We propose a synthesis of two lines of sociological research on boundary spanning in cultural production and consumption. One, research on cultural omnivorousness, analyzes choice by heterogeneous audiences facing an array of crisp cultural offerings. The other, research on categories in markets, analyzes reactions by homogeneous audiences to objects that vary in the degree to which they conform to categorical codes. We develop a model of heterogeneous audiences evaluating objects that vary in typicality. This allows consideration of orientations on two dimensions of cultural preference: variety and typicality. We propose a novel analytic framework to map consumption behavior in these two dimensions. We argue that one audience type, those who value variety and typicality, are especially resistant to objects that span boundaries. We test this argument in an analysis of two large-scale datasets of reviews of films and restaurants.
AlterAdam L.OppenheimerDaniel M.2009. “Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation.”Personality and Social Psychology Review13(3):219–35.
2.
AndersonEugene N.2005. Everyone Eats: Understanding Food and Culture. New York: NYU Press.
3.
AtkinsonWill. 2011. “The Context and Genesis of Musical Tastes: Omnivorousness Debunked, Bourdieu Buttressed.”Poetics39(3):169–86.
4.
BailChristopher A.2008. “The Configuration of Symbolic Boundaries against Immigrants in Europe.”American Sociological Review73(1):37–59.
5.
BatageljVladimirBrenMatevz. 1995. “Comparing Resemblance Measures.”Journal of Classification12(1):73–90.
6.
BaumannShyon. 2007. Hollywood Highbrow: From Entertainment to Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
BeckerHoward S.1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
BergerJonahMensGael Le. 2009. “How Adoption Speed Affects the Abandonment of Cultural Tastes.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences106(20):8146–50.
9.
BourdieuPierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
BourdieuPierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
11.
BowkerGeoffrey C.StarSusan Leigh. 2000. Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
BrysonBethany. 1996. ‘“Anything But Heavy Metal’: Symbolic Exclusion and Musical Dislikes.”American Sociological Review61(5):884–99.
13.
BrysonBethany. 1997. “What About the Univores? Musical Dislikes and Group-Based Identity Construction among Americans with Low Levels of Education.”Poetics25(2–3):141–56.
14.
BuragoDimitriBuragoYuriIvanovSergei. 2001. A Course in Metric Geometry, Vol. 33, Graduate Studies in Mathematics. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
15.
CarrollGlenn R.WheatonDennis R.2009. “The Organizational Construction of Authenticity: An Examination of Contemporary Food and Dining in the U.S.”Research in Organizational Behavior29:255–82.
16.
ChanTak WingGoldthorpeJohn H.2007. “Social Stratification and Cultural Consumption: Music in England.”European Sociological Review23(1):1–19.
17.
ChaterNickVitányiPaul M. B.2003. “The Generalized Universal Law of Generalization.”Journal of Mathematical Psychology47:346–69.
18.
DellaPostaDanielShiYongrenMacyMichael W.2015. “Why Do Liberals Drink Lattes?”American Journal of Sociology120(5):1473–1511.
19.
DiMaggioPaul J.1987. “Classification in Art.”American Sociological Review52(4):440–55.
20.
DouglasMary.[1966] 2003. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Routledge.
21.
DubuissonMarie-PierreJain.Anil K.1994. “A Modified Hausdorff Distance for Object Matching.” Pp. 566–68 in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Vol. 1. IEEE Comput. Soc. Press.
22.
DurandRodolphePaolellaLionel. 2013. “Category Stretching: Reorienting Research on Categories in Strategy, Entrepreneurship, and Organization Theory.”Journal of Management Studies50(6):1100–23.
23.
ElchardusMarkSiongersJessy. 2007. “Ethnocentrism, Taste and Symbolic Boundaries.”Poetics35(4):215–38.
24.
EricksonBonnie H.1996. “Culture, Class, and Connections.”American Journal of Sociology102(1):217–51.
25.
FergusonJohn-PaulHasanSharique. 2013. “Specialization and Career Dynamics: Evidence from the Indian Administrative Service.”Administrative Science Quarterly58(2):233–56.
26.
FergusonPriscilla Parkhurst. 2014. Word of Mouth: What We Talk About When We Talk About Food. Oakland: University of California Press.
27.
FishmanRobert M.LizardoOmar. 2013. “How Macro-Historical Change Shapes Cultural Taste: Legacies of Democratization in Spain and Portugal.”American Sociological Review78(2):213–39.
28.
FlemingLee. 2001. “Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search.”Management Science47(1):117–32.
29.
GärdenforsPeter. 2004. Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
30.
GoldbergAmir. 2011. “Mapping Shared Understandings Using Relational Class Analysis: The Case of the Cultural Omnivore Reconsidered.”American Journal of Sociology116(5):1397–1436.
31.
GreeneWilliam H.2004. “The Behaviour of the Maximum Likelihood Estimator of Limited Dependent Variable Models in the Presence of Fixed Effects.”Econometrics Journal7(1):98–119.
32.
HannanMichael T.2010. “Partiality of Memberships in Categories and Audiences.”Annual Review of Sociology36:159–81.
33.
HsuGreta. 2006. “Jacks of All Trades and Masters of None: Audiences’ Reactions to Spanning Genres in Feature Film Production.”Administrative Science Quarterly51(3):420–50.
34.
HsuGretaHannanMichael T.KoçakÖzgecan. 2009. “Multiple Category Memberships in Markets: An Integrative Theory and Two Empirical Tests.”American Sociological Review74(1):150–69.
35.
JaccardPaul. 1901. “Etude Comparative de la Distribution Florale dans une Portion des Alpes et des Jura.”Bulletin de la Societe Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles37(142):547–79.
36.
JohnstonJoseeBaumannShyon. 2007. “Democracy versus Distinction: A Study of Omnivorousness in Gourmet Food Writing.”American Journal of Sociology113(1):165–204.
37.
Katz-GerroTally. 2004. “Cultural Consumption Research: Review of Methodology, Theory, and Consequence.”International Review of Sociology14(1):11–29.
38.
KennedyMark T.2008. “Getting Counted: Markets, Media, and Reality.”American Sociological Review73(2):270–95.
39.
KhanShamus Rahman. 2011. Prestige: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul’s School. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
40.
KhanShamus Rahman. 2012. “The Sociology of Elites.”Annual Review of Sociology38:361–77.
41.
KimBo KyungJensenMichael. 2011. “How Product Order Affects Market Identity: Repertoire Ordering in the U.S. Opera Market.”Administrative Science Quarterly56(2):238–56.
42.
KovácsBalázsCarrollGlenn R.Lehman.David W.2014. “Authenticity and Consumer Value Ratings: Empirical Tests from the Restaurant Domain.”Organization Science25(2):458–78.
43.
KovácsBalázsHannanMichael T.2010. “The Consequences of Category Spanning Depend on Contrast.”Research in the Sociology of Organizations31:175–201.
44.
KovácsBalázsHannan.Michael T.2015. “The Space of Categories and the Consequences of Category Spanning.”Sociological Science2:252–86.
45.
KovácsBalázsJohnsonRebeka. 2014. “Contrasting Alternative Explanations for the Consequences of Category Spanning: A Study of Restaurant Reviews and Menus in San Francisco.”Strategic Organization12(1):7–37.
46.
LahireBernard. 2008. “The Individual and the Mixing of Genres: Cultural Dissonance and Self-distinction.”Poetics36(2):166–88.
47.
LahireBernard. 2011. The Plural Actor. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
48.
LamontMichelleMolnárVirág. 2002. “The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences.”Annual Review of Sociology28:167–95.
49.
LenaJennifer C.2012. Banding Together: How Communities Create Genres in Popular Music. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50.
LiebersonStanley. 2000. A Matter of Taste: How Names, Fashions, and Culture Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
51.
LizardoOmar. 2014. “Omnivorousness as the Bridging of Cultural Holes: A Measurement Strategy.”Theory and Society43(3):395–419.
52.
LizardoOmarSkilesSara. 2012. “Reconceptualizing and Theorizing ‘Omnivorousness’: Genetic and Relational Mechanisms.”Sociological Theory30(4):263–82.
53.
MilkmanKatherine L.RogersToddBazerman.Max H.2009. “Highbrow Films Gather Dust: Time-inconsistent Preferences and Online DVD Rentals.”Management Science55(6):1047–59.
54.
MurrayFionna. 2010. “The Oncomouse That Roared: Hybrid Exchange Strategies as a Source of Productive Tension at the Boundary of Overlapping Institutions.”American Journal of Sociology116(2):341–88.
55.
NelsonRichard R.WinterSidney G.1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56.
OllivierMichele. 2008. “Modes of Openness to Cultural Diversity: Humanist, Populist, Practical, and Indifferent.”Poetics36(1):120–47.
57.
OppenheimerDaniel M.Frank.Michael C.2008. “A Rose in Any Other Font Would Not Smell as Sweet: Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Categorization.”Cognition106(3):1178–94.
58.
PachuckiMark A.BreigerRonald L.2010. “Cultural Holes: Beyond Relationality in Social Networks and Culture.”Annual Review of Sociology36:205–224.
59.
PetersonRichard A.1992. “Understanding Audience Segmentation: From Elite and Mass to
60.
Omnivore and Univore.” Poetics21(4):243–58.
61.
PetersonRichard A.2005. “Problems in Comparative Research: The Example of Omnivorousness.”Poetics33(5–6):257–82.
62.
PetersonRichard A.KernRoger M.1996. “Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore.”American Sociological Review61(5):900–907.
63.
PhillipsDamon J.2013. Shaping Jazz: Cities, Labels, and the Emergence of an Art Form. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
64.
PhillipsDamon J.TurcoCatherine J.ZuckermanEzra W.2013. “Betrayal as Market Barrier: Identity-Based Limits to Diversification among High-Status Corporate Law Firms.”American Journal of Sociology118(4):1023–54.
65.
PhillipsDamon J.ZuckermanEzra W.2001. “Middle-status Conformity: Theoretical Refinement and Empirical Demonstration in Two Markets.”American Journal of Sociology107(2):379–429.
66.
PinchTrevorTroccoFrank. 2002. Analog Days: The Invention and Impact of the Moog Synthesizer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67.
PontikesElizabeth G.2012. “Two Sides of the Same Coin: How Ambiguous Classification Affects Multiple Audience Evaluations.”Administrative Science Quarterly57(1):81–118.
68.
PontikesElizabeth G.HannanMichael T.2014. “An Ecology of Social Categories.”Sociological Science1:311–43.
69.
RaoHayagreevaMoninPhilippeDurandRodolphe. 2003. “Institutional Change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle Cuisine as an Identity Movement in French Gastronomy.”American Journal of Sociology108(4):795–843.
70.
RaoHayagreevaMoninPhilippeDurandRodolphe. 2005. “Border Crossing: Bricolage and the Erosion of Categorical Boundaries in French Gastronomy.”American Sociological Review70(6):968–91.
71.
ReberRolfSchwarzNorbertWinkielmanPiotr. 2004. “Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver’s Processing Experience?”Personality and Social Psychology Review8(4):364–82.
72.
RuefMartin. 2002. “Strong Ties, Weak Ties and Islands: Structural and Cultural Predictors of Organizational Innovation.”Industrial and Corporate Change11(3):427–49.
73.
RuefMartinPattersonKelly. 2009. “Credit and Classification: The Impact of Industry Boundaries in Nineteenth-Century America.”Administrative Science Quarterly54(3):486–520.
74.
SalganikMatthew J.Levy.Karen E. C.2015. “Wiki Surveys: Open and Quantifiable Social Data Collection.”PLoS ONE10(5):e0123483.
75.
SavageMikeGayoModesto. 2011. “Unraveling the Omnivore: A Field Analysis of Contemporary Musical Taste in the United Kingdom.”Poetics39(5):337–57.
76.
ShepardRoger N.1987. “Toward a Universal Law of Generalization for Psychological Science.”Science237(4820):1317–23.
77.
SmithEdward Bishop. 2011. “Identities as Lenses: How Organizational Identity Affects Audiences’ Evaluation of Organizational Performance.”Administrative Science Quarterly56(1):61–94.
78.
SwidlerAnn. 2001. Talk of Love: How Culture Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
79.
TellesEdward E.Sue.Christina A.2009. “Race Mixture: Boundary Crossing in Comparative Perspective.”Annual Review of Sociology35:129–46.
80.
TenenbaumJoshua B.Griffiths.Thomas L.2002. “Generalization, Similarity, and Bayesian Inference.”Behavioral and Brain Sciences24(2):629–40.
81.
UzziBrianMukherjeeSatyamStringerMichaelJonesBen. 2013. “Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact.”Science342(6157):468–72.
82.
VerheyenStevenStormsGert. 2013. “A Mixture Approach to Vagueness and Ambiguity.”PLOS One8(5):e63507. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063507.
83.
WardeAlanWrightDavidGayo-CalModesto. 2008. “The Omnivorous Orientation in the UK.”Poetics36(2–3):148–65.
84.
WiddowsDominic. 2004. Geometry and Meaning. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
WryTylerLounsburyMichaelJenningsP. Devereaux. 2013. “Hybrid Vigor: Securing Venture Capital by Spanning Categories in Nanotechnology.”Academy of Management Journal57(5):1309–33.
87.
ZerubavelEviatar. 1997. Social Mindscapes: An Invitation to Cognitive Sociology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
88.
ZolbergAristide R.WoonLong Litt. 1999. “Why Islam Is Like Spanish: Cultural Incorporation in Europe and the United States.”Politics & Society27(1):5–38.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
