Download Sociology 530 – Fall 2006

Sociology 318 – Spring 2009
Soc Perspectives on Social Psychology (Carr)
Tuesday February 10, 2009
Socialization & Self
I. Socialization
B. What is socialization?
1. Socialization is the life-long process of learning to become human, learning to socially
interact, and learning the rules of society. In the process, individuals learn skills, knowledge,
motives, and roles appropriate to their position in a group or society.
2. The individual is the “learner” or “target.” The “teacher” or socializing agent may
include the family, the peer group, the school system, the media, work colleagues, etc. These are
the people/institutions who teach the individual how to behave in any given role.
3. The learning process, or socialization process occurs over the life course. Although the
basic “lessons” of socialization occur during childhood, individuals are continually learning
about norms and rules guiding their behavior in various settings. The things we learn in the
socialization process are called “outcomes.”
C. Outcomes of socialization - tasks and behaviors that seem almost intuitive or “natural”
are often learned, through the socialization process. We are going to focus two specific
outcomes: gender roles, and moral development/moral reasoning.
1. Gender roles. A gender role is the behavioral expectation associated with one’s gender.
The transmission of gender roles is an important topic, because often the role is not
INTENTIONALLY taught. Rather, subtle cues from parents, teachers, peers and media guide
gender role behavior. This is one area where parents’ influence may be eclipsed by the role of
school, peers, and media. Often parents will say that they raised both boys and girls similarly,
and that when - over time - boys become aggressive and girls become passive - these differences
may blithely be attributed to “human nature” or “biological differences.” An alternative
explanation is that the many agents of socialization may perpetuate traditional gender-role
behavior.
a. Role of parents: Children learn gender-appropriate behaviors by observing their
parents’ interaction. Children also learn by interacting with parents, who reward behavior
consistent with gender roles and punish behavior inconsistent with these standards. However,
parents often send very subtle messages about gender to their children, and often do so
unwittingly.
i. Evidence, babies: Studies of parents interacting with infants show that parents
interact differently with baby boys and girls. A study by Rubin et al. (1974) focused on how
parents interacted with their brand-new (one-day old babies). In this study, the mothers had fed
the babies throughout the day; the fathers had only seen them through the glass window. Parents
were then asked to describe their babies, and were given lists of adjectives that they could choose
from to describe the babies. Both mothers and fathers described their sons as firmer, stronger,
larger featured, better co-ordinated, and more alert. They described their daughters as softer,
weaker, prettier and more inattentive. Importantly, objective measures of the infants showed no
real differences in terms of height, weight, strength, etc. The researchers concluded that parents’
perceptions about appropriate gender characteristics were present from birth, and may well affect
subsequent expectations for both the parents’ and infants’ behaviors.
ii. Evidence, young children: Fargot et al. (1985) studied children 1-1.5 years old.
They found that parents responded differently to the same behaviors, depending on whether the
baby was a boy or girl. Parents paid more attention to girls’ attempts to communicate, and boys’
physically active behavior. When these babies were followed up in play groups more than a year
later, the researchers observed that the girls talked to their teachers more, and the boys were
more physical and assertive. This in part reflects the self-fulfilling prophecy.
MESSAGE: Parents (and teachers, etc.) hold notions about appropriate behavior
for children, and will either intentionally or unintentionally elicit or train those behaviors through
the socialization process.
b. Role of teachers/school system: Teachers may also reward appropriate gender role
behavior; they often reinforce aggressive behavior in boys and passivity in girls. However, the
rewards and punishments delivered need not be INTENTIONAL. Often, subtle messages are
sent, and neither the socializing agent nor target is aware that gender roles are being molded in
the process. That is, schools may teach a hidden curriculum.
i. Evidence: Researchers Myra and David Sadker observed more than 100
classrooms of 4th, 6th, and 8th grade teachers. They systematically recorded (and videotaped) the
behavior of teachers and students, and purposely included white, black, and racially mixed
classrooms. Over all, they argue that the school system and teachers’ treatment of students is one
means through which “traditional” gender roles (i.e., active boys, passive girls) are reinforced.
The specific findings of their research revealed:
a. Gender differences in frequency of teacher-student interaction.
Regardless of the teacher’s sex, male students interact more frequently with their teachers than
females do. Boys receive more instructional time and teacher attention. At first glance, it appears
that this is due to the fact that boys “call out” in class more and elicit teacher attention. However,
even when boys do not call for teachers’ attention, the teachers solicit more answers from them,
according to the Sadkers. Girls were reprimanded more harshly than boys for calling out in class.
“Calling out” presumably violates norms of appropriate gender role behavior for girls.
b. Content of student-teacher interaction varies by gender. Teachers provide more
assistance to boys and more prodding in terms of getting them to reason out their
answers. Teachers were less likely to guide girls through the discovery process. Thus, if
girls are wrong, their answers are “replaced” quickly by the teachers’ correct answer.
Boys, if wrong, are asked prodding or complex questions to get them to eventually say
the right answer.
c. Praise differs for boys and girls. Boys are commended more frequently
for the intellectual quality of their work, while girls are praised for less substantial
things thus as neatness and their physical appearance.
c. Peer group as source of gender role socialization. A peer group is a group where
members have interests, social position and age in common. It is unique from the family and
school because the distribution of power is far more balanced; children can alter norms in the
peer group. Moreover, individuals tend to chose peer groups that are consistent with their
personal tastes and interests.
1. Peer group often sends messages that are discrepant with norms that are
adhered to by the society at large. A study by Adler, Kless and Adler (1992) documents how the
peer group provides an enclave in which boys and girls resist the efforts of parents and schools to
socialize them their way. Nonetheless, the attitudes held by young adults and the beliefs
perpetuated by the peer group often do conform with views of parents and/or teachers. Adler and
colleagues observing children at two schools, and they saw that adolescents separate themselves
by sex and develop their own worlds with unique norms. The characteristics that made boys
popular were athletic ability, coolness, and toughness. For girls, they were family background,
physical appearance (clothing and ability to use makeup), and the ability to attract popular boys.
In this children’s subculture, academic achievement pulled in opposite directions, for boys to do
well academically hurt popularity, while among her peers getting good grades increased a girl’s
standing.
2. Race Socialization
a. Definition. The life-long process through which the social meaning and consequence of
race and racism is transmitted.
b. Outcomes. Black children are typically taught racial consciousness, pride, and in some
cases ways to adapt to race-related obstacles or discrimination. White children are rarely taught
about race, although one study shows that the main aim of racial socialization among white
children is to promote a tolerance for diversity.
c. Why does this happen? Brown (2007) reasons that children are taught about
race/ethnicity to prepare ethnic minority children for membership in a “marginalized” racial
category. Further, families seek to pass down their traditions and customs.
3. Moral Development
a. What is it? Moral development refers to the process through which children become
capable of making moral judgments. If children are to become full members of society, they
must be able to interact with others, and must understand the norms and social rules that govern
interaction. Some would argue further (e.g., Gilligan) that girls and boys manifest “moral
development” in slightly
b. What influences which social norms children will learn?
i. Historical periods (e.g., independence vs. autonomy as valued traits in a child)
ii. Age of child (impacts expectations)
iii. Other characteristics of child (gender, “intelligence” etc.)
c. Specific outcome: Moral judgment: In learning moral judgment, a child learns the
reasons why he/she adheres to social rules; and the criteria used to evaluate others’ actions as
good or bad. Children’s interpretation of moral issues changes as the child matures, and this
knowledge of “right” and “wrong” is learned through interactions with others.
i. Piaget’s early studies. Piaget was among the first to examine how it is that
children develop a “moral code.” He read a set of stories to young children, and in each story the
central character performed an act that violated social rules. In one story, the girl was playing
with scissors and tore her dress. In another, a child accidentally broke one of his parent’s prized
possessions. Piaget then asked the children to describe “how naughty” they thought the character
was, and to explain their reasons for WHY they felt this way. The three dimensions along which
children made moral judgments were: amount of harm/benefit; actor’s intentions; and the
application of agreed upon rules.
ii. Kohlberg’s model of moral development. In his formulation, children develop
more and more complex ways of assessing morality as they mature.
METHOD: He read the following story and had his subjects assess it.
“In Europe, a woman was near death from cancer. One drug might save her, a form of
radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging
$2,000, ten times what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to
everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about half of what it cost.
He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later.
But the druggist said “no.” The husband got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the
drug for his wife. “
Respondents were then asked whether Heinz did the right or wrong thing. Why? What
consequences should result? Based on the responses, Kohlberg developed a multi-stage model of
moral development. Because it is a stage theory, an assumption is that all people pass through
these stages in the same order, and that you cannot progress to a stage until you’ve
“accomplished” each prior stage.
LEVELS:
1. Pre-conventional morality (preschoolers): Moral judgment is based on external,
physical consequences of acts. [INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING, or rewards
and punishments ensure that one behaves morally.]
Stage 1: Obey the rules to avoid punishment
Stage 2: Obey the rules to get rewards
2. Conventional morality (usually achieved by elementary school-age): Moral
judgments are based on social consequences of act.
Stage 3: Conform to the rules that are defined by others’ approval or
disapproval.
Stage 4: Rigid conformity to society’s rules, law-and-order mentality.
Avoid censure for rule breaking. (Most adults spend most of their lives at this stage. Although
most adults are CAPABLE of achieving higher stages, they seldom behave in compliance with
stages 5 & 6, nor do situations often present themselves for people to engage in
“postconventional morality.”)
3. Postconventional morality. Here, a person transcends the rules and laws of
society and instead behaves in accordance with an internal, self-defined set of ethical principles.
Stage 5: More flexible understanding of morality. We obey rules because
they are necessary for social order, but the rules could be changed if there were better
alternatives.
Stage 6: Behavior conforms to internal principles such as equality and
justice. Sometimes behavior may violate society’s rules, yet these same behaviors meet one’s
own moral standards. Kohlberg says that most adults never reach this stage; rather most stay at
Stages 3 & 4 of Level 2, believing in law and order, and conforming to the rules in order to avoid
the disapproval of others.
CRITIQUES OF KOHLBERG
1. Kohlberg’s model is criticized for being sexist. Why?
a. Kohlberg is critiqued for applying to both genders a “male” model of morality. He
argues most males reach stage 4 (rigid conformity to rules) while women reach stage 3 (approval
of others). Feminist psychologist Carol Gilligan reacted by developing her own concept of moral
reasoning. She argues that there are two different gender-based concepts of morality: a morality
of justice and a morality of caring. One is not necessarily “more advanced” than the other; they
are simply different ways of moral reasoning. She believes that the morality of caring applies
more to women’s reasoning; the morality of justice applies more to men’s reasoning.
b. Gilligan also critiqued Kohlberg’s vignettes in that they nearly always had male
subjects. She also noted that his original theory is based on research with boys only.
2. How do people end up being at one stage versus another? Kohlberg’s model is quite vague in
predicting how “far” someone gets in this stage theory.
II. Subgroup differences
A. Cohort/Historical differences.
1. The values that parents try to teach to and instill in their children vary over historical
time period. Up through the first half of the 20th century, parents wanted their children to be
obedient, conformist, and respectful of authority. In the latter half of the 20th century, parents
want their children to be independent, tolerant, and able to think for themselves.
a. Data from the “Middletown” study (a study of social life in an Indiana
town) show that parents in 1978 (and later years) were much more likely than parents in 1924 to
emphasize “independence” and “tolerance” in their children. Parents in 1924 were much more
likely to emphasize “strict obedience” and “loyalty to church.” These patterns suggest that
parents' value and try to teach to their children those attributes that may be necessary to succeed
in school or the workplace in a given social and historical context.
B. Social Class/Educational Differences in Socialization Styles
Baumrind’s Socialization Styles
1. Baumrind argued that social class is closely linked to socialization style, and that
socialization style influenced various child outcomes. Two dimensions of parental behavior are
of particular importance: the degree and kind of control that parents exert over the child, and the
amount of affection and support that parents show. Baumrind developed a typology of parenting
styles based on these two dimensions. The three styles of parenting she proposed are:
a. Authoritarian: Parents implement harsh rules and do not explain the consequences to
children. Parents show minimal affection and emotional support.
b. Authoritative: Parents are affectionate, sensitive to children’s needs and rights,
generous in the use of positive reinforcement, but also place demands and rules on kids. The
provide explanations for their disciplinary actions.
c. Permissive: Parents are affectionate but do not discipline their child.
2. The influence of socialization style on child outcomes: The authoritative model has the most
favorable socialization effects on the child. Outcomes of this parenting style include: the child’s
development of high self-esteem, sense of competence, conscience, internalization of adult
standards, and high achievement motivation. Generally, middle-class and well-educated parents
comply with authoritative parenting styles, while lower class parents subscribe to authoritarian
tactics.
a. Although the “authoritative” socialization techniques of middle-class families are
deemed best by Baumrind, it’s possible that the more authoritarian style is “functional” for lower
class families. Recall the original definition of socialization. Parents raise children so that they
can cope with their world. Lower class children often do - and will continue to face - much
harsher conditions than upper- and middle-class children. Thus stricter child rearing techniques
may be more appropriate for coping with a harsh environment