CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 354Categorization, perception, and languageChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentCultural Differences and Values

Cultural mosaics and mental models of nature

Open access
Bang, Megan, Medin, Douglas L., Atran, Scott·2007·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0706627104PMC PMC1955807
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

For much of their history, the relationship between anthropology and psychology has been well captured by Robert Frost's poem, "Mending Wall," which ends with the ironic line, "good fences make good neighbors." The congenial fence was that anthropology studied what people think and psychology studied how people think. Recent research, however, shows that content and process cannot be neatly segregated, because cultural differences in what people think affect how people think. To achieve a deeper understanding of the relation between process and content, research must integrate the methodological insights from both anthropology and psychology. We review previous research and describe new studies in the domain of folk biology which examine the cognitive consequences of different conceptualizations of nature and the place of humans within it. The focus is on cultural differences in framework theories (epistemological orientations) among Native Americans (Menominee) and European American children and adults living in close proximity in rural Wisconsin. Our results show that epistemological orientations affect memory organization, ecological reasoning, and the perceived role of humans in nature. This research also demonstrates that cultural differences in framework theories have implications for understanding intergroup conflict over natural resources and are relevant to efforts to improve science learning, especially among Native American children.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0706627104

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Language holds, in its grammar, different logics (epistemological orientations) through which language holders are constrained to think.

    “Language holds, in its grammar, di ff erent logics (epistemological orientations) through which the language holders are constrained to think (Bang et al., 2007).”

    From Creating third spaces in K-12 socio-environmental education through indigenous languages: a case study (2024) · cites this paper as Bang et al., 2007

    The discussion of framework theories (indexed as Abstract; page unavailable) says epistemological orientations constrain cognition, and the Conclusions say they shape which inferences seem plausible. But the paper attributes these effects to cultural frameworks and mental models, not to logics held in a language’s grammar; searches for “grammar” and “language” found no support for that part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Some groups, such as Menominee Native Americans, are more likely to view humans as a part of nature and feel psychologically closer to nature compared to other groups, such as European Americans, even at relatively early stages in development.

    “In addition, researchers have found that some groups (e.g., Menominee Native Americans) are more likely to view humans as a part of nature and feel psychologically closer to nature compared to other groups (e.g., European Americans), even at relatively early stages in development (e.g., Bang et al., 2007; Unsworth et al., 2012).”

    From The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis (2014) · cites this paper as Bang et al., 2007

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. [3]Shweder RA. Thinking Through Culture: Expeditions in Cultural Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Press; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  2. [5]Saxe GB, Esmonde I. Mind Culture Activity. 2005;12(3 and 4):171–225. [Google Scholar]
  3. [7]Hong Y, Morris M, Chiu C, Benet-Martinez V. Am Psychol. 2000;55:709–820. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.7.709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  4. [15]Hall P, Pecore M. Case Study: Menominee Tribal Enterprises. Madison, WI: Institute for Environmental Studies and the Land Tenure Center; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  5. [17]Ross N, Medin DL, Coley JD, Atran S. Cognit Devel. 2003;18:25–47. [Google Scholar]
  6. [18]Atran S, Medin DL, Ross N. J R Anthropol Inst. 2004;10(2):395–420. [Google Scholar]
  7. [19]Medin D, Ross NO, Atran S, Burnett RC, Blok S. Psychol Learn Motiv. 2002;41:1–41. [Google Scholar]
  8. [21]Romney AK, Weller SC, Batchelder WH. Am Anthropol. 1986;88:318–338. [Google Scholar]
  9. [23]Weller S. Am Behav Sci. 1987;31:178–193. [Google Scholar]
  10. [24]Boster JS. Am Anthropol. 1986;3:381–399. [Google Scholar]
  11. [25]Coley JD. Child Dev. 1995;66:1856–1874. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. [26]López A, Atran S, Coley JD, Medin DL, Smith EE. Cog Psy. 1997;32:251–295. [Google Scholar]
  13. [29]Liberman N, Trope Y, Macrae S, Sherman S. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2007;43(1):143–149. [Google Scholar]
  14. [33]Medin D, Ross N, Cox D, Atran S. Hum Ecol. 2007;35(3):315–329. [Google Scholar]
  15. [34]National Science Foundation. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2007 (NSF Publication No. 07–315) Arlington, VA: NSF Division of Science Resources Statistics; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  16. [35]Pavel DM, Curtin TR, Whitener SD. Equity Excell Educat. 1998;31:48–54. [Google Scholar]
  17. [36]Lee CD. Am Educ Res J. 2001;38:97–141. [Google Scholar]
  18. [37]Warren B, Ballenger C, Ogonowski M, Rosebery AS, Hudicourt-Barnes J. J Res Sci Teach. 2001;38:529–552. [Google Scholar]
  19. [38]Gutierrez K, Rogoff B. Educ Res. 1993;32(5):19–25. [Google Scholar]
  20. [39]Atran S, Medin D, Ross N, Lynch E, Vapnarsky V, Ek' EU, Coley J, Timura C, Baran M. Curr Anthropol. 2002;43:421–450. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bang, M., Medin, D. L., & Atran, S.
Affiliations
  • *TERC, Cambridge, MA 02140;
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique-CREA, 1 Rue Descartes, 75005 Paris, France;
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2007-08-28
Volume
104
Issue
35
Pages
13868-13874
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0706627104
PMC
PMC1955807
OpenAlex
W2064857412
Cited by
353
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 19
FWCI
2.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD41653, R01HD041653)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
Keywords
folk biology, framework theory, epistemological orientations, cultural cognition, cultural differences in cognition, Menominee, Native American children, memory organization, human role in nature, science learning
MeSH terms
Adult, Animals, Child, Cognition, Culture, Fishes, Humans, Learning, Memory, Models, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review