Article

Culture & Psychology

2017,Vol. 0(0)
The construction of icons ©2017
Reprints and permissions:
as a means of access to sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354067X17721860

the social representation cap.sagepub.com

of culture
Ida Galli, Roberto Fasanelli, and Emanuele Schember
Universita degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to identify the structural elements—and their interrela-
tions—of social representations of culture, circulating among university students. This
approach has been employed by many researchers to provide a first level of explora-
tion in terms of descriptions, evaluations, information, and prototypes related to the
object of representation. The aim is also to explore if these social representations are
different, starting from specific variables, mainly data production context and gender.
The sample is made of 620 students (average age of 22) balanced on gender and disci-
pline (physical sciences and engineering, social sciences and humanities, life sciences).
We chose a quali-quantitative approach using an ad hoc questionnaire based on the
Prototypical Stimuli. In particular, we asked the participants to choose from 18 social
constructed (in a pilot study) icons of culture, the five prototypical ones. Then we
asked them to write an explanation on the choice of each icon they selected and in the
end to classify those icons in order of importance. The collected data were analyzed
using the Hierarchical Evocations Technique. Results show the existence of hegemonic
representations of culture, shared by all the participants. The theoretical and method-
ological implications will be presented and discussed.

Keywords
Culture, structural approach, Prototypical Stimuli, mixed methods, social representa-
tions theory.

Corresponding author:
Corresponding author: Ida Galli, Universita degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Vico Monte della Pietà, 1 Napoli,
Napoli 80138, Italy.
Email: idagalli@unina.it
2 Culture & Psychology 0(0)

Introduction
Culture has been one of the most difficult, yet richly connotative concepts, to define. As
a result, there are varied definitions of the word. For the purposes of this study, we high-
light a few of the most popular definitions. Gudykunst and Kim (1992, p. 13), conceived
culture as “systems of knowledge shared by a relatively large group of people.” Levine,
Park, and Kim (2007, p. 206), defined it simply as “something that is shared among peo-
ple belonging to the same socially defined and recognized group.”
The conception of culture that inspired this work is based on Geertz’s (1998, p. 141),
famous definition, according to which culture is “a structure of meanings transmitted his-
torically, embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic
forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate and develop their knowledge
and their attitudes toward life.” In this perspective, culture implies both the concept of
interrelation as well as that of social construction. It does not identify an original system;
essential, immutable, like Durkheim (1973) intended, but instead a set of processes that
are fluctuating, dynamic, and unstable, closer to Moscovici’s (1961) positions. Culture,
therefore, is expressed in symbolic form:

The concept of culture [...] is essentially a semiotic concept. Taking the view, along with
Weber, that man is an animal caught in the nets of meanings which he himself has spun
[…] culture consists of those networks and that therefore their analysis is not primarily an
experimental science in search of laws but an interpretative science in search of meaning
(Fabietti, 2004, p. 7; translation from Italian is our own).

Culture is a system of meanings represented by symbols that allows human beings to

relate to their environment. In other words, we consider culture as a dynamic system of
social representations. Just as social representations are modeled on “the variation and
the diversity of collective ideas in modern societies” (Moscovici & Duveen, 2000, p. 8),
in the same way, culture makes us who we are as human beings. It is a complex whole,
which includes our knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, law, customs, i.e. all the social rep-
resentations and related social practices, acquired by every member of a specific group,
or society.
As stated by de Rosa and Farr (2001, p. 2):

If within the human species, the word is a privileged channel for defining, objectifying and
constructing reality, nevertheless reality cannot be exclusively defined by means of the
word: images, sounds, conducts, rites […] are other ways of generating and communicating
‘multiform’ aspects (not necessarily complementary and, in some cases, antagonistic) of
social representations.

In reflecting upon the relationship between images and collective beliefs, Moliner
(2008), inspired by Moscovici (1961), studied the role of icons as identifying instru-
ments of social representation, and stated that iconography must be considered as a
source, means, and product of a representation. According to Moliner, when we take an
Culture & Psychology  3

interest in the image of a social object, we are interested in what the individuals have per-
ceived about this object, the ways they have interpreted these perceptions, and what they
think about them. That is why “the notion of an image as a phenomenon of collective
opinion cannot be extraneous to the notions of visual image, mental image and symbolic
image.” (Moliner, 1996, p. 111). Therefore, as it is, it must necessarily be part of that
small nucleus of elements that gives rise to any social representation.
For these reasons, the theoretical–methodological perspective chosen for this study
considers:

[…] culture as the totality of forms of semiotic mediations and their associated practices
available within a community […]. Culture, then, can be taken as referring to a broader
network of representations held together as an organized whole by a community. Social
representations, in this sense, can be seen as particular cultural forms, and the analysis of
social representations will always refer back in some way to the cultural context in which
they take shape. (Duveen, 2007, pp. 544–545).

The theory of social representations, in other words, as Moliner and Guimelli (2015)
suggest, allows us to understand why and how we think about the world surrounding us,
starting from the place we have in it.
The relationships between culture and social representations are studied in depth by
many social psychologists. On the contrary, contributions which consider culture as an
object of social representation are very rare, with the exception of that of Larrue (1972).
To paraphrase Abric (1998), in effect, it is possible to affirm that culture has all of the
characteristics of being an object of social representation, in that it is socially relevant, it
is made up of material for social exchange, it is not isolated, but it is inscribed in a con-
stellation of relations with other social objects and, in the end, refers to rules and values
which are strictly connected to it.
In one of his recent contributions, Psaltis (2012)—discusses the problem of the rei-
fication of culture by making reference to recent developments in the field of social
representations and social developmental psychology and criticizes the Jahoda’s
(2012) definition of culture delineating how an implicitly reified entity, immutable and
homogeneous is more similar to Durkheim’s ideas of collective representation than to
Mosocovici’s ideas of social representation. A static and reified vision of culture, in any
case, would contrast with the heterogeneity of our times. As Moghaddam (2012) points
out, already in the 1960s, Moscovici underlined the emergence of political, philosophi-
cal, religious, and artistic practices which were absolutely heterogeneous. According to
Duveen (2007), the tendency toward change and the transformation of culture, which
he associates with the construct of social representation, is irrevocably linked to the
asymmetries of status and power between individuals and groups in society. Culture
is of crucial importance to our lives, both in the public and in the private sphere. We
attribute to this a very important function of contextual connotation, as has already been
demonstrated, by simply associating any noun or adjective to the word “culture” to give
it symbolic value.
But what do lay people mean when they talk about culture?
4 Culture & Psychology 0(0)

To answer this question, over the past several years, we have conducted a series of
quali-quantitative research projects, in order to study the social representation of culture
(Schember, Tuselli, Fasanelli, & Galli, 2015).
In particular, we initially investigated what children think about culture, carrying out
a pilot study on 138 Neapolitans pupils. The main purpose was to explore the influ-
ence of participants’ status differences on their representation of the object. The research
methodology was based on the drawing technique, considered to be one of the best tools
for interviewing developmental-age participants in the social representations’ frame-
work (Galli, Nigro, & Poderico, 1989; Galli & Fasanelli, 1995). Participants were asked
“to draw culture,” then to comment on their drawings and in the end to define culture.
Data were processed by a categorical-frequency content analysis. Results showed both
convergent and divergent representations among the different economic status subsa-
mples. On the one hand, iconographic identification of culture (as “school/teaching”
actions) was similar for all the children involved in the study; on the other hand, the
definition of culture was different between the two subsamples involved in the study
(mid-high economic status and mid-low economic status). Wealthy participants showed
a social representation of culture focused on the classic role of the artist and the art, while
the disadvantaged ones showed a culture representation based on the folk costumes and
traditions.
Starting from the same theoretical framework, in another study two different groups
of early students (N = 161) were asked to freely indicate the five words they thought best
described culture; to justify the words they chose and to classify those words in order
of importance. Collected data were analyzed by the Hierarchical Evocations Technique
(Vergès, 1992). The results showed that participants from the mid-low context school
shared a social representation of culture based on the school system and on learning
practices. On the other hand, the participants from the mid-high context made their
social representation of culture starting from the role of “intelligence” and “study.” For
them, “intelligence” was a necessary requisite for access to the culture and “study” was
the main tool for acquisition of culture.

Study aims
The purpose of this study is to identify the central core and peripheral elements of social
representations of culture (Abric, 1994a; Flament, 1989) co-constructed and circulating
among University of Naples “Federico II” students.
The aim is also to explore if these social representations are different, according to
data production context (course enrollment, departmental disciplines, territorial place-
ment, and architectural structures) and gender. Doise (1992, as cited in Spini and Doise
(1998, pp. 604–605):

“[…] has described three ways of analysing social anchoring. The psychological analysis
corresponds to anchoring individual positioning in attitudes or value choices studied at
an individual level. Psychosociological analysis of anchoring is linked to the way people
Culture & Psychology  5

Table 1. Semantic areas that characterize the icons.

Icon identifier Content

A references to books, libraries, and reading

B globalization, internationalization, and cultural relations
C theater and different types of performances
D the web, the internet, and all the relations which come from it (software)
E newspapers and information from the press
F popular traditions, local festivals, and folkloristic events
G mass media, television in particular
H forms of writing
I Music
L visual arts, especially painting
M references to religion
N sports activities
O science and scientific research
P national identity and flag
Q politics and representative organizations
R new technologies and computers (hardware)
S school and instruction
T food, in all of its multiform expressions

perceive the social relations among social groups and more generally the social structure.
Lastly, the sociological analysis refers to the specific belonging of individuals to groups and
to their shared social relations and experiences. The effects of social economic status, of
political or religious affiliations and of cultural differences can be analysed at this level.”

We considered that participants’ class attendance in courses based on different episte-

mologies and methods (i.e. life sciences versus human sciences), located in different
university buildings and urban contexts (i.e. historical versus modern) would explain
their social anchoring.

Research design
In the study presented here, we chose to explore the social representations of culture
through the “iconographical stimuli” technique, in keeping with the constant stripping
down that complex images have undergone in recent years and the ensuing transforma-
tion of the myriad of icons found on our devices which now serve to identify and sum-
marize objects, processes, and emotions.
In a preliminary study, carried out with the specific intention of constructing the ques-
tionnaire used here, 20 participants were asked to provide 10 icons which represented
culture from their point of view. The resulting 200 icons were then categorized into 18
semantic areas, listed in the Table 1.
6 Culture & Psychology 0(0)

Figure 1. Iconographical stimuli.

These participants —aged 23–27 years and gender balanced— were students enrolled
in university courses. They were recruited for a research study regarding students’ images
of culture by direct approach. Participants were not compensated for their collaboration.
The same participants were then asked to eliminate all of the polysemic, duplicated, or
strongly similar images, and finally, to choose the icon that best represented each of the
18 identified semantic areas. The result of this selection (Figure 1), which was made
when at least 70% of the participants1 agreed upon the same icon, was randomized and
integrated into a questionnaire. The questionnaire was made ad hoc for this research and
administered to a sample of 620 students (median age 22.09, standard deviation 2.67),
balanced by gender and the discipline studied.2
Specifically, a quali-quantitative approach was chosen3 using a tool inspired by the
technique called Prototypical Stimuli (Galli, 2008; Galli & Nigro, 1989). In other words,
the participants were asked to choose what they considered to be the five most important
icons from among the 18 culture icons presented, to motivate their choices in writing
and to list the icons in order of importance. (Figure 1). Participants instructions were:
(1) “Nowadays people often talk about culture. Among the following images, choose the
first 5 which you believe best represents your idea of culture, by using the alphabetical
identifier;” (2) “You’ve chosen the image marked by the letter ×. Could you explain why
by writing a short sentence?”; and (3) “Now rank the 5 images youchose, in decreasing
order from most important to least important.”
Although these pictures all have iconic components, they do not all have the same
cognitive origin, or same semiotic kind. To the contrary, their purposes and functions
are relatively autonomous. It is important to distinguish and understand them, in order
to avoid confusion that harm their operation, in terms of production, as well as of
Culture & Psychology  7

interpretation. Darras (1998), in his comparative study of figurative thought and visual
thinking, proposed a taxonomy which appeared to be particularly useful in classifying
the images produced by the respondents. In fact, the icons selected by the participants
in the study perfectly fit the four types of images proposed by the author. So, we found
simile images (such as icons A and E), which offer a realistic representation of the object;
schema images (such as icons M and O), which represent one or more characteristics
similar to the object and evoke some of its parts without it being necessary to put together
all the characterizing details; iconotype-images (such as icons P and T), typical of the
object, which result in the repeated and recognized use of a given schema; and finally,
pictogram images (such as icons D and I), coincident with iconotypes validated by a
community of users (Darras, 1998, p. 92). These consistently represent the figurative
characteristics of the object, therefore identifying the sociological or cultural specificity
of the individuals. We must add that the objects represented through schema, iconotypes,
and pictograms do not necessarily belong to the visibly perceptible physical world. This
is true, for example, in the graphic representation of a process (the steps in the transfor-
mation of a product), of a system of relations (an organigram), or of a phenomenon (the
evolution of a wind dynamics). In any case, the schema remains the only possible way to
reproduce an image of the object, as it would be difficult to produce an analogical image
(a simile according to the terminology of Darras) (Moliner, 2016).
The objective of the study we are presenting here was precisely to explore the social
representation of culture using situated images in a process of communication. Some
of these have no analogous relationship with their object, because they are symbolic
images, which depict one thing and signify something else. Contrary to pictograms,
whose relationship with the object merges with the consensual recognition of some figu-
rative forms, the meaning of a symbolic image derives from a system of correspondences,
which goes well beyond the realm of mere depiction. “In other words, the images are
translated and selected by different individuals from those to whom they are intended”
(Moliner, 2016, p.14).

Results and discussion

Do groups of students who attend courses in completely different subjects produce rep-
resentations of culture which are also different? This specific research question guided
the entire empirical process described here.
Studying a social representation, in the structural approach (Abric, 1994b, 2003;
Flament, 1994; Guimelli, 1994; Vergès, 1994, 1995), means, first of all, to find out the
constitutional elements of its structure:

The central core theory has an essential methodological consequence: a social representa-
tion study is, first and foremost, looking for its central core components. Indeed, to know
the content dimension is not enough, it is the organization of this content that gives meaning
to the entire representation. (Abric, 2003, p. 60; translation from French is our own)
8 Culture & Psychology 0(0)

The theory of central and peripheral systems permits the comparison of groups and iden-
tical contents which may correspond to a totally different symbolic universe and, con-
sequently, imply dissimilar social representations (Fasanelli, Galli, & Sommella, 2005;
Galli, 2003).
In this theoretical framework, it was decided to use the Method of Hierarchized
Evocation (Abric, 2003; Abric & Vergès, 1994; Vergès, 1992; Vergès & Bastounis, 2001)
to attain: (1) the “significant elements” of social representation of culture, defined as
“essential characteristics of the represented object, without which the object is no longer
the same” (Vergès & Bastounis, 2001, p. 21); (2) to identify the position of the elements
in the representation (as central or peripheral); and (3) finally, to better understand ? the
organization of these elements. In its most frequently used version, it consists in a free
association task completed by hierarchization, beginning with an inductor term. This has
the double advantage of amalgamating the frequential dimension of the terms and the
importance the participants attributed to the terms. Indeed, as Abric (2003) remembers,
because of its role in social representation, a central element is very probably frequently
used in the verbal expression of its “producers.” Thus, this frequency represents an indi-
cator of centrality if it is completed by more qualitative information, importance, as
expressed by the attribution of a hierarchy between elements, which the participants are
requested to determine. Only the intersection between these two criteria makes the iden-
tification of constituent or significant elements, possible. This method is useful not only
in eliciting significant elements but also in providing immediately intelligible output
which enables us to better understand how these elements are situated within the organi-
zation of the representation. The instrument chosen for this study consists in a selection/
hierarchization task among a list of icons identified in a previous study. Collected data
were processed by similarity analysis (Flament, 1962; Vergès & Bouriche, 2009) sup-
ported by Simi2005 software. This software tool has the advantage of better illustrating
the organization of significant elements in every representational structure. The analy-
sis consists of an elaborate matrix of similarity starting from the selected index, which
depends on the nature of the relationship among the considered variables. In our case,
the co-occurrences index was used. The output consists of a graph, where the significant
elements of the social representation are shown with different kinds of links (more or
less marked), on the basis of their value and selected threshold. These links express the
relations (and their strength) between structural elements and their networks. The final
graphs were elaborated using the logic of the “arbre maximum,” in order to obtain the
most synthetic information about the clustering elements (Vergès & Bouriche, 2009).
Detailed below are the results of the analysis of similarities conducted on the data
from the questionnaire section dedicated to the selection and hierarchization of icono-
graphic stimuli concerning culture. These data have been integrated using the most rep-
resentative definitions of each icon, chosen among those provided by each participant at
the end of the selection task described above.
Figure 2 refers to the internal structure of the iconographical dimension of the social
representation of culture, as calculated by the female students at the Department of Life
Sciences (LS) at the University of Naples, “Federico II.”4
Culture & Psychology  9

Figure 2. Internal structure of social representation of culture—Female students of life

sciences.

As we can see, the figurative nucleus of this representation revolves around the idea
that “culture is learned through information, as well as through textbooks” (Participant_
E40). After all, in keeping with their educational choices, the participants thought that
“experimentation in a laboratory allows us to give an image and form to knowledge
which, up to now, had previously only been read in books” (Participant_A26). No less
importance has been given to a higher level of education offered by our educational
system: “school and studying provide us with knowledge of contemporary society”
(Participant_E30). Culture, for these participants, can also be found in press commu-
nications, as indicated by one female student (Participant_E38), who underlined their
importance by stating that “newspapers help us to be aware of current events not only
in our area, but also all over the world.” This interest in what is happening outside of
national borders is confirmed by the positions expressed by other participants, such as
(Participant_E28), whodeclared: “Culture is knowing about the world and everything
that is part of it.” References to art are regarded as being equally important: “paintings
are an important form of culture, especially historical artworks” (Participant_A33), along
with music: “thoughts and culture can be expressed with music” (Participant_A29) and
performance: “plays, tragedies, comedies, any form of art can constitute an expression of
culture, intelligence and freedom of choice” (Participant_M36). Food is also considered
worthy of mention: “the art of cooking, helps to discover the thoughts and origins of a
culture” (Participant_C27).
10 Culture & Psychology 0(0)

Figure 3. Internal structure of social representation of culture—Male students of life sciences.

Figure 3 refers to the iconography of culture for students belonging to the School of
Life Sciences (LS) at the same university. In this case as well, the central nucleus is seen
as deriving from books and the transmission of knowledge through written culture; in
fact, one male student (Participant_A03) stated that “reading is a fundamental tool for
the acquisition of culture.” In reference to the role played by science in the processes
of cultural construction of a specific community, another student (Participant_M03)
declared: “all of our knowledge is based on research.” In reference to communication
through printed materials, one participant (Participant_E18) underlined one of its main
functions, stating: “sharing ideas is at the foundation of our lives and it is all a funda-
mental part of our culture.” The icon relative to school and instruction plays a central
role, and according to one student (Participant_C05), “school has a very important role
because it provides the basis for personal culture.”
From a general idea of globalization, which one male student (Participant_E04) said
“represents global culture, intended as the collective values of all of humanity,” we move
to the particular, with a local vision in which one participant said that “at the base of
individual culture there are popular, local and national traditions.” (Participant_M07).
Strongly tied to the icon that recalls the centrality of books and reading, we find all of the
references of the participants to artistic expression, as one student (Participant_L06) says
when he affirms that “art betters the spirit; it is, in itself, culture.” Although it appears
weaker than the previous examples, in the following graph we can deduce the existence
of a link between this last icon and the one which identifies all references to religion, as
well as the one denoting food and all of its multiform expressions.
Culture & Psychology  11

Figure 4 makes reference to the structure of social representation of culture of female

students in the “hard” sciences (PE). As can be seen, in this case as well, the centrality of
books is clearly within the nucleus. In the words of a female student (Participant_B31),
“knowledge acquired from books can open your mind and broaden your knowledge.”
Furthermore, for these female participants, “art is one of the privileged forms of culture;
many things in every cultural field can be learned through a painting and its history”
(Participant_B26). Once again, for these participants, information from the printed page
played a particularly meaningful role in the construction of this representation, “in that
it is able to deliver news, to communicate, to give information and therefore to enrich
the culture and interests of the reader” (Participant_F28). These future scientists referred
to the importance of cultural processes in a worldwide context: “culture is global, every
country has its culture, knowledge is universal, and it belongs to everyone.” (Participant_
B24). In relation to science and scientific research, the position of participants can be
summarized by a respondent (Participant_F38), when she affirmed that “knowledge of
science is the way to understand the reality in which we live.” Music was considered
particularly representative of culture, as one female student (Participant_I31) affirmed:
“Music is a fundamental part of the culture of every population, because it characterizes
and conditions life.” Popular traditions are given the same level of importance, as a stu-
dent (Participant_N26) emphasized: “Every population has its, culture, its own charac-
teristics; this is what gives it an identity, and a history.” For this group of female students,
school and education are central to their way of seeing culture, and they interpret “school
as a place for learning ideas and for personal cultural growth" (Participant_N32). One
student said that “the theater is the place that most represents a transmission of culture”
(Participant_B26), referring to the related icon. Finally, “one of the aspects of culture is
food, which is handed down through the centuries as the true basis and pride of a people”
(Participant_I27).
Figure 5, in reference to the iconic aspects of social representation of the culture of
male students in hard sciences (PE), confirms the centrality of books, which “represent
archives of knowledge” (Participant_F05). Much in the same manner as their female
colleagues, for them, most of the co-occurrences connect books to the visual arts, in that
“knowledge of art is an indispensable prerequisite for a cultured person” (Participant_
F11) and music, which was considered “the primary means of sharing personal ideas
and culture” (Participant_I06). The importance of the education system and scientific
research were repeated through affirmations such as “schools should provide the knowl-
edge for a good cultural foundation” (Participant_I10) and “scientific culture is what
brings progress” (Participant_F03). The spread of culture by means of the printed page
was effectively referred to by one student (Participant_H20), who stated: “information
is the fundamental principle of everyday life, even of the participation in the politi-
cal life, of a region, a country, and its people.” Folkloristic events are also important,
so much so that participant N12 affirmed: “the culture of a populace is also contained
in its popular traditions.” The impossibility of considering culture as a uniquely local
social fact was pointed out by a male student (Participant_N19), who believed that glo-
balization consisted in “knowing how to communicate with different cultures.” Unlike
previously described configurations, students from mathematical-engineering sciences
12 Culture & Psychology 0(0)

Figure 4. Internal structure of social representation of culture—Female students of physics,

engineering, etc.

logically included references to new technologies and computers, as one participant said
(Participant_N15) “technology helps enrich your own culture.”
The results of the analysis conducted regarding the similarities found in the answers
provided by the female students of Human and Social Sciences (SH) is summarized in
Figure 6. It is evident here that books always attract the other elements contained in the
nucleus of social representation of culture, and that “books are always at the heart of
knowledge” (Participant_O21). The strongest tie within the following configuration is
between books and newspapers; the latter, in fact, are considered “a means of communi-
cation that can enrich culture” (Participant_D22). An important role is played by the icon
related to the relationship between cultures in a worldwide context, as one female stu-
dent wrote (Participant_R24): “Culture allows knowledge and the peaceful acceptance of
diversity of people from different cultures living together.” The other central idea is that
“art contains and represents culture in time” (Participant_O04). Furthermore, for these
young women, “culture is identified as all of the typical traditions of a people, which
describe their specific characteristics” (Participant_D25). Finally, formative institution
and scientific research are considered key points in the conception of culture for these
participants, as was evident in some of their statements: “School and university allow
us to raise our cultural level” (Participant_O27); "science and research are important for
our culture, and are necessary tools for the growth of our country” (Participant_O23).
As can be observed in the final figure (Figure 7), relative to male students of Human
and Social Sciences (SH), the center of the configuration is monopolized by books. As
Culture & Psychology  13

Figure 5. Internal structure of social representation of culture—Male students of physics,

engineering, etc.

one student (Participant_D01) wrote: “we acquire culture in books, especially at school
and even more so at university”. An important position in the structure of the representa-
tion of culture is held by the icon of press communication. In fact, one student affirms that
“information, a cornerstone of culture before the development of the internet, had always
been transmitted in print; historically, newspapers have provided rapid dissemination (to
all of the social classes) of what was happening in the world.” (Participant_G03). Art is
also considered important by these participants, for whom it “is mirrors the culture and
the value system of the historical period in which it is produced,” (Participant_R14).
Moreover, for these students, “without education, culture does not exist, without study-
ing, there can be no cultural growth" (R04). Especially for the students of Human and
Social Sciences, “culture means being open to integration and knowledge of a wide vari-
ety of subjects” (Participant_R13). Finally, for these young people, music plays a crucial
role, because “it teaches a lot from the point of view of culture and because, through it,
you can communicate or even teach lessons” (Participant_D02).
Obtained results, contrary to what was expected, demonstrated an extreme coherence
in the studied representations that we can reconstruct—just in terms of data descrip-
tion—in the following way.
Female students of LS share the idea that culture is learned through information con-
tained in books that also give an image and a form to knowledge even the one useful to
14 Culture & Psychology 0(0)

Figure 6. Internal structure of social representation of culture—Female students of human and

social sciences.

laboratory experimentation. School and study provide knowledge, while mass media and

Figure 7. Internal structure of social representation of culture—Male students of human and

social sciences.
Culture & Psychology  15

newspapers, in particular, help us to be informed of global events. Arts are an important

form of culture, especially historical artifacts, as well as music and theatre. Food is con-
sidered a manner in which to unveil the thoughts and origins of a specific culture.
Naïve theory on culture co-constructed and shared by male students of LS affirmed
that reading books is a fundamental tool for the acquisition of culture and all of our
knowledge is based on research. Newspapers and media communication are at the foun-
dation of our lives and of our culture. School has a very important role because it pro-
vides the basis for personal culture. Culture is global, because values of all of humanity
are globalized, even if popular, local and national traditions are at the base of individual
culture. Art is, in itself, culture. Religion, as well as all multiform expressions of food,
are also manifestations of culture.
Female students in PE sciences thought that knowledge acquired from books could
an open our minds. Art is one of the privileged forms of culture. Information from the
printed page enriches the culture and interests of the reader. Culture is global, universal,
it belongs to everyone. Scientific knowledge makes it possible to understand reality.
Music characterizes and conditions the lives of Popular traditions give people their iden-
tity and their history. School and education are crucial for cultural growth. Theater is the
place that most represents the transmission of culture. Food is one of the main aspects of
culture and a substantial basis for social identity.
Male students in the same sciences (PE), consider books to be archives of knowledge.
Art awareness is an indispensable prerequisite for a cultured person and music is con-
sidered the main channel to share personal ideas. Knowledge arises from the educational
system and scientific research. Information essentially spread by printed page is crucial
for everyday life. Popular culture is contained in its popular traditions. Globalization
consists in dialog between different cultures. New technologies and computers help to
enrich our own culture.
Female students in SH build their social representation starting from books and news-
papers, considered as the main instruments to improve one’s own cultural level. For
these young women, culture promotes acceptance of social, ethnical, and gender diver-
sity. Artistic events are the temporal storage of culture, and traditional happenings return
the specificity of a people. Finally, formative institution and scientific research are con-
sidered the key tools for growth of a country.
Male students in SH, as all the other research participants, consider books to be a
useful instrument for acquiring culture. Despite the development of the internet, press
communications bear witness to what happens in the world. Art is also considered to
be important for these students. In their opinion, only study can ensure cultural growth.
Therefore, only culture can contrast all forms of social discrimination and intolerance.
Music is considered one of the main tools for transmitting cultural contents.

Conclusions
As we have seen, the central nucleus of the representations produced by the six subsa-
mples of interviewed students, drew their origins and therefore their stability from the
16 Culture & Psychology 0(0)

importance of the knowledge contained in and conveyed through books. Such an overlap
and unequivocality would even lead us to study the nature of these social materials using
Durkheim’s (1973) idea of collective representation: something stable, widespread and
immutable, which dominates the communicative act of its own producers. In reality,
according to Moscovici (1988), the characteristics just described are one of the main
ways through which representations become social: we are referring to “hegemonic
representations,” which are shared by all members of a highly structured group, with-
out necessarily having been produced by the same group. Moreover, the central role of
books and writing is not surprising, if we remember that the history of books is identified
with the history of humanity. This has always been one of the fundamental components
of, and often a determining factor in, the development and the affirmation of culture at
all times, at all levels. Books assume and play a role of primary importance, in that they
are the obligatory passage through which the cultural patrimony of humanity is dissem-
inated and developed. If our entire life is a dialog, the beginning of a series of conver-
sations, and a form of communication, then books are the medium of dialog between all
persons, across all latitudes (Caterino, 1963).
The centrality of books in human history justifies their centrality in the social rep-
resentation of culture. This is also clarified by Moscovici (1984, p. 7) when he affirms:

Thus, it is easy to see why the representation which we have of something is not directly
related to our manner of thinking but, conversely, why our manner of thinking, and what
have not, a given representation. I mean that they are forced upon us, transmitted and are
the product of a whole sequence of elaborations and of changes which occur in the course
of time and are the achievement of successive generations. All the system of classification,
all the images and the descriptions which circulate within a society, even the scientific ones,
imply a link with previous system and images, a stratification in the collective memory and
a reproduction in the language, which invariably reflect past knowledge, and which breaks
the bounds of current information.

Although it may not appear surprising that books are at the center of the representational
structures of culture shared by the young people participating in this study, the margin-
ality of references to computer and new technologies, as well as the web, is certainly
a surprise. Despite the fact that the entire sphere of information is being transformed
from analogical to digital forms, the persisting tendency on the part of the participants
to identify the world of culture with the universe of books, clearly stands out. Their
material nature seems to continue to play an ineluctable role which contrasts with the
progressively growing affirmation of the process of digitalization and reveals an unex-
pected resistance to the conversion of atoms into bits. In other words, a reluctance to
that operation of virtualization, the shift of the center of gravity of ontological objects
that undergo an identity change. For example, a scanned photo, stored in the hard disk
of a computer in the form of bytes, continues to occupy a real space, but change its
coordinates becoming fluid and light (De Feo, 2013; Lévy, 1997; Negroponte, 1995).
The exchange between tradition and innovation is ongoing and establishes a constant
dialog between old and new frontiers, which is probably a sign of the coherence of
Culture & Psychology  17

the relationship between daily life and its empowerment, which progresses despite the
fractures caused by new forms of media with respect to former tools of communication.
It would be interesting to see whether the centrality of books, in the representations
of the culture circulating in a specific context, also finds confirmation in societies where
verbal transmission of knowledge is predominant, or in illiterate social groups. But
this can only be revealed by new studies on the field. The state of knowledge we have
reached at this point of our research, for instance compels us to agree with Umberto Eco
(2000, pp. 274–275),when he affirms:

The book is a miracle of eternal technology, like the wheel, the hammer, the frying pan or
the bicycle […] You can invent a very sophisticated system of gears, but the bicycle remains
the same, two wheels, a seat, and the pedals. Otherwise it would be called a motorbike,
which is another thing. Humanity has gone ahead for centuries, reading and writing first on
rocks, then on tablets, then on scrolls, but it was a laborious job. When it was discovered
that the manuscripts could be bound together, even when they were still written by hand,
people heaved a sigh of relief. And we will never give up this marvelous instrument. The
book-form is determined by our anatomy.

In conclusion, the social representation of culture which was coconstructed by the partic-
ipants in our study is complex and, in some ways, paradoxical. Contrary to expectations,
instead of being tied to new forms of cultural production (the web, the internet, new
media in general) the experience of the idea of culture is still associated with the domi-
nant positions of modernity and with the forms of communication which have character-
ized historical experience, and therefore to symbolic systems which continue to identify
the cultural experience with the book. Coinciding with the very nature of modernity, the
idea of culture that emerges from the representations created by participants in the study
is founded upon the solid connection between books and references to artistic traditions
(in our case, the Mona Lisa icon), and consequently with methods of conservation and
transmission of historical identity. In other words, our participants consider culture as
the result of a sort of “inertia” of elements characterizing previous eras and ideas, even
though they are less and less prominent in daily life. (Abbruzzese, 2015). Nevertheless,
the paradoxical aspect of the question is tempered by a consideration relative to the sense
of transition from one era to the next: due to its sheer “velocity,” social transformation
is constantly being balanced, through a negotiation between old and new, tradition and
innovation, permitting its adaptation in the processes of defining a generational identity.
This is the same reason why we believe that society has not yet exited from 20th-century
cultures and the conflicts, just as many historians have affirmed that the true beginning
of the 20th century did not begin before the (cultural, more than military and political)
catastrophe of the Great War. In the perspective of this inertia which invests the collec-
tive perception of change, the analysis of the results of our research is not paradoxical:
books still constitute the symbolic cornerstone of our culture, also because they are the
objects rooted in the historical identity of a modernity inaugurated by the media revolu-
tion produced by Gutenberg’s invention, a half-century before the discovery of America
18 Culture & Psychology 0(0)

(Brancato, 2014). Books create the conditions for change in a world which has, for a
long time, been defined as the modern age.

Notes
1. According to the proportion of units (%-agreement) with matching categories (Krippendorf,
2004, p. 245).
2. European Research Council (ERC) classification was specifically chosen here, because it dis-
tinguishes between physics, engineering, etc (PE), life sciences (LS), and social sciences and
humanities (SH).
3. As Amaturo and Punziano (2016, p. 13), point out “the strict distinction between spheres of
quantitative knowledge and spheres of qualitative knowledge do not seem to meet the chal-
lenges of a social reality in which events and phenomena are characterized by deep complexity
and changeability.”
4. Owing to space limitations, only a level of co-occurrence equal to or greater than 20% of the
respondents in the description of the results will be taken into consideration for this and for the
following output data.

References
Abbruzzese, A. (2015). Punto zero, il crepuscolo dei barbari. Roma, Italy: Luca Sossella Editore.
Abric, J. _C. (1994). Méthodologie de recueil des représentations sociales. Pratiques sociales et
représentations. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
Abric, J.-C. (1994). Pratiques sociales et représentations. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires
de France.
Abric, J.-C. (1998) L’Etat actuel des travaux sur l’Approche Structurale, Paper presented at the 4th
International Conference on Social Representations, .
Abric, J. C. (2003). Méthodes d’étude des représentations sociales. Toulouse, France: Érès.
Abric, J.-C., & Vergès, P. (1994). La représentation sociale de la banque. Aix-en-Provence, Etudes
et recherches du GIFRESH.
Amaturo, E., & Punziano, G. (2016). I «Mixed Methods» nella ricerca sociale. Roma, Italy:
Carocci.
Brancato, S. (2014). Fantasmi della modernità. Oggetti, luoghi e figure dell’industria culturale.
Caserta, Italy: Ipermedium.
Caterino, A. (1963). La storia del libro e la sua influenza sulla cultura. Retrieved from http://www.
bibliotecaprovinciale.foggia.it/capitanata/1963/1963pdf_parte2Caterino.pdf
Darras, B. (1998). L’image, une vue de l’espirit. Étude comparée de la pensée figurative et de la
pensée visuelle. Recherches en communication, 9, 77–99. http://dx.doi.org/
De Feo, L. (2013). Per un'ermeneutica del cyberspace. Lineamenti storico-filosofici. Napoli, Italy:
ad est dell'equatore.
de Rosa, A. S., & Farr, R. (2001). Icon and Symbol: Two Sides of the Coin in the Investigation of
Social Representations. In Buschini, F., & Kalampalikis, N. (Eds.), Penser la vie, le social, la
nature. Mélanges en hommage à Serge Moscovici (pp. 237–256). Paris, FR: Les Editions de
la MSH, .
Culture & Psychology  19

Durkheim, E. (1973). Le forme elementari della vita religiosa. Milano, Italy: Newton Compton
Italiana.
Duveen, G. (2007). Culture and Social Representations. In Valsiner, J., & Rosa, A. (Eds.), The
Cambridge Handbook of Socio-Cultural Psychology: (pp. 543–559). Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Eco, U. (2000). La bustina di Minerva. Milano, Italy: Bompiani.
Fabietti, U. (2004). Il destino della “cultura” nel “traffico delle culture”. Rassegna Italiana di
Sociologia, XLV, 37–48.
Fasanelli, R., Galli, I., & Sommella, D. (2005). Professione Caregiver. Studio delle relazioni tra
pratiche assistenziali e rappresentazioni sociali della malattia di Alzheimer. Napoli, Italy:
Liguori.
Flament, C. (1962). L’analyse de similitude. Cahiers du centre de recherche opérationnelle, 4,
63–97.
Flament, C. (1989). Structure et dynamique des représentations sociales. In Jodelet, D. (Ed.), Les
Représentations Sociales (pp. 204–219). Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
Flament, C. (1994). Structure, dynamique et transformation des représentation sociales. In
Abric, J.-C. (Ed.), Pratiques sociales et représentations (pp. 37–57). Paris, France: Presses
Universitaires de France.
Galli, I. (2003). Le dimensioni psicosociali della povertà. Un’analisi cross-culturale. Napoli,
Italy: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.
Galli, I. (2008). Del potere e di altri demoni. Napoli: Italy, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.
Galli, I., & Fasanelli, R. (1995). Health and Illness: A contribution to the research in the field of
social representations. Papers on Social Representations, 4, 15–27.
Galli, I., & Nigro, G. (1989). L’uso di stimoli prototipici nello studio delle rappresentazioni sociali.
Psicologia Italiana, 10, 13–20.
Galli, I., Nigro, G., & Poderico, C. (1989). I bambini e il nucleare. Genesi ed evoluzione di una
Rappresentazione Sociale. Milano, Italy: Giuffrè.
Geertz, C. (1998). Interpretazione di culture. Bologna, Italy: il Mulino.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1992). Communicating with strangers: an approach to intercul-
tural communication. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Guimelli, C. (1994). Structures et transformations des représentations sociales. Neuchâtel,
Switzerland: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Jahoda, G. (2012). Critical reflections on some recent definitions of culture. Culture and
Psychology, 18, 289–303. doi:
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage.
Larrue, J. (1972). Représentations de la culture et conduites culturelles. Revue Francaise de
Sociologie, 13, 170–192. doi:
Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., & Kim, R. K. (2007). Some conceptual and theoretical challenges
for cross-cultural communication research in the 21st century. Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research, 36, 205–221.
Lévy, P. (1997). Cyberculture: Rapport au conseil de l’Europe. Paris, France: Odile Jacob.
Moghaddam, F. (2012). The omnicultural imperative. Culture and Psychology, 18, 304–330. doi:
20 Culture & Psychology 0(0)

Moliner, P. (1996). Images et représentations sociales. Grenoble, France: Presses Universitaires

de Grenoble.
Moliner, P. (2008). Représentations sociales et Imagerie Mentale. Communication et Organisation,
34, 13–24. doi:
Moliner, P. (2016). Psychologie sociale de l’image. Grenoble, France: Presses Universitaires de
Grenoble.
Moliner, P., & Guimelli, C. (2015). Les Représentations sociales. Grenoble, France: Presses
Universitaires de Grenoble.
Moscovici, S. (1961). La psychanalyse, son image et son public. Paris, France: Presses
Universitaires de France, .
Moscovici, S. (1984). The Phenomenon of Social Representations. In Farr, R., & Moscovici,
S. (Eds.), Social Representations: (pp. 3–69). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of Social Representations. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 18, 211–250.
Moscovici, S., & Duveen, G. (2000). Social Representations. Explorations in social psychology.
Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Psaltis, C. (2012). Culture and social representations: A continuing dialogue in search for hetero-
geneity. Culture and Psychology, 18, 375–390. doi:
Schember, E., Tuselli, A., Fasanelli, R., & Galli, I. (2015). The internal structure of the social rep-
resentation of culture: An empirical contribution. IJASOS-International E-journal of Advances
in Social Sciences, 1, 174–179. doi:
Spini, D., & Doise, W. (1998). Organizing principles of involvement in human rights and their
social anchoring in value priorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 603–622.
Vergés, P. (1995). Représentations sociales partagées, périphériques, indifférentes, d’une minorité:
méthodes d’approche. Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 28, 77–95.
Vergès, P. (1992). L’évocation de l’argent. Une méthode pour la définition du noyau central d’une
représentation. Bulletin de Psychologie, 45, 203–209.
Vergès, P. (1994). Approche du noyau central: propriétés quantitatives et structurales.. In Guimelli,
C. (Ed.), (Ed.)Structures et transformations des représentations sociales: (pp. 233–253).
Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Vergès, P., & Bastounis, M. (2001). Toward the investigation of social representations of the econ-
omy: questionnaire methods and techniques. In Roland-Lévy, C., Kirchler, E., Penz, E., &
Gray , C.(Eds.), Everyday Representations of the Economy (pp. 19–48), Wien, Austria: WUV
Universitätverlag.
Vergès, P., & Bouriche, B. (2009). L’analyse des données par les graphes de similitude. Sciences
Humaines. Retrieved from http://www.scienceshumaines.com/textesInedits/Bouriche.pdf

Author Biographies
Ida Galli is associate professor of social psychology at the Department of Social Sciences
of the University of Naples “Federico II” and member of the Teaching Board of the
Ph.D. in social and statistical sciences. She is referee for international journals. She was
Culture & Psychology  21

Directeur d'Etudes Associée at the Maison des Sciences de l'Homme in Paris, where she
directed a lot of international research groups. She is the director of the Mediterranean
Centre for the Study of Social Representations associated with the REMOSCO (Reseau
Mondial Serge Moscovici), as well as member of the Scientific Council of the Inter-
University Centre for Research in Environmental Psychology. She authored scientific
books and more than 90 papers presented at national and international conferences and
published on specialized reviews. Her research interests, in the theoretical framework of
Social Representations, mainly include issues of politic psychology, culture psychology,
health psychology, and environmental psychology.

Roberto Fasanelli (PhD in health psychology, individual and social risk prevention) is
an aggregate professor of social psychology and risk psychology at the Department of
Social Sciences of the University of Naples “Federico II.” He spent periods of work/
study in Paris at the Laboratoire Européen de Psychologie Sociale (Leps) directed by
Serge Moscovici, where he participated in a lot of international research groups. In 2011,
he was visiting professor at the University “Al.I. Cuza” of Iasi, Romania. Currently, he is
scientific coordinator of the Mediterranean Centre for the Study of Social Representations
and member of the Inter-University Centre for Research in Environmental Psychology.
His research interests are social representations, social psychology of health, environ-
mental psychology, political psychology, risk psychology and evaluative research. He is
also a consultant (policy evaluation, needs analysis, community profiling, project man-
agement, etc.) to several authorities and public administrations.

Emanuele Schember is a PhD candidate in social sciences and statistics at the

Department of Social Sciences of the University of Naples “Federico II” where he
obtained a master’s degree in sociology and social research in 2014. He is currently
conducting research on the social representation of culture.