Socialization: Role of agents of socialization Socialization has been defined as “the process by which one acquires a personal identity (sense of self or self-concept), which entails learning how to act according to the rules and expectations of a particular culture” (Newman 2008,). Sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, as well as educationists and politicians, use the word ‘socialization’ to refer to a process through which people inherit the norms and ideologies of the social order which they live. Socialization, as a process, facilitates social interaction by means of give and take of common values, customs, traditions, languages, ete. It is an ongoing process which not only leads to the all-round development of an individual but also cultivates within him, a sense of belonging with regards to his family, friends, people and society as whole. In a society, an individual or an institution has the task of making a person worth being a part of it. These individuals or institutions are called agents of socializi It is these agents that are responsible for educating an individual about the expectations of society from him, and how he should fulfill them. The transfer of rules, expectations and values is thus carried out by these agents, which in turn enables society to function smoothly. The agents of socialization are as under: Socialization is a lifelong process with many small and large passages. Infants begin the socialization process at birth. In childhood, one rite of passage is a child’s first day at school trance into a meso-level institution. This turning point marks a child's enuy into the larger world. The st of performance are now defined by the child’s teachers, peers, friends, and others outside the home Adolescence is an important stage in Western industrial and_ post-industrial societies, but this stage is far from universal. Indeed, it is largely an invention of complex societies over the past two centuries, characterized by extensive periods of formal education and dependency on parents (Papatia, Olds, and Féldman 2006). Agents of Socialization Agents of socialization are the transmitters of culture— the people, organizations, and institutions that teach us how to thrive in our social world. Agents are the mechanism by which the self learns the values, beliefs, and behaviors of the culture. Agents of socialization help new members find their place, just as they prepare oider_ members for new ‘esponsibilities in society. At the micro level, one’s family, one’s peer group, and local groups and organizations help people know what is expected of them. At the meso level, formal sources of learning— education, religion, politics, economics, and health—and other informal sources of learning such as the media and books are all agents that contribute to socialization ‘They transmit information to children and to adults throughout people’s livesThe Family and Socialization In early childhood, the family acts as the primary agent of socialization, passing on messages about respect for property, authority, and neatness, for example (Handel et al. 2007). One way in which families teach children what is right and wrong is through rewards and punishments, called sanctions.Children who steal cookies from the cookie jar may receive a verbal reprimand or a slap on the hand, be sent to their rooms, have “time out,” or receive a beating, depending on differences in child-rearing practices. These are cxamples of negative sanctions. Conversely, children may be rewarded for good behavior with a smile, praise, a cookie, or a special event. These are examples of positive sanctions. The number and types of sanctions dispensed in the family shape the socialization process, including development of the self and the perceptions we have of who we are. Note that family influence varies from one culture to another. In Japan, the mother is the key agent in the process of turning a newbori into a member of the group, passing on the strong group standards and expectations of family, neighbors, community, and society through the use of language with emotional meaning (Hendry 1987; Holloway 2001). In the United States, most parents value friendliness, cooperation, orientation toward achievement, social com petence, responsibility, and independence as qualities their children should learn, in contrast to values of conformity and fitting into the group espoused i Japan. However, subcultural value: and socialization practices may differ within the diverse groups in the U.S. population: Conceptions of what makes a “good person” or a “good citizen” and different goals of socialization bring about differences in the process of socialization around the world. In addition, the number of children in a family and the placement of each child in the family structure can influence the unique socialization experience of the child. In large families, parents typically have less time with each additional child. Where the child falls in the hierar chy of siblings can also influence the development of the self. In fact, birth order is a very strong predictor of social attitudes—perhaps more so than race, class, or gender— according to some studies (Benokraitis 2008; Freese et al. 1999), and firstborns are typically the highest achievers (“First Born Children” 2008; Paulhus, Trapnell, and Chen 1999). Younger children may be socialized by older siblings as much as by parents, and older siblings often serve as models that younger children want to emulate. The child’s first exposure to the world occurs within the family. Some essential developments occur through close interaction with a small number of people—none of whom the child has selected. Within the family the child learns to think and speak internalize norms, beliefs, and values form some basic attitudes develop a capacity for intimate and personal relationships acquire a self-image (Handel, 1990). ‘The impact of the family reaches far beyond its direct effects on the child Our family’s social class shapes what we think of ourselves and how others treat us, even far into adulthood114 VIKTOR GECAS warm, supportive, “reasonably constricting” family environment pro- Guce 4 child who is readily socialized to adult standards. On the other hané, cold, rigid, and coercively-restrictive family environments pre- duce childten who are rebellious, resentful, and insecure. ‘Since the relationship between parent and child is highly reciprocal, parents are also affected in the process. In fact, in the initial confronta Gon vetween parent and offspring, the parent is much more influenced by the ingant than vice versa, By means of the cry and the smile, infants fe very effective at shaping parental behavior (see, for example, Bell grr: Goldberg 1977; and Hheingold 196g), Socialization into the parental role is largely a matter of on-the-job training, with the child's responses to the parent one of the major processes involved in the role definition of parent, \Eumily size, configuration, and socialization outcomes There are several important socfalization consequences of family size. A number of Studies have found that children from large families have lower scores tn intelligence tests than do children from small families, even when the ‘eects of social class are controlled. Also, chiléren from smaller families Show higher achievement motivation than do those from larger families ‘Rosen ig6t; Douglas 1964). The most extensive evidence for this relatiou- ship is provided by Zajone (1976). Using records of intellectual perform- lance on various national tests (Scholastic Aptitude Test, National Merit ‘Tese) in this country and elsewhere, Zajonc has argued strongly for the 4 negative effect of family size on scholastic aptitude of children, Zajonc’ explanation of the association between family size and the child's intelli fence is based on the opportunity for interaction with parents available to the child, The basie idea of the “confluence model" proposed by Zajone is that the intellectual environment of'a family depends on the number of family members and their ages. Hence, different family configurs- tons (in terms of number and ages) constitute different intellectual envi. ronments, The intellectual environment is conceived as an average of all the family members’ mental ages, which changes continually as chil- ren grow older, and as addisions to or departures from the family occur igr6a27). The research of Zajonc, as well as others (Rosen 1961; Douglas robs; Olneck and Bills 1975), points to the negative effect of family sizeon cognitive development through its effect on the quality and quantity of parent/child interaction, In contrast tothe fairly consistent picture of the negative consequences of family size for intellectual development is the chaotic literature on birth order, which has prompted one reviewer to declare that the vari able should be abandoned (Schooler 1g7a). Zajonc (1976), however, attempted to salvage birth order as a variable by modifying his “conf. fence model” of the effects of family size and spacing to include age of siblings. His data support the proposition that birth-order effects depend ‘on age; firstborns were found to do better than secondborns initially (up until age org) then todo worse (until age 12 oF 1g), and then to do better ‘again (from 19 on). Zajone concludes that when age of siblings is taken into consideration, birth-order effects on intellectual development be- come quite patterned and understandable. This may be an overly optimistic assessment. Zajone's findings have been criticized because they are based on cross-sectional population ig Cuderts fd SecabSahow 115 data, when longitudinal data on intra-family com) sons ar pcan a a oy comps eda ~ model has also been criticized for the low level of theory upon which it ear ran me tcee rl oro 2 between family members in proportion to mental level]. (Olneck and lis 1979:137). Olneck and Bills’s (1979) study is one of the very few studies Contexts of Socialization Gp Wo consider the effect of birth order by examining within-family varia. tins Tete stay, based on a sample cl 4 sgscant ec of birth order on menses of inlet! Sly and e peel attainment. Family size, however, was significantly related ‘thee variables even when indeatrsofstal clase ere cexewion An even more damaging critique of the.confluence model” is provided PY Galbraith (1y79), who questions the mathematics upon whieh the | model i based and the discrepancy between this mode (eluding Gaoraths own data) of birteorder fess nt Inspite of the doubts about the signifieance of birth order for intlle E> tual development, it would be premature to abandon the variable. Be. ‘cause its significance is questionable regarding intellectual abilities do. ot mean that birth order i Srrlevant to other socialization outcomes, hee enough evidence to suaget tat children diferent oete in ler experience different pattems of interaction wich par. sien Sieg ore ign tam imo irstborn children have an advantageous position, Besides the grea amount of parental attention that the fArsiborn receives (Lae ead y Krietaberg 1979), he/she is also more likely tobe given responsibility and ‘control over younger siblings and to have highe1 ee eee combination of high ees Sheet ROU mee neg so tat ol ec me Ferber eee ears censsentous (Adams tfz Clausen 6 Kammeyer 1967)-On e ian ENS are also more likel re anxious, bist oder is that they are much more subjet to chit loel merece than is the firstborn. Since the firstborn Sree dren and to be more peer-oriented 0 ‘ance (Clausen 1986j19). This is consistent with they move outside the family Sampson's vat tha the cal self-concept of frstborns is based largely he serene of parents, whereas the self-concept of latterborn children is m 4o reflect peer evaluations, provided mainly by siblings. aioe SOCIALIZATION IN SINGLE- PARENT FAMILIES AILS The single-parent family is ‘an increasing! ingle sy frequent phenomeno having substantial consequences for child socialization If resent soos ue, nearly half ofthe children born today will spend some tine inTS VIKTOR GE 2 one-pazent family, usually as a result of separation of divorce (Gi 1978). Research on the consequences ofthis circumstance forthe devel ment of children and parents is sparse. Bu: what there js suggests the consequences are negative. For example, Hetherington etal. (7, 1978) found pronounced diferences between two samplesat ralddle gage parents (recently divorced and married) ir. the quality of parent/child dnteraction. Divorced parents made fewer maturing demands, were less affectionate, and showed marked inconsistency in diseipline ané control of their children in comparison to marrieé parents. The reciprocity of this relationship and its effects were evident in the similar pattern of negative behavior of the children toward their parents. Hetherington et al furtner observed that children living in single-parent homes are more Ukely to experience problems in ecgnitive, emotional, and social devel ‘opment than are children in “intact” families