Chapter 4 WHAT DO YOU THINK? 1.   Is the personality of an individual determined at birth? 2.   Are the media today as important in a child’s socialization as the child’s family? Might the media be more important? 3.   Do people adjust the presentation of their personalities in interactions in order to leave particular impressions? Might we say that we have different “social selves” that we present in different settings? p.80 GIRLS, BOYS, AND TOYS REUTERS/Aly Song We can find a box (or several boxes) of toys in most U.S. homes with children. Many of us can look back on our childhoods—whether they are a recent or distant memory—and recall a favorite toy. It might have been a smiling doll, a stuffed animal, a hardy truck or tank, or a set of colorful blocks. If we were lucky, we had an array of toys from which to choose our fun. In this chapter, we talk about agents of socialization, that is, the entities (like families, peers, and schools) that teach us the norms, rules, and roles of society. From a sociological perspective, toys are not just toys—rather, they too are agents of socialization, contributing to children’s early ideas of who they are and who they can be in society. Like other key agents of socialization—families, peers, the media, school, and organized sports, among others—toys may contribute to a child’s sense of socially accepted roles, aspirations for the future, and perceptions of opportunities and limitations. If we as social beings are made not born, as sociologists argue, then toys contribute to the construction of boys and girls in ways that can be both predictable and surprising. In 2014, two researchers at Oregon State University published a study with some attention-getting results. In this research, 37 girls ages 4 to 7 were each given one of three toys with which to play: a Mrs. Potato Head, a glamorous Barbie doll, or a doctor Barbie doll. After a short period of play, each subject was shown pictures depicting 10 female- and male-dominated professions, like librarian, teacher, and flight attendant (“female” jobs) and pilot, doctor, and firefighter (“male” jobs). With each picture, the subject was asked, “Could you do this job when you grow up?” and “Could a boy do this job when he grows up?” (see Figure 4.1). Notably, girls who played with either of the Barbie dolls identified fewer jobs that they could do than did the girls who played with Mrs. Potato Head—and all of the girls in the study thought that a boy would be able to do a greater number of both the male- and female-dominated jobs (Sherman & Zurbriggen, 2014). Other research has shown that young girls exposed to Barbies express a stronger desire to be thin and have lower body self-esteem than do girls exposed to dolls with more realistic body proportions (Dittmar, Halliwell, & Ive, 2006). p.81 FIGURE 4.1 Number of Jobs Girls Think They Can Do Better or Worse Than Boys Based on Occupation Type SOURCE: Sherman, A.M. and Zurbriggen, E.L. (2014). “‘Boys Can B ...

1. Chapter 4
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
1. Is the personality of an individual determined at birth?
2. Are the media today as important in a child’s socialization
as the child’s family? Might the media be more important?
3. Do people adjust the presentation of their personalities in
interactions in order to leave particular impressions? Might we
say that we have different “social selves” that we present in
different settings?
p.80
GIRLS, BOYS, AND TOYS
REUTERS/Aly Song
We can find a box (or several boxes) of toys in most U.S. homes
with children. Many of us can look back on our childhoods—
whether they are a recent or distant memory—and recall a
favorite toy. It might have been a smiling doll, a stuffed animal,
a hardy truck or tank, or a set of colorful blocks. If we were
lucky, we had an array of toys from which to choose our fun. In
this chapter, we talk about agents of socialization, that is, the
entities (like families, peers, and schools) that teach us the
norms, rules, and roles of society. From a sociological
perspective, toys are not just toys—rather, they too are agents
of socialization, contributing to children’s early ideas of who
they are and who they can be in society.
Like other key agents of socialization—families, peers, the
media, school, and organized sports, among others—toys may
contribute to a child’s sense of socially accepted roles,
aspirations for the future, and perceptions of opportunities and
limitations. If we as social beings are made not born, as
sociologists argue, then toys contribute to the construction of
boys and girls in ways that can be both predictable and

2. surprising.
In 2014, two researchers at Oregon State University published a
study with some attention-getting results. In this research, 37
girls ages 4 to 7 were each given one of three toys with which
to play: a Mrs. Potato Head, a glamorous Barbie doll, or a
doctor Barbie doll. After a short period of play, each subject
was shown pictures depicting 10 female- and male-dominated
professions, like librarian, teacher, and flight attendant
(“female” jobs) and pilot, doctor, and firefighter (“male” jobs).
With each picture, the subject was asked, “Could you do this
job when you grow up?” and “Could a boy do this job when he
grows up?” (see Figure 4.1). Notably, girls who played with
either of the Barbie dolls identified fewer jobs that they could
do than did the girls who played with Mrs. Potato Head—and all
of the girls in the study thought that a boy would be able to do a
greater number of both the male- and female-dominated jobs
(Sherman & Zurbriggen, 2014). Other research has shown that
young girls exposed to Barbies express a stronger desire to be
thin and have lower body self-esteem than do girls exposed to
dolls with more realistic body proportions (Dittmar, Halliwell,
& Ive, 2006).
p.81
FIGURE 4.1 Number of Jobs Girls Think They Can Do Better or
Worse Than Boys Based on Occupation Type
SOURCE: Sherman, A.M. and Zurbriggen, E.L. (2014). “‘Boys
Can Be Anything’: Effect of Barbie Play on Girls’ Career
Cognitions.” Sex Roles, online publication, March 5. Copyright
© 2014 Springer Science + Business Media New York.
Reprinted with permission.
TOSHIFUMI KITAMURA/Staff/Getty Images
A young girl prays for blessings in the New Year on the
shoulders of her father at the Meiji shrine in Tokyo. Many
components of one’s culture are seamlessly passed down

3. through habit, observational learning, and family practices.
These findings are provocative and raise some interesting
questions: What is the power of toys? Do toys affect children’s
aspirations and perceptions? And why did all of the girls in the
2014 study judge themselves less capable than boys of doing a
variety of jobs? Efforts have been made to expose young girls to
more career options through toys; for instance, the popular Lego
brand has introduced female Lego scientist figures, including an
astronomer, a paleontologist, and a chemist, complete with a
beaker (Gambino, 2014). Might such changes encourage greater
future interest among girls in the STEM (science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics) fields, where women are
underrepresented? Do “boyish” toys already do that for boys?
What do you think?
In this chapter, we examine the process of socialization and the
array of agents that help shape our social selves and our
behavioral choices. We begin by looking into the “nature versus
nurture” debate and what sociology says about that debate. We
then discuss the key agents of socialization, as well as the ways
in which socialization may differ in total institutions and across
the life course. We then examine theoretical perspectives on
socialization. Finally, we look at social interaction and ways in
which sociologists conceptualize our presentation of self and
our group interactions.
THE BIRTH OF THE SOCIAL SELF
Socialization is the process by which people learn the culture of
their society. It is a lifelong and active process in which
individuals construct their sense of who they are, how to think,
and how to act as members of their culture. Socialization is our
primary way of reproducing culture, including norms and values
and the belief that our culture represents “normal” social
practices and perceptions.
p.82
Nina Leen/Contributor/Getty Images
Given the choice in an experiment between a wire mother

4. surrogate and a surrogate covered with cloth, the infant monkey
almost invariably chose the cloth figure. How are human needs
similar to and different from those we find in the animal
kingdom?
The principal agents of socialization—including parents,
teachers, religious institutions, friends, television, and the
Internet—exert enormous influence on us. Much socialization
takes place every day, usually without our thinking about it:
when we speak, when others react to us, when we observe
others’ behavior—even if only in the movies or on television—
and in virtually every other human interaction.
Debate has raged in the social sciences over the relative
influence of genetic inheritance (“nature”) and cultural and
social experiences (“nurture”) in shaping people’s lives
(Coleman & Hong, 2008; Ridgeway & Correll, 2004). If inborn
biological predispositions explain differences in behaviors and
interests between, say, sixth-grade boys and girls, or between a
professional thief and the police officer who apprehends him,
then understanding socialization will do little to help us
understand those differences. On the other hand, if biology
cannot adequately explain differences in attitudes, characters,
and behaviors, then it becomes imperative that we examine the
effects of socialization.
Almost no one today argues that behavior is entirely determined
by either socialization or biology. There is doubtless an
interaction between the two. What social scientists disagree
about, however, is which is more important in shaping a
person’s personality, life chances, philosophy of life, and
behavior. In this text we lean toward socialization because we
think the evidence points in that direction.
Social scientists have found little evidence to support the idea
that personalities and behaviors are rooted exclusively in
“human nature.” Indeed, very little human behavior is actually
“natural.” For example, humans have a biological capacity for
language, but language is learned and develops only through
interaction. The weight of socialization in the development of

5. language, reasoning, and social skills is dramatically illustrated
in cases of children raised in isolation. If a biologically
inherited mechanism alone triggered language, it would do so
even in people who grow up deprived of contact with other
human beings. If socialization plays a key role, however, then
such people would not only have difficulty learning to speak
like human beings, but they would also lack the capacity to play
the social roles to which most of us are so accustomed.
One of the most fully documented cases of social isolation
occurred more than 200 years ago. In 1800, a “wild boy,” later
named Victor, was seen by hunters in the forests of Aveyron, a
rural area of France (Shattuck, 1980). Victor had been living
alone in the woods for most of his 12 or so years and could not
speak, and although he stood erect, he ran using both arms and
legs like an animal. Victor was taken into the home of Jean-
Marc-Gaspard Itard, a young medical doctor who, for the next
10 years, tried to teach him the social and intellectual skills
expected of a child his age. According to Itard’s careful
records, Victor managed to learn a few words, but he never
spoke in complete sentences. Although he eventually learned to
use the toilet, he continued to evidence “wild” behavior,
including public masturbation. Despite the efforts of Itard and
others, Victor was incapable of learning more than the most
rudimentary social and intellectual skills; he died in Paris in
1828.
Other studies of the effects of isolation have centered on
children raised by their parents, but in nearly total isolation. For
12 years, from the time she was 1½ years old, “Genie” (a
pseudonym) saw only her father, mother, and brother, and only
when one of them came to feed her. Genie’s father did not allow
his wife or Genie to leave the house or have any visitors. Genie
was either strapped to a child’s potty-chair or placed in a
sleeping bag that limited her movements. Genie rarely heard any
conversation. If she made noises, her father beat her (Curtiss,
1977; Rymer, 1993).
When Genie was 13, her mother took her and fled the house.

6. Genie was unable to cry, control her bowels, eat solid food, or
talk. Because of her tight confinement, she had not even learned
to focus her eyes beyond 12 feet. She was constantly salivating
and spitting, and she had little controlled use of her arms or
legs (Rymer, 1993).
Wild Child: The Story Of Feral Children
CLICK TO SHOW
p.83
Gradually Genie learned some of the social behavior expected
of a child. For example, she became toilet trained and learned to
wear clothes. However, although intelligence tests did not
indicate reasoning disability, even after 5 years of concentrated
effort on the part of a foster mother, social workers, and
medical doctors, Genie never learned to speak beyond the level
of a 4-year-old, and she never spoke with other people.
Although she responded positively to those who treated her with
sympathy, Genie’s social behavior remained severely
underdeveloped for the rest of her life (Rymer, 1993).
Genie’s and Victor’s experiences underscore the significance of
socialization, especially during childhood. Their cases show
that however rooted in biology certain capacities may be, they
do not develop into recognizable human ways of acting and
thinking unless the individual interacts with other humans in a
social environment. Children raised in isolation fail to develop
complex language, abstract thinking, notions of cooperation and
sharing, or even a sense of themselves as people. In other
words, they do not develop the hallmarks of what we know as
humanity (Ridley, 1998).
Sociologists and other social scientists have developed a
number of theories to explain the role of socialization in the
development of social selves. What these theories recognize is
that whatever the contribution of biology, ultimately people as
social beings are made, not born. Below, we explore four
approaches to understanding socialization: behaviorism,
symbolic interactionism, developmental stage theories, and

7. psychoanalytic theories.
BEHAVIORISM AND SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
Behaviorism is a psychological perspective that emphasizes the
effect of rewards and punishments on human behavior. It arose
during the late 19th century to challenge the then-popular belief
that human behavior results primarily from biological instincts
and drives (Baldwin & Baldwin, 1986, 1988; Dishion, McCord,
& Poulin, 1999). Early behaviorist researchers such as Ivan
Pavlov (1849–1936) and John Watson (1878–1958), and later B.
F. Skinner (1904–1990), demonstrated that even behavior
thought to be purely instinctual (such as a dog salivating when
it sees food) can be produced or extinguished through the
application of rewards and punishments. Thus, a pigeon will
learn to press a bar if that triggers the release of food (Skinner,
1938, 1953; Watson, 1924). Behaviorists concluded that both
animal and human behavior can be learned, and neither is just
instinctive.
When they turned to human beings, behaviorists focused
on social learning, the way people adapt their behavior in
response to social rewards and punishments (Baldwin &
Baldwin, 1986; Bandura, 1977; Bandura & Walters, 1963). Of
particular interest was the satisfaction people get from imitating
others. Social learning theory thus combines the reward-and-
punishment effects identified by behaviorists with the idea that
we model the behavior of others; that is, we observe the way
people respond to others’ behavior.
Social learning theory would predict, for example, that if a boy
gets high fives from his friends for talking back to his teacher—
a form of encouragement rather than punishment—he is likely
to repeat this behavior. What’s more, other boys may imitate it.
Social learning researchers have developed formulas for
predicting how rewards and punishments affect behavior. For
example, rewards given repeatedly may become less effective
when the individual becomes satiated. If you have just eaten a
huge piece of cake, you are less likely to feel rewarded by the
prospect of another.

8. Social behaviorism is not widely embraced today as a rigorous
perspective on human behavior. One reason is that only in
carefully controlled laboratory environments is it easy to
demonstrate the power of rewards and punishments. In real
social situations the theory is of limited value as a predictor.
For example, whether a girl who is teased (“punished”) for
playing football will lose interest in the sport depends on many
other experiences, such as the support of family and friends and
her own enjoyment of the activity. The simple application of
rewards and punishments is hardly sufficient to explain why
people repeat some behaviors and not others.
In addition, behaviorist theories violate Popper’s principle of
falsification (discussed in Chapter 2). Since what was
previously rewarding may lose effectiveness if the person is
satiated, if a reward does not work, we can always attribute its
failure to satiation. Therefore, no matter the outcome of the
experiment, the theory has to be true; it cannot be proven false.
For these reasons sociologists find behaviorism an inadequate
theory of socialization. To explain how people become
socialized, they highlight theories that emphasize symbolic
interaction.
SOCIALIZATION AS SYMBOLIC INTERACTION
Recall from the introductory chapter that symbolic
interactionism views the self and society as resulting from
social interaction based on language and other symbols.
Symbolic interactionism has proven especially fruitful in
explaining how individuals develop a social identity and a
capacity for social interaction (Blumer, 1969, 1970; Hutcheon,
1999; Mead, 1934, 1938).
An early contribution to symbolic interactionism was Charles
Horton Cooley’s (1864–1929) concept of the looking-glass self,
the self-image that results from our interpretation of other
people’s views of us. For example, children who are frequently
told they are smart or talented will tend to see themselves as
such and act accordingly. On the other hand, children who are
repeatedly told they lack intelligence or are “slow” will lose

9. pride in themselves and act the part. According to Cooley
(1902/1964), we are constantly forming ideas about how others
perceive and judge us, and the resulting self-image—the way we
view ourselves—is in turn the basis of our social interaction
with others.
Deprivation of Social Interaction
CLICK TO SHOW
p.84
CHRIS WALKER/KRT/Newscom
As a reference group, high school peers may provide the
normative standards for a young person to judge his or her
fashion sense, musical tastes, behavioral choices, and academic
commitment. Does the power of peers as a reference group
change in the college years?
Cooley recognized that not everyone we encounter is equally
important in shaping our self-image. Primary groups are small
groups characterized by intense emotional ties, face-to-face
interaction, intimacy, and a strong, enduring sense of
commitment. Families, close friends, and lovers are all
examples of primary groups likely to shape our self-
image. Secondary groups, on the other hand, are large and
impersonal, characterized by fleeting relationships. We spend
much of our adult lives in secondary groups, such as college
classrooms and workplaces, but secondary groups typically have
less influence in forming our self-image than do primary
groups. Both kinds of groups act on us throughout our lives; the
self-image is not set in concrete at some early stage but
continues to develop throughout adulthood (Barber, 1992;
Berns, 1989).
Both primary and secondary groups also serve as reference
groups, or groups that provide standards for judging our
attitudes or behaviors. When you consider your friends’
reactions to your dress or hairstyle or the brand of mobile phone
you plan to buy, you are using your peers as a reference in

10. shaping your decisions.
George Herbert Mead (1863–1931), widely regarded as the
founder of symbolic interactionism, explored the ways in which
self and society shape one another. Mead proposed that the self
comprises two parts: the “I” and the “me.” The I is the impulse
to act; it is creative, innovative, unthinking, and largely
unpredictable. The me is the part of the self through which we
see ourselves as others see us. (Note the similarity between
Mead’s “me” and Cooley’s “looking-glass self.”) The I
represents innovation; the me, social convention and
conformity. In the tension between them, the me is often
capable of controlling the I. When the I initiates a spontaneous
act, the me raises society’s response: How will others regard me
if I act this way?
Mead further argued that people develop a sense of self
through role-taking, the ability to take the roles of others in
interaction. For example, a young girl playing soccer may
pretend to be a coach; in the process, she learns to see herself
(as well as other players) from a coach’s perspective. Mead
proposed that childhood socialization relies on an ever-
increasing ability to take on such roles, moving from the
extreme self-centeredness of the infant to an adult ability to
take the standpoint of society as a whole. He outlined four
principal stages in socialization that reflect this progression: the
preparatory, play, game, and adult stages. The completion of
each stage results in an increasingly mature social self.
1. During the preparatory stage, children younger than 3 years
old relate to the world as though they are the center of the
universe. They do not engage in true role-taking but respond
primarily to things in their immediate environments, such as
their mothers’ breasts, the colors of toys, or the sounds of
voices.
2. Children 3 or 4 years of age enter the play stage, during
which they learn to take the attitudes and roles of the people
with whom they interact. Significant others are the specific
people important in children’s lives and whose views have the

11. greatest impact on the children’s self-evaluations. By role-
playing at being mothers or fathers, for example, children come
to see themselves as their parents see them. However, according
to Mead, they have not yet acquired the complex sense of self
that lets them see themselves through the eyes of many different
people—or society.
Socialization and Men
CLICK TO SHOW
p.85
© Jim West / Alam
Game playing is an activity found in some form in every
culture. Some games, including basketball and soccer, require
teamwork, while others, including checkers and mancala, are
played by one person against another. Team sports games
provide many socialization benefits, as young children learn
how to interact with one another and develop their motor skills.
3. The game stage begins when children are about 5 and learn
to take the roles of multiple others. The game is an effective
analogy for this stage. For example, to be an effective
basketball player, an individual must have the ability to see
him- or herself from the perspective of teammates, the other
team, and the coach, and must play accordingly. He or she must
know the rules of the game. Successful negotiation of the social
world also requires that people gain the ability to see
themselves as others see them, to understand societal “rules,”
and to act accordingly. This stage signals the development of a
self that is aware of societal positions and perspectives.
4. Game playing takes the child to the final, adult stage, which
can appear as early as the first and second grades. Children at
this stage have internalized the generalized other, the sense of
society’s norms values by which people evaluate
themselves. They take into account a set of general principles
that may or may not serve their self-interest—for example,
voluntarily joining the army to fight in a war that might injure

12. or kill them because patriotic young people are expected to
defend their country. By the adult stage, a person is capable of
understanding abstract and complex cultural symbols, such as
love and hate, success and failure, friendship, and morality.
Mead also had a vision that in the future people would be able
to assimilate a multitude of generalized others, adapting their
behavior in terms of their own but also other people’s cultures.
Mead’s “dream of a highly multicultural world” may someday
be a reality as globalization makes ever more people aware of
the value of other cultures.
STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT: PIAGET AND KOHLBERG
Like Mead and Cooley, the Swiss social psychologist Jean
Piaget (1896–1980) believed humans are socialized in stages.
Piaget devoted a lifetime to researching how young children
develop the ability to think abstractly and make moral
judgments (Piaget, 1926, 1928, 1930, 1932). His theory
of cognitive development, based largely on studies of Swiss
children at play (including his own), argues that an individual’s
ability to make logical decisions increases as the person grows
older. Piaget noted that infants are
highly egocentric, experiencing the world as if it were centered
entirely on them. In stages over time, socialization lets children
learn to use language and symbols, to think abstractly and
logically, and to see things from different perspectives.
Piaget also developed a theory of moral development, which
holds that as they grow, people learn to act according to
abstract ideas about justice or fairness. This theory parallels his
idea of cognitive development, since both describe overcoming
egocentrism and acquiring the ability to take other points of
view. Eventually children come to develop abstract notions of
fairness, learning that rules should be judged relative to the
circumstances. For example, even if the rules say “three strikes
and you’re out,” an exception might be made for a child who
has never played the game or who is physically challenged.
Lawrence Kohlberg (1927–1987) extended Piaget’s ideas about
moral development. In his best-known study, subjects were told

13. the story of the fictitious “Heinz,” who was unable to afford a
drug that might prevent his wife from dying of cancer. As the
story unfolds, Heinz breaks into the druggist’s shop and steals
the medication. Kohlberg asked his subjects what they would
have done, emphasizing that there is no “right” or “wrong”
answer. Using experiments such as this, Kohlberg (1969, 1983,
1984) proposed three principal stages (and several substages) of
moral development:
1. The preconventional stage, during which people seek simply
to achieve personal gain or avoid punishment. A person might
support Heinz’s decision to steal on the grounds that it would be
too difficult to get the medicine by other means, or oppose it on
the grounds that Heinz might get caught and go to jail. Children
are typically socialized into this rudimentary form of morality
between ages 7 and 10.
p.86
2. The conventional stage, during which the individual is
socialized into society’s norms and values and would feel shame
or guilt about violating them. The person might support Heinz’s
decision to steal on the grounds that society would judge him
callous if he let his wife die, or oppose it because people would
call Heinz a thief if he were caught. Children are socialized into
this more developed form of morality at about age 10, and most
people remain in this stage throughout their adult lives.
3. The postconventional stage, during which the individual
invokes general, abstract notions of right and wrong. Even
though Heinz has broken the law, his transgression has to be
weighed against the moral cost of sacrificing his wife’s life.
People at the highest levels of postconventional morality will go
beyond social convention entirely, appealing to a higher set of
abstract principles.
Some scholars have argued that Kohlberg’s theory reflects a
strong male bias because it derives from male rather than
female experience. Foremost among Kohlberg’s critics is Carol
Gilligan (1982; Gilligan, Ward, & Taylor, 1989), who argues
that men may be socialized to base moral judgment on abstract

14. principles of fairness and justice, but women are socialized to
base theirs on compassion and caring. She showed that women
scored lower on Kohlberg’s measure of moral development
because they valued how other family members were affected by
Heinz’s decision more than abstract considerations of justice.
Because it assumes that abstract thinking represents a “higher
stage” of development, Gilligan suggests, Kohlberg’s measure
is necessarily biased in favor of male socialization.
Research testing Gilligan’s ideas has found that men and women
alike adhere to both care-based and justice-based forms of
moral reasoning (Gump, Baker, & Roll, 2000; Jaffee & Hyde,
2000). Differences between the sexes in these kinds of
reasoning are in fact small or nonexistent. Studies of federal
employees (Peek, 1999), a sample of men and women using the
Internet (Anderson, 2000), and a sample of Mexican American
and Anglo-American students (Gump et al., 2000) have all
found no significant difference between men and women in the
degree to which they employ care-based and justice-based styles
of moral reasoning. In her effort to correct Kohlberg’s research,
which looked only at men, might Gilligan have also contributed
to gender stereotypes?
BIOLOGICAL NEEDS VERSUS SOCIAL CONSTRAINTS:
FREUD
Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), an Austrian psychiatrist, had a
major impact on the study of socialization as well as the
disciplines of psychology and psychiatry. Freud (1905, 1929,
1933) founded the field of psychoanalysis, a psychological
perspective that emphasizes the complex reasoning processes of
the conscious and unconscious mind. He stressed the role of the
unconscious mind in shaping human behavior and theorized that
early childhood socialization is essential in molding the adult
personality by age 5 or 6. In addition, Freud sought to
demonstrate that in order to to thrive, a society must socialize
its members to curb their instinctive needs and desires.
FIGURE 4.2 The Id, Ego, and Superego, as Conceived by Freud

15. According to Freud, the human mind has three components: the
id, the ego, and the superego (Figure 4.2). The id is the
repository of basic biological drives and needs, which Freud
believed to be primarily bound up in sexual energy. (Id is Latin
for “it,” reflecting Freud’s belief that this aspect of the human
personality is not even truly human.) The ego (Latin for “I”)
is the “self,” the core of what we regard as a person’s unique
personality. The superego consists of the values and norms of
society, insofar as they are internalized, or taken in, by the
individual. The concept of the superego is similar to the notion
of a conscience.
p.87
Freud believed that babies are all id. Left to their own devices,
they will seek instant gratification of their biological needs for
food, physical contact, and nurturing. Therefore, according to
Freud, to be socialized they must eventually learn to suppress
such gratification. The child’s superego, consisting of cultural
“shoulds” and “should nots,” struggles constantly with the
biological impulses of the id. Serving as mediator between id
and superego is the child’s emerging ego. In Freud’s view, the
child will grow up to be a well-socialized adult to the extent
that the ego succeeds in bending the biological desires of the id
to meet the social demands of the superego.
Since Freud claimed that personality is set early in life, he
viewed change as difficult for adults, especially if
psychological troubles originate in experiences too painful to
face or remember. Individuals must become fully aware of their
repressed or unconscious memories and unacceptable impulses
if they ever hope to change (Freud, 1933). Freud’s
psychoanalytic therapy focused on accessing deeply buried
feelings in order to help patients alter current behaviors and
feelings. Whereas Mead saw socialization as a lifelong process
relying on many socialization agents, for Freud it stopped at a
young age. Table 4.1 compares Mead’s and Freud’s views point

16. by point.
TABLE 4.1 Comparison of Mead’s and Freud’s Theories of
Socialization
SOURCE: Adapted from Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and
society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
FIGURE 4.3 Agents of Socialization
AGENTS OF SOCIALIZATION
Among primary groups, the family is for most people the single
most critical agent of socialization. Other significant agents are
school, peer groups, work, religion, and technology and mass
media, including the Internet and social media (Figure 4.3).
THE FAMILY
The family is a primary group in which children, especially
during the earliest years of their lives, are physically and
emotionally dependent on adult members. It plays a key role in
transmitting norms, values, and culture across generations, and
as a result it is the first and usually the foremost source of
socialization in all societies.
Children usually first encounter their society in the family,
learning socially defined roles like father, mother, sister,
brother, uncle, aunt, and grandparent, and the expected
behaviors attached to them. Parents often hold stereotypical
notions of how boys and girls should be, and they reinforce
gender behaviors in countless subtle and not-so-subtle ways. A
father may be responsible for grilling and yard work, while a
mother cooks dinner and cleans the house. On the other hand,
some families embrace egalitarian or nonconventional gender
roles. Although same-sex couple families are more likely than
families headed by opposite-sex couples to challenge gender-
normative roles and behaviors, they sometimes still enforce or
support typical gender roles for their children (Ackbar, 2011;

17. Bos & Sandfort, 2010).
The way parents relate to their child affects virtually every
aspect of the child’s behavior, including the ability to resolve
conflicts through the use of reason instead of violence and the
propensity for emotional stability or distress. The likelihood
that young people will be victims of homicide, commit suicide,
engage in acts of aggression against other people, use drugs,
complete their secondary education, or have an unwanted
pregnancy also is greatly influenced by childhood experiences
in the family (Campbell & Muncer, 1998; McLoyd & Smith,
2002; Muncer & Campbell, 2000). For example, children who
are regularly spanked or otherwise physically punished
internalize the idea that violence is an acceptable means of
achieving goals and are more likely than peers who are not
spanked to engage in aggressive delinquent behavior. They are
also more likely to have low self-esteem, suffer depression, and
do poorly in school (Borgeson, 2001; Straus et al., 1997). (See
the Private Lives, Public Issues box on page 88.)
South park and Gender Socialization
CLICK TO SHOW
Parenting and Empathy
CLICK TO SHOW
p.88
PRIVATE LIVES, PUBLIC ISSUES
SPANKING AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR
Spencer Grant/Photo Researchers, Inc.
Should parents spank their children? Ask some friends or
classmates what they think. You may find a wide range of
opinions on this practice.
While many people still believe in the adage “Spare the rod and
spoil the child,” the use of physical punishment in socializing
children varies largely by social class. At a rate that has largely

18. held steady in the past decades, about 65% of U.S. adults
approve of spanking under certain circumstances. Interestingly,
these adults are most likely to be members of the working class,
rather than the middle or upper class (Berlin et al., 2009;
Borgeson, 2001; Rosellini & Mulrine, 1998). Remember Kohn’s
(1989) research, which concluded that the experience of people
in working-class employment is reflected in their child-rearing
practices: Working-class parents are more likely to emphasize
obedience than are middle-class parents, who tend to stress
independent thinking. The use of corporal punishment, however,
is not only a matter of social class or a private decision made by
parents in the home. It is also a public issue with social
consequences.
Murray Straus, a prominent sociologist at the University of New
Hampshire, found that when boys and girls 6 to 9 years old were
spanked, they became more antisocial—more likely to cheat,
tell lies, act cruelly to others, break things deliberately, and get
into trouble at school (Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997;
also see McKee et al., 2007). Straus and his colleagues
concluded that reducing corporal punishment would not only
benefit children but also possibly reduce antisocial behavior.
Other research evidence supports Straus’s conclusions
(Borgeson, 2001; de Paul & Domenech, 2000). For example, one
study concluded that corporal punishment, and even some lesser
forms of parental punishment, could have a strong effect on a
child’s ability to cope later in life (Welsh, 1998). Similarly, the
authors of a study of Israeli high school students found that
adolescents whose parents routinely resorted to physical
punishment were more likely than others to have psychiatric
symptoms and lower levels of well-being in general (Bachar,
Canetti, Bonne, DeNour, & Shalev, 1997). On the other hand,
research by psychologist Marjorie Lindner Gunnoe (1997),
which tracked more than 1,100 children over a 5-year period,
found that while some 8- to 11-year-old boys, but not girls, who
had been spanked regularly got into more fights at school,
children of both sexes ages 4 to 7 who had been spanked

19. regularly got into fewer fights than children who were not
spanked. Most research, however, confirms the negative effects
of spanking.
Although not all the research findings on the effects of physical
punishment are in agreement, the evidence does suggest that
spanking—an aggressive form of punishment—may result in
aggressive behavior on the part of children. The parents’
“private” decision to use corporal punishment becomes a
“public issue,” since children who are physically punished at
home are more likely to become physically aggressive outside
the home.
THINK IT THROUGH
Using the knowledge you have gained through the study of
socialization, and knowing the results of research on the effects
of physical punishment on children’s behavior, could you
design a social policy or program to reduce the use of physical
punishment in the home?
p.89
Spencer Grant/Photo Researchers, Inc.
Schools are an important agent of socialization. Students learn
academic skills and knowledge, but they also gain social skills,
acquire dominant values of citizenship, and practice obedience
to authority.
Child-rearing practices within families can vary by ethnicity or
religious affiliation. Because U.S. culture is ethnically diverse,
it is difficult to describe a “typical” American family (Glazer,
1997; Stokes & Chevan, 1996). Among Latinos, for example,
the family often includes grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins,
and in-laws, who share child-rearing responsibilities. Among
African Americans as well, child rearing may be shared among
a broader range of family members than in White families
(Lubeck, 1985). Extended family patterns also occur among
Afro-Caribbean immigrants and the Amish religious community
of Pennsylvania (Forsythe-Brown, 2007; Ho, 1993; Stokes &
Chevan, 1996).

20. Child-rearing practices may vary by social class as well. Parents
whose jobs require them to be subservient to authority and to
follow orders without raising questions typically stress
obedience and respect for authority at home, while parents
whose work gives them freedom to make their own decisions
and be creative are likely to socialize their children into norms
of creativity and spontaneity. Since many working-class jobs
demand conformity while middle- and upper-middle-class jobs
are more likely to offer independence, social class may be a key
factor in explaining differences in child rearing (Kohn, 1989;
Lareau, 2002).
Family patterns are changing rapidly in the United States, partly
because of declining marriage rates and high rates of divorce.
Such changes affect socialization. For example, children raised
by a single parent may lack role models for the parent who is
missing or experience economic hardship that in turn determines
where they go to school or with whom they socialize. Children
raised in blended families (the result of remarriage) may have
stepparents and stepsiblings whose norms, values, and behavior
are unfamiliar. Same-sex couple families may both challenge
and, as noted earlier, reinforce conventional modes of
socialization, particularly with respect to gender socialization.
Although families are changing, the influence of agents of
socialization remains powerful.
TEACHERS AND SCHOOL
Children in the United States often begin “schooling” when they
enter day care or preschool as infants or toddlers, and they
spend more hours each day and more days each year in school
than was the case a hundred years ago (although they spend less
time in school than their peers in Europe and Asia). Indeed,
education has taken on a large role in helping young people
prepare for adult society. In addition to reading, writing, math,
and other academic subjects, schools are expected to teach
values and norms like patriotism, competitiveness, morality,
and respect for authority, as well as basic social skills. Some
sociologists call this the hidden curriculum, that is, the

21. unspoken classroom socialization into the norms, values, and
roles of a society that schools provide along with the “official”
curriculum. The hidden curriculum may include “lessons” in
gender roles taught through teachers’ differing expectations of
boys and girls, with, for instance, boys pushed to pursue higher
math while girls are encouraged to embrace language and
literature (Sadker, Zittleman, & Sadker, 2003). It may also
entail “lessons” that reinforce class status, with middle- and
upper-class children having access to classes and schools with
advanced subjects and high technology and poor children
provided a smaller selection of less academically challenging or
vocational classes and limited access to advanced teaching
technologies (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Kozol, 2005).
PEERS
Peers are people of the same age and, often, the same social
standing. Peer socialization begins when a child starts to play
with other children outside the family, usually during the first
year of life, and grows more intense in school. Conformity to
the norms and values of friends is especially compelling during
adolescence and continues into adulthood (Harris, 2009; Ponton,
2000; Sebald, 2000). In U.S. society, most adolescents spend
more time with their peers than with their families due to
school, athletic activities, and other social and academic
commitments. Sociological theories thus often focus on young
people’s peer groups to account for a wide variety of adult
behavioral patterns, including the development of self-esteem
and self-image, career choices, ambition, and deviant behavior
(Cohen, 1955; Hine, 2000; Sebald, 2000).
Socialization and Education
CLICK TO SHOW
Teen Shaming
CLICK TO SHOW
p.90

22. Author
Since the passage of Title IX in 1972, millions of girls have had
the opportunity to participate in organized sports. Do social
messages conveyed by male-dominated sports differ from those
in female-dominated sports?
Judith Rich Harris (2009) argues that after the first few years of
life, a child’s friends’ opinions outweigh the opinions of
parents. To manage these predominant peer group influences,
she suggests, parents must try to ensure that their children have
the “right” friends. But this is an increasingly complex problem
when “friends” may be Internet acquaintances who are difficult
to monitor and of whom parents may be unaware.
The adolescent subculture plays an extremely important part in
the socialization of adolescents in the modern world.
Researchers have described the following characteristics of this
subculture (Hine, 2000; Sebald, 2000):
1. A set of norms not shared with the adult or childhood
cultures and governing interaction, statuses, and roles.
2. An argot (the special vocabulary of a particular group) that
is not shared with nonadolescents and is often frowned upon by
adults and school officials. Think about the jargon used by
young people who text—many adults can read it only with
difficulty!
3. Various underground media and preferred media programs,
music, and Internet sites.
4. Unique fads and fashions in dress and hairstyles that often
lead to conflict with parents and other adult authorities over
their “appropriateness.”
5. A set of “heroes, villains, and fools.” Sometimes adults are
the “villains and fools,” while the adults’ “villains and fools”
are heroes in the adolescent subculture.
6. A more open attitude than that found in the general culture
toward experimentation with drugs and at times violence
(fighting, for example).
Teenagers differ in the degree to which they are caught up in,
and therefore socialized by, the adolescent subculture. Harris’s

23. (2009) claim that parents are largely irrelevant is no doubt an
overstatement, yet in Western cultures peer socialization does
play a crucial part in shaping many of the ideas, self-images,
and attitudes that will persist throughout individuals’ lives.
Sociologists use the term anticipatory socialization to describe
the process of adopting the behaviors or standards of a group
one emulates or hope to join. For example, teens who seek
membership into a tough, streetwise gang will abandon
mainstream norms for the dress and talk of the tougher youth
they seek to emulate. Similarly, young people who aspire to be
part of a respected group of athletes may adopt forms of dress
and training practices that may lead to acceptance by the group.
Anticipatory socialization looks to future expectations rather
than just present experience.
ORGANIZED SPORTS
Organized sports are a fundamental part of the lives of millions
of children in the United States: By one estimate, 21.5 million
children and teens ages 6 to 17 participate in at least one
organized sport (Kelley & Carchia, 2013). If it is the case, as
psychologist Erik Erikson (1950) posited, that in middle
childhood children develop a sense of “industry or inferiority,”
then it is surely the case that in a sports-obsessed country like
the United States, one avenue for generating this sense of self is
through participation in sports.
Being part of a sports team and mastering skills associated with
sports are activities that are widely recognized in U.S. society
as valuable; they are presumed to “build character” and to
contribute to hard work, competitiveness, and the ability to
perform in stressful situations and under the gaze of others
(Friedman, 2013), all of which are positively evaluated. In fact,
research suggests that there are particular benefits of sports for
girls, including lower rates of teen sexual activity and
pregnancy (Sabo, Miller, Farrell, Melnick, & Barnes, 1999) and
higher rates of college attendance, labor force participation, and
entry into male-dominated occupations (Stevenson, 2010). Some
studies have also found improved academic performance

24. relative to nonparticipants for all athletes, though they have
shown some variation in this effect by race and gender (Eccles
& Barber, 1999; Miller, Melnick, Barnes, Farrell, & Sabo,
2005).
Socialization and Teenage Activism
CLICK TO SHOW
p.91
Silver Screen Collection/Contributor/Getty Images
Television offers a variety of female images ranging from
independent working women to “fashionistas.” From the Mary
Tyler Moore Show (1970–1977) to Sex and the City (1998-
2004) to Pretty Little Liars (2010–Present), images can both
reflect and construct ideas about femininity.
Getty Images/Staff/Getty Images
© AF archive/Alamy
At the same time, sports participation has been associated in
some research literature with socialization into negative
attitudes, including homophobia. In a study of more than 1,400
teenagers, Osborne and Wagner (2007) found that boys who
participated in “core” sports (football, basketball, baseball,
and/or soccer) were three times more likely than their
nonparticipant peers to express homophobic attitudes. In a
country in which sports and sports figures are widely venerated
and participation, particularly for boys, is labeled as
“masculine,” there may also be negative effects for boys who
are not athletic or who do not enjoy sports.
RELIGION
Religion is a central part of the lives of many people around the
world. While the United States has a notable proportion of
inhabitants who identify as atheists, about 80% of U.S. adults
indicate they are members of a religion, and nearly 40% attend

25. religious services once a week. Even among the one-fifth of the
population who declare themselves unaffiliated with any
particular religion, 68% believe in God, and more than 20% say
that they pray every day (Pew Forum on Religion and Public
Life, 2012b). Beginning with Émile Durkheim, sociologists
have noted the role of religion in fostering social solidarity.
Talcott Parsons (1970) pointed out that religion also acts as an
agent of socialization, teaching fundamental values and beliefs
that contribute to a shared normative culture.
Different religions function in similar ways, giving their
followers a sense of what is right and wrong, how to conduct
themselves in society, and how to organize their lives. Some
socialize their followers with abstract teachings about morality,
service, or self-discipline, directing believers to, for example,
serve their fellow human beings or to avoid the sin of vanity.
Others contain abstract teachings but specific rules about dress
and hairstyles. The Amish faith entreats young men to remain
clean-shaven prior to marriage, but married men must grow
beards. Sikh men of India wear turbans that cover their hair,
which they do not cut.
Like other agents of socialization and social control, religion
directs its followers to choose certain paths and behaviors and
not others. This is not to say that we are compelled to behave a
certain way but rather that socialization often leads us to
control our own behavior because we fear social ostracism or
other negative consequences.
MASS MEDIA, THE INTERNET, AND SOCIAL MEDIA
Among the most influential agents of socialization in modern
societies are technology and the mass media. Newspapers,
magazines, movies, radio, and television are all forms of mass
media. Television may be a particularly influential agent of
socialization: In the United States, the average child aged 2 to
11 spends more than 26 hours a week in front of the TV
(Nielsen, 2011; see also Figure 4.4), and by age 5 to 8, nearly
half have televisions in their bedrooms (Lewin, 2011b). By the
time the typical American child reaches 18, he or she will have

26. viewed nearly 18,000 hours of television. While television
remains a staple in the daily lives of most children and young
people, an increasing proportion of screen time is spent surfing
Internet sites, watching online videos, texting, or interacting
through sites like Facebook, all of which also contribute to
socialization.
p.92
FIGURE 4.4 Average Weekly Television Viewing by Age Group
in the United States, 2011
SOURCE: Data from Nielsen (2011) State of the Media: The
Cross Platform Report. New York City: Nielsen Media
Research.
Child psychologists, sociologists, and parents’ groups pay
special attention to the impact of TV and other media violence
on children and young adults. Media studies during the past 20
years have largely come to a common conclusion: Media
violence has the clear potential to socialize children, teenagers,
and even adults into a greater acceptance of real-life violence.
This is true for males and females, Whites and non-Whites.
Much media violence is directed against women, and a large
body of research supports the conclusion that media violence
promotes tolerance among men for sexual violence, including
rape (Anderson et al., 2003; Greene & Krcmar, 2005). The
argument is not that viewing violent shows is a direct cause of
violence; rather, viewers may become immunized to the sight of
violence. Still, given that most people who are exposed to
violence in the media do not become violent, the part played by
the media as an agent of socialization is probably less important
than the contribution made by other agents, such as family and
peers.
The media play a role in socialization by creating fads and
fashions for how people should look, what they should wear,
and what kinds of friendships they should have. These
influences, and accompanying gender stereotypes, are

27. particularly strong during adolescence. Children’s cartoons,
prime-time television, TV advertisements, and popular networks
like MTV, TLC, and VH-1 often depict males and females, as
well as people of particular races and ethnicities, in stereotyped
ways. Teenage girls, for example, are likely to be depicted as
boy-crazy and obsessed with their looks; teenage boys are
shown as active, independent, and sexually and physically
aggressive (Kahlenberg & Hein, 2010; Maher, Herbst, Childs, &
Finn, 2008). Females’ roles also portray mostly familial or
romantic ideals, whereas males fulfill work-related roles
(Lauzen, Dozier, & Horan, 2008). These stereotypes have been
found to influence children’s gender perceptions (Aubrey &
Harrison, 2004; Gerding & Signorielli, 2014). Additionally,
gender stereotypes influence beliefs across the spectrum of
sexual orientation, with gay teens embracing stereotypes in
ways comparable to their heterosexual peers (Bishop, Kiss,
Morrison, Rushe, & Specht, 2014).
By some estimates, people in the United States now spend more
than a billion hours per month using social networking sites,
407 million hours participating in online gaming, and 329
million hours e-mailing (Nielsen, 2010, 2011). While the long-
term impacts of this massive level of use have yet to be
determined, one clear way the Internet affects socialization is
by changing social interaction. To name just one effect that was
impossible 20 years ago, large groups of semianonymous
individuals, often separated by great distances, can interact with
one another in virtual communities, even forming close ties and
friendships.
On the positive side, especially when online interactions are
mixed with off-line face-to-face interactions, Internet use can
foster new personal relationships and build stronger
communities (Rule, 1999; Valentine, 2006; Wellman &
Hampton, 1999). The types of friendships adolescents create
and maintain through social media reflect the friendships they
have off-line (Mazur & Richards, 2011). Since online
interaction is often anonymous and occurs from the safety of

28. familiar places, people with characteristics society tends to
stigmatize, such as obesity or a stutter, can enter virtual
communities where differences are not perceived or punished
(McKenna & Bargh, 1998) and interests such as chess or movies
can be shared. Finally, the moderate use of e-mail and the
Internet can help children and teens maintain and strengthen
interpersonal relationships (Subrahmanyam & Lin, 2007).
The Internet can have negative social consequences, too.
Researchers have linked high levels of use with declines in
communication within households, shrinking social circles, and
increased depression and loneliness (Dokoupil, 2012a, 2012b;
Kraut et al., 1998; Yen, Yen, & Ko, 2010). Extreme cases can
develop into Internet addiction, a relatively recent phenomenon
characterized by a search for social stimulation and escape from
real-life problems (Armstrong, Phillips, & Saling, 2000; Block,
2008). Although the Internet can be a valuable learning tool for
children, it can also damage their development by decreasing
the time they spend in face-to-face interactions and exposing
them to inappropriate information and images (Bremer &
Rauch, 1998; Lewin, 2011b; Livingstone & Brake, 2010).
Media Socialization, Kids and Food
CLICK TO SHOW
Advertising Invades the Classroom
CLICK TO SHOW
p.93
Another form of negative socialization is cyberbullying—
taunting, teasing, or verbal attacks through e-mail, text, or
social networking sites with the intent to hurt the victim (Van
DeBosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Cyberbullying is a growing
problem of acute concern to social workers, child psychologists,
and school administrators (Slovak & Singer, 2011). Children
and adolescents who are bullied in real life are sometimes both
cyberbullies and victims of cyberbullying (Dilmac, 2009; Smith
et al., 2008; Tyman, Saylor, Taylor, & Comeaux, 2010). Victims

29. take to the Internet to get revenge, often through anonymous
attacks, but this perpetuates the bullying cycle online and in
real life. One study found that hurtful cyberteasing between
adolescents in romantic relationships can escalate into real-life
shouting, throwing of objects, or hitting (Madlock &
Westerman, 2011).
Modern technology may foster positive socialization, but it also
has the potential to be detrimental on both the micro level of
individual and small-group interactions and the macro level of
communities and countries. Consider the role played today by
social media in turning interest groups, and even ethnic groups,
against one another. The Internet can be a powerful source of
information, but it can also be a source of profound
disinformation and hatred, as we discuss in the Global
Issues box on page 95.
WORK
For most adults in the United States, postadolescent
socialization begins with entry into the workforce. While
workplace norms calling for conformity or individuality are
frequently taught by parents in the home, expectations at work
can differ from those we experience in primary groups such as
the family and peer groups.
Arguably, workplace socialization has had a particular influence
on women, dramatically changing gender roles in many
countries, including the United States. Beginning in the 1960s,
paid work afforded women increased financial independence,
allowing them to marry later—or not at all—and bringing them
new opportunities for social interaction and new social roles.
Everett Collection
Meyrowitz (1985) writes that “old people are respected [in
media portrayals] to the extent that they can behave like young
people.” Betty White is a highly recognized actress, whose roles
are often humorous and appealing to younger crowds. Think
about portrayals of the elderly you have seen recently in movies
or on television. Do you agree with this assessment?

30. Employment also often socializes us into both the job role and
our broader role as a “member” of a collective sharing the same
employer. Becoming a teacher, chef, factory worker, lawyer, or
retail salesperson, for instance, requires learning specific skills
and the norms, values, and practices associated with that
position. In that role, the employee may also internalize the
values and norms of the employer and may even come to
identify with the employer: Notice that employees who are
speaking about their workplaces will often refer to them rather
intimately, saying, for instance, not that “Company X is hiring a
new sales manager” but rather that “we are hiring a new sales
manager.”
Even “occupations” outside the bounds of legality are governed
by rules and roles learned through socialization. Harry King, a
professional thief studied by one of the authors, learned not
only how to break into buildings and open safes but also how to
conform to the culture of the professional thief. A professional
thief never “rats” on a partner, for example, or steals from
mom-and-pop stores. In addition, King acquired a unique
language that enabled him to talk to other thieves while in the
company of nonthieves (“Square Johns”), police officers, and
prison guards (King & Chambliss, 1984).
SOCIALIZATION AND AGING
Most theories of socialization focus on infancy, childhood, and
adolescence, but people do not stop changing once they become
adults. Work, relationships, and the media, for example, shape
socialization over the life course.
As people near the end of their working lives, anticipatory
socialization again kicks in to help them envision their futures.
Seniors may pay more attention to how friends react to
retirement, whether they are treated differently as they age, and
how the elderly are portrayed in the media. In U.S. media
programming and advertisements, seniors are seriously
underrepresented relative to their numbers in the nation’s
population. Older characters that are present are often gender
stereotyped and wealthier than in the real world, but portrayals

31. are usually positive, perhaps reflecting an attempt to appeal to
this growing group (Kessler, Racoczy, & Staudinger, 2004; Lee,
Carpenter, & Meyers, 2007).
There is a perception that seniors are more likely than younger
adults to disengage from society, moving away from
relationships, activities, and institutions that previously played
key roles in their lives. While this is the case for some seniors,
research suggests that most remain active as long as they are
healthy (Rubin, 2006). In fact, the notion that seniors are
disengaged is belied by the fact that many seniors are politically
active (they have the highest rates of voting of any age group).
As well, recent data published by the Pew Research Center’s
Internet and American Life Project shows that the strongest
growth in Facebook use in 2013 was among users 65 years of
age or older. About 45% of seniors who use the Internet are, the
study shows, Facebook users (Pew Research Center, 2014b).
Careers & Self-Identity
CLICK TO SHOW
p.94
As people age, health and dying also become increasingly
important and influential in structuring their perceptions and
interactions. Married couples face the prospect of losing a
spouse, and all seniors may begin to lose close friends. The
question of what it might be like to live alone is more urgent for
women than for men, since men, on average, die several years
younger than women do. Very old people in particular are likely
to spend time in the hospital, which requires being socialized
into a total institution (discussed below). Growing older is thus
influenced by socialization as significant and challenging as in
earlier life stages.
Clearly, socialization is a lifelong process. Our early primary
socialization lays a foundation for our social selves, which
continue to develop through processes of secondary
socialization, including our interactions with technology, media,
education, and work. But can we be “resocialized”? That is, can

32. our social selves be torn down and reconstituted in new forms
that conform to the norms, roles, and rules of entirely different
social settings? We explore this question in the following
section.
TOTAL INSTITUTIONS AND RESOCIALIZATION
Although individuals typically play an active role in their own
socialization, in one setting—the total institution—they
experience little choice. Total institutions are institutions that
isolate individuals from the rest of society in order to achieve
administrative control over most aspects of their
lives. Examples include prisons, the military, hospitals—
especially mental hospitals—and live-in drug and alcohol
treatment centers. Administrative control is achieved through
rules that govern all aspects of daily life, from dress to
schedules to interpersonal interactions. The residents of total
institutions are subject to inflexible routines rigidly enforced by
staff supervision (Goffman, 1961; Malacrida, 2005).
A major purpose of total institutions is resocialization, the
process of altering an individual’s behavior through total
control of his or her environment. The first step is to break
down the sense of self. In a total institution, every aspect of life
is managed and monitored. The individual is stripped of
identification with the outside world. Institutional haircuts,
uniforms, round-the-clock inspections, and abuse, such as the
harassment of new recruits to a military school, contribute to
breaking down the individual’s sense of self. In extreme
situations, such as in concentration camps, psychological and
even physical torture may also be used.
Once the institutionalized person is “broken,” the institution
begins rebuilding the personality. Desirable behaviors are
rewarded with small privileges, such as choice of work duty in
prisons. Undesirable behaviors are severely punished, as by the
assignment of humiliating or painful work chores. Since the
goal of the total institution is to change attitudes as well as
behaviors, even a hint that the resident continues to harbor
undesirable ideas may provoke disciplinary action.

33. How effective are total institutions in resocializing individuals?
The answer depends partly on the methods used, partly on the
individual, and partly on peer pressure. In the most extreme
total institutions imaginable, Nazi concentration camps, some
inmates came to identify with their guards and torturers, even
helping them keep other prisoners under control. Most,
however, resisted resocialization until their death or release
(Bettelheim, 1979).
Prisons often fail at resocialization because inmates identify
more with their fellow prisoners than with the administration’s
agenda. Inmates in U.S. prisons may well be resocialized, but it
is not likely to be to the norms of prison officials or the wider
society. Rather, prisoners learn the norms of other prisoners,
and, as a result, many come out of prison more hardened in their
criminal behavior than before.
Even when an institution is initially successful at
resocialization, individuals who return to their original social
environments often revert to earlier behavior. This reversal
confirms that socialization is an ongoing process, continuing
throughout a person’s lifetime as a result of changing patterns
of social interaction.
SOCIAL INTERACTION
Socialization at every stage of life occurs primarily
through social interaction—interaction guided by the ordinary,
taken-for-granted rules that enable people to live, work, and
socialize together (Ridgeway & Smith-Lovin, 1999). Spoken
words, gestures, body language, and other symbols and cues
come together in complex ways to enable human
communication. The sociologist must look behind the everyday
aspects of social interaction to identify how it unfolds and how
social norms and language make it possible.
Total Institutions
CLICK TO SHOW
Social Roles in Total Institutions

34. CLICK TO SHOW
p.95
GLOBAL ISSUES
SOCIALIZING HATRED IN A REGION OF CONFLICT
© MARTON MAGOCSI/epa/Corbis
A woman walks past a wall decorated with the national colors in
a street of Stepanakert, the capital of the self-proclaimed
Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, a mostly Armenian-populated
enclave claimed by Azerbaijan. The final status of the republic
has yet to be resolved, and it is recognized only by Armenia.
Throughout history, human beings everywhere have engaged in
conflicts pitting one ethnic group against another. In the South
Caucasus, conflict between ethnic groups has a long and bloody
history. Nagorno-Karabakh, for example, is a sliver of land to
which both Armenia and Azerbaijan lay historical claim. From
1988 to 1994, the two countries fought a deeply destructive war
over the territory that killed 30,000 people and displaced more
than a million others. While armed conflict is now limited to
border skirmishes, formal and informal media in both countries
exacerbate tensions—and perhaps increase the risk of future
conflict—by socializing Armenians and Azeris to hate one
another.
In 2011, the London-based nongovernmental organization
International Alert (www.international-alert.org) used document
analysis to study the way Armenians and Azeris perceive one
another. Examining sources from school texts to online news
sites and blogs to political speeches, the researchers hoped “to
identify key words, narratives, and other innuendos that
reference the concept of ‘us vs. them’ or ‘friend vs. enemy’”
(Geybullayeva, 2012). They found some alarming trends,
particularly in the blogosphere.
Armenians and Armenia were common topics in the Azeri
blogosphere, and many posts offered deeply negative and
dehumanizing characterizations. Geybullayeva (2012) writes

35. that in one post, “the author compared Armenia to a disease that
should be eradicated.” Other posts celebrated the killing of a
civilian Armenian shepherd living near the border, lauding his
death as “happy news” because there was one fewer Armenian.
Geybullayeva suggests that youth, who are the most active users
of the Internet, are the most likely to be affected by such
messages, which both reflect and reproduce hatred for their
ethnic neighbors.
Azeris are hardly alone in the blogosphere of hate. The Internet
can bring people together through social networking and other
means, but it can also tear them apart, functioning as a platform
for socializing groups, and even generations, into hostility and
hatred.
THINK IT THROUGH
Should national laws or international agreements seek to
restrict the use of the Internet as a platform for expressing or
disseminating hatred of social groups? Would such laws violate
the democratic value of “free speech”?
p.96
Social interaction usually requires conformity to social
conventions. According to Scheff (1966), violation of the norms
of interaction is generally interpreted as a sign that the person
is “abnormal,” perhaps even dangerous. A person in a crowded
elevator who persists in engaging strangers in loud
conversations, for example, and disheveled homeless people
who shuffle down the street muttering to themselves evoke
anxiety if not repugnance.
Norms govern a wide range of interactive behaviors. For
example, making eye contact when speaking to someone is
valued in mainstream U.S. culture; people who don’t make eye
contact are considered dishonest and shifty. By contrast, among
the Navajo and the Australian Aborigines, as well as in many
East Asian cultures, direct eye contact is considered
disrespectful, especially with a person of greater authority.
Norms also govern how close we stand to friends and strangers
in making conversation. In North American and Northern

36. European cultures, people avoid standing closer than a couple
of feet from one another unless they are on intimate terms (Hall,
1973). Men in the United States are socialized to avoid displays
of intimacy with other men, such as walking arm in arm. In
Nigeria, however, men who are close friends or relatives hold
hands when walking together, while in Italy, Spain, Greece, and
some Middle Eastern countries, men commonly throw their arms
around each other’s shoulders, hug, and even kiss.
Two different approaches to studying social interaction are
Erving Goffman’s metaphor of interaction as theater and
conversation analysts’ efforts to study the way people manage
routine talk. We discuss these approaches later, but first we
look briefly at some sociologists’ studies of social interaction.
STUDIES OF SOCIAL INTERACTION
Studies of social interaction have frequently drawn on the
symbolic interactionist perspective. They illuminate nearly
every form and aspect of social interaction. For example,
research on battered women shows how victims of domestic
violence redefine their situations to come to grips with abusive
relationships (Hattery, 2001). One strategy is to deny the
partner’s violent behavior altogether, whereas another is to
minimize the partner’s responsibility, attributing it to external
factors like unemployment, alcoholism, or mental illness. Or the
victim will define her own role as caretaker and assume
responsibility for “saving” the abusive partner. A woman who
eventually decides to leave an abusive relationship must, some
research suggests, redefine her situation so as to change her
self-image. She must come to see herself as a victim of abuse
who is capable of ending the abusive relationship, rather than as
someone responsible for “solving” her mate’s “problem”
(Johnson & Ferraro, 1984).
Recent studies of social interaction have covered many topics,
including the following:
• The way online gamers coordinate their individual actions
with one another and through the user interface in order to
succeed at games such as World of Warcraft (Williams &

37. Kirschner, 2012)
• The strategies homeless youth use to manage and alleviate
stigma, including creating friendships or attempting to pass as
nonhomeless, as well as acting aggressive and fighting back
(Roschelle & Kaufman, 2004)
• The ways in which a sense of “corporate social
responsibility” is promoted and learned by corporate executives
in the work environment (Shamir, 2011)
THE DRAMATURGICAL APPROACH: ERVING GOFFMAN
Erving Goffman (1959, 1961, 1963a, 1967, 1972), a major
figure in the study of social interaction, developed a set of
theoretical ideas that make it possible to observe and describe
social interaction. Goffman used what he termed
the dramaturgical approach, the study of social interaction as if
it were governed by the practices of theatrical performance.
According to Goffman, people in their everyday lives are
concerned, much like actors on a stage, with the presentation of
self, that is, the creation of impressions in the minds of others
in order to define and control social situations. For instance, to
serve many customers simultaneously, a waiter must take charge
with a “presentation of self” that is polite but firm and does not
allow customers to usurp control by taking too much time
ordering. After only a short time, the waiter asserts control by
saying, “I’ll give you a few minutes to decide what you want”
and walks away.
As people interact, they monitor themselves and each other,
looking for clues that reveal the impressions they are making on
others. This ongoing effort at impression management results in
a continual realignment of the individuals’ “performances,” as
the “actors” refit their roles using dress, objects, voice, and
gestures in a joint enterprise.
Continuing the metaphor of a theatrical performance, Goffman
divides spheres of interaction into two stages. In the front
stage, we are social actors engaged in a process of impression
management through the use of props, costumes, gestures, and
language. A professor lecturing to her class, a young couple on

38. their first date, and a job applicant in an interview all are
governed by existing social norms, so the professor will not
arrive in her nightgown, nor will the prospective employee greet
his interviewer with a high-five rather than a handshake. Just as
actors in a play must stick to their scripts, so too, suggests
Goffman, do we as social actors risk consequences (like failed
interactions) if we diverge from the normative script.
Virtual Identities
CLICK TO SHOW
p.97
Everett Collection
The film The Wizard of Oz offers a good example of
mystification. Though the wizard is really, in his own words,
“just a man,” he maintains his status in Oz by hiding behind a
curtain and using a booming voice and fiery mask to convey the
impression of awesome power.
Goffman offers insights into the techniques we as social actors
have in our repertoire. Among them are the following:
• Dramatic realization is the actor’s effort to mobilize his or
her behavior to draw attention to a particular characteristic of
the role he or she is assuming. What impression does a baseball
umpire strive to leave on his audience (the teams and fans)?
Arguably, he would like to embody authority, so he makes his
calls loudly and with bold gestures.
• Idealization is an actor’s effort to embody in his or her
behaviors the officially accredited norms and values of a
community or society. Those with fewer economic resources
might purchase faux designer bags or watches in order to
conform to perceived societal expectations of material wealth.
• Misrepresentation is part of every actor’s repertoire, ranging
from kind deception (telling a friend she looks great when she
doesn’t) to self-interested untruth (telling a professor a paper
was lost in a computer crash when it was never written) to bald-
faced prevarication (lying to conceal an affair). The actor wants

39. to maintain a desired impression in the eyes of the audience:
The friend would like to be perceived as kind and supportive,
the student as conscientious and hardworking, and the spouse as
loyal and loving.
• Mystification is largely reserved for those with status and
power and serves to maintain distance from the audience in
order to keep people in awe. Corporate leaders keep their
offices on a separate floor and don’t mix with employees, while
celebrities may avoid interviews and allow their on-screen roles
to define them as savvy and smart.
We may also engage in impression management as a team. A
team consists of two or more actors cooperating to create a
definition of the situation favorable to them. For example,
members of a sports team work together, though some may be
more skilled than others, to convey a definition of themselves as
a highly competent and competitive group. Or the members of a
family may work together to convey to their dinner guests that
they are content and happy by acting cooperatively and smiling
at one another during the group interaction.
The example of the family gives us an opportunity to explore
Goffman’s concept of the back stage, where actors let down
their masks and relax or even practice their impression
management. Before the dinner party, the home is a back stage.
One parent is angry at the other for getting cheap rather than
expensive wine, one sibling refuses to speak to the parent who
grounded her, and the other won’t stop texting long enough to
set the table. Then the doorbell rings. Like magic, the home
becomes the front stage as the adults smilingly welcome their
guests and the kids begin to carry out trays of snacks and
drinks. The guests may or may not sense some tension in the
home, but they play along with the scenario so as not to create
discomfort. When the party ends, the home reverts to the back
stage, and each actor can relax his or her performance.
Goffman’s work, like Mead’s and the work of other sociologists
focusing on socialization, sees the social self as an outcome of
society and social interactions. Goffman, however, characterizes

40. the social self not as a possession—a dynamic but still
essentially real self—but rather as a product of a given social
interaction, which can change as we seek to manage impressions
for different audiences. Would you say that Mead or Goffman
offers a better characterization of us as social actors?
ETHNOMETHODOLOGY AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
Routine, day-to-day social interactions are the building blocks
of social institutions and ultimately of society
itself. Ethnomethodology is used to study the body of
commonsense knowledge and procedures by which ordinary
members of a society make sense of their social circumstances
and interactions. Ethno refers to “folk,” or ordinary
people; methodology refers to the methods they use to govern
interaction—which are as distinct as the methods used by
sociologists to study them. Ethnomethodology was created
through Harold Garfinkel’s work in the early 1960s. Garfinkel
(1963, 1985) sought to understand exactly what goes on in
social interactions after observing that our interpretation of
social interaction depends on the context. For example, if a
child on a playground grabs another child’s ball and runs with
it, the teacher may see this as a sign of the child’s
aggressiveness, while fellow students see it as a display of
courage. Social interaction and communication are not possible
unless most people have learned to assign similar meanings to
the same interactions. By studying the specific contexts of
concrete social interactions, Garfinkel sought to understand how
people come to share the same interpretations of social
interactions.
Gender and Self-Talk
CLICK TO SHOW
p.98
INEQUALITY MATTERS
GENDER AND CONVERSATION

41. David R. Frazier / Photo Researchers, Inc.
Do you think that men and women communicate differently?
How would you articulate differences you observe? Would you
attribute them to nature or nurture?
Men often claim they “cannot get a word in edgewise” when
talking to women. However, conversation analysis research
challenges this claim: In hundreds of recorded conversations
between men and women, researchers found that men more
frequently interrupted women than women interrupted men and
that men used the interruptions to dominate the conversation.
Men tended to speak more loudly and to be less polite than
women, using loudness and rudeness (such as sarcastic remarks
about what a woman had said) to control the conversation
(Campbell, Klein, & Olson, 1992; Fishman, 1978; West, 1979;
West & Zimmerman, 1977, 1983; Zimmerman & West, 1975,
1980). While men set the agenda and otherwise dominated the
conversation, women often did the “work” of maintaining
conversations by nodding their heads, saying “a-hah,” and
asking questions (DeFrancisco, 1991; Fishman, 1978; Leaper &
Robnett, 2011; Tannen, 2001; West & Zimmerman, 1977, 1983).
This research shows that the rules and conventions governing
ordinary talk are grounded in the larger society—society’s
gender roles, in which men generally assume a dominant
position in interaction with women without even realizing it. In
fact, not only do men not realize they are dominating the
conversation; they think women dominate and “talk too much.”
The apparently private conversations between men and women
thus reflect a fundamental issue in contemporary society:
inequality between the sexes, including how inequality gets
reproduced in subtle ways. The cultural stereotype of women as
talkative and emotional and men as quiet and rational affects
women even though its basis in reality is weak. No matter that
men talk more and dominate conversations—women are made to
feel unequal by the reproduction of the stereotype, and
inequality between the sexes is reinforced. The private lives of
people in conversations thus cannot be divorced from the way

42. the larger social norms and stereotypes shape relationships
between men and women.
THINK IT THROUGH
The above discussion demonstrates how sociological research
can shed light on “commonsense” assumptions—such as the
assumption that women dominate conversations more than do
men—by empirically testing them. Can you identify other
stereotypical ideas about social interactions between different
groups or individuals? How could you go about testing these
ideas empirically?
p.99
Garfinkel also believed that in all cultures people expect others
to talk in a way that is coherent and understandable and become
anxious and upset when this does not happen. Making sense of
one another’s conversations is even more fundamental to social
life than cultural norms, Garfinkel argued, since without ways
of arriving at meaningful understandings, communication, and
hence culture, is not possible. Because the procedures that
determine how we make sense of conversations are so important
to social interaction, another field developed from
ethnomethodology that focuses on talk itself: conversation
analysis.
Conversation analysis investigates the way participants in social
interaction recognize and produce coherent
conversation (Schegloff, 1990, 1991). In this
context, conversation includes virtually any form of verbal
communication, from routine small talk to emergency phone
calls to congressional hearings and court proceedings (Heritage
& Greatbatch, 1991; Hopper, 1991, Whalen & Zimmerman,
1987, 1990; Zimmerman, 1984, 1992).
Conversation analysis research suggests that social interaction
is not simply a random succession of events. Rather, people
construct conversations through a reciprocal process that makes
the interaction coherent. One way in which we sequentially
organize conversations is turn taking, a strategy that allows us
to understand an utterance as a response to an earlier one and a

43. cue to take our turn in the conversation. A person’s turn ends
once the other conversants indicate they have understood the
message. For example, by answering “Fine” to the question
“How are you?” you show that you have understood the
question and are ready to move ahead.
On the other hand, answering “What do you mean?” or “Green”
to the question “How are you?” is likely to lead to
conversational breakdown. Conversational analysts have
identified a number of techniques commonly used to repair such
breakdowns. For example, if you begin speaking but realize
midsentence that the other person is already speaking, you can
“repair” this awkward situation by pausing until the original
speaker finishes his or her turn and then restarting your turn.
Later research emphasized the impact of the larger social
structure on conversations (Wilson, 1991). Sociologists looked
at the use of power in conversations, including the power of the
dispatcher over the caller in emergency phone calls (Whalen,
Zimmerman, & Whalen, 1990; Zimmerman, 1984, 1992), of the
questioner over the testifier in governmental hearings (Molotch
& Boden, 1985), and of men over women in male–female
interactions (Campbell et al., 1992; Fishman, 1978; West, 1979;
West & Zimmerman, 1977, 1983; Zimmerman & West, 1975,
1980). The last instance, in particular, illustrates how the larger
social structure—in this case, gender structure—affects
conversation. Even at the most basic and personal level—a
private conversation between two people—social structures
exercise a potentially powerful influence.
WHY STUDY SOCIALIZATION AND SOCIAL
INTERACTION?
Have you ever wondered why you and some of your classmates
or neighbors differ in worldviews, coping strategies for stress,
or values concerning right and wrong? Understanding
socialization and social interaction sheds light on such
differences and what they mean to us in everyday life. For
example, if you travel abroad, you will have a sense of how
cultural differences come to be and appreciate that no culture is

44. more “normal” than another—each has its own norms, values,
and roles taught from earliest childhood.
By studying socialization, you also come to understand the
critical socializing roles that peers, schools, and work
environments play in the lives of children, adolescents, and
young adults. The growing influence of the mass media,
including the Internet and other technological innovations in
communication, means we must pay close attention to these
sources of socialization and social interaction as well. As
people spend more time on the Internet talking to friends and
strangers, experimenting with new identities, and seeking new
forms of and forums for social interaction, sociologists may
need to rethink some of their ideas about the influence of agents
like parents and schools; perhaps these may recede in
importance—or grow. Sociologists also ask how our
presentation of self is transformed when we create social selves
in the anonymous space of social media. What kinds of research
could you imagine conducting to learn more about the digital
world as an agent of socialization and a site of modern social
interaction?
p.100
WHAT CAN I DO WITH A
SOCIOLOGY DEGREE?
CAREER DEVELOPMENT: CREATING A JOB SEARCH
PLAN AND PUTTING IT INTO ACTION
Your job search action plan should build on your career goals
and focus on short- and medium-term activities. Break your
goals into specific and manageable tasks to create action items.
Strive to be as specific as possible with your action items by
including details about who and what is involved in completing
each task, identifying measurable outcomes, and noting time-

45. based deadlines for when activities will be completed. Include
in your job search action plan job search strategies that are
likely to produce results.
We briefly discuss each of these strategies below. Additional
resources for each can be found on the book’s student study
site, www.sagepub.com/chamblissintro.
Target Employers
Based on your research, develop a list of 10 to 15 potential
employers that align with your career and job search goals.
Track the employers regularly to update your organizational
knowledge and learn about new opportunities. Utilize LinkedIn
and other social media sites to identify individuals and groups
with whom you might connect in the organizations for
information, introductions, and leads.
Network
Networking is about building relationships for the purpose of
making connections to enhance your career and/or job search.
People build their networks online, at their places of
employment, through internships, and in their communities, as
well as through professors, friends, friends of friends, family
members, former employers, and fellow alumni. Consider
conducting informational interviews such as those you
previously used for career exploration to network and to learn
about particular employers, industries, and individuals.
Market Yourself: Résumés
A résumé reviews your education, academic awards,
employment and volunteer experiences, college and leadership
activities, and language and technical skills. Start your
experience descriptions with action verbs and omit all personal
pronouns. Use qualifiers and quantifiers to describe the breadth
and depth of your involvement in activities. Your résumé should
be a single page in a standard 10- to 12-point font, printed on
bond paper, and error-free.
Market Yourself: Cover Letters
Cover letters are a form of business writing and should follow a
business letter format. The first paragraph of your cover letter

46. should start with information about the reason for writing,
identify how you learned of the position, and succinctly state
how your skills, degree, and experience match the requirements
of the position. The second paragraph should expand on
information about your fit for the position, discuss your
accomplishments, and use specific examples that parallel the
experience and skills that the employer seeks. The third
paragraph should identify career-related characteristics that will
support your success in the position, such as resourcefulness,
time management, and persistence. The final paragraph should
restate your interest in the position, your availability to discuss
the opportunity, and a reference to your contact information.
p.101
Market Yourself: Utilizing the Online Advantage
Utilize resources online to brand and market yourself, connect
with individuals and groups, access job listings, link to
employer and job listing sites, research employer information
and occupational trends, and/or create a website or blog to
highlight your career and professional activities and
accomplishments. Expand your network by connecting with
individuals and groups via social media and job listing sites.
Interview Strategies
An interview is your opportunity to articulate to the employer
your skills, abilities, and accomplishments that best match the
attributes that he or she is seeking in an ideal candidate. Be sure
that you have researched the employer so that you can ask
informed questions. Plan ahead so that you are able to arrive
early for the interview. When you greet the interviewer, make
eye contact, smile, and shake his or her hand firmly. As the
interview begins, be professional, but be yourself. Listen to the
interviewer’s questions without interruption and allow yourself
time to form responses before answering questions. Speak
clearly and enthusiastically about your experiences and skills
and offer detailed responses to questions that emphasize your
experience, skills, and knowledge.
Within 24 hours after an interview, e-mail or mail a thank-you

47. letter to each person with whom you met. Learn more about
interviewing strategies, as well as questions frequently asked by
employers and interviewees, on the book’s online student site.
Evaluate and Negotiate Offers
When you receive a job offer, consider it carefully by reviewing
the entire compensation package, which includes both salary
and benefits. In addition to the compensation package, review
the related pros or cons of accepting the position. To negotiate a
change in the package, start with the salary by stating your
preferred salary range. Restate your selling points, including
why you believe that your skills, knowledge, and experience are
the best fit for the position and how you will add value to the
organization. Always frame your argument in relation to the
employer’s hiring needs and the goals of the organization rather
than your preferences.
Reflect and Pursue Lifelong Career Development
Even when you have completed a specific job search, your
career development is continuous. Practice lifelong learning and
actively engage in professional development. Build your
network, develop connections to colleagues, and demonstrate
ethical behaviors in your professional activities. Continue to
explore new opportunities and review and update your career
goals. Seek to know and remain true to your career identity—
the values, aspirations, interests, talents, skills, and preferences
related to careers that are fundamental to your career
satisfaction and success.
p.102
SUMMARY
• Socialization is a lifelong, active process by which people
learn the cultures of their societies and construct a sense of who
they are.
• What we often think of as “human nature” is in fact learned
through socialization. Sociologists argue that human behavior is
not determined biologically, though biology plays some role;

48. rather, human behavior develops primarily through social
interaction.
• Although some theories emphasize the early years,
sociologists generally argue that socialization takes place
throughout the life course. The theories of Sigmund Freud and
Jean Piaget emphasize the early years, while those of George
Herbert Mead (although his role-taking theory focuses on the
earlier stages of the life course), Lawrence Kohlberg, and Judith
Harris give more consideration to the whole life course.
According to Mead, children acquire a sense of self through
symbolic interaction, including the role-taking that eventually
enables the adult to take the standpoint of society as a whole.
• Kohlberg built on Piaget’s ideas to argue that a person’s
sense of morality develops through different stages, from that in
which people strictly seek personal gain or seek to avoid
punishment to the stage in which they base moral decisions on
abstract principles.
• The immediate family provides the earliest and typically
foremost source of socialization, but school, work, peers,
religion, sports, and mass media, including the Internet, all play
a significant role.
• Socialization may differ by social class. Middle-class
families place a somewhat greater emphasis on creativity and
independence, while working-class families often stress
obedience to authority. These differences, in turn, reflect the
corresponding workplace differences associated with social
class.
• In total institutions, such as prisons, the military, and
hospitals, individuals are isolated so that society can achieve
administrative control over their lives. By enforcing rules that
govern all aspects of daily life, from dress to schedules to
interpersonal interactions, total institutions can open the way
to resocialization, which is the breaking down of the person’s
sense of self and the rebuilding of the personality.
• According to Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical approach, we
are all actors concerned with the presentation of self in social

49. interaction. People perform their social roles on the “front
stage” and are able to avoid performing on the “back stage.”
• Ethnomethodology is a method of analysis that examines the
body of commonsense knowledge and procedures by which
ordinary members of a society make sense of their social
circumstances and interaction.
• Conversation analysis, which builds on ethnomethodology,
is the study of the way participants in social interaction
recognize and produce coherent conversation.
KEY TERMS
socialization, 81
behaviorism, 83
social learning, 83
looking-glass self, 83
primary groups, 84
secondary groups, 84
reference groups, 84
I, 84
me, 84
role-taking, 84
significant others, 84
generalized other, 85
cognitive development, 85
egocentric, 85
psychoanalysis, 86
id, 86
ego, 86
superego, 86
hidden curriculum, 89
anticipatory socialization, 90
total institutions, 94
resocialization, 94
dramaturgical approach, 96
presentation of self, 96
ethnomethodology, 97
conversation analysis, 99

50. p.103
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What are agents of socialization? What agents of
socialization do sociologists identify as particularly important?
Which of these would you say have the most profound effects
on the construction of our social selves? Make a case to support
your choices.
2. The United States is a country where sports are an important
part of many people’s lives—many Americans enjoy playing
sports, while others follow their favorite sports teams closely in
the media. How are sports an agent of socialization? What roles,
norms, or values are conveyed through this agent of
socialization?
3. What role does the way people react to you play in the
development of your personality and your self-image? How can
the reactions of others influence whether or not you develop
skills as an athlete or a student or a musician, for example?
4. Recall Goffman’s ideas about social interaction and the
presentation of self. How have social media sites such as
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram affected the presentation of
self? Have there been changes to what Goffman saw as our front
and back stages?
5. What are the characteristics of total institutions such as
prisons and mental institutions? How does socialization in a
total institution differ from “ordinary” socialization?
Sharpen your skills with SAGE edge
at edge.sagepub.com/chambliss2e
A personalized approach to help you accomplish your
coursework goals in an easy-to-use learning environment.
Chapter 5

51. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
1. Do most people conform to the expectations of the groups to
which they belong? What explains conformity? What explains
dissent?
2. Why do many people think of bureaucracies as inefficient
and annoying? What would be the alternative?
3. Could a group of college students working together on a
societal issue such as rising student debt, child hunger, or
veteran homelessness bring about significant social change?
p.106
WHEN GROUPS THINK... GROUPTHINK
Patrick Smith/Stringer/Getty Images
In June 2012, former Pennsylvania State University football
assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was convicted by a Pennsylvania
court of sexually abusing children who were under his care and
supervision. Sandusky had contact with many boys through his
respected position at Penn State and his Second Mile charity, a
service organization with a mission to help disadvantaged young
people through sports. The charges, witness testimony, and
some of Sandusky’s own admissions about, for instance,
showering with boys in the Penn State locker room were
shocking to most who heard them.
But they may not have been a shock to a number of Sandusky’s
colleagues at Penn State. According to an investigative report
prepared by former FBI director Louis Freeh at the behest of the
Penn State Board of Regents, many people were already aware
of Sandusky’s abusive activities. Some, like head football coach
Joe Paterno and university president Graham Spanier, had been
aware of allegations against Sandusky for years. So why did no
one act to halt the abuse? Why were allegations and evidence of
Sandusky’s actions covered up by colleagues in the football
program and the university administration?
The case is complex, and a spectrum of answers to these
questions may be offered. One possibility, however, is

52. that groupthink played a role. Groupthink is a phenomenon
characterized by the members of a group choosing to elevate
consensus and conformity—and preservation of the group—
above other values. In an opinion piece published
by Time magazine on groupthink at Penn State, two authors, a
psychologist and a physician, argue that Penn State’s athletic
and administrative leaders chose to protect Sandusky, who was
one of their elite group, rather than the victimized children,
nearly all of whom were poor. They wanted to shield
Sandusky—and the Penn State image and program—from
damaging scrutiny. Their logic, deduced from e-mail traffic
uncovered by Freeh, is characterized by the article’s authors as
follows: “This particular insider group managed to twist logic to
the point where they thought it was more ‘humane’ to cover up
the repeated allegations of Sandusky’s abuse than to report them
to police” (Cohen & DeBenedet, 2012).
p.107
© Jim Mahoney/Dallas Morning News/Corbis
Secondary groups may evolve into primary groups for some
members. For example, when students taking the same course
begin to socialize outside of class, they may create bonds of
friendship that come to constitute a primary group.
When decisions are based primarily on how group members will
react, rather than on ethical, professional, or legal
considerations, groupthink can, as this case shows, lead to
devastating outcomes. The influence of the group can foster
deviance—but at the same time, group bonds are fundamental to
our lives and a key part of socialization and social integration.
The roles that groups play in society are clearly complex, and
they are a key focus of sociological study.
We begin this chapter with an overview of the nature of social
groups, looking at primary and secondary groups and their
effects on our lives. We also examine the power of groups in
fostering integration and enforcing conformity, among other key
functions. We then turn to a discussion of the importance of