Assessment of a Socio-Cultural Product Quality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31866/2709-846X.2.2022.267542Keywords:
institution, socio-cultural product, quality assessment, consumer behavior, conceptual ideas, causal structure of the objectAbstract
Introduction. Every day, the vast majority of society members are active consumers of various types of socio-cultural products. This gives a significant impetus to the more progressive development of the socio-cultural sphere and the need to improve the quality of its products. The question of how exactly to measure and analyze the consumer's perception of the quality of a certain socio-cultural product is relevant. To understand how a consumer evaluates the quality of a certain socio-cultural product, first of all, it is necessary to discover how he builds his own logical judgments about this product. Purpose and methods. The purpose of the article is to study the characteristics that determine consumers' conclusions about the quality of a socio-cultural product, regardless of whether they do it directly or indirectly. The research methodology consists of the application of system-functional and system-structural analysis as the theoretical basis of this study, which precisely allows the revealing of the relationship between these characteristics. Results. Determining the causal structure of the conceptual representation of a socio-cultural product – a park of culture and recreation, making it possible to reveal a clear relationship between the nature of the property, its causal status, accessibility for understanding, and its significance. The nature of the property determines its place in the system of relationships. Structural properties have the obvious status of a cause, procedural properties determine the obvious status of an effect, and an impression is an impression and a point of convergence of several relationships. Conclusions. The presented research results convincingly prove the applicability of theoretically grounded casual models of socio-cultural analysis both at the level of fundamental research and in applied fields.
References
Ahn, W. -K. (1998). Why are Different Feature Central for Natural Kinds and Artifacts?: The Role of Causal Status in Determining Feature Centrality. Cognition, 69(2), 135-178, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00063-8.
Ahn, W.-K., & Kim, N. S. (2000). The Causal Status Effect in Categorization: An Overview. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (D. L. Medin, Ed.). (Vol. 40). San Diego: Academic Press, 23-65, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(00)80017-1.
Ahn, W.-K., Kalish, C. W., Medin, D. L., & Gelman, S. A. (1995). The Role of Covariation Versus Mechanism Information in Casual Attribution. Cognition, 54(3), 299-352, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00640-7.
Ahn, W.-K., Marsh, J. K., Luhmann, C. C., & Lee, K. (2002). Effect of Theory-Based Feature Correlations on Typically Judgements. Memory & Cognition, 30(1), 107-118, doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195270.
Barton, M. E., & Komatsu, L. K. (1989). Defining Features of Natural Kinds and Artifacts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(5), 433-447, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067309.
Bloom, P. (1996). Intention, History and Artifact Concepts. Cognition, 60(1), 1-29, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00699-0.
Bloom, P. (1998). Theories and Artifact Categorization. Cognition, 66(1), 87-93, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00003-1.
Chaigneau, S. E., Barsalou, L. W., & Sloman, S. A. (2004). Assessing the Causal Structure of Function. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(4), 601-625, doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.601.
Chapman, L. G., & Chapman, J. P. (1967). Genesis of Popular but Erroneous Psychodiagnostic Observations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 72(3), 193-204, doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024670.
Cheng, P. W. (1997). From Covariation to Causation: A Causal Power Theory. Psychological Review, 104(2), 367-405, doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.367.
Cordier, F., & Tijus, C. (2001). Object Properties: A Typology. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive / Current Psychology of Cognition, 20(6), 445-472.
Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). Structure and Strength in Causal Induction. Cognitive Psychology, 51(4), 334-384, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.05.004.
Halen, C. van, & Janssen, J. (2004). The Usage of Space in Dialogical Self-Construction: From Dante to Cyberspace. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 4(4), 389-405, doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532706xid0404_6.
Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, Kinds and Cognitive Development. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Kelemen, C. D. (1999). The Scope of Teleological Thinking in Preschool Children. Cognition, 70(3), 241-272, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00010-4.
Malt, B. C., & Johnson, E. C. (1992). Do Artifact Concepts Have Cores? Journal of Memory and Language, 31(2), 195-217, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90011-L.
McClelland, J. L., & Rogers, T. T. (2003). The Parallel Distributed Processing Approach to Semantic Cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 310-322, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1076.
Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological Essentialism. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (S. Vosniadou, & A. Ortony, Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 179-195, doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529863.009.
Medin, D. L., Coley, J. D., Storms, G., & Hayes, B. K. (2003). A Relevance Theory of Induction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 517-532, doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196515.
Novick, L. R., & Cheng, P. W. (2004). Assessing Interactive Causal Influence. Psychological Review, 111(2), 455-485, doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.455.
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rehder, B., & Burnett, R. C. (2005). Feature Inference and the Causal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology, 50(3), 264-314, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.09.002.
Rehder, B., & Hastie, R. (2001). Casual Knowledge and Categories: The Effects of Causal Beliefs on Categorization, Induction, and Similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(3), 323-360, doi: https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.130.3.323.
Rehder, B., & Hastie, R. (2004). Category Coherence and Category-Based Property Induction. Cognition, 91(2), 113-153, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00167-7.
Rehder, B., & Kim, S. (2006). How Causal Knowledge Affects Classification: A Generative Theory of Categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 32(4), 659-683, doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.659.
Rehder, B., & Murphy, G. L. (2003). A Knowledge-Resonance (KRES) Model of Category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(4), 759-784, doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196543.
Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, Typicality and Categorization. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (S. Vosniadou, & A. Ortony, Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21-59, doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529863.004.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors retain copyrights to the work and at the same time grant the magazine the right to first publish it under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution License, which allows other persons to freely distribute the published work with a mandatory reference to its authors and its first publication.
The author of the published article has the right to distribute information about it and to post references to work in the electronic repository of the institution.
