including spe-
(Macpherson 1972). cific groups or categories of individuals. Migrant
workers in Western Europe, for example, are sub-
A second factor increasing the difficulty of ject to the action of the state on a long-term basis
this subject matter is that democracy is a system of and yet remain excluded from full political partici-
governance found in many different kinds of pation in those states (Brubaker 1989). At the level
collectivities, including states, formal organizations, of the organization, there are individuals affected
and informal groups. It is thus necessary to be by the decisions of the organization who may have
cautious in applying models, findings, and rela- little or no say in the decisions that affect them.
tionships across different types of collectivities. These can include individuals both outside the
When general propositions about democracy are organization (‘‘stakeholders’’) and inside the or-
advanced, it is important to evaluate those propo- ganization. Regarding affected individuals outside
sitions at multiple levels of analysis. the organization, there are occasional movements
to increase the power of stakeholders over the
A third difficulty is that social scientists are decisions of the organization (Nader, Green, and
interested in democracy not just for its own sake, Seligman 1976). While unsuccessful at a general
but also because it is thought to be associated with level, there has been a shift toward permitting
other critical issues. Many important questions

602

DEMOCRACY

stakeholders increased access to legal redress, for can use to return themselves to office year after
example, in class action lawsuits and in environ- year. And as leaders remain in office over an
mental litigation. And regarding those within the extended time, their interests and attitudes are
organization, one way to understand the manage- likely to diverge from those of members. The
ment trends toward ‘‘total quality management,’’ divergence of interests is a result of the changed
participatory management, and economic democ- work and social experiences that accrue to leaders.
racy is that they are attempts to increase democrat- Hence Michels, while arguing that formal organi-
ic participation of workers in decisions that affect zation is necessary for social life, and especially for
them (Jarley, Fiorito, and Delaney 1997). politics, also believes that democracy in such or-
ganizations is essentially impossible.
Sociologists have often focused on the forms
of influence and participation that individuals have Michels’s analysis has been taken very serious-
in decision making. Representative democracy is that ly in the social sciences, and there is some support-
form of governance in which members of the ing evidence for his propositions. Weber described,
organization or polity exercise their control over and Heclo and Wilson separately concede, that
the organization through the regular election of there is a tendency for the civil service and bureau-
members of a decision-making body. It is tradi- cracy to become unresponsive to the wishes of
tional to view representative democracies as demo- the people, as their experiences and needs differ
cratic because they provide for the expression of from the people (Heclo 1977; Weber 1978; Wilson
interests through the election of representatives. 1989). Lincoln and Zeitz have shown that as un-
For example, in the United States, citizens directly ions tend to get more professional, there is less
elect senators and representatives to the U.S. Con- member participation in decision making (Lin-
gress, which in turn makes political decisions about coln and Zeitz 1980). And for both unions and
the actions of the federal government. Theorists social movement organizations, Michels’s critique
since the Enlightenment have argued that repre- is taken so seriously as to generate sometimes
sentative democracy is an appropriate means for drastic proposals for counteracting the oligarchical
conveying participation in decision making in large- tendencies in these organizations (Kochan 1980).
size organizations, where individuals are thought Piven and Cloward argue that reform movements
not to be able to participate in all decisions (Hobbes of the poor should waste few resources on creating
1968; Locke 1980; Mill 1962; Rousseau 1977). long-lasting organizations, but should instead cre-
ate massive and disruptive protests (Piven and
But this view has been attacked by numerous Cloward 1977).
critics, many of them sociologists. One of the most
scathing criticisms, building on work by Mosca, is However, Michels is not without his critics.
the analysis of democracy by Michels (Mosca 1939). Nyden argues that democratic unions are possible
Michels’s argument is that in any large organiza- (Nyden 1985). Weber himself, who was Michels’s
tion (and, by extension, in any nation-state), a teacher, was critical of his conclusions. Michels
democratic system of governance inevitably leads overstated the case, Weber argued, because he
to the rise of an oligarchy, and worse, to an oligar- insisted on relying upon too pure or strict a defini-
chy whose leaders have interests that differ from tion of democracy. Having started with such an
those of the ordinary members or citizens (Michels idealistic vision of democracy, Michels was bound
1949). Why is this inevitable? In every instance of to find that reality comes up short (Scaff 1981).
large democratic organization, Michels argues, oli-
garchy arises as a result of the organization’s re- That too pure a definition of democracy can
quirement for experienced, skilled leaders. Expe- lead to a misplaced understanding of how democ-
rience in leadership, however, tends to give leaders racy works, and a failure to appreciate its achieve-
access to key organizational resources, such as ments, is the key assumption behind the most
mailing lists, publicity, and greater experience, significant defense of democracy in the 1950s and
that are significant resources that the leadership 1960s—the pluralist account of democracy. Dahl’s

603

DEMOCRACY

account defends democracy by admitting its weak- then increase the likelihood of the formation of
ness: voting in elections is not a terribly effective more interest groups (Clemens 1997). These criti-
system for ensuring that the will of the people will cisms of Olson’s analysis of the collective action
be carried out. Instead, Dahl focuses attention on problem may actually serve to strengthen the
whether non-electoral forms of influence can yield pluralist account of democracy.
democratic decision making in keeping with the
wishes and interests of the public. Interest groups Yet many sociologists remain deeply critical of
thus become not the bane, but the hope of democ- the pluralist account. Domhoff argues that plural-
racy. Through lobbying in all its forms, interest ism is flawed not because the collective action
groups are able to exert power and influence over problem retards the capacity of the disadvantaged
decision making beyond elections; if they do this, to organize. Rather, pluralism is flawed because in
then the system, with all its flaws, can be consid- the United States, and in other industrialized de-
ered democratic (Dahl 1961). mocracies, there is a governing class (Domhoff
1998). This governing class is composed of elites
A problem with the pluralist view is that not all from business, the social upper class, and those in
groups in society may be able effectively to form charge of organizations, both within and outside
interest groups to pursue their goals. Olson, in an government, that are powerfully involved in the
early effort in what is now known as rational choice formation of public policy. While Domhoff admits
theory, argued that individuals must be assumed to that there is some conflict within these groups, he
be rational, and that rational individuals will not views them as cohesive in their opposition to the
contribute to the formation of interest groups interests of the poor and the working class. Through
when they will obtain the benefits achieved by the their control of important organizations, through
interest group anyway. This is the free rider or the strength of their social ties, and through the
collective action problem: if an interest group lob- use of agenda-setting, the governing class achieves
bies for clean air, and a person cannot be denied enormous power. And, Domhoff argues, the gov-
clean air because he or she does not belong to the erning class is able to use that power consistently
interest group, why should that person contribute to defeat the interests of the majority.
to the group? Only those interest groups with a
particularly small constituency or those interest Other critics of the pluralist account have
groups who are able to use ‘‘special’’ incentives— drawn attention to the relationship between social
those available only to members of the group—to class and voting. For some years, it appeared that
attract contributors will be able to form to lobby to class-based voting in the United States appeared to
advance their interests. Groups representing weak be declining (Clark, Lipset, and Rempel 1993;
and powerless individuals may be unable to supply Manza, Hout, and Brooks 1995). Yet some schol-
such special incentives (Olson 1971). ars believe that class remained a significant factor
in voting behavior (Burnham 1981). Piven and
Olson’s pessimism about the chances for the Cloward argued that the pluralist account failed
disadvantaged to gain a voice in decision making because there was a systematic pattern to who
has been the focus of much attention. Oliver and voted and who did not. Because the poor and the
Marwell suggest that social movements are more working classes disproportionately failed to vote
likely to be formed as interest groups grow in size in elections, they were inadequately represented
(Oliver and Marwell 1988). Knoke argues that the in the competition between interests; hence the
use of selective incentives may attract apathetic poor were excluded from the pluralist democracy
members, whereas a focus on the goal of lobbying (Piven and Cloward 1988). It has been shown that
may attract highly active members, thereby creat- class remains a powerful determinant of how peo-
ing more effective organizations (Knoke 1988). ple vote, even if the working class no longer votes
Clemens points out that as interest groups come for the Democratic party in the United States with
into existence, they are themselves models or tem- as great a frequency as it did in the years immedi-
plates for others to imitate. Those templates will ately after WWII (Hout, Brooks, and Manza 1995).

604

DEMOCRACY

Researchers in the 1970s and 1980s criticized necessary, although not a sufficient, condition for
pluralism for adopting a definition of democracy democracy. A minimum level of economic devel-
that was too satisfied with the status quo of only opment is associated with democracy, although a
limited participation in decision making. These key debate is the extent to which development
participatory democratic theories emphasized that leads to democracy (Bollen and Jackman 1995;
as members participate in decision making, they Muller 1995). Also associated with democracy is a
learn more about the criteria that need to be used political culture in which the tolerance for the
in effective decision making and become better at rights of others is recognized. Finally, countries
making decisions. But members also, it was ar- with Protestant religious traditions have been more
gued, become better at evaluating the choice of likely to be democratic, though the significance of
candidates where representatives must be elected. that effect may be fading in the recent transition to
Accordingly, empirical researchers began to inves- democracy (Lipset 1994).
tigate the causes and consequences of increased
participation in decision making (Finley 1973; One of the most significant contributions to
Pateman 1970). the account of the origins of democracy is that by
Moore (Moore 1966). His analysis, standing in
In keeping with this view, researchers increas- contrast to a Marxist emphasis on the role of the
ingly moved to consider cases of participation working class as a force in history, identified the
throughout society (Alford and Friedland 1975). relationship between peasant and lord prior to
Participation in decision making in unions, com- capitalism as the critical factor in determining
munity organizations, municipalities, and protest whether a society became democratic or autocrat-
groups has been analyzed and touted (Gans 1989; ic. In countries such as China, France, Japan, or
Cole 1975). In organization theory, research on Germany, repressive control over peasants by a
different forms of worker participation in organi- dominant class led either to revolution or to con-
zational decision making has gained increasing tinued autocracy. In China, revolution led to Com-
prominence. Total quality management, participa- munist autocracy; in France, because of the exist-
tory management, and worker control all have ence of a commercial class, revolution led, through
been studied closely, not just for improvement in fits and starts, to democracy. In Japan and Germa-
productivity and quality, but also for democracy. ny, the failure or absence of revolution led to
Much of this research emphasizes how democracy continued dominance of repressive classes, lead-
is consistent with both effectiveness and the im- ing to the rise of fascist regimes. Moore argued
provement of the condition of workers (Jarley, that in a country such as England, however, the
Fiorito, and Delaney 1997). Some have even come greater status of labor, coupled with the nobility’s
to see the spread of democratic management as increasing dependence on market-based agricul-
inevitable, although this is almost certainly exag- ture, led to an eventual democratic solution to
gerated (Collins 1997). Yet many have worked to social conflict.
show that democratic systems of management are
more broadly possible than has been thought, Moore’s work has provoked considerable criti-
although the conditions under which such systems cism and extension (Ross et al. 1998). Downing has
of decision making can be created and maintained shown conclusively that the nature of military
remain under debate (Burawoy 1982; Kanter 1983). conflicts affects the success of democracy in a
country. How a nation fights its wars, and how
Renewed definitions of democracy beg a cen- often it must fight, is critically determinative of the
tral question in democratic research: Where do need for repression in the mobilization of men
democracies come from? The question has been and weapons to fight. England’s peculiar move
most closely studied for nation-states. Lipset iden- toward democracy is thus critically dependent on
tifies a set of central conditions that are associated its position as an island nation, free from the
with the rise of democracy in nation-states. The necessity to fight long-term, massive land wars on
presence of a market economy appears to be a the continent of Europe, and the necessity to

605

DEMOCRACY

maintain a state and military administrative struc- some evidence that democracy does not increase
ture capable of that task (Downing 1992). Friedman inequality, at least directly, and it might lead to
has shown that former British colonies tend to be increased equality (Bollen and Jackman 1985; Mul-
democratic, whereas countries ruled by Leninist ler 1988).
parties tend to remain autocratic (Friedman 1998).
Another question is whether democracies can
Students of social movements have tended to be effective. The central issue, echoing Michels, is
argue that social movements are significant sourc- whether or not organizations, such as unions or
es of democracy (Giugni, McAdam, and Tilly 1998). parties or, for that matter, businesses, can be
There is evidence that social movements can push successful in competitive environments against
the transition to democracy faster (Hipsher 1998; organizations that are autocratically run. The evi-
Sandoval 1998). Certainly this is consistent with dence is conflicting. Some argue that democracy
Tilly’s theoretical model of democratization, in and effectiveness are in conflict in the context of
which he argues that social conflict, as embodied unions (Lipset, Trow, and Coleman 1959; Piven
in social movements, and where mediated by third and Cloward 1977). Others argue that democracy
parties, can lead to the creation of rights essential leads to effectiveness in achieving goals (Stepan-
for democracy (Tilly 1998). But surely the effects Norris and Zeitlin 1994). As yet, there seems to be
of social movements on democracy are contingent no definitive answer, and the issue certainly merits
on many factors, and sociologists must be careful more research.
not to assume that the outcome of social protest
will be democratization (Melucci and Lyyra 1998). Finally, the subject of democracy has been
Clearly this has not always been the case. intimately tied in the 1990s to two related subjects.

The sources of democracy in organizations is The first is the subject of globalization. As the
an understudied area. Two findings are worth world has become more closely connected, as
noting. Knoke has argued that in the present-day communications technologies radically change
United States, a minimum level of democratic again, and as the world economy has grown larger,
procedure is just a part of the institutional build- some have raised questions about the implications
ing blocks from which organizations are construct- of this trend for democracy. Held, for example,
ed; in short, organizations such as unions may has argued that decisions that affect citizens are
have democratic procedures simply because every- increasingly being made at a level beyond that of
body expects them to have those procedures (Knoke the nation-state; in supra-national organizations
1990). And, returning to the tension between and in the international economy. As a conse-
democracy and effectiveness identified by Michels, quence of this globalization, the extent of demo-
Jarley has found that the causes of democratic cratic control over decisions is seen to have weak-
procedures in unions are independent of those ened (Held 1995). Others have criticized this
which drive bureaucratization (Jarley, Fiorito, and argument, and the subject is still very much subject
Delaney 1997). Yet much more systematic work to research and debate (Hirst and Thompson 1996).
needs to be done in this area.
The second related subject is civil society. A
The other side of the coin in the study of focus of scholarly attention in part because of the
democracy is the question of the relationship be- demands for it from those who have emerged
tween democracy and other core subjects of socio- from socialist rule, civil society is commonly con-
logical interest. The relationship between democ- ceived as space for associational activity between
racy and equality is a central issue and has been a the state and the individual (Gellner 1994). Many
focus of research since de Tocqueville (Tocqueville now see organizations and associations, indepen-
1969). In recent years, research has centered around dent of the state, as crucial to democracy, consti-
this specific question: Does democracy promote tuting a critical element of democratic society
or retard income inequality in nation-states? There is (Streeck and Schmitter 1985). Certainly, they are
not the same: as Hall puts it, ‘‘Democracy can be

606

DEMOCRACY

decidedly uncivil’’ (Hall 1995). But democracy ——— 1995 ‘‘Income Inequality and Democratization
depends on civil society (Somers 1993). This view Revisited: Comment on Muller.’’ American Sociologi-
echoes Tocqueville’s assertion that the knowledge cal Review 60:983–989.
of how to combine is fundamental to democracy
(Tocqueville 1969). Already attracting significant Brubaker, William Rogers 1989 Immigration and the
attention, much room remains to answer ques- Politics of Citizenship in Europe and North America.
tions about the relationship between civil society Lanham, Md.: University Press of American; Ger-
and democracy. man Marshall Fund of the United States.

In conclusion, it is well to remember that there Burawoy, Michael 1982 Manufacturing Consent. Chica-
are many forms of democracy: those with weaker go: University of Chicago Press.
or stronger civil liberties; those with weaker or
stronger civil societies; those with weaker or strong- ——— 1997 ‘‘Review Essay: The Soviet Descent into
er tolerance for diversity. Nor can it be assumed Capitalism.’’ American Journal of Sociology 102:1430–1444.
that these different forms are internally consis-
tent: the rights of the community to choose what it Burke, Edmund 1955 Reflections on the Revolution in
wishes to be, and the rights of the individual to live France. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
as he or she wishes, are not easily reconciled.
Burnham, Walter Dean 1981 The Current Crisis in Ameri-
It is also well to remember that democracy is can Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
not inevitable (Berger 1992). Neither, we should
also recall, is democracy a simple outcome that, Clark, Terry Nichols, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Mi-
once achieved, is a permanent condition (Friedman chael Rempel 1993 ‘‘The Declining Political Signifi-
1998). Democracy can be strengthened; democra- cance of Class.’’ International Sociology 8:323–333.
cy can be weakened. And it can, as it has in the
past, disappear. While democracy is today in the Clemens, Elisabeth S. 1997 The People’s Lobby: Organiza-
ascendant, the lessons of the French Revolution tional Innovation and the Rise of Interest Group Politics
and of Weimar Germany should not be forgotten; in the United States, 1890–1925. Chicago: University
although in both instances democracy was regained, of Chicago Press.
it was not regained quickly or without cost. And in
Germany, as in Japan, democracy was not re- Cole, Richard L. 1975 ‘‘Citizen Participation in Munici-
gained from within, but imposed from without. pal Politics.’’ American Journal of Political Science
History should teach us that we still have much to 19:761–782.
learn about democracy.
Collins, Denis 1997 ‘‘The Ethical Superiority and Inevi-
(SEE ALSO: Capitalism, Development, Inequality, Civil Socie- tability of Participatory Management as an Organiza-
ty, Individualism in Less Developed Countries, Political tional System.’’ Organization Science.
Sociology, Rational Choice Theory.)
Dahl, Robert A. 1961 Who Governs? New Haven: Yale
REFERENCES University Press.

Alford, Robert R., and Roger Friedland 1975 ‘‘Political Domhoff, G. William 1998 Who Rules America? Power and
Participation and Public Policy.’’ Annual Review of Politics in the Year 2000. Mountain View, Calif.:
Sociology 1:429–479. Mayfield Publishing Company.

Berger, Peter 1992 ‘‘The Uncertain Triumph of Demo- Downing, Brian M. 1992 The Military Revolution and
cratic Capitalism.’’ Journal of Democracy 3:7–17. Political Change: Origins of Democracy and Autocracy in
Early Modern Europe. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Uni-
Bollen, Kenneth A., and Robert W. Jackman 1985 ‘‘Po- versity Press.
litical Democracy.’’ American Sociological Review
50:438–457. Finley, M. I. 1985 Democracy: Ancient and Modern. Lon-
don: Hogarth Press.

Friedman, Edward 1998 ‘‘Development, Revolution,
Democracy, and Dictatorship: China versus India?’’
In Theda Skocpol, ed., Democracy, Revolution, and
History, 102–123. Ithaca, N.Y. and London: Cornell
University Press.

Gans, Herbert J. 1989 ‘‘Comment on Vareene’s Review
of Middle American Individualism: The Future of

607

DEMOCRACY

Liberal Democracy.’’ American Journal of Sociology Lincoln, J. R., and G. Zeitz 1980 ‘‘Organizational Prop-
95:188–190. erties from Aggregate Data: Separating Individual
and Structural Effects.’’ American Sociological Review
Gellner, Ernest 1994 Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society 45:391–408.
and its Rivals. London: Penguin Books.
Lipset, Seymour Martin 1994 ‘‘The Social Requisites of
Giugni, Marco G., Doug McAdam, and Charles Tilly Democracy Revisited: 1993 Presidential Address.’’
1998 ‘‘From Contention to Democracy.’’ Lanham, American Sociological Review 59:1–22.
Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.
———, Martin A. Trow, and James S. Coleman 1959
Hall, John A. 1995 ‘‘In Search of Civil Society.’’ In John Union Democracy. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
A. Hall, ed., Civil Society: Theory, History, Comparison
1–27. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. Locke, John 1980 The Second Treatise of Government.
Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett Publishers.
Hartz, Louis 1948 Economic Policy and Democratic Thought:
Pennsylvania 1776–1860. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Macpherson, C. B. 1972 The Real World of Democracy.
University Press. New York: Oxford University Press.

Heclo, Hugh 1977 A Government of Strangers. Washing- Manza, Jeff, Michael Hout, and Clem Brooks 1995
ton, D.C.: Brookings Institution. ‘‘Class Voting in Capitalist Democracies since WWII.’’
Annual Review of Sociology 21:137–163.
Held, David 1995 Democracy and the Global Order: From
the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Stanford, Melucci, Alberto, and Timo Lyyra 1998 ‘‘Collective
Calif.: Stanford University Press. Action, Change, and Democracy.’’ In Marco G. Giugni,
Doug McAdam, and Charles Tilly, eds., From Conten-
Hipsher, Patricia L. 1998 ‘‘Democratic Transitions and tion to Democracy 203–228. Lanham, Md.: Rowman
Social Movement Outcomes: The Chilean Shantytown and Littlefield.
Dwellers’ Movement in Comparative Perspective.’’
In Marco G. Giugni, Doug McAdam, and Charles Michels, Robert 1949 Political Parties: A Sociological Study
Tilly, eds., From Contention to Democracy 149–168. of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy.
Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield. New York: Free Press.

Hirst, Paul, and Grahame Thompson 1996 Globalization Mill, John Stuart 1962 Considerations on Representative
in Question: The International Economy and the Politics Government. South Bend, Ind.: Gateway Editions.
of Governance. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Moore, Barrington 1966 Social Origins of Dictatorship and
Hobbes, Thomas 1968 Leviathan. New York: Pen- Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the
guin Books. Modern World. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hout, Michael, Clem Brooks, and Jeff Manza 1995 ‘‘The Mosca, Gaetano 1939 The Ruling Class. New York: Mc-
Democratic Class Struggle in the United States, 1948– Graw-Hill.
1992.’’ American Sociological Review 60:805–828.
Muller, Edward N. 1988 ‘‘Democracy, Economic Devel-
Huntington, Samuel P. 1991 The Third Wave: Democrati- opment, and Income Inequality.’’ American Sociologi-
zation in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, Okla.: cal Review 53:50–68.
University of Oklahoma.
——— 1995 ‘‘Economic Determinants of Democracy.’’
Jarley, Paul, Jack Fiorito, and John Thomas Delaney American Sociological Review 60:966–982.
1997. ‘‘A Structural Contingency Approach to Bu-
reaucracy and Democracy in U.S. National Unions.’’ Nader, Ralph, Mark Green, and E. J. Seligman 1976
Academy of Management Journal 40:831–861. Constitutionalizing the Corporation: The Case for the
Federal Chartering of Giant Corporations. Washington,
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss 1983 The Change Masters. New D.C.: Corporate Accountability Research Group.
York: Touchstone.
Nyden, Philip W. 1985 ‘‘Democratizing Organizations:
Knoke, David 1988 ‘‘Organizational Incentives.’’ Ameri- A Case Study of a Union Reform Movement.’’ Ameri-
can Sociological Review 53:311–329. can Journal of Sociology 90:1179–1203.

——— 1990 Organizing for Collective Action: The Political Oliver, Pamela E., and Gerald Marwell 1988 ‘‘The Para-
Economies of Associations. New York: de Gruyter. dox of Group Size in Collective Action.’’ American
Sociological Review 53:1–8.
Kochan, T. H. 1980 Collective Bargaining and Industrial
Relations: From Theory to Policy and Practice. Homewood,
Ill.: Irwin.

608

DEMOGRAPHIC METHODS

Olson, Mancur 1971 The Logic of Collective Action. Cam- Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, eds., Economy and
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology 1381–1469.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pateman, Carole 1970 Participation and Democratic Theo-
ry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, James Q. 1989 Bureaucracy: What Government
Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic
Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard Cloward 1977 Poor Books.
People’s Movements. New York: Pantheon.
ANDREW L. CREIGHTON
——— 1988 Why Americans Don’t Vote. New York:
Pantheon. DEMOGRAPHIC METHODS

Ross, George, Theda Skocpol, Tony Smith, and Judith Demographic methods are used to provide re-
Eisenberg Vichniac 1998 ‘‘Barrington Moore’s Social searchers and policymakers with useful informa-
Origins and Beyond: Historical Social Analysis since tion about the size and structure of human popula-
the 1960s.’’ In Theda Skocpol, ed., Democracy, Revolu- tions and the processes that govern population
tion, and History 1–21. Ithaca, N.Y. and London: changes. A population, of course, may range in
Cornell University Press. size from a small number of individuals surveyed
locally to a large national population enumerated
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 1977 The Social Contract and in periodic censuses to even larger aggregated
Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. New York: Wash- entities.
ington Square Press.
We use demographic methods not only in
Sandoval, Salvador A. M. 1998 ‘‘Social Movements and purely demographic applications, but also in a
Democratization: The Case of Brazil and the Latin variety of other fields, among them sociology,
Countries.’’ In Marco G. Giugni, Doug McAdam, economics, anthropology, public health, and busi-
and Charles Tilly, eds., From Contention to Democracy ness. Demographers, like all researchers, must pay
169–202. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield. careful attention to the quality of data that enter
into their analyses. Some circumstances under
Scaff, Lawrence A. 1981 ‘‘Max Weber and Robert which we use these methods are more trying than
Michels.’’ American Journal of Sociology 86:1269–1286. others. In cases in which the data are viewed to be
accurate and complete, the methods we use to
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1976 Capitalism, Socialism, and analyze them are more straightforward than those
Democracy. New York: Harper and Row. that are applied to data of imperfect quality.

Somers, Margaret A. 1993 ‘‘Citizenship and the Place of DESCRIPTION OF DATA
the Public Sphere: Law, Community, and Political
Culture in the Transition to Democracy.’’ American First we must develop ways to describe our data in
Sociological Review 58:587–620. a fashion that allows the most important facts to
leap out at us. As one example, let us examine a
Stepan-Norris, Judith, and Maurice Zeitlin 1994 ‘‘Union population’s age structure or distribution. Simple
Democracy, Radical Leadership, and the Hegemony descriptive statistics are doubtless helpful in sum-
of Capital.’’ American Sociological Review 1995:829–850. marizing aspects of population age structure, but
demographers often use age ‘‘pyramids’’ to con-
Streeck, Wolfgang, and Philippe C. Schmitter 1985 vey to an audience the youthfulness of a popula-
‘‘Community, Market, State—and Associations? The tion, for example, or even to convey a rough sense
Prospective Contribution of Interest Governance to of a nation’s history.
Social Order.’’ In Wolfgang Streeck and Philippe C.
Schmitter, eds., Private Interest Government 1–29. Lon-
don: Sage Publications.

Tilly, Charles 1998 ‘‘Where Do Rights Come From?’’ In
Theda Skocpol, ed., Democracy, Revolution, and Histo-
ry 55–72. Ithaca, N.Y. and London: Cornell Universi-
ty Press.

Tocqueville, Alexis de 1969 Democracy in America. Gar-
den City, N.J.: Harper Perennial.

Weber, Max 1978 ‘‘Parliament and Government in a
Reconstructed Germany: A Contribution to the Po-
litical Critique of Officialdom and Party Politics.’’ In

609

DEMOGRAPHIC METHODS

We might note, for example, that 20 percent war ended (the cohort who in 1962 were in their
of Norway’s population in 1997 was under the age early forties), and a similar pattern revolving around
of fifteen. In contrast, 39 percent of Mexico’s World War II, during which (4) a substantial de-
population seven years earlier fell into this catego- cline in births took place (the cohort around age
ry. But it is perhaps more dramatic to create a twenty in 1962), succeeded by (5) a dramatic baby
visual display of these figures in the form of age boom in the years immediately following (those
pyramids. around age fifteen in 1962).

An age pyramid is typically constructed as a COMPARISON OF CRUDE RATES
bar graph, with horizontal bars—one representing
each sex—emanating in both directions from a Much of the work in which social scientists are
central vertical age axis. Age increases as one engaged is comparative in nature. For example, we
proceeds up the axis and the unit of the horizontal might seek to contrast the mortality levels of the
axis is either the proportion of the total popula- populations of two countries. Surely, if the two
tion in each age group or the population size itself. countries in question have accurate vital registra-
tion and census data, this task would appear to be
We see in panel A of figure 1 that Mexico’s trivial. For each country, we would simply divide
population is described by a very broad-based the total number of deaths (D) in a given year by
pyramid—actually, in two-dimensional space, a the total population (P) at the midpoint of that
triangle, but by convention we refer to it as a year. Thus we would define the crude death rate
pyramid—which reveals a remarkably large pro- (CDR) for country A as:
portion of the population not yet having reached
adulthood. The median age of this population is DA [t,t+1] ω-n [nMxA . nPxA]
about twenty years. Such a distributional shape is PA [t+.5]
common particularly among high fertility popula- ∑
tions. In stark contrast we have the pyramid shown CDRA = x=0,n
in panel B, representing the population of Nor- = ω-n (1)
way. Rather than triangular, its age distribution is
somewhat more rectangular in shape, which is ∑ nPxA
typically seen among countries that have experi- x=0,n
enced an extended period of low fertility rates. It is
easy to see that Norway’s median age (about thirty- where t denotes the beginning of the calendar
six years) is considerably higher than that of Mexico.
year, ω is the oldest age attained in the population,
As mentioned above, not only can we examine
the age structure of populations through the use MA is the death rate of individuals aged x to x + n,
of pyramids, but we can also gain much insight
into a nation’s history insofar as that history has nx
either directly or indirectly influenced the size of
successive birth cohorts. Note, for example, the and PA is the number of individuals in that same
age pyramid reflecting the population age struc-
ture of France on 1 January 1962 (figure 2). nx

In this figure, several notable events in France’s age group. MA and PA are centered on the mid-
history are apparent. We see (1) the military losses
experienced in World War I by male birth cohorts nx nx
of the mid to late 1890s, (2) the remarkable birth
dearth brought about by that war (the cohort aged point of the calendar year. The rightmost segment
in their mid-forties or so in 1962), followed by (3)
the return of prewar childbearing activity once the of this equation reminds us that the crude death

rate is but the sum of the age-specific death rates

weighted by the proportion of the population at

each age.

Unfortunately, comparisons of crude death
rates across populations can lead to misleading
conclusions. This problem is in fact general to any
sort of comparison based on crude rates that do
not account for the confounding effects of factors
that differentiate the two populations.

Let us examine the death rates of two very
different countries, Mexico and Norway. The crude
death rate (for both sexes combined) in Mexico in
1990, 5.2 per 1000, was approximately half that for

610

DEMOGRAPHIC METHODS

Age Pyramid of Mexico Age Pyramid of Norway
1990 1997

90+ Males Females Males Females
85-89
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14

5-9
0-4

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Percentage Percentage
Panel A Panel B

Figure 1

NOTE: Age pyramids for Mexico and Norway

Norway, 10.1, seven years later, in 1997. Knowing age distributions (i.e., each normalized to one in
nothing else about these two countries, we might order to account for unequal population sizes).
infer that the health of the Mexican population
was considerably superior to that of the Norwe- Table 1 gives the death rates and number of
gian population. However, once we standardize persons for each country by five-year age groups
the crude death rates of the two countries on a (zero through four, five through nine, and so on
common population age structure, we find just the through eighty and above). The first fact we glean
reverse is true. from the table is that the mortality rates of the
Norwegian population are substantially lower than
To accomplish this standardization, instead of those of their Mexican counterparts at virtually all
applying the above equation to our data, we use ages. We see that nearly 40 percent of the Mexican
the following: population is concentrated in the three age groups
having the lowest death rates (ages five through
ω-n nMxA . nPxs] nineteen). Only half that proportion of the Norwe-
[∑ gian population is found in the same age range. In
ASCDRA = (2) contrast, only 6 percent of the Mexican population
x=0,n is above sixty years of age, an age range with which
its highest level of mortality is associated. At the
ω-n nPxs same time, about 20 percent of the Norwegian
population is sixty or older. Compared with the
∑ Mexican crude death rate, then, the Norwegian
x=0,n rate is disproportionately weighted toward the
relatively high age-specific death rates that exist in
where ASCDRA is the age-standardized crude death the older ages.

rate of country A, and PS is the number of indi-

nx

viduals in the standardized population of that

same age group. Any age distribution may be

chosen as the standard, however, it is common

simply to use the average of the two proportionate

611

DEMOGRAPHIC METHODS

Age Pyramid of France
1 January 1962

95
85
75
65
55
45
35
25
15

5

400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400
Population (in 1,000s)

Figure 2

NOTE: Age pyramid France

Applying the standardization method described general tool for examining the time-dependent
by the above equation to the average of Norway’s survivorship in a given state.
and Mexico’s proportionate age distributions, we
find that the resulting crude death rates are consis- To illustrate the use of the life table method,
tent with what we would infer from the two series suppose we use as an example the mortality experi-
of age-specific mortality rates. Mexico’s age-stand- ence of the United States population in 1996. We
ardized crude death rate, 8.7 per 1000 population, might wish to derive the average number of years
is one-third greater than that of Norway, 6.6 that an individual would live, subject to the series
per 1000. of age-specific death rates attributed to that popu-
lation. To find the answer, we could construct a
LIFE TABLES complete life table, as in table 2. It is complete in the
sense that it is highly age-detailed, focusing on
The life table is a methodological device used by single years of age. This is in contrast to the
demographers and others to examine the life— abridged life table, which is usually constructed us-
either literal or figurative—of a particular dura- ing five-year age groups. The abridged life table
tion-dependent phenomenon. The original appli- shown in table 3 refers also to the total population
cation of the life table was to the mortality patterns of the United States in 1996.
of human populations. Today, the life table tech-
nique is applied to such diverse areas as contracep- Most life tables that we see are called period or
tive efficacy, marital formation and dissolution, current life tables. They refer to a particular snap-
and organizational failure. Thus it is a remarkably shot in time. Although they describe the mortality
experience of an actual population, they do not

612

DEMOGRAPHIC METHODS

Standardization using Death Rates and Population Distributions
from Mexico (1990) and Norway (1997)

Mexico Norway

Age Group Population Death STANDARD Population Death
in 1000s Rate DISTRIBUTION in 1000s Rate
0-4 (per 1000) (per 1000)
5-9 (% distribution) (%) (% distribution)
10-14 8.40 1.06
15-19 10,257 9.75 303
20-24 (12.62) (6.88)
25-29
30-34 10,627 0.61 9.96 301 0.19
35-39 (13.08) (6.83)
40-44
45-49 10,452 0.52 9.43 264 0.14
50-54 (12.86) (6.00)
55-59
60-64 9,723 0.99 9.00 265 0.48
65-69 (11.97) (6.02)
70-74
75-79 7,877 1.50 8.24 299 0.54
80+ (9.69) (6.78)

6,444 1.88 7.86 343 0.68
(7.93) (7.78)

5,420 2.21 7.17 338 0.77
(6.67) (7.68)

4,607 2.88 6.46 319 0.94
(5.67) (7.25)

3,519 3.80 5.72 313 1.55
(4.33) (7.11)

2,990 5.30 5.28 303 2.45
(3.68) (6.89)

2,408 7.30 4.73 286 3.88
(2.96) (6.50)

1,906 11.32 3.48 203 6.19
(2.35) (4.61)

1,621 15.17 2.97 174 10.31
(2.00) (3.94)

1,191 23.57 2.74 177 16.55
(1.47) (4.02)

832 33.27 2.53 177 28.66
(1.02) (4.03)

594 54.53 2.13 156 57.11
(0.73) (3.53)

780 108.52 2.55 182 122.48
(0.96) (4.14)

Table 1

SOURCE: http://www.ssb.no/www-open/english/yearbook/ and http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbprint.html

613