From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

This is the print version of Introduction_to_Sociology You won't see this message or any elements not part of the book's content when you print or preview this page.

Note: current version of this book can be found at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology

Remember to click "refresh" to view this version.

[edit] Table of contents

• Authors
• Basic Sociological Ideas
• Introduction
• Sociological Methods
• General Sociological Theory
• Social Life
• Society
• Culture
• Socialization
• Groups
• Demography
• Sexuality
• Deviance and Norms
• Social psychology
• Aging
• Social Inequality
• Race and Ethnicity
• Gender
• Stratification
• Social Institutions
• Organizations
• Family
• The Economy
• Religion
• Politics and Government
• Media
• Education
• Health and Medicine
• Social Change
• Collective Behavior
• Social Movements
• Human Ecology and Urbanization

Arranged By Akber Mayo

[edit] Authors

• Rcragun Ryan T. Cragun, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Tampa
  • Contribution: Initial book layout and the development of most of the first 15 chapters
• Deborahcragun Deborah Cragun, MS Human Genetics; Visiting Professor, University of Tampa
  • Contribution: Developed the chapters on health care and medicine and race and ethnicity.
• Piotrus Piotr Konieczny, PhD student in sociology, University of Pittsburgh
  • Contributions: various small changes, videos, slides and downloadable tools

(Note: Rcragun originally contributed under the username rtcearly but since changed his username.)

[edit] Introduction

Sociology is the study of human social life. Because human social life is so expansive, sociology has many sub-sections of study, ranging from the analysis of conversations to the development of theories to try to understand how the entire world works. This chapter will introduce you to sociology and explain why it is important, how it can change your perspective of the world around you, and give a brief history of the discipline.

[edit] What is Sociology?

Sociology is the study of human social life. Because human social life is so expansive, sociology has many sub-sections of study, ranging from the analysis of conversations to the development of theories to try to understand how the entire world works. This chapter will introduce you to sociology and explain why it is important, how it can change your perspective of the world around you, and give a brief history of the discipline.

Sociology is a branch of the social sciences that uses systematic methods of empirical investigation[1][2] and critical analysis[3] to develop and refine a body of knowledge about human social structure and activity, sometimes with the goal of applying such knowledge to the pursuit of government policies designed to benefit the general social welfare. Its subject matter ranges from the micro level to the macro level. Microsociology involves the study of people in face-to-face interactions. Macrosociology involves the study of widespread social processes.

Sociology is a broad discipline in terms of both methodology and subject matter. Its traditional focuses have included social relations, social stratification, social interaction, culture and deviance, and its approaches have included both qualitative and quantitative research techniques. As much of what humans do fits under the category of social structure or social activity, sociology has gradually expanded its focus to such far-flung subjects as the study of economic activity, health disparities, and even the role of social activity in the creation of scientific knowledge. The range of social scientific methods has also been broadly expanded. The "cultural turn" of the 1970s and 1980s brought more humanistic interpretive approaches to the study of culture in sociology. Conversely, the same decades saw the rise of new mathematically rigorous approaches, such as social network analysis.

The social world is changing. Some argue it is growing; others say it is shrinking. The important point to grasp is: society does not remain unchanged over time. As will be discussed in more detail below, sociology has its roots in significant societal changes (e.g., the industrial revolution, the creation of empires, and the age of enlightenment of scientific reasoning). Early practitioners developed the discipline as an attempt to understand societal changes.

Some early sociological theorists (e.g., Marx, Weber, and Durkheim) were disturbed by the social processes they believed to be driving the change, such as the quest for solidarity, the attainment of social goals, and the rise and fall of classes, to name a few examples. The founders of sociology were some of the earliest individuals to employ what C. Wright Mills (a prominent mid-20th century American sociologist) labeled the sociological imagination: the ability to situate personal troubles within an informed framework of social issues.[1] Mills proposed that:

"What people need... is a quality of mind that will help them to use information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening within themselves. The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals."[1]

As Mills saw it, the sociological imagination could help individuals cope with the social world by helping them to step outside of their personal, self-centric view of the world. In employing the sociological imagination, people are able to see the events and social structures that influence behavior, attitudes, and culture.

The sociological imagination goes beyond armchair sociology or common sense. Many people believe they understand the world and the events taking place within it, even though they have not actually engaged in a systematic attempt to understanding the social world, as sociologists do. Humans like to attribute causes to events and attempt to understand what is taking place around them. This is why individuals have been using religious ceremonies for centuries to invoke the will of the gods - because they believed the gods controlled certain elements of the natural world (e.g., the weather). Just as sacrificing two goats to ensure the safe operation of a Boeing 757 (and propitiate Akash Bhairab, the Hindu sky god) is an attempt to influence the natural world without first trying to understand how it works,[2] armchair sociology is an attempt to understand how the social world works without employing scientific methods.

It would be inaccurate to say sociologists never sit around (even sometimes in comfy armchairs) trying to figure out how the world works. But induction is just a first step in understanding the social world. In order to test their theories, sociologists get up from their armchairs and enter the social world. They gather data and evaluate their theories in light of the data they collect (a.k.a. deduction). Sociologists do not just propose theories about how the social world works. Sociologists test their theories about how the world works using the scientific method.

Sociologists, like all humans, have values, beliefs, and even pre-conceived notions of what they might find in doing their research. But, as Peter Berger, a well-known sociologist, argued, what distinguishes the sociologist from non-scientific researchers is that "[the] sociologist tries to see what is there. He may have hopes or fears concerning what he may find. But he will try to see, regardless of his hopes or fears. It is thus an act of pure perception..."[3]

Sociology, then, is an attempt to understand the social world by situating social events in their corresponding environment (i.e., social structure, culture, history) and trying to understand social phenomena by collecting and analyzing empirical data.

[edit] History

Sociology is a relatively new academic discipline. It emerged in the early 19th century in response to the challenges of modernity. Increasing mobility and technological advances resulted in the increasing exposure of people to cultures and societies different from their own. The impact of this exposure was varied, but for some people included the breakdown of traditional norms and customs and warranted a revised understanding of how the world works. Sociologists responded to these changes by trying to understand what holds social groups together and also explore possible solutions to the breakdown of social solidarity.

[edit] Auguste Comte and Other Founders

The term sociology was coined by Auguste Comte (1798-1857) in 1838 from the Latin term socius (companion, associate) and the Greek term logia (study of, speech). Comte hoped to unify all the sciences under sociology; he believed sociology held the potential to improve society and direct human activity, including the other sciences.

While it is no longer a theory employed in Sociology, Comte argued for an understanding of society he labeled The Law of Three Stages. Comte, not unlike other enlightenment thinkers, believed society developed in stages. The first was the theological stage where people took a religious view of society. The second was the metaphysical stage where people understood society as natural (not supernatural). Comte's final stage was the scientific or positivist stage, which he believed to be the pinnacle of social development. In the scientific stage, society would be governed by reliable knowledge and would be understood in light of the knowledge produced by science, primarily sociology. While vague connections between Comte's Law and human history can be seen, it is generally understood in Sociology today that Comte's approach is a highly simplified and ill-founded approach to understand social development (see instead demographic transition theory and Ecological-Evolutionary Theory).

Other classical theorists of sociology from the late 19th and early 20th centuries include Karl Marx, Ferdinand Toennies, Emile Durkheim, Vilfredo Pareto, and Max Weber. As pioneers in Sociology, most of the early sociological thinkers were trained in other academic disciplines, including history, philosophy, and economics. The diversity of their trainings is reflected in the topics they researched, including religion, education, economics, psychology, ethics, philosophy, and theology. Perhaps with the exception of Marx, their most enduring influence has been on sociology, and it is in this field that their theories are still considered most applicable.

[edit] The Development of the Discipline

The first book with the term sociology in its title was written in the mid-19th century by the English philosopher Herbert Spencer. In the United States, the first Sociology course was taught at the University of Kansas, Lawrence in 1890 under the title Elements of Sociology (the oldest continuing sociology course in America). The first full fledged university department of sociology in the United States was established in 1892 at the University of Chicago by Albion W. Small, who in 1895 founded the American Journal of Sociology. The first European department of sociology was founded in 1895 at the University of Bordeaux by Emile Durkheim, founder of L'Année Sociologique (1896). In 1919 a sociology department was established in Germany at the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich by Max Weber and in 1920 in Poland by Florian Znaniecki. The first sociology departments in the United Kingdom were founded after the Second World War.

International cooperation in sociology began in 1893 when Rene Worms founded the small Institut International de Sociologie that was eclipsed by the much larger International Sociologist Association starting in 1949. In 1905 the American Sociological Association, the world's largest association of professional sociologists, was founded.

[edit] Early Sociological Studies

Early sociological studies considered the field to be similar to the natural sciences, like physics or biology. As a result, many researchers argued that the methodology used in the natural sciences was perfectly suited for use in the social sciences. The effect of employing the scientific method and stressing empiricism was the distinction of sociology from theology, philosophy, and metaphysics. This also resulted in sociology being recognized as an empirical science. This early sociological approach, supported by August Comte, led to positivism, a methodological approach based on sociological naturalism. The goal of positivism, like the natural sciences, is prediction. But in the case of sociology, it is prediction of human behavior, which is a complicated proposition.

The goal of predicting human behavior was quickly realized to be a bit lofty. Scientists like Wilhelm Dilthey and Heinrich Rickert argued that the natural world differs from the social world, as human society has culture, unlike the societies of most other animals (e.g., the behavior of ants, wolves, etc. is primarily based on genetic instructions and is not passed from generation to generation through socialization). As a result, an additional goal was proposed for sociology. Max Weber and Wilhelm Dilthey introduced the concept of verstehen. The goal of verstehen is less to predict behavior than it is to understand behavior. Outside observers of a culture relate to an indigenous people on both the observer's and the observeds' own terms in order to comprehend the cultural conditions. While arriving at a verstehen-like understanding of a culture employs systematic methodologies like the positivistic approach of predicting human behavior, it is often a more subjective process.

The inability of sociology and other social sciences to perfectly predict the behavior of humans or to fully comprehend a different culture has led to the social sciences being labeled "soft sciences." While some might consider this label derogatory, in a sense it can be seen as an admission of the remarkable complexity of humans as social animals. Any animal as complex as humans is bound to be difficult to fully comprehend. What's more, humans, human society, and human culture are all constantly changing, which means the social sciences will constantly be works in progress.

[edit] Quantitative vs. Qualitative Sociology

The contrast between positivist sociology and the verstehen approach has been reformulated in modern sociology as a distinction between quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches, respectively. Quantitative sociology is generally a numerical approach to understanding human behavior. Surveys with large numbers of participants are aggregated into data sets and analyzed using statistics, allowing researchers to discern patterns in human behavior. Qualitative sociology generally opts for depth over breadth. The qualitative approach uses in-depth interviews, focus groups, or analysis of content sources (books, magazines, journals, TV shows, etc.) as the data source. These sources are then analyzed systematically to discern patterns and to arrive at a better understanding of human behavior.

Drawing a hard and fast distinction between quantitative and qualitative sociology is a bit misleading. The first step in all sciences is the development of a theory and the generation of testable hypotheses. While there are some individuals who begin analyzing data without a theoretical orientation to guide their analysis,^[1] most begin with a theoretical idea or question and gather data to test that theory. The second step is the collection of data. This is really where the two approaches differ. Quantitative sociology focuses on numerical representations of the research subjects (e.g., do conservative Christian fathers spend more time in child care than secular fathers, measured in hours^[2]). Qualitative sociology focuses on the ideas found within the discourse and rhetoric of the research subjects (e.g., what is the narrative homosexual men use to explain their continued participation in religions that condemn their sexual orientation^[3]). The goal of both approaches is to answer a question and/or test a theory. Some qualitative research implements what Weber^[4] and Dilthey^[5] called Verstehen; they will try to comprehend and empathize with the history and social life of the subjects of study.^[6]

[edit] Sociology and Other Social Sciences

The social sciences comprise the application of scientific methods to the study of the human aspects of the world. Psychology studies the human mind and micro-level (or individual) behavior; sociology examines human society; political science studies the governing of groups and countries; communication studies the flow of discourse via various media; economics concerns itself with the production and allocation of wealth in society; and social work is the application of social scientific knowledge in society. Social sciences diverge from the humanities in that many in the social sciences emphasize the scientific method or other rigorous standards of evidence in the study of humanity.

[edit] The Development of Social Science

In ancient philosophy, there was no difference between the liberal arts of mathematics and the study of history, poetry or politics. Only with the development of mathematical proof did there gradually arise a perceived difference between scientific disciplines and the humanities or liberal arts. Thus, Aristotle studied planetary motion and poetry with the same methods; Plato mixed geometrical proofs with his demonstration on the state of intrinsic knowledge.

This unity of science as descriptive remained, for example, in the time of Thomas Hobbes, who argued that deductive reasoning from axioms created a scientific framework. His book, Leviathan, was a scientific description of a political commonwealth. Within decades of Hobbes' work a revolution took place in what constituted science, particularly with the work of Isaac Newton in physics. Newton, by revolutionizing what was then called natural philosophy, changed the basic framework by which individuals understood what was scientific.

While Newton was merely the archetype of an accelerating trend, the important distinction is that for Newton the mathematical flowed from a presumed reality independent of the observer and it worked by its own rules. For philosophers of the same period, mathematical expression of philosophical ideals were taken to be symbolic of natural human relationships as well: the same laws moved physical and spiritual reality. For examples see Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Leibniz and Johannes Kepler, each of whom took mathematical examples as models for human behavior directly. In Pascal's case, the famous wager; for Leibniz, the invention of binary computation; and for Kepler, the intervention of angels to guide the planets.

In the realm of other disciplines, this created a pressure to express ideas in the form of mathematical relationships. Such relationships, called Laws after the usage of the time (see philosophy of science) became the model that other disciplines would emulate. In the late 19th century, attempts to apply equations to statements about human behavior became increasingly common. Among the first were the Laws of philology, which attempted to map the change overtime of sounds in a language. In the early 20th century, a wave of change came to science that saw statistical study sufficiently mathematical to be science.

The first thinkers to attempt to combine scientific inquiry with the exploration of human relationships were Sigmund Freud in Austria and William James in the United States. Freud's theory of the functioning of the mind and James' work on experimental psychology had an enormous impact on those who followed.

One of the most persuasive advocates for the view of scientific treatment of philosophy is John Dewey (1859-1952). He began, as Marx did, in an attempt to weld Hegelian idealism and logic to experimental science, for example in his Psychology of 1887. However, it is when he abandoned Hegelian constructs and joined the movement in America called Pragmatism that he began to formulate his basic doctrine on the three phases of the process of inquiry:

1. problematic situation, where the typical response is inadequate
2. isolation of data or subject matter
3. reflective, which is tested empirically

With the rise of the idea of quantitative measurement in the physical sciences (see, for example Lord Rutherford's famous maxim that any knowledge that one cannot measure numerically "is a poor sort of knowledge"), the stage was set for the division of the study of humanity into the humanities and the social sciences.

[edit] Sociology Today

Although sociology emerged from Comte's vision of a discipline that would subsume all other areas of scientific inquiry, that was not to be the future of sociology. Far from replacing the other sciences, sociology has taken its place as a particular perspective for investigating human social life.

In the past, sociological research focused on the organization of complex, industrial societies and their influence on individuals. Today, sociologists study a broad range of topics. For instance, some sociologists research macro-structures that organize society, such as race or ethnicity, social class, gender roles, and institutions such as the family. Other sociologists study social processes that represent the breakdown of macro-structures, including deviance, crime, and divorce. Additionally, some sociologists study micro-processes such as interpersonal interactions and the socialization of individuals. It should also be noted that recent sociologists, taking cues from anthropologists, have realized the Western emphasis of the discipline. In response, many sociology departments around the world are now encouraging multi-cultural research.

The next two chapters in this book will introduce the reader to more extensive discussions of the methods and theory employed in sociology. The remaining chapters are examinations of current areas of research in the discipline.

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• American Sociological Association
• Analysing and Overcoming the Sociological Fragmentation in Europe: European Virtual Library of Sociology
• A Century of Sociology at University of Kansas, by Alan Sica (Adobe Acrobat PDF file)
• International Sociological Association
• The Sociolog. Comprehensive Guide to Sociology
• Social Science Virtual Library

Sociological Methods →

Introduction to Sociology · Sociological Methods →

[edit] Sociological methods

[edit] Introduction

The goal of this chapter is to introduce the methods employed by sociologists in their study of social life. This is not a chapter on statistics nor does it detail specific methods in sociological investigation. The primary aim is to illustrate how sociologists go beyond common sense understandings in trying to explain or understand social phenomena.

[edit] The Development of Social Science

In ancient philosophy, there was no difference between the liberal arts of mathematics and the study of history, poetry or politics - only with the development of mathematical proof did there gradually arise a perceived difference between scientific disciplines and the humanities or liberal arts. Thus, Aristotle studied planetary motion and poetry with the same methods, and Plato mixed geometrical proofs with his demonstration on the state of intrinsic knowledge.

This unity of science as descriptive remained, for example, in the time of Thomas Hobbes who argued that deductive reasoning from axioms created a scientific framework; his book, Leviathan, was a scientific description of a political commonwealth. Within decades of Hobbes' work a revolution took place in what constituted science, particularly with the work of Isaac Newton in physics. Newton, by revolutionizing what was then called natural philosophy, changed the basic framework by which individuals understood what was scientific.

While Newton was merely the archetype of an accelerating trend, the important distinction is that for Newton the mathematical flowed from a presumed reality independent of the observer and it worked by its own rules. For philosophers of the same period, mathematical expression of philosophical ideals were taken to be symbolic of natural human relationships as well: the same laws moved physical and spiritual reality. For examples see Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Leibniz and Johannes Kepler, each of whom took mathematical examples as models for human behavior directly. In Pascal's case, the famous wager; for Leibniz, the invention of binary computation; and for Kepler, the intervention of angels to guide the planets.

In the realm of other disciplines, this created a pressure to express ideas in the form of mathematical relationships. Such relationships, called Laws after the usage of the time (see philosophy of science) became the model that other disciplines would emulate. In the late 19th century, attempts to apply equations to statements about human behavior became increasingly common. Among the first were the Laws of philology, which attempted to map the change over time of sounds in a language. In the early 20th century, a wave of change came to science that saw statistical study sufficiently mathematical to be science.

The first thinkers to attempt to combine scientific inquiry with the exploration of human relationships were Sigmund Freud in Austria and William James in the United States. Freud's theory of the functioning of the mind and James' work on experimental psychology had an enormous impact on those who followed.

With the rise of the idea of quantitative measurement in the physical sciences (see, for example Lord Rutherford's famous maxim that any knowledge that one cannot measure numerically "is a poor sort of knowledge"), the stage was set for the conception of the humanities as being precursors to social science.

[edit] The Scientific Method

A scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon verifiable evidence. In addition to employing the scientific method in their research, sociologists explore the social world with several different purposes in mind. Like the physical sciences (i.e., chemistry, physics, etc.), sociologists can be and often are interested in predicting outcomes given knowledge of the variables and relationships involved. This approach to doing science is often termed positivism. The positivist approach to social science seeks to explain and predict social phenomena, often employing a quantitative approach. But unlike the physical sciences, sociology (and other social sciences, specifically anthropology) also often seek for understanding social phenomena. Max Weber labeled this approach Verstehen, which is German for understanding. In this approach, which is similar to ethnography, the goal is to understand a culture or phenemon on its own terms rather than trying to predict it. Both approaches employ a scientific method as they make observations and gather data, propose hypotheses, and test their hypotheses in the formulation of theories. These steps are outlined in more detail below.

Sociologists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for social phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. A scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our natural world.

The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations and recursions of the following four steps:

1. Characterization (operationalization or quantification, observation and measurement)
2. Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation of the observations and measurements)
3. Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)
4. Experiment (test of all of the above; in the social sciences, true experiments are often replaced with a different form of data analysis that will be discussed in more detail below)

[edit] Characterization

A scientific method depends upon a careful characterization of the subject of the investigation. While seeking the pertinent properties of the subject, this careful thought may also entail some definitions and observations; the observation often demands careful measurement and/or counting.

The systematic, careful collection of measurements or counts of relevant quantities is often the critical difference between pseudo-sciences, such as alchemy, and a science, such as chemistry. Scientific measurements taken are usually tabulated, graphed, or mapped, and statistical manipulations, such as correlation and regression, performed on them. The measurements might be made in a controlled setting, such as a laboratory, or made on more or less inaccessible or unmanipulatable objects such as human populations. The measurements often require specialized scientific instruments such as thermometers, spectroscopes, or voltmeters, and the progress of a scientific field is usually intimately tied to their invention and development.

Measurements demand the use of operational definitions of relevant quantities (a.k.a. operationalization). That is, a scientific quantity is described or defined by how it is measured, as opposed to some more vague, inexact or idealized definition. The operational definition of a thing often relies on comparisons with standards: the operational definition of mass ultimately relies on the use of an artifact, such as a certain kilogram of platinum kept in a laboratory in France.

To operationalize a variable means that you are creating an operational definition for the concept you intend to measure-- you are defining the concept with enough precision that a researcher can take an objective measurement of that concept.

The scientific definition of a term sometimes differs substantially from its natural language usage. For example, sex and gender are often used interchangeably in common discourse, but have distinct meanings in sociology. Scientific quantities are often characterized by their units of measure which can later be described in terms of conventional physical units when communicating the work.

Measurements in scientific work are also usually accompanied by estimates of their uncertainty. The uncertainty is often estimated by making repeated measurements of the desired quantity. Uncertainties may also be calculated by consideration of the uncertainties of the individual underlying quantities that are used. Counts of things, such as the number of people in a nation at a particular time, may also have an uncertainty due to limitations of the method used. Counts may only represent a sample of desired quantities, with an uncertainty that depends upon the sampling method used and the number of samples taken.

[edit] Hypothesis Development

A hypothesis includes a suggested explanation of the subject. It will generally provide a causal explanation or propose some association between two variables. If the hypothesis is a causal explanation, it will involve at least one dependent variable and one independent variable.

Variables are measurable phenomena whose values can change (e.g., class status can range from lower- to upper-class). A dependent variable is a variable whose values are presumed to change as a result of the independent variable. In other words, the value of a dependent variable depends on the value of the independent variable. Of course, this assumes that there is an actual relationship between the two variables. If there is no relationship, then the value of the dependent variable does not depend on the value of the independent variable. An independent variable is a variable whose value is manipulated by the experimenter (or, in the case of non-experimental analysis, changes in the society and is measured). Perhaps an example will help clarify. In a study of the influence of gender on promotion, the independent variable would be gender/sex. Promotion would be the dependent variable. Change in promotion is hypothesized to be dependent on gender.

Scientists use whatever they can — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, systematic guessing, etc. — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study. There are no definitive guidelines for the production of new hypotheses. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming a flash of inspiration, or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support or refute their idea.

[edit] Prediction

A useful hypothesis will enable predictions, by deductive reasoning, that can be experimentally assessed. If results contradict the predictions, then the hypothesis under examination is incorrect or incomplete and requires either revision or abandonment. If results confirm the predictions, then the hypothesis might be correct but is still subject to further testing. Predictions refer to experimental designs with a currently unknown outcome. A prediction (of an unknown) differs from a consequence (which can already be known).

[edit] Experiment

Once a prediction is made, an experiment is designed to test it. The experiment may seek either confirmation or falsification of the hypothesis.

Scientists assume an attitude of openness and accountability on the part of those conducting an experiment. Detailed record keeping is essential, to aid in recording and reporting on the experimental results, and providing evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure. They will also assist in reproducing the experimental results.

The experiment's integrity should be ascertained by the introduction of a control. Two virtually identical experiments are run, in only one of which the factor being tested is varied. This serves to further isolate any causal phenomena. For example in testing a drug it is important to carefully test that the supposed effect of the drug is produced only by the drug. Doctors may do this with a double-blind study: two virtually identical groups of patients are compared, one of which receives the drug and one of which receives a placebo. Neither the patients nor the doctor know who is getting the real drug, isolating its effects. This type of experiment is often referred to as a true experiment because of its design. It is contrasted with alternative forms below.

Once an experiment is complete, a researcher determines whether the results (or data) gathered are what was predicted. If the experimental conclusions fail to match the predictions/hypothesis, then one returns to the failed hypothesis and re-iterates the process. If the experiment appears successful - i.e. fits the hypothesis - the experimenter often will attempt to publish the results so that others (in theory) may reproduce the same experimental results, verifying the findings in the process.

An experiment is not an absolute requirement. In observation based fields of science actual experiments must be designed differently than for the classical laboratory based sciences. Due to ethical concerns and the sheer cost of manipulating large segments of society, sociologists often turn to other methods for testing hypotheses. In lieu of holding variables constant in laboratory settings, sociologists employ statistical techniques (e.g., regression) that allow them to control the variables in the analysis rather than in the data collection. For instance, in examining the effects of gender on promotions, sociologists may control for the effects of social class as this variable will likely influence the relationship. Unlike a true experiment where these variables are held constant in a laboratory setting, sociologists use statistical methods to hold constant social class (or, better stated, partial out the variance accounted for by social class) so they can see the relationship between gender and promotions without the interference of social class. Thus, while the true experiment is ideally suited for the performance of science, especially because it is the best method for deriving causal relationships, other methods of hypothesis testing are commonly employed in the social sciences.

[edit] Evaluation and Iteration

The scientific process is iterative. At any stage it is possible that some consideration will lead the scientist to repeat an earlier part of the process. For instance, failure of a hypothesis to produce interesting and testable predictions may lead to reconsideration of the hypothesis or of the definition of the subject.

It is also important to note that science is a social enterprise, and scientific work will become accepted by the community only if it can be verified. Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the scientific community. All scientific knowledge is in a state of flux, for at any time new evidence could be presented that contradicts a long-held hypothesis. For this reason, scientific journals use a process of peer review, in which scientists' manuscripts are submitted by editors of scientific journals to (usually one to three) fellow (usually anonymous) scientists familiar with the field for evaluation. The referees may or may not recommend publication, publication with suggested modifications, or, sometimes, publication in another journal. This serves to keep the scientific literature free of unscientific work, helps to cut down on obvious errors, and generally otherwise improves the quality of the scientific literature. Work announced in the popular press before going through this process is generally frowned upon. Sometimes peer review inhibits the circulation of unorthodox work, and at other times may be too permissive. The peer review process is not always successful, but has been very widely adopted by the scientific community.

The reproducibility or replication of scientific observations, while usually described as being very important in a scientific method, is actually seldom reported, and is in reality often not done. Referees and editors often reject papers purporting only to reproduce some observations as being unoriginal and not containing anything new. Occasionally reports of a failure to reproduce results are published - mostly in cases where controversy exists or a suspicion of fraud develops. The threat of failure to replicate by others, however, serves as a very effective deterrent for most scientists, who will usually replicate their own data several times before attempting to publish.

Sometimes useful observations or phenomena themselves cannot be reproduced. They may be rare, or even unique events. Reproducibility of observations and replication of experiments is not a guarantee that they are correct or properly understood. Errors can all too often creep into more than one laboratory.

[edit] Correlation and Causation

In the scientific pursuit of prediction and explanation, two relationships between variables are often confused: correlation and causation. Correlation refers to a relationship between two (or more) variables in which they change together. A correlation can be positive/direct or negative/inverse. A positive correlation means that as one variable increases (e.g., ice cream consumption) the other variable also increases (e.g., crime). A negative correlation is just the opposite; as one variable increases (e.g., socioeconomic status), the other variable decreases (e.g., infant mortality rates).

Causation refers to a relationship between two (or more) variables where one variable causes the other. In order for a variable to cause another, it must meet the following three criteria:

• the variables must be correlated
• change in the independent variable must precede change in the dependent variable in time
• it must be shown that a different (third) variable is not causing the change in the two variables of interest (a.k.a., spurious correlation)

An example may help explain the difference. Ice cream consumption (ICC) is positively correlated with incidents of crime.

Employing the scientific method outlined above, the reader should immediately question this relationship and attempt to discover an explanation. It is at this point that a simple yet noteworthy phrase should be introduced: correlation is not causation. If you look back at the three criteria of causation above, you will notice that the relationship between ice cream consumption (ICC) and crime meets only one of the three criteria. The real explanation of this relationship is the introduction of a third variable: temperature. ICC and crime increase during the summer months. Thus, while these two variables are correlated, ICC does not cause crime or vice versa. Both variables increase due to the increasing temperatures during the summer months.

It is important to not confound a correlation with a cause/effect relationship. It is often the case that correlations between variables are found but the relationship turns out to be spurious. Clearly understanding the relationship between variables is an important element of the scientific process.

[edit] Quantitative and Qualitative

Like the distinction drawn between positivist sociology and Verstehen sociology, there is often a distinction drawn between two types of sociological investigation: quantitative and qualitative.

Quantitative methods of sociological research approach social phenomena from the perspective that they can be measured and/or quantified. For instance, social class, following the quantitative approach, can be divided into different groups - upper-, middle-, and lower-class - and can be measured using any of a number of variables or a combination thereof: income, educational attainment, prestige, power, etc. Quantitative sociologists tend to use specific methods of data collection and hypothesis testing, including: experimental designs, surveys, secondary data analysis, and statistical analysis.

Qualitative methods of sociological research tend to approach social phenomena from the Verstehen perspective. They are used to develop a deeper understanding of a particular phenomenon. They also often deliberately give up on quantity - necessary for statistical analysis - in order to reach a depth in analysis of the phenomenon studied. Even so, qualitative methods can be used to propose relationships between variables. Qualitatively oriented sociologists tend to employ different methods of data collection and hypothesis testing, including: participant observation, interviews, focus groups, content analysis and historical comparison.

While there are sociologists who employ and encourage the use of only one or the other method, many sociologists see benefits in combining the approaches. They view quantitative and qualitative approaches as complementary. Results from one approach can fill gaps in the other approach. For example, quantitative methods could describe large or general patterns in society while qualitative approaches could help to explain how individuals understand those patterns.

[edit] Objective vs. Critical

Sociologists, like all humans, have values, beliefs, and even pre-conceived notions of what they might find in doing their research. Because sociologists are not immune to the desire to change the world, two approaches to sociological investigation have emerged. By far the most common is the objective approach advocated by Max Weber. Weber recognized that social scientists have opinions, but argued against the expression of non-professional or non-scientific opinions in the classroom.^[1] Weber took this position for several reasons, but the primary one outlined in his discussion of Science as Vocation is that he believed it is not right for a person in a position of authority (a professor) to force his/her students to accept his/her opinions in order for them to pass the class. Weber did argue that it was okay for social scientists to express their opinions outside of the classroom and advocated for social scientists to be involved in politics and other social activism. The objective approach to social science remains popular in sociological research and refereed journals because it refuses to engage social issues at the level of opinions and instead focuses intently on data and theories.

The objective approach is contrasted with the critical approach, which has its roots in Karl Marx's work on economic structures. Anyone familiar with Marxist theory will recognize that Marx went beyond describing society to advocating for change. Marx disliked capitalism and his analysis of that economic system included the call for change. This approach to sociology is often referred to today as critical sociology (see also action research). Some sociological journals focus on critical sociology and some sociological approaches are inherently critical (e.g., feminism, black feminist thought).

[edit] Ethics

Ethical considerations are of particular importance to sociologists because of the subject of investigation - people. Because ethical considerations are of so much importance, sociologists adhere to a rigorous set of ethical guidelines. A comprehensive explanation of sociological guidelines is provided on the website of the American Sociological Association. Some of the more common and important ethical guidelines of sociological investigation will be touched upon below.

The most important ethical consideration of sociological research is that participants in sociological investigation are not harmed. While exactly what this entails can vary from study to study, there are several universally recognized considerations. For instance, research on children and youth always requires parental consent. Research on adults also requires informed consent and participants are never forced to participate. Confidentiality and anonymity are two additional practices that ensure the safety of participants when sensitive information is provided (e.g., sexuality, income, etc.). To ensure the safety of participants, most universities maintain an institutional review board (IRB) that reviews studies that include human participants and ensures ethical rigor.

As regards professional ethics, several issues are noteworthy. Obviously honesty in research, analysis, and publication is important. Sociologists who manipulate their data are ostracized and will have their memberships in professional organizations revoked. Conflicts of interest are also frowned upon. A conflict of interest can occur when a sociologist is given funding to conduct research on an issue that relates to the source of the funds. For example, if Microsoft were to fund a sociologist to investigate whether users of Microsoft's product users are happier than users of open source software, the sociologist would need to disclose the source of the funding as it presents a significant conflict of interest.

[edit] What Can Sociology Tell Us?

Having discussed the sociological approach to understanding society, it is worth noting the limitations of sociology. Because of the subject of investigation (society), sociology runs into a number of problems that have significant implications for this field of inquiry:

• human behavior is complex, making prediction - especially at the individual level - difficult or even impossible
• the presence of researchers can affect the phenomenon being studied (Hawthorne Effect)
• society is constantly changing, making it difficult for sociologists to maintain current understandings; in fact, society might even change as a result of sociological investigation (for instance, sociologists testified in the Brown v. Board of Education decision to integrate schools)
• it is difficult for sociologists to remain objective when the phenomena they study is also part of their social life

While it is important to recognize the limitations of sociology, sociology's contributions to our understanding of society have been significant and continue to provide useful theories and tools for understanding humans as social beings.

[edit] References

This chapter also draws on the following Wikipedia articles:

• common sense
• scientific method
• Induction (philosophy)
• Deductive reasoning
• qualitative method
• hypothesis
• independent variable
• dependent variable
• Philosophy of science

[edit] External links

• Resources for program evaluation and methods in social research
• Science as Vocation

← Introduction · Sociological Theory →

← Introduction · Introduction to Sociology · Sociological Theory →

[edit] General sociological theory

[edit] Introduction

Sociologists develop theories to explain social phenomena. A theory is a proposed relationship between two or more concepts. To use the example from the previous chapter, one might propose the following theory:

Ice cream consumption and crime rates are correlated, increasing and decreasing together (the data). As a result, a theorist could propose that the consumption of ice cream results in angered individuals who then commit crimes (the theory).

Of course, this theory is not an accurate representation of reality. But, it illustrates the use of theory - to elucidate the relationship between two concepts; in this case, ice cream consumption and crime.

Sociological theory is developed at multiple levels, ranging from grand theory to highly contextualized and specific micro-range theories. There are literally thousands of middle-range and micro-range theories in sociology. Because such theories are dependent on context and specific to certain situations, it is beyond the scope of this text to explore each of those theories. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce some of the more well-known and most commonly used grand and middle-range theories in sociology. For a brief explanation of the different levels of sociological theorizing, see Sociological Abstraction.

[edit] Importance of Theory

In the theory proposed above, the astute reader will notice that the theory includes two components: The data, in this case the correlation between ice cream consumption and crime rates, and the proposed relationship, that the increase in ice cream consumption causes the increase in crime. Data alone are not particularly informative. In fact, it is often said that 'data without theory is not sociology'. In order to understand the social world around us, it is necessary to employ theory to draw the connections between seemingly disparate concepts.

Take, for instance, Emile Durkheim's class work Suicide. Durkheim was interested in explaining a social phenomenon, suicide, and employed both data and theory to offer an explanation. By aggregating data for large groups of people in Europe, Durkheim was able to discern patterns in suicide rates and connect those patterns with another concept (or variable): religious affiliation. Durkheim found that Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than were Catholics. At this point, Durkheim's analysis was still in the data stage; he had not proposed an explanation of the relationship between religious affiliation and suicide rates. It was when Durkheim introduced the ideas of anomie (or chaos) and social solidarity that he began to formulate a theory. Durkheim argued that the looser social ties found in Protestant religions lead to weaker social cohesion and social solidarity and result in increased social anomie. The higher suicide rates were the result of weakening social bonds among Protestants, according to Durkheim.

While Durkheim's findings have since been criticized, his study is a classic example of the use of theory to explain the relationship between two concepts. Durkheim's work also illustrates the importance of theory: without theories to explain the relationship between concepts, we would not be able to understand cause and effect relationships in social life or otherwise gain better understandings of social activity (i.e., Verstehen).

[edit] The Multiplicity of Theories

As the dominant theories in sociology are discussed below, the reader might be inclined to ask, "Which of these theories is the best?" Rather than think of one theory being better than another, it is more useful and informative to view these theories as complementary. One theory may explain one element of a phenomenon (e.g., the role of religion in society - structural-functionalism) while another might offer a different insight on the same phenomenon (e.g., the decline of religion in society - conflict theory).

It may be difficult, initially at least, to take this perspective on sociological theory, but as you read some of the later chapters you will see that each of these theories is particularly useful at explaining some phenomena yet less useful in explaining other phenomena. If you approach the theories objectively from the beginning, you will find that there really are many ways to understand social phenomena.

[edit] Structural-Functionalism

Structural-Functionalism is a sociological theory that originally attempted to explain social institutions as collective means to meet individual biological needs (originally just functionalism). Later it came to focus on the ways social institutions meet social needs (structural-functionalism).

Structural-functionalism draws its inspiration primarily from the ideas of Emile Durkheim. Durkheim was concerned with the question of how societies maintain internal stability and survive over time. He sought to explain social cohesion and stability through the concept of solidarity. In more "primitive" societies it was mechanical solidarity, everyone performing similar tasks, that held society together. Durkheim proposed that such societies tend to be segmentary, being composed of equivalent parts that are held together by shared values, common symbols, or systems of exchanges. In modern, complex societies members perform very different tasks, resulting in a strong interdependence between individuals. Based on the metaphor of an organism in which many parts function together to sustain the whole, Durkheim argued that modern complex societies are held together by organic solidarity (think interdependent organs).

The central concern of structural-functionalism is a continuation of the Durkheimian task of explaining the apparent stability and internal cohesion of societies that are necessary to ensure their continued existence over time. Many functionalists argue that social institutions are functionally integrated to form a stable system and that a change in one institution will precipitate a change in other institutions. Societies are seen as coherent, bounded and fundamentally relational constructs that function like organisms, with their various parts (social institutions) working together to maintain and reproduce them. The various parts of society are assumed to work in an unconscious, quasi-automatic fashion towards the maintenance of the overall social equilibrium. All social and cultural phenomena are therefore seen as being functional in the sense of working together to achieve this state and are effectively deemed to have a life of their own. These components are then primarily analysed in terms of the function they play. In other words, to understand a component of society, one can ask the question, "What is the function of this institution?" A function, in this sense, is the contribution made by a phenomenon to a larger system of which the phenomenon is a part.^[2]

Durkheim's strongly sociological perspective of society was continued by Radcliffe-Brown. Following Auguste Comte, Radcliffe-Brown believed that the social constituted a separate level of reality distinct from both the biological and the inorganic (here non-living). Explanations of social phenomena therefore had to be constructed within this social level, with individuals merely being transient occupants of comparatively stable social roles. Thus, in structural-functionalist thought, individuals are not significant in and of themselves but only in terms of their social status: their position in patterns of social relations. The social structure is therefore a network of statuses connected by associated roles.^[3]

Structural-functionalism was the dominant perspective of sociology between World War II and the Vietnam War.

[edit] Limitations

Structural-functionalism has been criticized for being unable to account for social change because it focuses so intently on social order and equilibrium in society. Another criticism of the structural-functionalism perspective involves the epistemological argument that functionalism attempts to describe social institutions solely through their effects and, as a result, does not explain the cause of those effects. Another philosophical problem with the structural-functional approach is the ontological argument that society does not have needs as a human being does; and even if society does have needs they need not be met.

Another criticism often leveled at structural-functionalist theory is that it supports the status quo. According to some opponents, structural-functionalism paints conflict and challenge to the status quo as harmful to society, and therefore tends to be the prominent view among conservative thinkers.

[edit] Manifest and Latent Functions

Merton (1957) proposed a distinction between manifest and latent functions.^[4] Manifest functions are the intended functions of a phenomenon in a social system. Latent functions are the unintended functions of a phenomenon in a social system. An example of manifest and latent functions is public education. The manifest purpose of public education is to increase the knowledge and abilities of the citizenry. The latent function of the public education system is the development of a hierarchy of the learned. The latent function has a significant impact on society as it often translates into social class distinctions: people with higher educational attainment tend to make more money than those with lower educational attainment.

[edit] Conflict Theory

Conflict theory argues that society is not about solidarity or social consensus but rather about competition. Society is made up of individuals competing for limited resources (e.g., money, leisure, sexual partners, etc.). Broader social structures and organizations (e.g., religions, government, etc.) reflect the competition for resources in their inherent inequalities; some people and organizations have more resources (i.e., power and influence) and use those resources to maintain their positions of power in society.

An example of the application of conflict theory is in understanding the gender make-up of the legislative branch of the U.S. government. Prior to the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America in 1920, women did not have the right to vote. Given women's inability to vote, it is not surprising men held all of the positions of power in the U.S. government. The men who held the positions of power in the U.S. government were also in a position to maintain their power because they controlled the legislative process that could enfranchise women. This scenario illustrates how conflict and inequality can be integrated in social structures - men were in a position of power and many of them were motivated to maintain that power by continuing to refuse the right to vote to women. The passage of the 19th Amendment can also be explained using conflict theory in that powerful forces joined together (Women's Suffrage) to effect change.

Conflict theory was developed in part to illustrate the limitations of structural-functionalism. The structural-functional approach argued that society tends toward equilibrium. The structural-functional approach focuses on stability at the expense of social change. This is contrasted with the conflict approach, which argues that society is constantly in conflict over resources. One of the primary contributions conflict theory presents over the structural-functional approach is that it is ideally suited for explaining social change, a significant problem in the structural-functional approach.

The following are three primary assumptions of modern conflict theory:

Competition over scarce resources is at the heart of all social relationships. Competition rather than consensus is characteristic of human relationships. Inequalities in power and reward are built into all social structures. Individuals and groups that benefit from any particular structure strive to see it maintained. Change occurs as a result of conflict between competing interests rather than through adaptation. Change is often abrupt and revolutionary rather than evolutionary. Conflict theory was elaborated in the United Kingdom by Max Gluckman and John Rex, in the United States by Lewis A. Coser and Randall Collins, and in Germany by Ralf Dahrendorf, all of whom were influenced by Karl Marx, Ludwig Gumplovicz, Vilfredo Pareto, Georg Simmel, and other founding fathers of European sociology.

[edit] Limitations

Somewhat ironically, the primary limitation of the social-conflict perspective is that it overlooks the stability of societies. While societies are in a constant state of change, much of the change is minor. Many of the broader elements of societies remain remarkably stable over time, indicating the structural-functional perspective has a great deal of merit.

Harking back to the introduction, the reader might remember the advance notice given that sociological theory is often complementary. This is particularly true of structural-functionalism and social-conflict theories. Structural-functionalism focuses on equilibrium and solidarity; conflict-theory focuses on change and conflict. Keep in mind that neither is better than the other; when combined, the two approaches offer a broader and more comprehensive view of society.

Conflict theory was elaborated in the United Kingdom by Max Gluckman and John Rex, in the United States by Lewis A. Coser and Randall Collins, and in Germany by Ralf Dahrendorf, all of whom were influenced by Karl Marx, Ludwig Gumplovicz, Vilfredo Pareto, Georg Simmel, and other founding fathers of European sociology.

[edit] Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic Interactionism is a theoretical approach to understanding the relationship between humans and society. The basic notion of symbolic interactionism is that human action and interaction are understandable only through the exchange of meaningful communication or symbols. In this approach, humans are portrayed as acting as opposed to being acted upon.^[5]

The main principles of symbolic interactionism are:^[6]

1. human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that things have for them
2. these meanings arise of out of social interaction
3. social action results from a fitting together of individual lines of action

This approach stands in contrast to the strict behaviorism of psychological theories prevalent at the time it was first formulated (in the 1920s and 1930s), behaviorism and ethology, and also contrasts with structural-functionalism. According to Symbolic Interactionism, humans are distinct from infrahumans (lower animals) because infrahumans simply respond to their environment (i.e., a stimulus evokes a response or stimulus -> response) whereas humans have the ability to interrupt that process (i.e., stimulus -> cognition -> response). Additionally, infrahumans are unable to conceive of alternative responses to gestures. Humans, however, can. This understanding should not be taken to indicate that humans never behave in a strict stimulus -> response fashion, but rather that humans have the capability of not responding in that fashion (and do so much of the time).

This perspective is also rooted in phenomenological thought (see social constructionism and phenomonology). According to symbolic interactionism, the objective world has no reality for humans, only subjectively-defined objects have meaning. Meanings are not entities that are bestowed on humans and learned by habituation. Instead, meanings can be altered through the creative capabilities of humans, and individuals may influence the many meanings that form their society.^[5] Human society, therefore, is a social product.

Neurological evidence based on EEGs supports the idea that humans have a "social brain," that is, there are components of the human brain that govern social interaction.^[7] These parts of the brain begin developing in early childhood (the preschool years) and aid humans in understanding how other people think.^[7] In symbolic interactionism, this is known as "reflected appraisals" or "the looking glass self" and refers to our ability to think about how other people will think about us. A good example of this is when people try on clothes before going out with friends. Some people may not think much about how others will think about their clothing choices, but others can spend quite a bit of time considering what they are going to wear. And while they are deciding, the dialogue that is taking place inside their mind is usually a dialogue between their "self" (that portion of their identity that calls itself "I") and that person's internalized understanding of their friends and society (a "generalized other"). An indicator of mature socialization is when an individual quite accurately predicts how other people think about him/her. Such an individual has incorporated the "social" into the "self."

It should also be noted that symbolic interactionists advocate a particular methodology. Because they see meaning as the fundamental component of human/society interaction, studying human/society interaction requires getting at that meaning. Thus, symbolic interactionists tend to employ more qualitative rather than quantitative methods in their research.

Additional information on Symbolic Interactionism can be found here

[edit] Limitations

The most significant limitation of the symbolic-interactionist perspective relates to its primary contribution: it overlooks macro social structures (e.g., norms, culture) as a result of focusing on micro-level interactions. Some symbolic interactionists, however, would counter that if role theory (see below) is incorporated into symbolic interactionism - which is now commonplace - this criticism is addressed.

[edit] Role Theory

Role Theory posits that human behavior is guided by expectations held both by the individual and by other people. The expectations correspond to different roles individuals perform or enact in their daily lives, such as secretary, father, or friend. For instance, most people hold pre-conceived notions of the role expectations of a secretary, which might include: answering phones, making and managing appointments, filing paperwork, and typing memos. These role expectations would not be expected of a professional soccer player.

Individuals generally have and manage many roles. Roles consist of a set of rules or norms that function as plans or blueprints to guide behavior. Roles specify what goals should be pursued, what tasks must be accomplished, and what performances are required in a given scenario or situation. Role theory holds that a substantial proportion of observable, day-to-day social behavior is simply persons carrying out their roles, much as actors carry out their roles on the stage or ballplayers theirs on the field. Role theory is, in fact, predictive. It implies that if we have information about the role expectations for a specified position (e.g., sister, fireman, prostitute), a significant portion of the behavior of the persons occupying that position can be predicted.

What's more, role theory also argues that in order to change behavior it is necessary to change roles; roles correspond to behaviors and vice versa. In addition to heavily influencing behavior, roles influence beliefs and attitudes; individuals will change their beliefs and attitudes to correspond with their roles. For instance, someone over-looked for a promotion to a managerial position in a company may change their beliefs about the benefits of management by convincing him/herself that they didn't want the additional responsibility that would have accompanied the position.

Many role theorists see Role Theory as one of the most compelling theories bridging individual behavior and social structure. Roles, which are in part dictated by social structure and in part by social interactions, guide the behavior of the individual. The individual, in turn, influences the norms, expectations, and behaviors associated with roles. The understanding is reciprocal.

Role Theory includes the following propositions:

1. people spend much of their lives participating as members of groups and organizations
2. within these groups, people occupy distinct positions
3. each of these positions entails a role, which is a set of functions performed by the person for the group
4. groups often formalize role expectations as norms or even codified rules, which include what rewards will result when roles are successfully performed and what punishments will result when roles are not successfully performed
5. individuals usually carry out their roles and perform in accordance with prevailing norms; in other words, role theory assumes that people are primarily conformists who try to live up to the norms that accompany their roles
6. group members check each individual's performance to determine whether it conforms with the norms; the anticipation that others will apply sanctions ensures role performance

For additional information on Role Theory see here.

[edit] Limitations

Role theory has a hard time explaining social deviance when it does not correspond to a pre-specified role. For instance, the behavior of someone who adopts the role of bank robber can be predicted - she will rob banks. But if a bank teller simply begins handing out cash to random people, role theory would be unable to explain why (though role conflict could be one possible answer; the secretary may also be a Marxist-Communist who believes the means of production should belong to the masses and not the bourgeoisie).

Another limitation of role theory is that it does not and cannot explain how role expectations came to be what they are. Role theory has no explanation for why it is expected of male soldiers to cut their hair short, but it could predict with a high degree of accuracy that if someone is a male soldier they will have short hair. Additionally, role theory does not explain when and how role expectations change.

[edit] Impression Management

An extension of role theory, impression management is both a theory and process. The theory argues that people are constantly engaged in controlling how others perceive them. The process refers to the goal-directed conscious or unconscious effort to influence the perceptions other people form of an individual, object, or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction. If a person tries to influence the perception of her or his own image, this activity is called self-presentation.

Erving Goffman (1959), the person most often credited with formally developing the impression management theory, cast the idea in a dramaturgical framework.^[8][9] The basic idea is that individuals in face-to-face situations are like actors on a stage performing roles (see role theory above). Aware of how they are being perceived by their audience, actors manage their behavior so as to create specific impressions in the minds of the audience. Strategic interpersonal behavior to shape or influence impressions formed by an audience is not a new idea. Plato spoke of the "great stage of human life" and Shakespeare noted that "All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players".

[edit] Social Constructionism

Social constructionism is a school of thought introduced into sociology by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann with their 1966 book The Social Construction of Reality.^[10] Social constructionism aims to discover the ways that individuals and groups create their perceived reality. Social constructionism focuses on the description of institutions and actions and not on analyzing cause and effect. Socially constructed reality is seen as an on-going dynamic process; reality is re-produced by people acting on their interpretations of what they perceive to be the world external to them. Berger and Luckmann argue that social construction describes both subjective and objective reality - that is that no reality exists outside what is produced and reproduced in social interactions.

A clear example of social constructionist thought is, following Sigmund Freud^[11] and Émile Durkheim,^[12] religion. Religion is seen as a socially constructed concept, the basis for which is rooted in either our psyche (Freud) or man's need to see some purpose in life or worship a higher presence. One of the key theorists of social constructionism, Peter Berger, explored this concept extensively in his book, The Sacred Canopy.^[13]

Social constructionism is often seen as a source of the postmodern movement, and has been influential in the field of cultural studies.

[edit] Integration Theory

Recently, some sociologists have been taking a different approach to sociological theory by employing an integrationist approach - combining micro- and macro-level theories to provide a comprehensive understanding of human social behavior. Numerous models could be presented in this vein; I have chosen one that does a good job of combining the multiple levels into one model: Ritzer's Integration Model.

Ritzer^[14] proposes four highly interdependent elements in his sociological model: a macro-objective component (e.g., society, law, bureaucracy), a micro-objective component (e.g., patterns of behavior and human interaction), a macro-subjective component (e.g., culture, norms, and values), and a micro-subjective component (e.g., perceptions, beliefs). This model is of particular use in understanding society because it uses two axes: one ranging from objective (society) to subjective (culture and cultural interpretation); the other ranging from the macro-level (norms) to the micro-level (individual level beliefs).

The integration approach is particularly useful for explaining social phenomenon because it shows how the different components of social life work together to influence society and behavior.

If used for understanding a specific cultural phenomenon, like the displaying of abstract art in one's home,^[15] the integration model depicts the different influences on the decision. For instance, the model depicts that cultural norms can influence individual behavior. The model also shows that individual level values, beliefs, and behaviors influence macro-level culture. This is, in fact, part of what David Halle finds: while there are art consumption differences based on class, they are not predicted solely by class. Displayers of abstract art tend not only to belong to the upper-class, but also are employed in art-production occupations. This would indicate that there are multiple levels of influence involved in art tastes – both broad cultural norms and smaller level occupational norms in addition to personal preferences.

The use of integration theories in sociology is just beginning to develop, but has great potential.

[edit] References

This chapter draws on the following Wikipedia articles:

• structural-functionalism
• conflict theory
• solidarity
• self
• role

[edit] External links

• Dramaturgy
• Social Psychology
• social constructionism

← Sociological Methods · Society →

← Sociological Methods · Introduction to Sociology · Society →

[edit] Society

[edit] Introduction

Society refers to a group of people who share a defined territory and a culture. Society is often understood as the basic structure and interactions of a group of people or the network of relationships between entities. A distinction is made between society and culture in sociology. Culture refers to the meanings given to symbols or the process of meaning-making that takes place in a society. Culture is distinct from society in that it adds meanings to relationships (i.e., 'father' means more than 'other'). All human societies have a culture and culture can only exist where there is a society. Distinguishing between these two components of human social life is primarily for analytical purposes - for example, so sociologists can study the transmission of cultural elements or artifacts within a society.

This chapter will present a brief overview of some of the types of human societies that have existed and continue to exist. It will then present some classic approaches to understanding society and what changing social structure can mean for individuals.

[edit] Societal Development

The sociological understanding of societal development relies heavily upon the work of Gerhard Lenski.^[16] Lenski outlined some of the more commonly seen organizational structures in human societies. Classifications of human societies can be based on two factors: (1) the primary means of subsistence and (2) the political structure. This chapter focuses on the subsistence systems of societies rather than their political structures.

While it is a bit far-reaching to argue that all societies will develop through the stages outlined below, it does appear that most societies follow such a route. Human groups begin as hunter-gatherers, move toward pastoralism and/or horticulturalism, develop toward an agrarian society, and ultimately end up undergoing a period of industrialization (with the potential for developing a service industry following industrialization). The reason this is presented as a model is because not all societies pass through every stage. Some societies have stopped at the pastoral or horticultural stage, though these may be temporary pauses due to economic niches that will likely disappear in time. Some societies may also jump stages as a result of the introduction of technology from alien societies and culture. Another reason for hesitancy in presenting these categories as distinct groups is that there is often overlap in the subsistence systems used in a society. Some pastoralist societies also engage in some measure of horticultural food production. Industrial societies have agrarian components.

[edit] Hunter-Gatherer

The hunter-gatherer way of life is based on the exploitation of wild plants and animals. Consequently, hunter-gatherers are relatively mobile, and groups of hunter-gatherers have fluid boundaries and composition. Typically in hunter-gatherer societies men hunt larger wild animals and women gather and hunt smaller animals. Hunter-gatherers use materials available in the wild to construct shelters or rely on naturally occurring shelters like overhangs. Their shelters give them protection from predators and the elements.

The majority of hunter-gatherer societies are nomadic. It is difficult to be settled under such a subsistence system as the resources of one region can quickly become exhausted. Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have very low population densities as a result of their subsistence system. Agricultural subsistence systems can support population densities 60 to 100 times greater than land left uncultivated, resulting in denser populations.

Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have non-hierarchical social structures, though this is not always the case. Because hunter-gatherers tend to be nomadic, they generally do not have the possibility to store surplus food. As a result, full-time leaders, bureaucrats, or artisans are rarely supported by hunter-gatherer societies. The hierarchical egalitarianism in hunter-gatherer societies tends to extend to gender-based egalitarianism as well. Although disputed, many anthropologists believe gender egalitarianism in hunter-gatherer societies stems from the lack of control over food production, lack of food surplus - which can be used for control, and an equal gender contribution to kin and cultural survival.

Archeological evidence to date suggests that prior to twelve thousand years ago, all human beings were hunter-gatherers (see the Neolithic revolution for more information on this transition). While declining in number, there are still some hunter-gatherer groups in existence today. Such groups are found in the Arctic, tropical rainforests, and deserts where other forms of subsistence production are impossible or too costly. In most cases these groups do not have a continuous history of hunting and gathering; in many cases their ancestors were agriculturalists who were pushed into marginal areas as a result of migrations and wars. Examples of hunter-gatherer groups still in existence include:

• the Haida of British Columbia
• Bushmen of South Africa

The line between agricultural and hunter-gatherer societies is not clear cut. Many hunter-gatherers consciously manipulate the landscape through cutting or burning unuseful plants to encourage the growth and success of those they consume. Most agricultural people also tend to do some hunting and gathering. Some agricultural groups farm during the temperate months and then hunt during the winter.

[edit] Pastoralist

A pastoralist society is a society in which the primary means of subsistence is domesticated livestock. It is often the case that, like hunter-gatherers, pastoralists are nomadic, moving seasonally in search of fresh pastures and water for their animals. Employment of a pastoralist subsistence system often results in greater population densities and the development of both social hierarchies and divisions in labor as it is more likely there will be a surplus of food.

Pastoralist societies still exist. For instance, in Australia, the vast semi-arid areas in the interior of the country contain pastoral runs called sheep stations. These areas may be thousands of square kilometers in size. The number of livestock allowed in these areas is regulated in order to reliably sustain them, providing enough feed and water for the stock. Other examples of pastoralists societies still in existence include:

• the Maasai of Kenya
• the Boran
• the Turkana of Kenya
• the Bedouin of Northern Africa

[edit] Horticulturalist

Horticulturalist societies are societies in which the primary means of subsistence is the cultivation of crops using hand tools. Like pastoral societies, the cultivation of crops increases population densities and, as a result of food surpluses, allows for a division of labor in society.

Horticulture differs from agriculture in that agriculture employs animals, machinery, or some other non-human means to facilitate the cultivation of crops while horticulture relies solely on humans for crop cultivation.

[edit] Agrarian

Agrarian societies are societies in which the primary means of subsistence is the cultivation of crops using a mixture of human and non-human means (i.e., animals and/or machinery). Agriculture is the process of producing food, feed, fiber, and other desired products by the cultivation of plants and the raising of domesticated animals (livestock). Agriculture can refer to subsistence agriculture or industrial agriculture.

Subsistence agriculture is agriculture carried out for the production of enough food to meet just the needs of the agriculturalist and his/her family. Subsistence agriculture is a simple, often organic, system using saved seed native to the ecoregion combined with crop rotation or other relatively simple techniques to maximize yield. Historically most farmers were engaged in subsistence agriculture and this is still the case in many developing nations.

In developed nations a person using such simple techniques on small patches of land would generally be referred to as a gardener; activity of this type would be seen more as a hobby than a profession. Some people in developed nations are driven into such primitive methods by poverty. It is also worth noting that large scale organic farming is on the rise as a result of a renewed interest in non-genetically modified and pesticide free foods.

In developed nations, a farmer or industrial agriculturalist is usually defined as someone with an ownership interest in crops or livestock, and who provides labor or management in their production. Farmers obtain their financial income from the cultivation of land to yield crops or the commercial raising of animals (animal husbandry), or both. Those who provide only labor but not management and do not have ownership are often called farmhands, or, if they supervise a leased strip of land growing only one crop, as sharecroppers.

Agriculture allows a much greater density of population than can be supported by hunting and gathering and allows for the accumulation of excess product to keep for winter use or to sell for profit. The ability of farmers to feed large numbers of people whose activities have nothing to do with material production was the crucial factor in the rise of standing armies. The agriculturalism of the Sumerians allowed them to embark on an unprecedented territorial expansion, making them the first empire builders. Not long after, the Egyptians, powered by effective farming of the Nile valley, achieved a population density from which enough warriors could be drawn for a territorial expansion more than tripling the Sumerian empire in area.

[edit] Development of Horticulture and Agriculture

Horticulture and agriculture as types of subsistence developed among humans somewhere between 10,000 and 80,000 B.C.E. in the Fertile Crescent region of the Middle East (for more information see agriculture).^[17][18] The reasons for the development of horticulture and agriculture are debated but may have included climate change and the accumulation of food surplus for competitive gift-giving. Most certainly there was a gradual transition from hunter-gatherer to agricultural economies after a lengthy period when some crops were deliberately planted and other foods were gathered from the wild. In addition to the emergence of farming in the Fertile Crescent, agriculture appeared by at least 6,800 B.C.E. in East Asia (rice) and, later, in Central and South America (maize and squash). Small scale agriculture also likely arose independently in early Neolithic contexts in India (rice) and Southeast Asia (taro).^[19]

Full dependency on domestic crops and animals (i.e. when wild resources contributed a nutritionally insignificant component to the diet) was not until the Bronze Age. If the operative definition of agriculture includes large scale intensive cultivation of land, mono-cropping, organised irrigation, and use of a specialized labor force, the title "inventors of agriculture" would fall to the Sumerians, starting ca. 5,500 B.C.E.

By the early 1800s agricultural practices, particularly careful selection of hardy strains and cultivars, had so improved that yield per land unit was many times that seen in the Middle Ages and before, especially in the largely virgin lands of North and South America.

[edit] Agriculture Today

In the Western world, the use of gene manipulation, better management of soil nutrients, and improved weed control have greatly increased yields per unit area. At the same time, the use of mechanization has decreased labor requirements. The developing world generally produces lower yields, having less of the latest science, capital, and technology base. More people in the world are involved in agriculture as their primary economic activity than in any other, yet it only accounts for four percent of the world's GDP. The rapid rise of mechanization in the 20th century, especially in the form of the tractor, reduced the necessity of humans performing the demanding tasks of sowing, harvesting, and threshing. With mechanization, these tasks could be performed with a speed and on a scale barely imaginable before. These advances have led to efficiencies enabling certain modern farms in the United States, Argentina, Israel, Germany and a few other nations to output volumes of high quality produce per land unit at what may be the practical limit.

An example of the influence of technology can be seen in terms of output per farmer. In the early 1900s, one American farmer produced food for 2.5 people; today, a single farmer can feed over 130 people (source).

[edit] Industrial

An industrial society is a society in which the primary means of subsistence is industry. Industry is a system of production focused on mechanized manufacturing of goods. Like agrarian societies, industrial societies increase food surpluses, resulting in more developed hierarchies and significantly more division of labor.

The division of labor in industrial societies is often one of the most notable elements of the society and can even function to re-organize the development of relationships. Whereas relationships in pre-industrial societies were more likely to develop through contact at one's place of worship or through proximity of housing, industrial society brings people with similar occupations together, often leading to the formation of friendships through one's work.

When capitalised, Industrial Revolution refers to the first known industrial revolution, which took place in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. What is some times referred to as The Second Industrial Revolution describes later, somewhat less dramatic changes resulting from the widespread availability of electric power and the internal-combustion engine. Many developing nations began industrialisation under the influence of either the United States or the USSR during the Cold War.

[edit] Post-Industrial

A post-industrial society is a society in which the primary means of subsistence is derived from service-oriented work, as opposed to agriculture or industry. It is important to note here that the term post-industrial is still debated in part because it is the current state of society; it is difficult to name a phenomenon while it is occurring.

Post-industrial societies are often marked by:

• an increase in the size of the service sector or jobs that perform services rather than creating goods (industry)
• either the outsourcing of or extensive use of mechanization in manufacturing
• an increase in the amount of information technology, often leading to an Information Age
• information, knowledge, and creativity are seen as the new raw materials of the economy

Post-industrial society is occasionally used critically by individuals seeking to restore or return to industrial development. Increasingly, however, individuals and communities are viewing abandoned factories as sites for new housing and shopping. Capitalists are also realizing the recreational and commercial development opportunities such locations offer. For more information on post-industrial society see the work of Daniel Bell.

[edit] Classical Views on Social Change

As Western societies transitioned from pre-industrial economies based primarily on agriculture to industrialized societies in the 19th century, some people worried about the impacts such changes would have on society and individuals. Three early sociologists, Weber, Marx, and Durkheim, perceived different impacts of the Industrial Revolution on the individual and society and described those impacts in their work.

[edit] Weber and Rationalization

Max Weber was particularly concerned about the rationalization and bureaucritization of society stemming from the Industrial Revolution and how these two changes would affect humanity's agency and happiness. As Weber understood society, particularly during the industrial revolution of the late 19th century in which he lived, society was being driven by the passage of rational ideas into culture which, in turn, transformed society into an increasingly bureaucratic entity. Bureaucracy is a type of organizational or institutional management that is, as Weber understood it, rooted legal-rational authority. Weber did believe bureaucracy was the most rational form of societal management, but because Weber viewed rationalization as the driving force of society, he believed bureaucracy would increase until it ruled society. Society, for Weber, would become almost synonymous with bureaucracy.

As Weber did not see any alternative to bureaucracy, he believed it would ultimately lead to an iron cage; society would bureaucratize and there would be no way to get out of it. Weber viewed this as a bleak outcome that would affect individuals' happiness as they would be forced to function in a highly rational society with rigid rules and norms without the possibility to change it. Because Weber could not envision other forces influencing the ultimate direction of society - the exception being temporary lapses into non-bureaucracy spurred by charismatic leaders - he saw no cure for the iron cage of rationality. Society would become a large bureaucracy that would govern people's lives. Weber was unable to envision a solution to his iron cage of bureaucracy dilemma; since a completely rational society was inevitable and bureaucracy was the most rational form of societal management, the iron cage, according to Weber, does not have a solution.

[edit] Marx and Alienation

Karl Marx took a different perspective on the impact of the Industrial Revolution on society and the individual. In order to understand Marx's perspective, however, it is necessary to understand how Marx perceived happiness. According to Marx, species being (or happiness) is the pinnacle of human nature. Species being is understood to be a type of self-realization or self-actualization brought about by meaningful work. But in addition to engaging in meaningful work, self-actualized individuals must also own the products of their labors and have the option of doing what they will with those products. In a capitalist society, which was co-developing with industry, rather than owning the fruits of their labors, the proletariat or working class owns only their labor power, not the fruits of their labors (i.e., the results of production). The capitalists or bourgeoisie employ the proletariat for a living wage, but then keep the products of the labor. As a result, the proletariat is alienated from the fruits of its labor – they do not own the products they produce, only their labor power. Because Marx believed species being to be the goal and ideal of human nature and that species being could only be realized when individuals owned the results of their labors, Marx saw capitalism as leading toward increasingly unhappy individuals; they would be alienated from the results of their production and therefore would not be self-realized.

But the alienation from the results of their production is just one component of the alienation Marx proposed. In addition to the alienation from the results of production, the proletariat is also alienated from each other under capitalism. Capitalists alienate the proletariat from each other by forcing them to compete for limited job opportunities. Job opportunities are limited under capitalism in order for capitalists to keep wages down; without a pool of extraneous workers, capitalists would have to meet the wage demands of their workers. Because they are forced to compete with other members of the proletariat, workers are alienated from each other, compounding the unhappiness of the proletariat.

While Marx did have a solution to the problem of alienation, he seldom discussed it in detail. Marx's proposed solution was for the proletariat to unite and through protests or revolution (or legislation in democratic nations) overthrow the bourgeoisie and institute a new form of government – communism. This form of government would be based on communally owned and highly developed means of production and self-governance. The means of production would be developed – through capitalism – to the point that everyone in society would have sufficient 'free' time to allow them to participate in whatever governmental decisions needed to be made for the community as a whole. By re-connecting the individual with the fruits of their labor and empowering them toward true self-governance, species being would be realized and happiness would be returned.

Two additional comments are in order here. First, the communism that developed in The Soviet Union and China - as well as other parts of the world - was not the communism envisioned by Marx. These forms of communism still had stratified hierarchies with two groups: a ruling elite and everybody else. Second, Marx believed capitalism, while harmful to species being, was necessary to advance the means of production to a stage where communism (as he envisioned it) could be realized. Thus, while Marx was highly critical of capitalism, he also recognized its utility in developing the means of production.

[edit] Durkheim and Solidarity

Durkheim's view of society and the changes it was undergoing as a result of industrialization also led him to believe unhappiness was a possible outcome. Durkheim believed that an important component of social life was social solidarity, which is understood as a sense of community. In his classic study, Suicide,^[20] Durkheim argued that one of the root causes of suicide was a decrease in social solidarity – termed anomie (French for chaos) by Durkheim. Durkheim also argued that the increasing emphasis on individualism found in Protestant religions – in contrast to Catholicism – contributed to an increase in anomie, which resulted in higher suicide rates among Protestants.

In another work, The Division of Labor in Society,^[21] Durkheim proposed that pre-industrial societies maintained their social solidarity through a mechanistic sense of community and through their religious affiliations. Most people were generalists in their work – they farmed and created their own tools and clothing. Because they were alike in their generality, they were also more likely to share a sense of community, which Durkheim saw as an important component of happiness. In addition to their similarity in occupations, many individuals belonged to the same religious groups, which also fostered a sense of solidarity.

In industrializing societies, Durkheim recognized the inevitability of specialization. By definition, specialization means that individuals are going to have dissimilar occupations. This specialization would also affect religion. In industrial societies, religion would become just one aspect of lives that were increasingly divided into compartments – home, family, work, recreation, religion, etc.

Durkheim believed there were two components that would alleviate the decreasing social solidarity in industrializing societies: organic solidarity and conscientious attempts to find camaraderie through one's place of employ. Whereas social solidarity was maintained in pre-industrial societies through a mechanistic sense of similarity and dependence along with communal religious affiliations, in industrialized societies, social solidarity would be maintained by the interdependence of specialists on one another. If one individual specialized in treating the injured or ill, they would not have time to raise crops or otherwise produce food. Doctors would become dependent on farmers for their food while farmers would become dependent on doctors for their healthcare. This would force a type of organic solidarity — organic in the sense that the parts were interdependent like the organs of an animal are interdependent for their survival.

In addition to the inevitable interdependence a specialized society would warrant, Durkheim believed that a conscientious effort to develop and foster friendships would transition from a religious brotherhood to friendships developed at one's place of employment. Specialized individuals would have a great deal in common with their co-workers and, like members of the same religious congregations in pre-industrial societies, co-workers would be able to develop strong bonds of social solidarity through their occupations. Thus, for Durkheim, the answer to the decrease in mechanistic solidarity and the increasing anomie was organic solidarity and solidarity pursued within one's specialty occupation.

[edit] Notes

The origin of the word society comes from the Latin societas, a "friendly association with others." Societas is derived from socius meaning "companion" and thus the meaning of society is closely related to "what is social." Implicit in the meaning of society is that its members share some mutual concern or interest in a common objective.

Society can have different meanings than the predominant meaning employed in this chapter. For instance, people united by common political and cultural traditions, beliefs, or values are sometimes also said to be a society (e.g., Judeo-Christian, Eastern, Western, etc). When used in this context, the term is being used as a means of contrasting two or more societies whose representative members represent alternative conflicting and competing worldviews.

Another use of society can be in reference to smaller groups like academic learned and scholarly societies or associations, such as the American Society of Mathematics.

It should also be noted that there is an ongoing debate in sociological and anthropological circles if there exists an entity we can call society. Some Marxist theorists, like Louis Althusser, Ernesto Laclau and Slavoj Zizek, argue that society is nothing more than an effect of the ruling ideology of a certain class system and should not be be understood as a sociological concept.

Societies can also be organized according to their political structure: in order of increasing size and complexity, there are band societies, tribes, chiefdoms, and state societies.

There are some modern variations of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle:

• freeganism is the practice of gathering discarded food in the context of an urban environment
• gleaning is the practice of gathering food traditional farmers leave behind in their fields
• sport hunting and sport fishing are recreational activities practiced by people who get the majority of their food by modern means
• primitivism is a movement striving for the return to a pre-industrial and pre-agricultural society

[edit] References

[edit] Additional Resources

1. Bernal, John Desmond. 1970. Science and Industry in the Nineteenth Century. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
2. Collinson, M. [ed.]. 2000. A History of Farming Systems Research. CABI Publishing. ISBN 0851994059
3. Crosby, Alfred W. 2003. The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. Praeger Publishers. 30th Anniversary Edition. ISBN 0275980731
4. Derry, Thomas Kingston and Williams, Trevor I. 1993. A Short History of Technology : From the Earliest Times to A.D. 1900. New York: Dover Publications.
5. Hobsbawm, Eric J. 1999. Industry and Empire: From 1750 to the Present Day. New York: New Press. Distributed by W.W. Norton.
6. Kranzberg, Melvin and Pursell, Carroll W., Jr. 1967. Editors. Technology in Western civilization. New York, Oxford University Press.
7. Landes, David S. 2003. The Unbound Prometheus: Technical Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Wells, Spencer. 2003. The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey. Princeton University Press. ISBN 069111532X

This chapter also draws on the following Wikipedia articles:

• society
• hunter-gatherer
• agriculture
• farming
• pastoralist

[edit] External links

• Haferkamp, Hans, and Smelser, Neil J. Editors. 1992. Social Change and Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• FAO of the United Nations
• Current World Production, Market and Trade Reports of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service
• Winds of Change: Reforms and Unions - The impacts of industrialization in Canada; illustrated with many late 19th century photographs.
• Daniel Bell's work on post-industrial societies

See also:

• cultural evolution

← Sociological Theory · Culture →

← Sociological Theory · Introduction to Sociology · Culture →

[edit] Culture

[edit] Introduction

Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to the question of what is culture. Culture is a complicated phenomenon to understand because it is both distinct from but clearly associated with society. Also, different definitions of culture reflect different theories or understandings, making it difficult to pin down exact definitions of the concept.

Generally speaking, the following elements of social life are considered to be representative of human culture: "stories, beliefs, media, ideas, works of art, religious practices, fashions, rituals, specialized knowledge, and common sense" (p. xvi).^[1]

Yet, examples of culture do not, in themselves, present a clear understanding of the concept of culture; culture is more than the object or behavior. Culture also includes,

…norms, values, beliefs, or expressive symbols. Roughly, norms are the way people behave in a given society, values are what they hold dear, beliefs are how they think the universe operates, and expressive symbols are representations, often representations of social norms, values, and beliefs themselves. (p. 3) ^[2]

To summarize, culture encompasses objects and symbols, the meaning given to those objects and symbols, and the norms, values, and beliefs that pervade social life. "The definition is understood to include two elements - that which differentiates one group or society from others and the concept of acquired or learned behavior". (p. 43)^[3]

Keep in mind that culture is not necessarily monolithic in a given society. As is the case with most elements of social life, culture is relatively stable (thus it is functional in the structural-functionalist sense) but at the same time contested (in the conflict sense).^[22] Culture is in flux, especially in our modern world in which different cultures are in constant contact with each other.

[edit] 'High' Culture

Many people today use a concept of culture that developed in Europe during the 18th and early 19th centuries. This concept of culture reflected inequalities within European societies and their colonies around the world. It identifies culture with civilization and contrasts both with nature. According to this thinking, some countries are more civilized than others, and some people are more cultured than others. Thus some cultural theorists have actually tried to eliminate popular or mass culture from the definition of culture. Theorists like Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) believed that culture is simply that which is created by "the best that has been thought and said in the world" (p. 6).^[4] Anything that doesn't fit into this category is labeled as chaos or anarchy. On this account, culture is closely tied to cultivation, which is the progressive refinement of human behavior.

In practice, culture referred to elite goods and activities such as haute cuisine, high fashion or haute couture, museum-caliber art and classical music, and the word cultured referred to people who knew about, and took part in, these activities. For example, someone who used culture in the sense of cultivation might argue that classical music is more refined than music by working-class people, such as jazz or the indigenous music traditions of aboriginal peoples.

People who use culture in this way tend not to use it in the plural. They believe that there are not distinct cultures, each with their own internal logic and values, but rather only a single standard of refinement to which all groups are held accountable. Thus people who differ from those who believe themselves to be cultured in this sense are not usually understood as having a different culture; they are understood as being uncultured.

[edit] The Changing Concept of Culture

Most social scientists reject the cultured vs. uncultured concept of culture and the opposition of culture to human nature. They recognize that non-elites are as cultured as elites (and that non-Westerners are just as civilized); they are just cultured in a different way.

During the Romantic Era, scholars in Germany, especially those concerned with nationalism, developed a more inclusive notion of culture as worldview. That is, each ethnic group is characterized by a distinct and incommensurable world view. Although more inclusive, this approach to culture still allowed for distinctions between civilized and primitive or tribal cultures.

By the late 19th century, anthropologists had changed the concept of culture to include a wider variety of societies, ultimately resulting in the concept of culture outlined above - objects and symbols, the meaning given to those objects and symbols, and the norms, values, and beliefs that pervade social life.

This new perspective has also removed the evaluative element of the concept of culture and instead proposes distinctions rather than rankings between different cultures. For instance, the high culture of elites is now contrasted with popular or pop culture. In this sense, high culture no longer refers to the idea of being cultured, as all people are cultured. High culture simply refers to the objects, symbols, norms, values, and beliefs of a particular group of people; popular culture does the same.

[edit] The Origins of Culture

Attentive to the theory of evolution, anthropologists assumed that all human beings are equally evolved, and the fact that all humans have cultures must in some way be a result of human evolution. They were also wary of using biological evolution to explain differences between specific cultures - an approach that either was a form of, or legitimized forms of, racism. Anthropologists believed biological evolution produced an inclusive notion of culture, a concept that anthropologists could apply equally to non-literate and literate societies, or to nomadic and to sedentary societies. They argued that through the course of their evolution, human beings evolved a universal human capacity to classify experiences, and encode and communicate them symbolically. Since these symbolic systems were learned and taught, they began to develop independently of biological evolution (in other words, one human being can learn a belief, value, or way of doing something from another, even if they are not biologically related). That this capacity for symbolic thinking and social learning is a product of human evolution confounds older arguments about nature versus nurture. Thus, Clifford Geertz^[5] argued that human physiology and neurology developed in conjunction with the first cultural activities, and Middleton (1990:17 n.27) concluded that human "instincts were culturally formed."

This view of culture argues that people living apart from one another develop unique cultures. However, elements of different cultures can easily spread from one group of people to another. Culture is dynamic and can be taught and learned, making it a potentially rapid form of adaptation to change in physical conditions. Anthropologists view culture as not only a product of biological evolution but as a supplement to it; it can be seen as the main means of human adaptation to the natural world.

This view of culture as a symbolic system with adaptive functions, which varies from place to place, led anthropologists to conceive of different cultures as defined by distinct patterns (or structures) of enduring, although arbitrary, conventional sets of meaning, which took concrete form in a variety of artifacts such as myths and rituals, tools, the design of housing, and the planning of villages. Anthropologists thus distinguish between material culture and symbolic culture, not only because each reflects different kinds of human activity, but also because they constitute different kinds of data that require different methodologies to study.

This view of culture, which came to dominate between World War I and World War II, implied that each culture was bounded and had to be understood as a whole, on its own terms. The result is a belief in cultural relativism (see below).

[edit] Level of Abstraction

Another element of culture that is important for a clear understanding of the concept is level of abstraction. Culture ranges from the concrete, cultural object (e.g., the understanding of a work of art) to micro-level interpersonal interactions (e.g., the socialization of a child by his/her parents) to a macro-level influence on entire societies (e.g., the Puritanical roots of the U.S. that can be used to justify the exportation of democracy – a lá the Iraq War).^[6] It is important when trying to understand the concept of culture to keep in mind that the concept can have multiple levels of meaning.

[edit] The Artificiality of Cultural Categorization

One of the more important points to understand about culture is that it is an artificial categorization of elements of social life. As Griswold puts it,

There is no such thing as culture or society out there in the real world. There are only people who work, joke, raise children, love, think, worship, fight, and behave in a wide variety of ways. To speak of culture as one thing and society as another is to make an analytical distinction between two different aspects of human experience. One way to think of the distinction is that culture designates the expressive aspect of human existence, whereas society designates the relational (and often practical) aspect. (p. 4)^[7]

In the above quote, Griswold emphasizes that culture is distinct from society but affirms that this distinction is, like all classifications, artificial. Humans do not experience culture in a separate or distinct way from society. Culture and society are truly two-sides of a coin; a coin that makes up social life. Yet the distinction between the two, while artificial, is useful for a number of reasons. For instance, the distinction between culture and society is of particular use when exploring how norms and values are transmitted from generation to generation and answering the question of cultural conflict between people of different cultural backgrounds (say, Japanese and United Statesians).

In summary, culture is a complex component of social life, distinct from the interactions of society in particular because it adds meanings to relationships. Culture is also multi-leveled in that it can range from concrete cultural objects to broad social norms.

[edit] Subcultures & Countercultures

A subculture is a culture shared and actively participated in by a minority of people within a broader culture.

A culture often contains numerous subcultures. Subcultures incorporate large parts of the broader cultures of which they are part, but in specifics they may differ radically. Some subcultures achieve such a status that they acquire a name of their own. Examples of subcultures could include: bikers, those who play games on graphing calculators, military culture, and Star Trek fans (trekkers or trekkies).

A counterculture is a subculture with the addition that some of its beliefs, values, or norms challenge those of the main culture of which it is part. Examples of countercultures in the U.S. could include: the hippie movement of the 1960s, the green movement, and feminist groups.

[edit] Ethnocentrism & Cultural Relativism

Ethnocentrism is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one's own culture. Many claim that ethnocentrism occurs in every society; ironically, ethnocentrism may be something that all cultures have in common.

The term was coined by William Graham Sumner, a social evolutionist and professor of Political and Social Science at Yale University. He defined it as the viewpoint that "one’s own group is the center of everything," against which all other groups are judged. Ethnocentrism often entails the belief that one's own race or ethnic group is the most important and/or that some or all aspects of its culture are superior to those of other groups. Within this ideology, individuals will judge other groups in relation to their own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behaviour, customs, and religion. It also involves an incapacity to acknowledge that cultural differentiation does not imply inferiority of those groups who are ethnically distinct from one's own.

Cultural relativism is the belief that the concepts and values of a culture cannot be fully translated into, or fully understood in, other languages; that a specific cultural artifact (e.g. a ritual) has to be understood in terms of the larger symbolic system of which it is a part.

An example of cultural relativism might include slang words from specific languages (and even from particular dialects within a language). For instance, the word tranquilo in Spanish translates directly to 'calm' in English. However, it can be used in many more ways than just as an adjective (e.g., the seas are calm). Tranquilo can be a command or suggestion encouraging another to calm down. It can also be used to ease tensions in an argument (e.g., everyone relax) or to indicate a degree of self-composure (e.g., I'm calm). There is not a clear English translation of the word, and in order to fully comprehend its many possible uses a cultural relativist would argue that it would be necessary to fully immerse oneself in cultures where the word is used.

[edit] Theories of Culture

While there are numerous theoretical approaches employed to understand 'culture', this chapter uses just one model to illustrate how sociologists understand the concept. The model is an integrationist model advocated by Ritzer.^[8] Ritzer proposes four highly interdependent elements in his sociological model: a macro-objective component (e.g., society, law, bureaucracy), a micro-objective component (e.g., patterns of behavior and human interaction), a macro-subjective component (e.g., culture, norms, and values), and a micro-subjective component (e.g., perceptions, beliefs). This model is of particular use in understanding the role of culture in sociological research because it presents two axes for understanding culture: one ranging from objective (society) to subjective (culture and cultural interpretation); the other ranging from the macro-level (norms) to the micro-level (individual level beliefs).

If used for understanding a specific cultural phenomenon, like the displaying of abstract art,^[9] this model depicts how cultural norms can influence individual behavior. This model also posits that individual level values, beliefs, and behaviors can, in turn, influence the macro-level culture. This is, in fact, part of what David Halle finds: while there are certainly cultural differences based on class, they are not unique to class. Displayers of abstract art tend not only to belong to the upper-class, but also are employed in art-production occupations. This would indicate that there are multiple levels of influence involved in art tastes – both broad cultural norms and smaller level occupational norms in addition to personal preferences.

[edit] The Function of Culture

Culture can also be seen to play a specific function in social life. According to Griswold, "The sociological analysis of culture begins at the premise that culture provides orientation, wards off chaos, and directs behavior toward certain lines of action and away from others".Griswold reiterates this point by explaining that, "Groups and societies need collective representations of themselves to inspire sentiments of unity and mutual support, and culture fulfills this need" In other words, culture can have a certain utilitarian function – the maintenance of order as the result of shared understandings and meanings (this understanding of culture is similar to the understanding of society).

[edit] Cultural Change

The belief that culture is symbolically coded and can thus be taught from one person to another means that cultures, although bounded, can change. Cultures are both predisposed to change and resistant to it. Resistance can come from habit, religion, and the integration and interdependence of cultural traits. For example, men and women have complementary roles in many cultures. One sex might desire changes that affect the other, as happened in the second half of the 20th century in western cultures (see women's movement), while the other sex may be resistant to that change (possibly in order to maintain a power imbalance in their favor).

Cultural change can have many causes, including: the environment, inventions, and contact with other cultures. For example, the end of the last ice age helped lead to the invention of agriculture. Some inventions that affected Western culture in the 20th century were the birth control pill, television, and the Internet.

Several understandings of how cultures change come from Anthropology. For instance, in diffusion theory, the form of something moves from one culture to another, but not its meaning. For example, the ankh symbol originated in Egyptian culture but has diffused to numerous cultures. It's original meaning may have been lost, but it is now used by many practitioners of New Age Religion as an arcane symbol of power or life forces. A variant of the diffusion theory, stimulus diffusion, refers to an element of one culture leading to an invention in another.

Contact between cultures can also result in acculturation. Acculturation has different meanings, but in this context refers to replacement of the traits of one culture with those of another, such as what happened with many Native American Indians. Related processes on an individual level are assimilation and transculturation, both of which refer to adoption of a different culture by an individual.

Griswold outlined another sociological approach to cultural change.^[10] Griswold points out that it may seem as though culture comes from individuals – which, for certain elements of cultural change, is true – but there is also the larger, collective, and long-lasting culture that cannot have been the creation of single individuals as it predates and post-dates individual humans and contributors to culture. The author presents a sociological perspective to address this conflict,

Sociology suggests an alternative to both the unsatisfying it has always been that way view at one extreme and the unsociological individual genius view at the other. This alternative posits that culture and cultural works are collective, not individual, creations. We can best understand specific cultural objects... by seeing them not as unique to their creators but as the fruits of collective production, fundamentally social in their genesis. (p. 53)

In short, Griswold argues that culture changes through the contextually dependent and socially situated actions of individuals; macro-level culture influences the individual who, in turn, can influence that same culture. The logic is a bit circular, but illustrates how culture can change over time yet remain somewhat constant.

It is, of course, important to recognize here that Griswold is talking about cultural change and not the actual origins of culture (as in, "there was no culture and then, suddenly, there was"). Because Griswold does not explicitly distinguish between the origins of cultural change and the origins of culture, it may appear as though Griswold is arguing here for the origins of culture and situating these origins in society. This is neither accurate nor a clear representation of sociological thought on this issue. Culture, just like society, has existed since the beginning of humanity (humans being social and cultural). Society and culture co-exist because humans have social relations and meanings tied to those relations (e.g. brother, lover, friend).^[11] Culture as a super-phenomenon has no real beginning except in the sense that humans (homo sapiens) have a beginning. This, then, makes the question of the origins of culture moot – it has existed as long as we have, and will likely exist as long as we do. Cultural change, on the other hand, is a matter that can be questioned and researched, as Griswold does.

[edit] Cultural Sociology: Researching Culture

How do sociologists study culture? One approach to studying culture falls under the label 'cultural sociology', which combines the study of culture with cultural understandings of phenomena.

Griswold explains how cultural sociologists approach their research,

...if one were to try to understand a certain group of people, one would look for the expressive forms through which they represent themselves to themselves... The sociologist can come at this collective representation process from the other direction, from the analysis of a particular cultural object, as well; if we were to try to understand a cultural object, we would look for how it is used by some group as representing that group. (p. 59)^[12]

In other words, because of the perspective of cultural sociologists, their approach to studying culture involves looking for how people make meaning in their lives out of the different cultural elements that surround them.

A particularly clear example of cultural sociology is the study of the Village-Northton by Elijah Anderson.^[13] Anderson is interested in a number of things in his book, but two cultural components stand out. First, Anderson is looking at the border of two culturally and socio-economically distinct neighborhoods. Because these two neighborhoods are distinct yet share a border, this research site provides numerous opportunities for the exploration of culture. Not surprisingly, cultural conflict is an optimal scenario for the exploration of culture and cultural interaction. Additionally, Anderson is interested in how individuals in these neighborhoods negotiate interpersonal interactions, especially when individuals from the Village (middle to upper-middle class and predominantly white) are forced to interact with members of the Northton area (lower class and poor blacks).

Anderson’s methodology is a combination of participant observation and interviews. But when viewed in light of the quote above by Griswold, it becomes apparent that Anderson’s focus in these interviews and observations is self-presentation (also see impression management). Anderson regularly describes the individuals he interviews and observes in light of their clothing, behavior, attitudes, beliefs, and opinions. As he interacts with more and more individuals, patterns begin to develop. Specifically, individuals dressed in certain outfits behave in similar ways. For instance, those dressed in business attire (even when walking their dogs) – the yuppies – have particular perspectives on the future of the Village: they are interested in increasing property values in order to maximize their investment. Another example of cultural significance of clothing is older black men who intentionally wear button-up shirts and ties because of the cultural symbolism of that particular outfit: it signifies to the cultural outsider that the wearer is refined and distinct from the athletic-suit-wearing drug dealers who control numerous Northton corners.

Ultimately, Anderson’s goal is to develop a sort of typology of streetwise individuals: people who can manage awkward and uncomfortable interpersonal interactions on the street in such a fashion that they emerge from the interactions unharmed. While he does develop a loose description of these types of individuals, the important part to understand here is how he explores these aspects of culture. First, he found a cultural border that presented cultural conflict. When individuals have to negotiate meaning publicly, it makes it much easier for the sociologist to tease out culture. Additionally, Anderson observed both the transmission of culture from generation to generation (i.e., socialization, but also the self-representation that is provided by cultural expressions (clothing, behavior, etc). Through years of observation, Anderson gained a familiarity with these elements of culture that allowed him to understand how they interacted.

In summary, cultural sociology (or the study of culture) is performed by examining how individuals express themselves to others and is likely facilitated by finding cultural boundaries where cultural expression is important to successful social functioning.

[edit] Notes

The word 'culture' comes from the Latin root colere (to inhabit, to cultivate, or to honor).

[edit] References

1. ^  Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2. ^  Arnold, Matthew, Culture and Anarchy, 1882. Macmillan and Co., New York. Online at [14].
3. ^  Geertz, Clifford. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York. ISBN 0465097197.
4. ^  Griswold, Wendy. 2004. Cultures and Societies in a Changing World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
5. ^  Gusfield, Joseph R. Culture. Contexts. 2006; 5(1):43-44.
6. ^  Halle, David. 1993. Inside Culture: Art and Class in the American Home. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7. ^  Hoult, Thomas Ford, ed. (1969). Dictionary of Modern Sociology. Totowa, New Jersey, United States: Littlefield, Adams & Co.
8. ^  Kroeber, A. L. and C. Kluckhohn, 1952. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States.
9. ^  Leakey, Richard. 1996. The Origin of Humankind. New York: BasicBooks.
10. ^  Ritzer, George and Douglas J. Goodman. 2004. Modern Sociological Theory. sixth ed. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
11. ^  Wald, Kenneth D. 2003. Religion and Politics in the United States. Fourth ed. New york: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

This chapter drew on the following Wikipedia articles:

• culture
• ethnocentrism
• cultural relativism

[edit] External links

← Society · Socialization →

← Society · Introduction to Sociology · Socialization →

[edit] Socialization

[edit] Elements of Socialization

Socialization is a fundamental sociological concept, comprising a number of elements. While not every sociologist will agree which elements are the most important, or even how to define some of the elements of socialization, the elements outlined below should help clarify what is meant by socialization.

[edit] Goals of Socialization

Arnett,^[15] in presenting a new theoretical understanding of socialization (see below), outlined what he believes to be the three goals of socialization:

1. impulse control and the development of a conscience
2. role preparation and performance, including occupational roles, gender roles, and roles in institutions such as marriage and parenthood
3. the cultivation of sources of meaning, or what is important, valued, and to be lived for

In short, socialization is the process that prepares humans to function in social life. It should be re-iterated here that socialization is culturally relative - people in different cultures are socialized differently. This distinction does not and should not inherently force an evaluative judgment. Socialization, because it is the adoption of culture, is going to be different in every culture. Socialization, as both process or an outcome, is not better or worse in any particular culture.

[edit] Primary and Secondary Socialization

Socialization is a life process, but is generally divided into two parts: Primary socialization takes place early in life, as a child and adolescent. Secondary socialization refers to the socialization that takes place throughout one's life, both as a child and as one encounters new groups that require additional socialization. While there are scholars who argue that only one or the other of these occurs, most social scientists tend to combine the two, arguing that the basic or core identity of the individual develops during primary socialization, with more specific changes occurring later - secondary socialization - in response to the acquisition of new group memberships and roles and differently structured social situations. The need for later life socialization may stem from the increasing complexity of society with its corresponding increase in varied roles and responsibilities.^[16]

Maysam and Nikith outline eight specific ways these two parts of socialization differ:^[17]

1. Jaskiran - Socialization in childhood is thought to be concerned with the regulation of biological drives. In adolescence, socialization is concerned with the development of overarching values and the self-image. In adulthood, socialization involves more overt and specific norms and behaviors, such as those related to the work role as well as more superficial personality features.
2. Jassan - In earlier periods, the socializee (the person being socialized) more clearly assumes the status of learner within the context of the family of orientation, the school, or the peer group. Also, relationships in the earlier period are more likely to be affectively charged, i.e., highly emotional. In adulthood, though the socializee takes the role of student at times, much socialization occurs after the socializee has assumed full incumbency of the adult role. There is also a greater likelihood of more formal relationships due to situational contexts (e.g., work environment), which moderates down the affective component.
3. Neetu - The child and adolescent may be more easily malleable than the adult. Also, much adult socialization is self-initiated and voluntary; adults can leave or terminate the process at any time.

Socialization is, of course, a social process. As such, it involves interactions between people. Socialization, as noted in the distinction between primary and secondary, can take place in multiple contexts and as a result of contact with numerous groups. Some of the more significant contributors to the socialization process are: parents, friends, schools, siblings, and co-workers. Each of these groups include a culture that must be learned and to some degree appropriated by the socializee in order to gain admittance to the group.

[edit] Total Institutions

Not all socialization is voluntary nor is all socialization successful. There are components of society designed specifically to resocialize individuals who were not successfully socialized to begin with. For instance, prisons and mental health institutions are designed to resocialize the people who are deemed to have not been successfully socialized. Depending on the degree of isolation and resocialization that takes place in a given institution, some of these institutions are labeled total institutions. In his classic study of total institutions, Erving Goffman gives the following characteristics of total institutions:^[18]

1. all aspects of life are conducted in the same place under the same authority
2. the individual is a member of a large cohort, all treated alike
3. all daily activities (over a 24-hour period) are tightly scheduled
4. there is a sharp split between supervisors and lower participants
5. information about the member's fate is withheld

The most common examples of total institutions include mental hospitals, prisons, and military boot camps, though there are numerous other institutions that could be considered total institutions as well. The goal of total institutions is to facilitate a complete break with one's old life in order for the institution to resocialize the individual into a new life.

Mortimer and Simmons note a difference in socialization methodologies in different types of institutions.^[19] When the goal of an institution is socialization (primary or secondary), the institution tends to use normative pressures. When the goal of an institution is resocialization of deviants, coercion is frequently involved.

[edit] Broad and Narrow Socialization

Arnett proposed an interesting though seldom used distinction in types of socialization.^[20] Arnett distinguishes between broad and narrow socialization:

• broad socialization is intended to promote independence, individualism, and self-expression; it is dubbed broad because this type of socialization has the potential of resulting in a broad range of outcomes
• narrow socialization is intended to promote obedience and conformity; it is dubbed narrow because there is a narrow range of outcomes

These distinctions correspond to Arnett's definition of socialization, which is:

the whole process by which an individual born with behavioral potentialities of enormously wide range, is led to develop actual behavior which is confined with a much narrower range; the range of what is customary and acceptable for him according to the standards of his group

Arnett explains that his understanding of socialization should not be understood as having just two options, broad or narrow. Instead, the author argues that socialization can be broad or narrow within each of the seven socializing forces he outlines (e.g., family, friends, etc.). Because each force can be either broad or narrow, there is a wide variety of possible broad/narrow socialization combinations. Finally, Arnett notes two examples where his distinction is relevant. First, Arnett argues that there are often differences in socialization by gender. Where these differences exist, argues Arnett, socialization tends to be narrower for women than for men. Arnett also argues that Japanese socialization is narrow as there is more pressure toward conformity in that culture. Arnett argues that this may account for the lower crime rates in Japan.

[edit] The Importance of Socialization

One of the most common methods used to illustrate the importance of socialization is to draw upon the few unfortunate cases of children who were, through neglect, misfortune, or willful abuse, not socialized by adults while they were growing up. Examples of such children can be found here.

[edit] Theoretical Understandings of Socialization

Socialization, as a concept in social scientific research, has evolved over time. While the basic idea outlined above has been a component of most understandings of socialization, there has been quite a variety of definitions and theories of socialization. Some of these approaches are presented here as definitional variety is often informative.^[21][22][23]

• Symbolic Interactionism - the self develops as a result of social interactions; as a result, socialization is highly dependent on the situations in which the actor finds him/herself; this approach also argues that socialization is a continuous, lifelong process
• Role Theory - socialization is seen as a process of acquisition of appropriate norms, attitudes, self-images, values, and role behaviors that enable acceptance in the group and effective performance of new roles; in this framework, socialization is seen as a conservative force, permitting the perpetuation of the social organization in spite of the turn-over of individual members through time
• Reinforcement Theory - the self develops as a result of cognitive evaluations of costs and benefits; this understanding assumes that the socializee, in approaching new roles, is an independent and active negotiator for advantages in relationships with role partners and membership groups
• Internalization Theory - socialization is a series of stages in which the individual learns to participate in various levels of organization of society; this theory contends that the child internalizes a cognitive frame of reference for interpersonal relations and a common system of expressive symbolism in addition to a moral conscience; this approach was advocated by Talcott Parsons

[edit] Socialization as Joining Groups

The concept of socialization has traditionally addressed the problem of individual adjustment to society. In all of the approaches outlined above, socialization has, in one way or another, referred to the idea that society shapes its members toward compliance and cooperation with societal requirements. In order to reduce confusion, develop a research methodology for measuring socialization, and potentially lead to the comparability of research findings from different studies, Long and Hadden proposed a revised understanding of socialization.^[24] Rather than referring to a vague adoption or learning of culture, Long and Hadden reframed socialization as "the medium for transforming newcomers into bona fide members of a group." Before discussing some of the specifics of this approach, it may be useful to outline some of the critiques Long and Hadden present of earlier approaches to socialization.

According to Long and Hadden, many earlier approaches to socialization extended socialization to every part of human social life. As a result, everyone becomes both a socializing agent (socializer) and a novice (socializee) in all encounters with others. This conceptualization leaves socialization without a social home; it is all around but no place in particular. Another criticism of previous approaches is that they allowed socialization to include anything, and anything which is part of the process at one time may be excluded at another. With this conceptualization, any phenomenon may shift its status in the socialization process without changing its own composition or expression. In other words, socialization includes virtually everything, excludes almost nothing, and shifts with circumstance and outcomes. Additionally, previous approaches to socialization lacked specificity about the nature of socialization activity. Defining socialization by its outcomes made it unnecessary to stipulate the nature of the process conceptually. Socialization could be attributed to this or that but in order to truly understand what is taking place it is necessary to go beyond just pointing to socializing agents and specify what it is about those agents that is doing the socializing. Another serious drawback of earlier approaches is that they disregard the process component of socialization. Doing so limits the socialization concept to employment primarily as a post hoc interpretive category that is used to lend significance to findings defined and developed in other terms.

As a result of these criticisms, Long and Hadden found themselves presented with a two-fold task:^[25]

• locate socialization and its social boundaries more precisely
• specify the distinctive properties which distinguish it from related phenomena

To accomplish this, Long and Hadden developed a new understanding of socialization, "socialization is the process of creating and incorporating new members of a group from a pool of newcomers, carried out by members and their allies". Under this understanding, the principal agents of socialization are certified and practicing members of the group to which novices are being socialized. It should be noted that certified here is only a shortened way of saying "a socially approved member of the group." Thus, Long and Hadden's revised understanding of socialization sees it as both the process and outcome of joining groups.

[edit] Research Examples

Numerous examples of research on socialization could be presented in this section. One important area of socialization research involves differences in gender socialization, but much of that research is summarized in the chapter on gender. The following three research examples are interesting in that they explore both primary and secondary socialization and do so from varying perspectives.

[edit] Socialization and Social Class

Ellis, Lee, and Peterson,^[26] developing a research agenda begun by Melvin L. Kohn,^[27] explored differences in how parents raise their children relative to their social class. Kohn found that lower class parents were more likely to emphasize conformity in their children whereas middle-class parents were more likely to emphasize creativity and self-reliance.^[28] Ellis et. al. proposed and found that parents value conformity over self-reliance in children to the extent that conformity superseded self-reliance as a criterion for success in their own endeavors. In other words, Ellis et. al. verified that the reason lower-class parents emphasize conformity in their children is because they experience conformity in their day-to-day activities. For example, factory work is far more about conforming than innovation.

Another study in this same area explored a slightly different component of this relationship. Erlanger was interested in a correlation between social class and physical violence.^[29] While he did not find a strong correlation indicating lower class individuals were more likely to employ physical violence in punishing their children, he did present evidence concerning several outdated propositions. Erlanger's findings include:

• physical punishment does not lead to working class authoritarianism
• childhood punishment experiences do not explain the greater probability that working class adults, as opposed to middle class adults, will commit homicide
• general use of corporal punishment is not a precursor to child abuse
• use of corporal punishment is not part of a subcultural positive evaluation of violence

It should be noted that this is an older study and that more recent findings may have shed more light on these issues. It should also be noted that Erlanger readily points out when his findings are strongly supported or weakly supported by his data. It behooves the interested party to read his paper directly rather than rely on the summary above for the specific nuances.

[edit] Socialization and Death Preparation

Marshall interviewed a number of retirement home residents to explore how their environment influenced their thinking about death.^[30] In essence, Marshall was examining secondary socialization concerning mortality. Marshall found that a combination of relationships, behavioral changes, and retirement home culture contributed to a conception of death that was both accepting and courageous.

Residents of this particular retirement home found themselves with more time on their hands - to think about death - because they no longer had to care for their own homes. Additionally, they found themselves surrounded by people in a situation similar to their own: they were basically moving into the retirement home to prepare for death. The prevalence of elderly people facilitated discussions of death, which also helped socialize the residents into their acceptance of mortality. Finally, the retirement home community encouraged a culture of life and fulfillment in part to counter-act the frequency of death. Some residents calculated there was one death per week in the retirement home. In light of such bad numbers, it was important to the success of the community to maintain a positive culture that embraced life yet accepted death. In summary, Marshall found that numerous factors contributed to the socialization of residents into a positive lifestyle that was also accepting of and preparatory for their impending deaths.

[edit] Do College Preparation Classes Make a Difference?

Rosenbaum was interested in the effects of high school tracks on IQ.^[31] High school tracks are the different levels or types of courses students can take; for instance, many high schools now include college preparation tracks and general education tracks. Rosenbaum's hypothesis was that students who followed the lower tracks (non college-preparation) would score lower on IQ tests over time than would students who followed the higher tracks (college-preparation). Considering that school is one of the primary contributors to socialization, it makes sense that participation in a given track can also result in the adoption of the norms, values, beliefs, skills, and behaviors that correspond to that track. In other words, tracks can turn into a type of self-fulfilling prophecy: you may start out at the same level as someone in a higher track, but by the time you have completed the lower track you will have become like the other students in your track.

To reduce confounding variables and ensure notable test effects, Rosenbaum selected a homogeneous, white, working class public school with five different, highly stratified classes. Rosenbaum then compared IQ scores for individuals in the different tracks at two time points. As it turns out, tracking does have a significant effect on IQ. People in lower tracks can actually see a decline in IQ compared to a possible increase among those in the upper track. In other words, tracks socialize their students into their corresponding roles.

[edit] Notes

[edit] Additional Theoretical Approaches

These approaches are occasionally discussed in the literature, but do not seem distinct enough or adopted widely enough to warrant inclusion in the primary content of this chapter:

• identification theory - similar to role theory with three psychological components (a) cathexis of the role, (b) identification with a real or ideal model, (c) introjection of the model's values as the culmination
• generalization theory - the socialization of attitudes, values, and ways of thinking is abstracted and generalized from the modes of successful adaptation
• expectancy theory - attaches great importance to the actor's expectations regarding the behavioral outcomes of his efforts and the group's response to them
• Fromm (1941) - instilling in the child the desire to do what he must do if a given society is to be maintained

[edit] References

1. ^  Arnett, Jeffrey J. 1995. Broad and Narrow Socialization: The Family in the Context of a Cultural Theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57( 3):617-28.
2. ^  Ellis, Godfrey J., Gary R. Lee, and Larry R. Petersen. 1978. Supervision and Conformity: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Parental Socialization Values. American Journal of Sociology 84(2):386-403.
3. ^  Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates.
4. ^  Holland, David. 1970. Familization, Socialization, and the Universe of Meaning: An Extension of the Interactional Approach to the Study of the Family. Journal of Marriage and the Family 32(3):415-27.
5. ^  Kohn, Melvin L. 1969. Class and Conformity, A Study in Values. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
6. ^  Long, Theodore E. and Jeffrey K. Hadden. 1985. A Reconception of Socialization. Sociological Theory 3(1):39-49.
7. ^  Marshall, Victor W. 1975. Socialization for Impending Death in a Retirement Village. American Journal of Sociology 80(5):1124-44.
8. ^  Mortimer, Jeylan T. and Roberta G. Simmons. 1978. Adult Socialization. Annual Review of Sociology 4:421-54.
9. ^  Rosenbaum, James E. 1975. The Stratification of Socialization Processes. American Sociological Review 40(1):48-54.

[edit] History

• This page is adapted 9 April 2005 from the Wikipedia article, socialization.

[edit] External links

← Culture · Groups →

← Culture · Introduction to Sociology · Groups →

[edit] Groups

[edit] Introduction

In sociology, a group is usually defined as a number of people who identify and interact with one another. This is a very broad definition, as it includes groups of all sizes, from dyads to whole societies. While an aggregate comprises merely a number of individuals, a group in sociology exhibits cohesiveness to a larger degree. Aspects that members in the group may share include: interests, values, ethnic/linguistic background, roles and kinship. One way of determining if a collection of people can be considered a group is if individuals who belong to that collection use the self-referent pronoun "we;" using "we" to refer to a collection of people often implies that the collection thinks of itself as a group. Examples of groups include: families, companies, circles of friends, clubs, local chapters of fraternities and sororities, and local religious congregations.

Collections of people that do not use the self-referent pronoun "we" but share certain characteristics (e.g., roles, social functions, etc.) are different from groups in that they usually do not regularly interact with each other nor share similar interests or values. Such collections are referred to as categories of people rather than groups; examples include: police, soldiers, millionaires, women, etc.

Individuals form groups for a variety of reasons. There are some rather obvious ones, like reproduction, protection, trade, and food production. But social categorization of people into groups and categories also facilitates behavior and action (Hogg 2003). An example may help explain this idea:

Suppose you are driving somewhere in a car when you notice red lights flashing in your rearview mirror. Because you have been socialized into society, you know that the red lights mean you should pull over, so you do. After waiting for a minute or two, an individual in a uniform walks toward your car door. You roll down your window and the individuals asks you for your "license and registration."

Because groups and categories help facilitate social behavior, you know who this individual is: a member of a law enforcement category like the police or highway patrol. In all likelihood, you do not have to question this individual as to why they are driving a special car with lights on it, why they are wearing a uniform, why they are carrying a gun, or why they pulled you over (you may ask why they pulled you over, but doing so often increases the likelihood they'll give you a ticket). In short, because you recognize that the individual driving the car belongs to a specific social category (or group), you can enter this interaction with a body of knowledge that will help guide your behavior. You do not have to learn how to interact in that situation every single time you encounter it. Social categorization of people into groups and categories is a heuristic device that makes social interaction easier.

[edit] Social Identity Theory

Social identity is a theory developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner to understand the psychological basis of intergroup discrimination. It is composed of three elements:

• Categorization: We often put others (and ourselves) into categories. Labeling someone as a Muslim, a Turk, or soccer player are ways of saying other things about these people.
• Identification: We also associate with certain groups (our ingroups), which serves to bolster our self-esteem.
• Comparison: We compare our groups with other groups, seeing a favorable bias toward the group to which we belong...

As developed by Tajfel, Social Identity Theory is a diffuse but interrelated group of social psychological theories concerned with when and why individuals identify with, and behave as part of, social groups, adopting shared attitudes to outsiders. It is also concerned with what difference it makes when encounters between individuals are perceived as encounters between group members. Social Identity Theory is thus concerned both with the psychological and sociological aspects of group behavior.

Reacting against individualistic explanations of group behavior (e.g. Allport) on one hand, and tendencies to reify the group on the other, Tajfel sought an account of group identity that held together both society and individual. Tajfel first sought to differentiate between those elements of self-identity derived from individual personality traits and interpersonal relationships (personal identity) and those elements derived from belonging to a particular group (social identity). Each individual is seen to have a repertoire of identities open to them (social and personal), each identity informing the individual of who he is and what this identity entails. Which of these many identities is most salient for an individual at any time will vary according to the social context.

Tajfel then postulated that social behavior exists on a spectrum from the purely interpersonal to the purely intergroup. Where personal identity is salient, the individual will relate to others in an interpersonal manner, dependent on their character traits and any personal relationship existing between the individuals. However, under certain conditions 'social identity is more salient then personal identity in self-conception and when that is the case behavior is qualitatively different: it is group behavior.'

The first element in social identity theory is categorization. We categorize objects in order to understand them, in a very similar way we categorize people (including ourselves) in order to understand the social environment. We use social categories like black, white, Australian, Christian, Muslim, student, and busdriver because they are useful. If we can assign people to a category then that tells us things about those people, and as we saw with the busdriver example we couldn't function in a normal manner without using these categories; i.e. in the context of the bus. Similarly, we find out things about ourselves by knowing what categories we belong to. We define appropriate behaviour by reference to the norms of groups we belong to, but you can only do this if you can tell who belongs to your group.

The second important idea is identification. We identify with groups that we perceive ourselves to belong to. Identification carries two meanings. Part of who we are is made up of our group memberships. That is, sometimes we think of ourselves as "us" vs. "them" or "we' vs. "they", and at othertimes we think of ourselves as "I" vs. "he or she" or "me" vs. "him or her". That is sometimes we think of ourselves as group members and at other times we think of ourselves as unique individuals. This varies situationally, so that we can be more or less a group member, depending upon the circumstances. What is crucial for our purposes is that thinking of yourselves as a group member and thinking of yourself as a unique individual are both parts of your self-concept. The first is referred to as social identity, the latter is referred to as personal identity.

Just to reiterate, in social identity theory the group membership is not something foreign which is tacked onto the person, it is a real, true and vital part of the person. Again, it is crucial to remember ingroups are groups you identify with, and outgroups are ones that we don't identify with.

The other meaning implied by the concept of identity is the idea that we are, in some sense, the same, or identical to the other people. This should not be misinterpreted, when we say that we are the same, we mean that for some purposes we treat members of our groups as being similar to ourselves in some relevant way. To take the most extreme example, in some violent conflict such as a war, the members of the opposite group are treated as identical and completely different to the ingroup, in that the enemy are considered to be deserving of death. This behaviour and these beliefs are not the product of a bizarre personality disorder, but under these circumstances violent behaviour becomes rational, accepted and even expected behaviour.

The third idea that is involved in social identity theory is one that we have already dealt with. It is Festinger's (1954) notion of social comparison. The basic idea is that a positive self-concept is a part of normal psychological functioning. There is pretty good evidence that to deal effectively with the world we need to feel good about ourselves. The idea of social comparison is that in order to evaluate ourselves we compare ourselves with similar others.

We have already discussed the idea that we can gain self-esteem by comparing ourselves with others in our group, and also that we can see ourselves in a positive light by seeing ourselves as a member of a prestigious group. The question is, how do groups get this prestige? Tajfel and Turner's answer is that group members compare their group with others, in order to define their group as positive, and therefore by implication, see themselves in a positive way. That is, people choose to compare their groups with other groups in ways that reflect positively on themselves.

Two ideas follow from this. One is positive distinctiveness. The idea is that people are motivated to see their own group as relatively better than similar (but inferior) groups. The other idea is negative distinctiveness, groups tend to mimimize the differences between the groups, so that our own group is seen favourably.

The operation of these processes is subsumed within the concept of social creativity. Groups choose dimensions in order to maximise the positivity of their own group. For example, groups which perceive themselves to be of high status on particular dimensions will choose those as the basis of comparison. Groups of low status will minimise differences on those dimensions or choose new dimensions. For example, people from some Middle Eastern Islamic countries might regard their country as inferior to the West in terms of economic and technological advancement but might regard their way of life as being morally superior.

[edit] Primary and Secondary Groups

In sociology we distinguish between two types of groups based upon their characteristics. A Primary group is typically a small social group whose members share close, personal, enduring relationships. These groups are marked by concern for one another, shared activities and culture, and long periods of time spent together. The goal of primary groups is actually the relationships themselves rather than achieving some other purpose. Families and close friends are examples of primary groups

Secondary groups are large groups whose relationships are impersonal and goal-oriented. Some secondary groups may last for many years, though most are short term. Such groups also begin and end with very little significance in the lives of the people involved. People in a secondary group interact on a less personal level than in a primary group. Rather than having as the goal the maintenance and development of the relationships themselves, these groups generally come together to accomplish a specific purpose. Since secondary groups are established to perform functions, people’s roles are more interchangeable. Examples of secondary groups include: classmates in a college course, athletic teams, and co-workers.

The distinction between primary and secondary groups was originally proposed by Charles Horton Cooley. He labelled groups as "primary" because people often experience such groups early in their life and such groups play an important role in the development of personal identity. Secondary groups generally develop later in life and are much less likely to be influential on one's identity.

[edit] Conformity

Experiments to demonstrate conformity in groups were undertaken by Solomon Asch and published in 1951.

The Asch conformity experiments involved the use of cards -- one card had a reference line and the other had three comparison lines. Subjects were required to select the comparison line that correspoded in length to the reference line. In the experiment, all but one of the participants were confederates of the experimenter. The intent of the study was to examine how the sole subject would react to the confederates' behavior -- overwhelmingly choosing the incorrect answer.

[edit] Reference Groups

A group that is used as a standard against which we compare ourselves would be a reference group. Take the case of someone who grew up in a poverty-stricken neighborhood. If all friends and relatives (her reference group) were in the same situation, just scraping by, she may not have considered herself poor at the time. Reference groups can also serve to enforce conformity to certain standards. A college freshman who has his heart set on joining a prestigious fraternity on campus may adopt behaviors and attitudes that are accepted by members of the fraternity.

[edit] Ingroups and Outgroups

p. 56 "Groups exist by virtue of there being outgroups. For a collection of people to be a group there must, logically, be other people who are not in the group (a diffuse non-ingroup, e.g., academics vs. non-academics) or people who are in a specific outgroup (e.g., academics vs. politicians). In this sense, social groups are categories of people; and just like other categories, a social category acquires its meaning by contrast with other categories. The social world is patterned by social discontinuities that mark the boundaries of social groups in terms of perceived and/or actual differences in what people think, feel, and do."

p. 407 "Research on the black sheep effect is consistent with this analysis. In one study (Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988, Exp. 1), Belgian students rated "attractive Belgian students," "attractive North African students," "unattractive Belgian students," and "unattractive North African students." Attractive ingroup members were judged more favorably than attractive outgroup members. The opposite occurred for unattractive members. Figure 17.1 shows the general pattern of judgments that correspond to the black sheep effect." Basically the whole point of this chapter.

[edit] Group Size

[edit] Social Facilitation

[edit] Social Loafing

In the social psychology of groups, social loafing is the phenomenon that persons make less effort to achieve a goal when they work in a group than when they work alone. This is one of the main reasons that groups sometimes perform less than the combined performance of their members working as individuals.

The main explanation for social loafing is that people feel unmotivated when working in a group, because they think that their contributions will not be evaluated. According to the results of a meta-analysis study (Karau & Williams, 1993), social loafing is a pervasive phenomenon, but it does not occur when the group members feel that the task or the group itself is important.

The answer to social loafing is motivation. A competitive environment will not get group members motivated. It takes "the three C's of motivation" to get a group moving: collaboration, content, and choice (Rothwell, 2004).

1. Collaboration is a way to get everyone involved in the group. It is a way for the group members to share the knowledge and the tasks to be fulfilled unfailingly (CSCW, 2000). For example, giving Sally the note taker duty and Raúl the brainstorming duty will make them feel essential to the group. Sally and Raúl won't want to let the group down, because they have specific obligations to complete.

2. Content identifies the importance of the individuals' specific tasks within the group. If group members see their role as a worthy task, then they are more likely to fulfill it. For example, Raúl enjoys brainstorming, and he knows that he will bring a lot to the group if he fulfills this obligation. He feels that his obligation means something to the group.

3. Choice gives the group members the opportunity to choose the task they want to fulfill. Assigning roles in a group causes complaints and frustration. Allowing group members the freedom to choose their role rids social loafing and encourages the members to work together as a team.

[edit] Deindividuation

Deindividuation refers to the phenomenon of relinquishing one's sense of identity. This can happen as a result of becoming part of a group, such as an army or mob, but also as a result of meditation. It can have quite destructive effects, sometimes making people more likely to commit a crime, like stealing^[32] or even over-enforce the law, such as police in riot situations. It is the motivational cause of most riot participants' actions for example, the violent 1992 riots that took place in LA's south central district. Deindividuated individuals' self-awareness becomes absent and they are oblivious to outside evaluation. This is when evaluation apprehension ceases to exist, ultimately breaking down any inhibitions.

[edit] Group Polarization

Group polarization effects have been demonstrated to exaggerate the inclinations of group members after a discussion. A military term for group polarization is "incestuous amplification".

[edit] Overview

Study of this effect has shown that after participating in a discussion group, members tend to advocate more extreme positions and call for riskier courses of action than individuals who did not participate in any such discussion. This phenomenon was originally coined risky shift but was found to apply to more than risk, so the replacement term choice shift has been suggested.

In addition, attitudes such as racial and sexual prejudice tend to be reduced (for already low-prejudice individuals) and inflated (for already high-prejudice individuals) after group discussion.

Group polarization has been used to explain the decision-making of a jury, particularly when considering punitive damages in a civil trial. Studies have shown that after deliberating together, mock jury members often decided on punitive damage awards that were larger or smaller than the amount any individual juror had favored prior to deliberation. The studies indicated that when the jurors favored a relatively low award, discussion would lead to an even more lenient result, while if the jury was inclined to impose a stiff penalty, discussion would make it even harsher.

[edit] Developments in the study of group polarization

The study of group polarization began with an unpublished 1961 Master’s thesis by MIT student James Stoner, who observed the so-called "risky shift", meaning that a group’s decisions are riskier than the average of the individual decisions of members before the group met. The discovery of the risky shift was considered surprising and counterintuitive, especially since earlier work in the 1920s and 1930s by Allport and other researchers suggested that individuals made more extreme decisions than did groups, leading to the expectation that groups would make decisions that would conform to the average risk level of its members. The seemingly counterintuitive findings of Stoner led to a flurry of research around the risky shift, which was originally thought to be a special case exception to the standard decision-making practice. By the late 1960s, however, it had become clear that the risky shift was just one type of many attitudes that became more extreme in groups, leading Moscovici and Zavalloni to term the overall phenomenon "group polarization".

Thus began a decade-long period of examination of the applicability of group polarization to a number of fields, ranging from political attitudes to religion, in both lab and field settings. Basic studies of group polarization tapered off, but research on the topic continued. Group polarization was well-established, but remained non-obvious and puzzling because its mechanisms were not understood.

[edit] Mechanisms of polarization

Almost as soon as the phenomenon of group polarization was discovered, a variety of hypotheses were suggested for the mechanisms for its action. These explanations were gradually winnowed down and grouped together until two primary mechanisms remained, social comparison and influence. Social comparison approaches, sometimes called interpersonal comparison, were based on social psychological views of self-perception and the drive of individuals to appear socially desirable . The second major mechanism is informational influence, which is also sometimes referred to as persuasive argument theory, or PAT. PAT holds that individual choices are determined by individuals weighing remembered pro and con arguments. These arguments are then applied to possible choices, and the most positive is selected. As a mechanism for polarization, group discussion shifts the weight of evidence as each individual exposes their pro and con arguments, giving each other new arguments and increasing the stock of pro arguments in favor of the group tendency, and con arguments against the group tendency. The persuasiveness of an argument depends on two factors – originality and its validity. According to PAT, a valid argument would hold more persuasive weight than a non-valid one. Originality has come to be understood in terms of the novelty of an argument. A more novel argument would increase the likelihood that it is an addition to the other group members’ pool of pro and con arguments, rather than a simple repetition.

In the 1970s, significant arguments occurred over whether persuasive argumentation alone accounted for group polarization. Daniel Isenberg’s 1986 meta-analysis of the data gathered by both the persuasive argument and social comparison camps succeeded, in large part, in answering the questions about predominant mechanisms. Isenberg concluded that there was substantial evidence that both effects were operating simultaneously, and that PAT operated when social comparison did not, and vice-versa. Isenberg did discover that PAT did seem to have a significantly stronger effect, however.

[edit] Groupthink

Groupthink is a term coined by psychologist Irving Janis in 1972 to describe a process by which a group can make bad or irrational decisions. In a groupthink situation, each member of the group attempts to conform his or her opinions to what they believe to be the consensus of the group. In a general sense this seems to be a very rationalistic way to approach the situation. However this results in a situation in which the group ultimately agrees upon an action which each member might individually consider to be unwise (the risky shift).

Janis' original definition of the term was "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action." The word groupthink was intended to be reminiscent of George Orwell's coinages (such as doublethink and duckspeak) from the fictional language Newspeak, which he portrayed in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Groupthink tends to occur on committees and in large organizations. Janis originally studied the Pearl Harbor bombing, the Vietnam War and the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Recently, in 2004, the US Senate Intelligence Committee's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq blamed groupthink for failures to correctly interpret intelligence relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.^[33]

[edit] Symptoms of groupthink

Janis cited a number of antecedent conditions that would be likely to encourage groupthink. These include:

• Insulation of the group
• High group cohesiveness
• Directive leadership
• Lack of norms requiring methodical procedures
• Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology
• High stress from external threats with low hope of a better solution than the one offered by the leader(s)

Janis listed eight symptoms that he said were indicative of groupthink:

1. Illusion of invulnerability
2. Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group
3. Collective rationalization of group's decisions
4. Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents
5. Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms
6. Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect)
7. Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
8. Self-appointed "mindguards" protect the group from negative information

Finally, the seven symptoms of decision affected by groupthink are:

1. Incomplete survey of alternatives
2. Incomplete survey of objectives
3. Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
4. Failure to re-appraise initially rejected alternatives
5. Poor information search
6. Selective bias in processing information at hand (see also confirmation bias)
7. Failure to work out contingency plans

[edit] Preventing groupthink

One mechanism which management consultants recommend to avoid groupthink is to place responsibility and authority for a decision in the hands of a single person who can turn to others for advice. Others advise that a pre-selected individual take the role of disagreeing with any suggestion presented, thereby making other individuals more likely to present their own ideas and point out flaws in others' — and reducing the stigma associated with being the first to take negative stances (see Devil's Advocate).

Anonymous feedback via suggestion box or online chat has been found to be a useful remedy for groupthink — negative or dissenting views of proposals can be raised without any individual being identifiable by others as having lodged a critique. Thus the social capital of the group is preserved, as all members have plausible deniability that they raised a dissenting point.

Institutional mechanisms such as an inspector general system can also play a role in preventing groupthink as all participants have the option of appealing to an individual outside the decision-making group who has the authority to stop non-constructive or harmful trends.

Another possibility is giving each participant in a group a piece of paper, this is done randomly and without anyone but the receiver being able to read it. Two of the pieces of paper have "dissent" written on them, the others are blank. People have to dissent if the paper says so (like a Devil's Advocate), no-one is able to know if the other person is expressing dissent because they received a pre-marked "dissent" piece of paper or because it's an honest dissent. Also, as with every Devil's Advocate, there exists the possibility that the person adopting this role would think about the problem in a way that they wouldn't have if not under that role, and so promoting creative and critical thought.

Another way which is of special use in very asymmetric relations (as in a classroom) is to say something which is essentially wrong or false, having given (or being obvious that the persons that may be groupthinking know about that) the needed information to realize its inconsistency previously, if at the start of the class the teacher told the students that he would do so and not tell them when he did until the end of the class, they would be stimulated to criticize and "process" information instead of merely assimilating it.

An alternative to groupthink is a formal consensus decision-making process, which works best in a group whose aims are cooperative rather than competitive, where trust is able to build up, and where participants are willing to learn and apply facilitation skills.

[edit] Notes

^ The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that "the Intelligence Community (IC) suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. This "group think" dynamic led Intelligence Community analysts, collectors, and managers, to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs. This presumption was so strong that formalized IC mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and group think were not utilized."

[edit] Minority Influence

[edit] Networks

A social network is a social structure between actors, mostly individuals or organizations. It indicates the ways in which they are connected through various social familiarities ranging from casual acquaintance to close familial bonds. The term was first coined in 1954 by J. A. Barnes (in: Class and Committees in a Norwegian Island Parish, "Human Relations").

Social network analysis (also sometimes called network theory) has emerged as a key technique in modern sociology, anthropology, Social Psychology and organizational studies, as well as a popular topic of speculation and study. Research in a number of academic fields have demonstrated that social networks operate on many levels, from families up to the level of nations, and play a critical role in determining the way problems are solved, organizations are run, and the degree to which individuals succeed in achieving their goals.

Social networking also refers to a category of Internet applications to help connect friends, business partners, or other individuals together using a variety of tools. These applications are covered under Internet social networks below, and in the external links at the end of the article.

[edit] Introduction to social networks

Social network theory views social relationships in terms of nodes and ties. Nodes are the individual actors within the networks, and ties are the relationships between the actors. There can be many kinds of ties between the nodes. In its most simple form, a social network is a map of all of the relevant ties between the nodes being studied. The network can also be used to determine the social capital of individual actors. These concepts are often displayed in a social network diagram, where nodes are the points and ties are the lines.

The shape of the social network helps determine a network's usefulness to its individuals. Smaller, tighter networks can be less useful to their members than networks with lots of loose connections (weak ties) to individuals outside the main network. More "open" networks, with many weak ties and social connections, are more likely to introduce new ideas and opportunities to their members than closed networks with many redundant ties. In other words, a group of friends who only do things with each other already share the same knowledge and opportunities. A group of individuals with connections to other social worlds is likely to have access to a wider range of information. It is better for individual success to have connections to a variety of networks rather than many connections within a single network. Similarly, individuals can exercise influence or act as brokers within their social networks by bridging two networks that are not directly linked (called filling social holes).

The power of social network theory stems from its difference from traditional sociological studies, which assume that it is the attributes of individual actors -- whether they are friendly or unfriendly, smart or dumb, etc. -- that matter. Social network theory produces an alternate view, where the attributes of individuals are less important than their relationships and ties with other actors within the network. This approach has turned out to be useful for explaining many real-world phenomena, but leaves less room for individual agency, the ability for individuals to influence their success, so much of it rests within the structure of their network.

Social networks have also been used to examine how companies interact with each other, characterizing the many informal connections that link executives together, as well as associations and connections between individual employees at different companies. These networks provide ways for companies to gather information, deter competition, and even collude in setting prices or policies.

[edit] Applications of social network theory

[edit] Applications in social science

Social network theory in the social sciences began with the urbanization studies of the "Manchester School" (centered around Max Gluckman), done mainly in Zambia during the 1960s. It was followed up with the field of sociometry, an attempt to quantify social relationships. Scholars such as Mark Granovetter expanded the use of social networks, and they are now used to help explain many different real-life phenomena in the social sciences. Power within organizations, for example, has been found to come more from the degree to which an individual within a network is at the center of many relationships than actual job title. Social networks also play a key role in hiring, in business success for firms, and in job performance.

Social network theory is an extremely active field within academia. The International Network for Social Network Analysis is an academic association of social network analysts. Many social network tools for scholarly work are available online (like "UCINet") and are relatively easy to use to present graphical images of networks.

Diffusion of innovations theory explores social networks and their role in influencing the spread of new ideas and practices. Change agents and opinion leaders often play major roles in spurring the adoption of innovations, although factors inherent to the innovations also play a role.

[edit] Popular applications

The so-called rule of 150 states that the size of a genuine social network is limited to about 150 members (sometimes called the Dunbar Number). The rule arises from cross-cultural studies in sociology and especially anthropology of the maximum size of a village (in modern parlance most reasonably understood as an ecovillage). It is theorized in evolutionary psychology that the number may be some kind of limit of average human ability to recognize members and track emotional facts about all members of a group. However, it may be due to economics and the need to track "free riders", as larger groups tend to be easier for cheats and liars to prosper in.

[edit] Degrees of Separation and the Global Social Network

The small world phenomenon is the hypothesis that the chain of social acquaintances required to connect one arbitrary person to another arbitrary person anywhere in the world is generally short. The concept gave rise to the famous phrase six degrees of separation after a 1967 small world experiment by psychologist Stanley Milgram which found that two random US citizens were connected by an average of six acquaintances. Current internet experiments continue to explore this phenomenon, including the Ohio State Electronic Small World Project and Columbia's Small World Project. As of 2005, these experiments confirm that about five to seven degrees of separation are sufficient for connecting any two people through the internet.

[edit] Internet social networks

Main Wikipedia article: Social network service

See also: List of social networking sites

Whilst there was evidence of social networking on the Web in 1997, with websites such as SixDegrees.com, it was not until 2001 that websites using the Circle of Friends online social networks started appearing. This form of social networking, widly used in virtual communities, became particularly popular in 2003 and flourished with the advent of a website called Friendster. There are over 200 social networking sites, though Friendster is one of the most successful at using the Circle of Friends technique. The popularity of these sites rapidly grew, and major companies such as Google and Yahoo have entered the Internet social networking space.

In these communities, an initial set of founders sends out messages inviting members of their own personal networks to join the site. New members repeat the process, growing the total number of members and links in the network. Sites then offer features such as automatic address book updates, viewable profiles, the ability to form new links through "introduction services," and other forms of online social connections. Social networks can also be organized around business connections, as for example in the case of Shortcut.

Blended networking is an approach to social networking that blends offline and online elements together to create a blend. A human social network is blended if it supported by both face-to-face events and an online community. The two elements of the blend support one another. A current trend is social networks that mirror real communities, becoming online extensions of these communities. MySpace builds on independent music and party scenes, and Facebook mirrors a college community. These sites allow stronger ties and freer relationships. See also Social computing.

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

1. ^  Bray, R. M., & Noble, A. M. (1978). Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1424-1430.
2. ^  Diener, E., Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L. and Kelem, R. T. (1976). Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(2), 178-183.
3. ^  Festinger, L., Pepitone, A. and Newcomb T. (1952). Some consequences of deindividuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382-389.
4. ^  Hogg, Michael A. Social Categorization, Depersonalization, and Group Behavior. Hogg, Michael A. and Tindale, Scott, Editors. Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers; 2003; pp. 56-85.
5. ^  Jackson, J. M. & Harkins, J. M. (1985). Equity in effort: An explanation of the social loafing effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1199-1206.
6. ^  Jackson, J. M. & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 937-942.
7. ^  Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0395140447
8. ^  Janis, I. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Commitment. New York: The Free Press.
9. ^  Karau, S. J. & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706.
10. ^  MacCoun, R. J.; Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors' bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21-33.
11. ^  Marques, Jose M.; Abrams, Dominic; Paez, Dario, and Hogg, Michael A. Social Categorization, Social Identification, and Rejection of Deviant Group Members. Hogg, Michael A. and Tindale, Scott, Editors. Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers; 2003; pp. 400-424.
12. ^  Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12, 125-135.
13. ^  Rothwell, J, D. "In the Company of Others," McGraw-Hill, 2004, ISBN 0-7474-3009-3
14. ^  Senate Intelligence Committee. 2004. Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq http://intelligence.senate.gov/conclusions.pdf
15. ^  Schwartz, John & Wald, Matthew L. Smart People Working Collectively can be Dumber Than the Sum of their Brains: "Groupthink" Is 30 Years Old, and Still Going Strong. New York Times March 9, 2003. Full Reprint here.
16. ^  The Computing Company. 2005. "Pattern: Collaboration in Small Groups". Retrived October 31, 2005 [34]
17. ^  Worchel, Stephen. Emphasizing the Social Nature of Groups in a Developmental Framework. Nye, Judith L. and Brower, Aaron M., Editors. What's Social About Social Cognition? Sage Publications; 1996.
18. ^  Zimbardo, P. G., (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 17, 237-307

This chapter draws on the following Wikipedia articles:

• Group
• Social identity
• Primary group/Secondary group
• Group Polarization
• Deindividuation
• Social loafing
• Social network
• Groupthink
• Reference group

[edit] External links

• Social Identity (Australian National University)
• Social Identity Theory (University of Twente)
• "Primary Groups" excerpt from Cooley's "Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind"
• Online Social Networking Research Report - A comparative analysis by Wildbit of the most popular online social networks with suggestions on creating and growing web communities.
• Knock, Knock, Knocking on Newton's Door - article published in Defense Acquisition University's journal Defense AT&L, based largely on Six Degrees by Duncan Watts. Explores theory and practice of social networking, as related to military technology development.
• How to Do Social Network Analysis
• Robin Dunbar and the Magic Number of 150
• PieSpy - Social Network Bot Inferring and Visualizing Social Networks on IRC
• The Academic Robotics Community in the UK: Web based data construction and analysis of a distributed community of practice The social networks of this community are constructed wholly from web-based resources such as web pages, electronic CVs and bibliographic search engines
• The Augmented Social Network: Building Identity and Trust into the Next-Generation Internet by Ken Jordan, Jan Hauser, and Steven Foster
• The Social Web: Building an Open Social Network with XDI by members of the OASIS XDI Technical Committee7
• Pajek - Program for Large Network Analyis
• CASOS Dynamic Social Network Analysis being conducted at Carnegie Mellon University
• http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/deindividuation.htm
• Article on Groupthink from MeatballWiki
• Article on Groupthink from SourceWatch

← Socialization · Demography →

← Socialization · Introduction to Sociology · Demography →

[edit] Demography

[edit] Introduction

Demography is the study of human population dynamics. It encompasses the study of the size, structure and distribution of populations, and how populations change over time due to births, deaths, migration, and ageing. Demographic analysis can relate to whole societies or to smaller groups defined by criteria such as education, religion, or ethnicity.

[edit] Why study demography?

Before proposing complex theories to explain sociological phenomena (e.g., World Systems Theory), especially at the macro and/or societal levels, sociologists should first turn to demographic indicators for possible explanations. Demographic analysis is a powerful tool that can explain a number of sociological phenomena.

For instance, in examining the elements that led to the first World War, most people turn to political and diplomatic conflicts but fail to consider the implications of expanding populations in the European countries involved. Expanding populations will result in increased competition for resources (i.e., food, land, access to trade routes and ports, etc.). Expanding populations may not be the primary cause of World War I, but it may have played a role in the increased hostilities leading up to the war. In this fashion, demographic indicators are often informative in explaining world events and should be turned to first as explanations.

[edit] History

The study of human populations has its roots, like sociology generally, in the societal changes that accompanied both the scientific and industrial revolutions. Some early mathematicians developed primitive forms of life tables, which are tables of life expectancies, for life insurance and actuarial purposes. Censuses, another demographic tool, were institued for primarily political purposes:

• as a basis for taxation
• as a basis for political representation

The development of demographic calculations started in the 18th century. Census taking, on the other hand, has a long history dating back close to 2,000 years among the Chinese and the Romans and even further back in history among some groups in the Middle East. Most modern censuses began in the late 18th century.

[edit] Data and Methods

Demography relies on large data sets that are primarily derived from censuses and registration statistics (i.e., birth, death, marriage registrations). Large data sets over long periods of time (e.g., the U.S. census is conducted every 10 years) are required to develop trends in demographic indicators, like birth and death rates.

In many countries, particularly in developing nations, reliable demographic data are still difficult to obtain. In some locales this may be due to the association of census with taxation.

[edit] Demographic Indicators

Because demography is interested in changes in human populations, demographers focus on specific indicators of change. Two of the most important indicators are birth and death rates, which are also referred to as fertility (see also fecundity) and mortality. Additionally, demographers are interested in migration trends or the movement of people from one location to another. Some of the specific measures used to explore these elements of population change are discussed below.

[edit] Fertility and Fecundity

Fertility, in demography, refers to the ability of females to produce healthy offspring in abundance. Fecundity is the potential reproductive capacity of a female. Some of the more common demographic measures used in relation to fertility and/or fecundity include:

• crude birth rate: the annual number of live births per thousand people
• general fertility rate: the annual number of live births per 1000 women of childbearing age (often taken to be from 15 to 49 years old, but sometimes from 15 to 44).
• age-specific fertility rate: the annual number of live births per 1000 women in particular age groups (usually age 15-19, 20-24 etc.)
• total fertility rate: the number of live births per woman completing her reproductive life if her childbearing at each age reflected current age-specific fertility rates
• gross reproduction rate: the number of daughters who would be born to a woman completing her reproductive life at current age-specific fertility rates
• net reproduction rate: the number of daughters who would be born to a woman according to current age-specific fertility and mortality rates

Another important demographic concept relating to fertility is replacement level. Replacement level fertility refers to the number of children that a woman (or monogamous couple) must have in order to replace the existing population. Sub-replacement fertility is a fertility rate that is not high enough to replace an existing population. Replacement level fertility is generally set at 2.1 children in a woman's lifetime (this number varies by geographic region given different mortality rates). Sub-replacement fertility is below approximately 2.1 children in a woman's life time. The reason the number is set to 2.1 children per woman is because two children are needed to replace the parents and an additional one-tenth of a child is needed to make up for the mortality of children and women who do not reach the end of their reproductive years. Of course, women don't have one-tenth of a child; this results from statistical averaging between women who have more than two children and those who have two or fewer children.

The chart below illustrates trends in childbearing by region of the world. The lighter bars reflect the average number of children per woman during the late 1960s; the darker bars indicate current fertility rates. Throughout the world, fertility rates are declining.

This chart highlights some of the countries with the lowest fertility rates in the world. Notice that many of the countries on this list are former Soviet-bloc countries.

The following chart illustrates the relationship between contraceptive use and the total fertility rate by regions of the world. Increased contraceptive use is associated with lower numbers of children per woman.

One of the strongest predictors of fertility rates is women's educational attainment.^[35] Almost universally, higher levels of educational attainment result in lower fertility rates. It is not, however, education itself that causes declines in fertility but rather its association with other factors that reduce fertility: women with higher levels of education delay marriage, have improved labor market opportunities, are more likely to use contraception during intercourse, and are less likely to adopt traditional childbearing roles.^[36]

[edit] Mortality

Mortality refers to the finite nature of humanity: people die. Mortality in demography is interested in the number of deaths in a given time or place or the proportion of deaths in relation to a population. Some of the more common demographic measures of mortality include:

• crude death rate: the annual number of deaths per 1000 people
• infant mortality rate: the annual number of deaths of children less than 1 year old per thousand live births
• life expectancy: the number of years which an individual at a given age can expect to live at present mortality rates

Note that the crude death rate as defined above and applied to a whole population can give a misleading impression. For example, the number of deaths per 1000 people can be higher for developed nations than in less-developed countries, despite standards of health being better in developed countries. This is because developed countries have relatively more older people, who are more likely to die in a given year, so that the overall mortality rate can be higher even if the mortality rate at any given age is lower. A more complete picture of mortality is given by a life table which summarizes mortality separately at each age.

This chart depicts infant mortality by region of the world. The less developed regions of the world have higher infant mortality rates than the more developed regions.

This chart depicts life expectancy by region of the world. Similar to infant mortality, life expectancies are higher in more developed regions of the world.

According to recent research,^[37] one of the best predictors of longevity (i.e., a long life) is education, even when other factors are controlled: the more educated you are, the longer you can expect to live. A few additional years of schooling can add several additional years to your life and vastly improve your health in old age. The mechanism through which this works is not the schooling itself, but schooling's influence on other health-related behaviors. The more education someone has, the lower his/her likelihood of smoking and engaging in unhealthy and high risk behaviors. Education also increases the probability of people engaging in healthy behaviors, like frequently exercising.^[38]

Other factors associated with greater longevity include:

• wealth: money increases access to good healthcare, which improves health and increases longevity
• race: whites live longer than blacks, though this is due to other social disparities, like income and education, and not to race itself
• ability to delay gratification: with the ability to delay gratification people live healthier lives and engage in healthier behaviors (e.g., exercise)
• larger social networks: having a large group of friends and close relationships with relatives increases your social support, which positively influences health
• job satisfaction: people in more powerful and more satisfying jobs tend to be healthier than people in less satisfying jobs

[edit] The Demographic Transition

The demographic transition is a model and theory describing the transition from high birth rates and death rates to low birth and death rates that occurs as part of the economic development of a country. In pre-industrial societies, population growth is relatively slow because both birth and death rates are high. In most post-industrial societies, birth and death rates are both low. The transition from high rates to low rates is referred to as the demographic transition. This understanding of societal changes is based on the work of Thompson,^[39] Blacker,^[40] and Notestein,^[41] who derived the model based on changes in demographics over the preceding two hundred years or so.

The beginning of the demographic transition in a society is indicated when death rates drop without a corresponding fall in birth rates (usually the result of improved sanitation and advances in healthcare). Countries in the second stage of the demographic transition (see diagram) experience a large increase in population. This is depicted in the diagram when death rates fall in stage two but birth rates do not fall until stage three. The large red area in between the birth and death rates in stages two and three represents the rapid population expansion that occurs when this happens.

By the end of stage three, birth rates drop to fall in line with the lower death rates. While there are several theories that attempt to explain why this occurs (e.g., Becker and Caldwell, who view children as economic commodities),^[42][43] why birth rates decline in post-industrial societies is still being evaluated. Many developed countries now have a population that is static or, in some cases, shrinking.

As with all models, this is an idealized, composite picture of population change in these countries. The model is a generalization that applies to these countries as a group and may not accurately describe all individual cases. Whether or not it will accurately depict changes in developing societies today remains to be seen. For more information on the demographic transition, see here.

[edit] Population Growth and Overpopulation

Overpopulation indicates a scenario in which the population of a living species exceeds the carrying capacity of its ecological niche. Overpopulation is not a function of the number or density of the individuals, but rather the number of individuals compared to the resources they need to survive. In other words, it is a ratio: population over resources. If a given environment has a population of 10, but there is food and drinking water enough for only 9 people, then that environment is overpopulated, while if the population is 100 individuals but there are food and water enough for 200, then it is not overpopulated.

Resources to be taken into account when estimating if an ecological niche is overpopulated include clean water, food, shelter, warmth, etc. In the case of human beings, there are others such as arable land and, for all but tribes with primitive lifestyles, lesser resources such as jobs, money, education, fuel, electricity, medicine, proper sewage and garbage management, and transportation.

Presently, every year the world's human population grows by approximately 80 million. About half the world lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility and population growth in those countries is due to immigration. The United Nations projects that the world human population will stabilize in 2075 at nine billion due to declining fertility rates source.

Today about half the world lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility. All the nations of East Asia, with the exceptions of Mongolia, the Philippines, and Laos are below replacement level. Russia and Eastern Europe are in most cases quite dramatically below replacement fertility. Western Europe also is below replacement. In the Middle East Iran, Tunisia, Algeria, Turkey, and Lebanon are below replacement. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are similar to Western Europe, while the United States is just barely below replacement with about 2.0 births per woman. All four of these nations still have growing populations due to high rates of immigration.

[edit] Early Projections of Overpopulation

Early in the 19th century, Thomas Malthus argued in An Essay on the Principle of Population that, if left unrestricted, human populations would continue to grow until they would become too large to be supported by the food grown on available agricultural land. He proposed that, while resources tend to grow arithmetically, population grows exponentially. At that point, the population would be restrained through mass famine and starvation. Malthus argued for population control, through moral restraint, to avoid this happening.

The alternative to moral restraint, according to Malthus, is biological and natural population limitation. As the population exceeds the amount of available resources the population decreases through famine, disease, or war, since the lack of resources causes mortality to increase. This process keeps the population in check and ensures it does not exceed the amount of resources.

Over the two hundred years following Malthus's projections, famine has overtaken numerous individual regions. Proponents of this theory, Neo-Malthusians state that these famines were examples of Malthusian catastrophes. On a global scale, however, food production has grown faster than population. It has often been argued that future pressures on food production, combined with threats to other aspects of the earth's habitat such as global warming, make overpopulation a still more serious threat in the future.

[edit] Population as a function of food availability

Recent studies take issue with the idea that human populations are naturally explosive. Thinkers such as David Pimentel, Alan Thornhill, Russell Hopffenberg, and Daniel Quinn propose that, like other animals, human populations predictably grow and shrink according to their available food supply - populations grow when there is an abundance of food and shrink in times of scarcity.

Proponents of this theory indicate that every time food production is intensified to feed a growing population, the population responds by increasing even more. Some human populations throughout history support this theory, as consistent population growth began with the agricultural revolution, when food supplies consistently increased. This can be observed in cultural contexts, as populations of hunter-gatherers fluctuate in accordance with the amount of available food and are significantly smaller than populations of agriculturalists, who increase the amount of food available by putting more land under agriculture.

For some, the concept that human populations behave in the same way as do populations of bears and fish is troubling to believe; for others it indicates a feasible solution to population issues. In either case, since populations are tied to the food they consume, it seems that discussions of populations should not take place without considering the role played by food supply.

Critics of this idea point out that birth rates are voluntarily the lowest in developed nations, which also have the highest access to food. In fact, the population is decreasing in some countries with abundant food supply. Thus human populations do not always grow to match the available food supply. Critics cite other factors that contribute to declining birth rates in developed nations, including: increased access to contraception, later ages of marriage, the growing desire of many women in such settings to seek careers outside of childrearing and domestic work, and the decreased economic 'utility' of children in industrialized settings.^[44][45] The latter explanation stems from the fact that children perform a great deal of work in small-scale agricultural societies, and work less in industrial ones; this interpretation may seem callous, but it has been cited to explain the drop-off in birthrates worldwide in all industrializing regions.

Food production has outpaced population growth, meaning that there is now more food available per person than ever before in history. Studies project that food production can continue to increase until at least 2050. Using modern agricultural methods, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.S. has predicted that developing countries could sustain a population of 30 billion people source.

[edit] The optimist's viewpoint on population growth

Some studies have argued that the current population level of over six billion may be supported by current resources, or that the global population may grow to ten billion and still be within the Earth's carrying capacity. Buckminster Fuller and Barry Commoner are both proponents of the idea that human technology could keep up with population growth indefinitely. The assumptions that underlie these claims, however, have been strongly criticised. One criticism is that poor people can't afford such technologies.

[edit] Effects of overpopulation

In any case, many proponents of population control have averred that famine is far from being the only problem attendant to overpopulation. These critics point out ultimate shortages of energy sources and other natural resources, as well as the importance of serious communicable diseases in dense populations and war over scarce resources such as land area. A shortage of arable land (where food crops will grow) is also a problem.

The world's current agricultural production, if it were distributed evenly, would be sufficient to feed everyone living on the Earth today. However, many critics hold that, in the absence of other measures, simply feeding the world's population well would only make matters worse, natural growth will cause the population to grow to unsustainable levels, and will directly result in famines and deforestation and indirectly in pandemic disease and war.

Some of the other characteristics of overpopulation include:

• Child poverty
• High birth rates
• Lower life expectancies
• Lower levels of literacy
• Higher rates of unemployment, especially in urban
• Insufficient arable land
• Little surplus food
• Poor diet with ill health and diet-deficiency diseases (e.g. rickets)
• Low per capita GDP
• Increasingly unhygienic conditions
• Government is stretched economically
• Increased crime rates resulting from people stealing resources to survive
• Mass extinctions of plants and animals as habitat is used for farming and human settlements

Another point of view on population growth and how it effects the standard of living is that of Virginia Abernethy. In Population Politics she shows evidence that declining fertility following industrialization only holds true in nations where women enjoy a relatively high status. In strongly patriarchal nations, where women enjoy few rights, a higher standard of living tends to result in population growth. Abernathy argues that foreign aid to poor countries must include significant components designed to improve the education, human rights, political rights, political power, and economic status and power of women.

[edit] Possible Solutions to Overpopulation

Some approach overpopulation with a survival of the fittest, laissez-faire attitude, arguing that if the Earth's ecosystem becomes overtaxed, it will naturally regulate itself. In this mode of thought, disease or starvation are "natural" means of lessening population. Objections to this argument are:

1. in the meantime, a huge number of plant and animal species become extinct
2. this would result in terrible pollution in some areas that would be difficult to abate
3. it obviously creates certain moral problems, as this approach would result in great suffering in the people who die

Others argue that economic development is the best way to reduce population growth as economic development can spur demographic transitions that seem to naturally lead to reductions in fertility rates.

In either case, it is often held that the most productive approach is to provide a combination of help targeted towards population control and self-sufficiency. One of the most important measures proposed for this effort is the empowerment of women educationally, economically, politically, and in the family. The value of this philosophy has been substantially borne out in cases where great strides have been taken toward this goal. Where women's status has dramatically improved, there has generally been a drastic reduction in the birthrate to more sustainable levels. Other measures include effective family planning programs, local renewable energy systems, sustainable agriculture methods and supplies, reforestation, and measures to protect the local environment.

David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor of ecology and agricultural sciences, sees several possible scenarios for the 22nd century:

1. a planet with 2 billion people thriving in harmony with the environment
2. or, at the other extreme, 12 billion miserable humans suffering a difficult life with limited resources and widespread famine

Spreading awareness of the issues is an important first step in addressing it.

[edit] References

1. ^  Becker, Gary S. 1960. "An Economic Analysis of Fertility." Pp. 209-31 in Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries, Edited Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2. ^  Blacker, C. P. 1947. Eugenics Review 39:88-101.
3. ^  Caldwell, John C. 1982. Theory of Fertility Decline. Sydney: Academic Press.
4. ^  Kolata, G. (2007). A Surprising Secret to a Long Life: Stay in School. The New York Times. Retrieved January 3, 2007. [46]
5. ^  Mare, R.D., & Maralani, V. (2006). The Intergenerational Effects of Changes in Women's Educational Attainments. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 542-564.
6. ^  Massey, Douglas S. Blackballed By Bush. Contexts. 2006; 5(1):40-42.
7. ^  Notestein, F. W. 1945. Pp. 36-57 in Food for the World, Editor T. W. Schultz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. ^  Thompson, W. C. 1929. The American Journal of Sociology 34:959-75.

This chapter also draws on the following Wikipedia articles:

• migration
• demography
• demographic transition
• overpopulation

[edit] Human sexuality

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexuality

[edit] Deviance and norms

[edit] Introduction

Deviance is any behavior that violates cultural norms. Deviance is often divided into two types of deviant activities. The first, crime is the violation of formally enacted laws and is referred to as formal deviance. Examples of formal deviance would include: robbery, theft, rape, murder, and assault, just to name a few. The second type of deviant behavior refers to violations of informal social norms, norms that have not been codified into law, and is referred to as informal deviance. Examples of informal deviance might include: picking one's nose, belching loudly (in some cultures), or standing too close to another unnecessarily (again, in some cultures).

As the last two examples in the preceding paragraph illustrate, deviance can vary quite dramatically from culture to culture. Cultural norms are relative; this makes deviant behavior relative as well. For instance, in general U.S. society it is uncommon for people to restrict their speech to certain hours of the day. In the Christ Desert Monastery, there are specific rules about when the residents can and cannot speak, including a specific ban on speaking between 7:30 pm and 4:00 am. The norms and rules of the Christ Desert Monastery are examples of how norms are relative to cultures.

Current research on deviance by sociologists takes many forms. For example, Dr. Karen Halnon of Pennsylvania State University studies how some people exercise informal deviance. Her research focuses on what she calls "deviance vacations," where people of certain socioeconomic status descend to lower strata. For instance, heterosexual white males may become drag queens on the weekend. It is a vacation because heterosexual white males can afford to descend temporarily and then return to the advantages of their true socioeconomic status. Other examples include white hip-hop acts like Eminem and Nu-Metal bands like Limp Bizkit that mimic lower or middle class people in order to use their socioeconomic credentials for profit, despite their true socioeconomic status.

Sociological interest in deviance includes both interests in measuring formal deviance (statistics of criminal behavior; see below) and a number of theories that try to explain both the role of deviance in society and its origins. This chapter will cover the theories of deviance used by sociologists and will also cover current crime statistics.

[edit] Theories of Deviance

[edit] Social-Strain Typology

Robert K. Merton, in his discussion of deviance, proposed a typology of deviant behavior. A typology is a classification scheme designed to facilitate understanding. In this case, Merton was proposing a typology of deviance based upon two criteria: (1) a person's motivations or her adherence to cultural goals; (2) a person's belief in how to attain her goals. These two criteria are shown in the diagram below. According to Merton, there are five types of deviance based upon these criteria:

• conformity involves the acceptance of the cultural goals and means of attaining those goals (e.g., a banker)
• innovation involves the acceptance of the goals of a culture but the rejection of the traditional and/or legitimate means of attaining those goals (e.g., a member of the mafia values wealth but employs alternative means of attaining her wealth)
• ritualism involves the rejection of cultural goals but the routinized acceptance of the means for achieving the goals (e.g., a disillusioned bureaucrat - like Milton in the movie Office Space, who goes to work everyday because it is what he does, but does not share the goal of the company of making lots of money)
• retreatism involves the rejection of both the cultural goals and the traditional means of achieving those goals (e.g., a homeless person who is homeless more by choice than by force or circumstance)
• rebellion is a special case wherein the individual rejects both the cultural goals and traditional means of achieving them but actively attempts to replace both elements of the society with different goals and means (e.g., a communist revolution)

[edit] Structural-Functionalism

The structural-functionalist approach to deviance argues that deviant behavior plays an important role in society for several reasons. First, deviance helps distinguish between what is acceptable behavior, and what is not. In a sense deviance is required in order for people to know what they can and cannot do. It draws lines and demarcates boundaries. This is an important function as it affirms the cultural values and norms of a society for the members of that society.

In addition to clarifying the moral boundaries of society, deviant behavior can also promote social unity, but it does so at the expense of the deviant individuals, who are obviously excluded from the sense of unity derived from differentiating the non-deviant from the deviants.

Finally, and quite out of character for the structural-functionalist approach, deviance is actually seen as one means for society to change over time. Deviant behavior can imbalance societal equilibrium. In the process of returning societal equilibrium, society is often forced to change. Thus, deviant behavior serves several important functions in society.

A clear example of how deviance reflects power imbalances is in the reporting of crimes. Wealthier individuals are more likely to commit property crimes, particularly crimes that are often referred to as white-collar crimes. Examples of white-collar crimes include^[23]:

• antitrust violations
• computer/internet fraud
• credit card fraud
• phone/telemarketing fraud
• bankruptcy fraud
• healthcare fraud
• insurance fraud
• mail fraud
• government fraud
• tax evasion
• financial fraud
• insider trading
• bribery and public corruption
• counterfeiting
• money laundering
• embezzlement
• economic espionage
• trade secret theft

White-collar crimes are almost exclusively property-related. Property-related crimes are in contrast to violent crimes, which tend to be committed by individuals of lower socio-economic classes.^{[citation needed]} The power balance comes into play when the percentage of each of these types of crimes is examined. Violent crimes are more likely to be reported as shown in the chart above. In addition to the higher likelihood of violent crimes being reported, a much larger percentage of people are in prison for committing violent crimes than for property crimes.^[24]

[edit] Labeling Theory

Labeling Theory refers to the idea that individuals become deviant when two things occur:

1. a deviant label is applied to them (e.g., loner, punk)
2. they adopt the label by exhibiting the behaviors, actions, and attitudes associated with the label

This approach to deviance recognizes its cultural relativity and is aware that deviance can result from power imbalances. But it takes the idea of deviance further by illustrating how a deviant identity develops through the application and adoption of labels. Labeling theory argues that people become deviant as a result of people forcing that identity upon them and then adopting the identity.

Labels are understood to be the names associated with identities or role-sets in society. Examples of more innocuous labels might include father or lover. Deviant labels refer to identities that are known for falling outside of cultural norms, like loner or punk.

There are two additional ideas related to the labeling theory approach to understanding deviance. First, once a deviant identity is adopted, it is often the case that the past behaviors of the now deviant individual are re-interpreted in light of the new identity. The process of re-casting one's past actions in light of a current identity is referred to as retrospective labeling. A very clear example of retrospective labeling can be seen in how the perpetrators of the Columbine High School massacre, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were re-cast after the incident took place. Much of their behavior leading up to the school shootings has been re-interpreted in light of the deviant identity with which they were labeled as a result of the shootings.

Another important element of labeling theory involves the idea of stigma. Stigma refers to the situation of the individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance because of some mark of infamy or disgrace or a label that is often difficult to hide or disguise.^[25] Stigma extend the idea of labeling theory by illustrating how individual characteristics can be the basis for attaching labels that can be life-altering. A good example of a stigma that is now increasingly difficult to hide is the publishing of convicted sex offender identities and information on websites (see here for an example). The stigma is the past behavior - the sex offense - but this identity is relatively easily hidden as it impossible to pick a sex offender out of a crowd. By pushing the sex offender identity into public purview, sex offenders, regardless of current behavior, are stigmatized; they are stuck with a deviant identity that overwhelms any other identity they may have. In sum, labeling theory argues that the application of labels (role-sets) to individuals is an important element leading to deviant behavior.

[edit] Crime Statistics

Crime statistics are usually aggregations of data collected by governments for the reporting of incidents of criminal activity. They are useful for a number of reasons, beyond simply giving an awareness of the extent of criminal activity. Presented below are statistics on criminal activity and the criminal justice system for both the U.S. and selected nations around the world (for comparisons). The statistics included in this section were chosen to provide a sampling of how crime statistics can be useful beyond simply reporting incidents of criminal behavior.

It is important to understand that crime statistics do not provide a perfect view of crime. Government statistics on crime only show data for crimes that have been reported to authorities. These crimes represent only a fraction of those crimes that have been acted upon by law enforcement, which in turn represents only a fraction of those crimes where people have made complaints to the police, which in turn represents only a fraction of the total crimes committed.

[edit] Incarceration Rates and Populations

One of the more interesting features of the U.S. is the extensive number of people who are currently in the correctional system. One explanation for this is the increasingly punitive approach of the criminal justice system. According to Western (2007)^[26], those who break laws in the U.S. today are twice as likely to be imprisoned as criminals a generation ago. While debated, the percentage of prison inmates who have been wrongly convicted of crimes is estimated to be somewhere between less than 1% all the way up to 9%, which could mean hundreds of thousands of prison inmates are actually innocent.^[27] Chart 1 breaks down the correctional system population by the status of individuals in the correctional system, including:

• prison
• probation
• jail
• parole

While the population of the United States is the third largest in the world (behind China and India), the percentage of the population that is in prison is the highest in the world, as illustrated by Charts 2 and 3.

Chart 2 is informative for illustrating just how many people are in prison in the U.S. But it could also be seen as misleading because it does not take into consideration population size, as does Chart 3.

This chart, in combination with the previous one, illustrates that not only does the U.S. have a lot of people in prison in sheer numbers but in terms of percentage of the population (in the chart it is shown as rates per 100,000 people), the U.S. also has a very high percentage of its population in prison.

Comparing incarceration rates by countries goes beyond just reporting incidents of criminal activity (incidents of crime are not much higher in the U.S. than elsewhere) by highlighting differences in the correctional systems of countries. Countries differ in the restrictiveness of their laws and prison sentences. Differences of these types are seen when comparing incarceration rates and populations.

The U.S. has a relatively high recidivism rate (recidivism refers to the frequency of repeat offenses). More than half (some estimate around 67%) of prison inmates will be convicted on another charge within three years of having been released and return to prison.^[28] This statistic is revealing of the nature of the prison system in the U.S.: it is more interested in keeping people who commit crimes away from the rest of the population than it is in attempting to reform or resocialize individuals to make them productive members of society. One factor that contributes to the high recidivism rates is the social stigma that accompanies having been convicted of a felony in the US. van Olphen et al. (2009)^[29] found that individuals convicted of drug offenses were very likely to be reincarcerated, largely due to punitive punishments that accompanied their "convicted felon" stigma. For instance, they were often denied access to public housing and food stamps, which led many of the participants in the study to sell drugs to survive, leading to future arrests and convictions. The lack of help given to convicts released from prison increases the odds of those convicts returning to prison. Another factor that significantly increases the odds of convicts returning to prison is their return to their former neighborhoods.^[30] Convicts who move away from their old neighborhood are substantially less likely to commit another crime; distancing themselves from the social environment that encouraged their criminal activity in the first place reduces their odds of reincarceration.

Another interesting characteristic of the U.S. is the amount of money that is spent on the correctional system. Policing the nations streets is the most expensive component of the correctional system, followed by housing prison inmates. The average annual cost for one federal prisoner exceeds $20,000.^[28] The judicial process is the least expensive, but the combined expenses of all three elements total over $200 billion annually (when you combine state, local, and federal expenditures).^[28]

Even though billions of dollars are spent on the criminal justice system every year in the U.S., the financial outlays actually account for only part of the cost of mass incarceration. Millions of additional jobs and even lives are lost as a result of the stigma that follows prison inmates when released (which also explains the high recidivism rate). Convicted felons are barred from working in certain industries, have limited access to educational opportunities, and have limited access to welfare and housing benefits from the government.^[28] All of these problems combine to concentrate former inmates in poor urban neighborhoods that have limited opportunities to move out of criminal circles. Reducing the consequences of felony convictions and providing occupational and drug counseling would go a long way toward alleviating the high recidivism rates.^[28]

[edit] Gender

Another way crime statistics can go beyond simply reporting incidents of criminal activity is in highlighting differences between different groups. One difference in criminal activity is seen in the number of violent crimes committed by gender (Chart 6). While the difference has narrowed in recent years, men are still more likely to commit violent crime than are women.

Another telling crime statistic that is traditionally seen as highlighting power imbalances is the number of rapes in society. While the focus of this chapter is not on exploring the motivations behind rape, the number of rapes in the U.S. and internationally can be seen to reflect power imbalances (social-conflict approach) between men and women. Chart 7 shows rape rates in the U.S. The number has declined in recent years. Chart 8 compares rape rates from select countries around the world.

[edit] Race

One important understanding of the effect of the criminal justice system is its impact on the life chances of racial and ethnic minorities, in particular, blacks. Serving time in prison has become a normal event for young, lower-class black males.^[26] The average black, male, high-school dropout born in the 1960s in the U.S. had a nearly 60% chance of serving time in prison by the end of the 1990s. (This probability drops precipitously for college-educated blacks.) A disproportionate percentage of blacks are in prison; blacks make up 12% of the U.S. population but nearly 46% of prison inmates.^[26] The long-lasting effects of criminal conviction and imprisonment (convicted felons are barred from many jobs), results in the disenfranchisement of many blacks - time spent in prison is time spent away from education and on-the-job training. As a result, many blacks end up unskilled and with criminal convictions and felony records.

Some scholars argue that the disproportionate imprisonment of blacks in the U.S. actually countermands the achievements of the civil rights movement. The criminal justice system in the U.S. is arguably a massive machine that results in the production of racial inequality.^[26] In fact, the inequality in the prison system is unmatched by that in other elements of society, as the following ratios indicate:

• ratio of black unemployment to white unemployment - 2 to 1
• ratio of black children born to unwed mothers compared to white children born to unwed mothers - 3 to 1
• ratio of black infants who die compared to white infants who die - 2 to 1
• ratio of black wealth to white wealth - 5 to 1
• ratio of black incarceration rate to white incarceration rate - 8 to 1

Another result of the disproportionate imprisonment of blacks in the U.S. is that it imprisoned blacks are not included in calculations of unemployment rates. Blacks are substantially more likely to be unemployed than whites, but most statistics do not include prison populations.

Another illustration of the disparity in punishment in the US based on race is tied to the death penalty. Only 10% of individuals in the US sentenced to death are ever actually executed, but which ones are executed is intimately tied to race. Individuals convicted of killing a white person are five times more likely to be executed than individuals who killed a racial or ethnic minority.^[31] This suggests that the criminal justice system in the US values white victims above minority victims.

All of these elements combined lead to the conclusion that one of the most racially disparate elements of U.S. society is the criminal justice system.

[edit] Homicide

Charts 9 through 11 explore homicide rates. Chart 9 tracks homicide rates in the U.S. for the past 100 years. There has been an increase over time, though it is not clear whether that increase represents an actual increase in homicides or an increase in confounding factors, such as: stricter law enforcement, an increased willingness to report crimes, or changes in the definition of homicide itself.

Chart 10 highlights differences in homicide rates between countries. The U.S. does not have the highest homicide rates in the world, but the rates in the U.S. are still relatively high.

Chart 11 highlights differences in homicide rates by the age of the victim. Note the similarity in homicide rates between the 14-17 age group and individuals over 25.

[edit] Social Control

Social control refers to the various means used by a society to bring its members back into line with cultural norms. There are two general types of social control:

• formal social control refers to components of society that are designed for the resocialization of individuals who break formal rules; examples would include prisons and mental health institutions
• informal social control refers to elements of society that are designed to reinforce informal cultural norms; examples might include parental reminders to children not to, well, pick their nose

Some researchers have outlined some of the motivations underlying the formal social control system. These motivations include:

• retribution - some argue that people should pay for the crime they committed
• deterrence - some argue that punishments, e.g., prison time, will prevent people from committing future crimes
• rehabilitation - some argue that formal social controls should work to rehabilitate criminals, eventually turning them into productive members of society
• societal protection - finally, some argue that the motivation for formal social controls is nothing more than removing the deviant members of society from the non-deviant members

[edit] Current Research

[edit] Video Games and Deviance

Another area of current research that is of great interest to many people is the alleged effects of violent video games on behavior. Karen Sternheimer^[32] explains that a lot of the concern around video games is illustrative of the social construction of deviance.^[33] According to Sternheimer, "Politicians and other moral crusaders frequently create "folk devils," individuals or groups defined as evil and immoral. Folk devils allow us to channel our blame and fear, offering a clear course of action to remedy what many believe to be a growing problem. Video games, those who play them, and those who create them have become contemporary folk devils because they seem to pose a threat to children." (p. 13) The assumption is that playing violent video games will lead children to act out violently. However, there is a growing body of literature that is either inconclusive on this issue or that contradicts this assumption: it does not appear as though playing violent video games results in violent behavior.

The reason why the assumption that playing violent video games is not accurate is because it decontextualizes violence. Those who claim violent video games lead to violence fail to realize that violence is context dependent and most players of video games are fully aware of this. Individuals who play video games recognize that violence in the context of the game is okay and that it is not okay to be violent outside of that context. Additionally, many of the studies that have claimed to have found a connection between playing video games and violent behavior have failed to control for other influences on violent individuals, influences that are more likely to translate into violent behavior: neighborhood violence and instability, family violence, and even mental illness. Seldom is a connection made between adult shooting sprees in the workplace (which are far more common than school shooting sprees)^[32] and video games. Instead, people look toward contextual influences like those described above (i.e., job loss, family problems, etc.). In other words, violent video games are the folk devils for violent behavior in children, but not for adults.

Finally, the video game explanation is also illustrative of social-conflict and racial discrimination. Seldom is the explanation of a black violent offender's behavior playing violent video games. The assumption is that black culture encourages violence; as a result, violent behavior by young black men is not "shocking," so it does not require a folk devil to explain it. This is, of course, discriminatory. In contrast, it is generally white, middle-class violent offenders whose behavior is explained by alleging a video game connection. The fact that these violent offenders are white and middle class threatens the "innocence and safety of suburban America," (p. 17)^[32] which means it requires a folk devil culprit, absolving white, middle-class America of the blame.

[edit] Tattoos

One area of current research into deviance that highlights the socially constructed nature of norms is tattoos. In 2003 a survey found that 15% of the U.S. adult population had at least one tattoo; that number jumps to 28% for adults under 25.^[34] However, tattoos are a very complicated illustration of the intricacies of deviance. Many of the individuals getting tattoos do not fit the stereotypes of individuals who get tattoos (e.g., soldiers, sailors, bikers, etc.); many of those tattooing their bodies are high-achieving students.^[34] Additionally, tattooing is on the rise among women - 15% of women have tattoos while 16% of men do. Intriguingly, men and women get tattoos for different reasons. For men it is to reinforce their masculinity and for women it is to enhance their femininity. This differences illustrates another way in which gender is an action.

Another interesting aspect of tattoos is their changing meanings. While it is probably not the case that the meaning (think symbolic interactionism) of tattoos to those who get them is changing (tattoos have traditionally been used to express one's self or commemorate events), how tattoos are viewed is changing. In the early 1900s tattoos were so stigmatized that they could literally result in prosecution and served as evidence of ill intent and disrepute.^[34] Such extreme stigmatization is no longer the cause, probably because 88% of Americans know someone with a tattoo. As a result, tattoos are decreasingly seen as deviant. But tattoos also illustrate that deviance is not determined by the action but by those perceiving the action. While a tattoo may mean one thing to the person with the tattoo, it is still the case that others interpret the tattoo in a multitude of ways, and those don't always align with the intended meanings. Still today, tattoos are often equated with: drug use, troublemakers, and gang affiliation. This is probably why many people who get tattoos get them in locations that can easily be covered in regular business attire - that way they can still pass when not in the company of those who are more understanding of their tattoos. Tattoos, then, illustrate the sociological understanding of deviance quite well.

[edit] Notes

Two additional theories that might be discussed in future versions of this text include:

• differential association
• deviant subcultures theory

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Dr. Karen Halnon

← Demography · Race and Ethnicity →

← Demography · Introduction to Sociology · Race and Ethnicity →

[edit] Social psychology

Social psychology is the scientific study of how people think about, influence, and relate to one another.

[edit] Module 4: Self-Serving Bias

Self-Serving Bias: A tendency to perceive oneself favorably

[edit] Explaining Positive and Negative Events

It is commonplace for people to take full responsibility for their actions when they have received a favorable response or when they have completed an ardorous task successfully. However when people fail or perform poorly at something they will tend to blame or attribute their incompetence to external factors outside of their own control, thus relinquishing responsibility.

[edit] Unrealistic Optimism

Many of us tend to have an exaggerated sense of optimism when considering our ability to succeed in obtaining our goals, which is due to our often pessimistic view of others' capabilities to succeed in obtaining their own personal goals, "many of us, however, tend to have what researcher Neil Weinstein (1980, 1982) terms 'an unrealistic optimism about future life events.' Due partly to their relative pessimism about others' fates"(Shepperd,2003). Unfortunately, unrealistic optimism can be dangerous, if we see ourselves as indestructable or impervious to failure we can in turn let our guard down, making us ill prepared to counter negative life events. For instance, someone under the assumption that they won't get into a car crash because of their "superior" driving ability may not wear their seatbelt while driving and end up badly hurt because of their own arrogance. It is not necessarily a "bad" thing to be optimistic, having a positive outlook on life can be very beneficial in raising one's morale and giving us the ambition to try and realize our goals, "Optimism definitely beats pessimism in promoting self-efficacy, health and well-being" (Armor & Taylor 1996, Segerstrom, 2001). So to remain realistically optimistic it is often useful for us to exercise "defensive pessimism", which aids in preparing us to deal with adverse life events before they occur. An example of defensive pessimisim would be waking up 45 mintues early for work because there is a snow emergency and you anticipate traffic to be backed up on the highway. So it is important for us to remain somewhat optimistic in order to keep a positive outlook, and to be realistically pessimistic so that we don't grow too confident in ourselves and find out we are unprepared to counter adversity.

[Example courtesy of:www.drugtext.org

The above image shows that only 27.8% of Intravenous Drug abusers practice safe injecting habits, that are highly effective, while the remaining 72.2% practice unsafe injecting habits, where any safety protocols are considered at their least efficacy. This contributes to the aids epidemic, and can be considered unrealistic optimism that they will not fall victim to the aids virus.

[edit] False Consensus and Uniqueness

False consensus effect- referring to our opinions, we often validate our positions by overestimating the degree to which others agree with us

We tend to believe that everyone feels the same way as we do. If someone steals a candy bar or runs a red light they are likely to believe that the majority of the population would act in a similar manner, in order to help justify our own actions by assuming that we have the approval of our peers. We also tend to fraternize with people who feel the same way as we do, so that we have a sense of approval from those around us, which helps us to not feel alienated by our actions.

False uniqueness effect- when referring to our own ability, we often see ourselves as more capable or more skilled than others

When reflecting on our own accomplishments or capabilities we often view our performance as above average, or superior to the majority of those around us.

Image provided bywww.informatics.indiana.edu The above example shows how 75% of voters normally believe that their candidate will win, this applies to the false consensus effect because only one group is going to win, and that means out of the 75% of people who believe their candidate will win only about 38% will be correct, but still many more people feel that a larger percent of the population agrees with them than really does.

[edit] Self-Esteem Motivation

We have a tendency to see ourselves as more competent or productive than those around us, because we tend to have a greater capacity to recall events where we were productive than remembering times when others were, (Ross, Sicoly 1979). This innate ability that we have to enhance our own self-image plays an important role in fueling the self-serving bias. In defending our self-image we often feel friction towards people who have superior skills to us, especially in regards to areas where we have little or no skill to begin with. This friction is further intensified if a friend or mate exhibits superior skills to our own, where as there tends to be little friction in relationships where the other person has the same skills or abilities as we do, thus making them less of a threat in regards to our own self-image. Feelings of incompetence can drive us to further improve our skills and become more sensitive to others’ expectations of us.

Image provided by:motivationbook.com File:Incubation Stage.jpg This example illustrates the mind as a thought factory, processing positive and negative subjects

[edit] Self-Serving Bias as Adaptive

Having a positive self-image can lead us to be more positive and give us a brighter outlook on life. “Believing one has more talents and positive qualities than one’s peers allows one to feel good about oneself and to enter the stressful circumstances of daily life with the resources conferred by a positive sense of self,” (Taylor, 2003). There is also a correlation between how depressed or non-depressed people view themselves as far as their own capabilities go. Depressed people tend to have a more realistic or modest perception of themselves, whereas the non-depressed have a tendency to overinflate their egos and have an exaggerated self-image in regards to their ability to succeed. Having a good self-esteem can prove very beneficial in coping with stress and thwarting anxiety. For instance if someone has just moved out of their parents home and is living in a new city, they could be overwhelmed by the sense of vulnerability, but if they are confident in their ability to survive and succeed, then they will in turn face adversity with a more positive outlook, (Greenberg, 1992)

[edit] Self-serving Bias as Maladaptive

There are also negative connotations with having an inflated self-image. In cases where people do not take responsibility for their own failures and decide to blame others instead, they often have a harder time improving themselves than those who own up to their shortcomings. When working in a group or a team, an exaggerated sense of pride can be very threatening to the harmony of the group. If their group or team does not succeed it is very likely that the members will proceed to blame each other for the failure of the group instead of owning up to their own mistakes. When success occurs, the opposite is likely to happen, the members will gladly take responsibility for their success and even go as far as to exaggerate the importance of their own contributions. It is also fairly common for groups to consider themselves superior to other competing or similar groups.

• "Most university or sorority members perceive those in their sorority as far less likely to be conceited and snobby than those in other sororities",(Biernat & others, 1996).
• "Fifty-three percent of Dutch adults rate their marriage or partnership as better than that of most others; only 1 percent rate it as worse than most",(Buunk & van der Eijnden, 1997)
• "Sixty-six percent of Americans give their oldest child's public schools a grade of A or B. But nearly as many-64 percent-give the nation's public schools a grade of C or D", (Whitman, 1996)
• "Most corporation presidents and production managers over-predict their own firms' productivity and growth",(Kidd & Morgan, 1969; Larwood & Whittaker, 1977).

[edit] Module 5: The Power of Positive Thinking

[edit] Locus of Control

Locus of control is “the extent to which people perceive outcomes as internally controllable by their own efforts and actions or as externally controlled by chance or outside forces” (Myers, 56). Some people “feel that what happens to them is governed by external forces of one kind or another, while others feel that what happens to them is governed largely by their own efforts and skills” (quoted by Hunt, 1993, p.334). There are two types of locus’ of control, internal and external. Internal is when one believes they control their own destiny, while external locus of control one believes some outside force determines their destiny.

[edit] Learned Helplessness Versus Self-Determination

Individuals who feel that they are in control benefit greatly in life. “studies confirm that systems of governing or managing people that promote personal control will indeed promote health and happiness ( Deci & Ryan, 1987). Contrary, people who don’t feel they are in control, which are usually depressed, become quite unreceptive because they feel their work is useless. This is usually refereed to as learned helplessness which is “the hopelessness and resignation learned when a human or animal perceives no control over repeated bad events” (Myers, 56).

[edit] Reflections on Self-Efficacy

The Power of Positive Thinking

“If you think in positive terms you will get positive results” ( Myers, 53). It does not occur just by self-persuasion, or by giving complements to individuals, rather it usually occurs after the achievement of success. Thinking positively can help people achieve a plethora of things, so after realizing this, some situations can be avoided by positive thinking which will illuminate many problems.

The Dark Side of Self-Esteem

Personal problems such as depression and drug abuse is a result of low self-esteem. Violence and degrading others usually occurs when an individual feels that their self-esteem is endangered. After studying many bullies and gang leaders, who many people perceive as having low self-esteem, instead have rather high self-esteem. There are many benefits to having a high self-esteem which is reflected in these individuals’ grades, appearance, and social status. In contrast, individuals with low self-esteem live a more stressful life with stress, depression, ect.

[edit] Module 8:Reason for Unreason

[edit] Our Preconceptions Control Our Interpretations

Our preconception guides how our mind perceives and interprets information. People fail to realize how great the effect of preconception. Other studies support these ideas by showing students supporting evidence on their beliefs as well as disconfirming evidence that supported their point of view,but were critical of the disconfirming evidence. Preconception can also be manipulated and in an experiment at the University of Oregon, students were asked to assess the facial expressions of a man. The students who judged his expressions as cruel were first told he was responsible for cruel acts performed at concentration camps of WWII. Others who assessed the man as warm and kind were previosly told he was an anti-nazi who saved numerous jewish lives. The experiment above strongly demonstrates that our preconceptions do control the way we view issues and people but beyond preconception is the ability to manipulate and consrue the way we see things.(Ross and Lepper).This seems to hold true in everyday life from assuming that someone is shy to wondering if someone feels the same way that you do. If you constue an idea and continue to perceive certain ideas then there will be little room for change or consideration.

[edit] We Are More Swayed By Memorable Events Than By Facts

Because people assume that something is commonplace simply because it is easily available in memory, people are often more compelled with powerful anecdote than statistics(Allison&others,1992). This is known as the availability heuristic and is often why people overestimate the reality of situations. For example, the 9/11 attacks are often a visual and readily available in memory, many people thus believe they are more at risk for similar situations during commecial travel than they actually are. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman supports this belief and conducts studies based on probability of an event based on the way our mind imagines and retrieves information. When we view an unlikely event the picture in our mind allows us to over estimate the likeliness that this would happen (kahneman). [47]

[edit] We MisPerceive Correlation And Control

Our search for order in random events influences our everyday thinking and can lead us down all sorts of wrong paths.

[edit] Illusory Correlation

When we expect to find a significant relationship we often associate random events. Experiments confirm that people often confirm their own beliefs by misperceiving random events(Crocker,1981). If we believe that there is a correlation between events or that a premonition relates to an event we tend to find ways they relate to later occurring events but neglect to realize all the episodes that occur and do not coincide. As the mind creates an illusion perception and correlation it also gives us the idea that chance events are subject to our influence also known as illusion of control. An experiment done by Ellen Langer in 1977 showed how illusion of control affected gamblers when people who picked their own lottery numbers demanded four times the value of their ticket simply because they chose their own numbers. Gamblers credit their wins to their skill and forsight(Gilovich& Douglas,1986).

[edit] Regression Toward The Average

Illusion of Control contributes to another statistical phenomenon known as Regression toward the average.Tversky and Kahneman noted that students' exams scores fluctuate partly by chance and that tutors are not likely to be the cause of a students improvement but that students who score high will regress or fall back towards a more average score. Those who do poorly first time around will often seek tutoring but even without the help the student will typically improve showing that we tend to regress toward an average. As with test scores sports performances are proven to regress towards the average as well. After baseball players were measured on ability in areas such as batting average and earned run averages the outstanding performances of players often exaggerated their skills but are usually followed by a regression toward the mean (Galton). [48]

[edit] Our Beliefs Can Generate Their Own Confimation.

A study conducted by Robert Rosenthal found that people sometimes live up to what is expected of them. When partipants knew they were expected to give high ratings on a picture they viewed, they did so more than others who were expected to see the photos as failures. This study demonstrated self-fulfilling prophecy. Do teachers have the same expectation? Do teachers expectations affect student performance? Teachers do hold their standards higher for some students and think highly of those who do well(Jussin&Others,1996). Certainly low expectation may not always discourage an average child but a teachers high expection of one child does not guarantee their success.An article posted in the New York Times demonstrated the self-fulfilling prophecy while gathering men and women between the ages of 48 and 62 and then divided them into groups.One group was assigned to complete a memory test against another group averaging 70 or older. The second group was to complete the same test but against a group averaging 20 years of age. The third group completed the test not aware of any competition. When the results were in the group competing against younger participants retrieved 14 words on the average the results remained the same for the group who had no competition. The group that tested against the "older" crowd retrieved the least amount of words on average. Perhaps, the mental perception of being included with an "older" group brought about an unconscious thought that advancing age automatically affects memory thus the stereotype may have reflected test results(Carey). Having these standards does seem to boost condfidence. Teachers who do see high potential in a student have been reported to look,smile,nod more often to those students as well as call on and allow more time for them to answer questions(Cooper,1983). On the flip side, a students expectation of an instructor can affect the way a student perceives the class. For example,a student who goes into class having heard positive feedback about the instructor was more likely to find the class more interesting than a student with lower expectation(Feldman&Theiss,1982).

[edit] Do we get what we expect from others

Many times we view others then make our minds up about a person before we even get to know them.The fact that we make snap decisions or assumptions about people tells us something about ourselves. We make an assumption,and determine what type of person they are.We have certain expectations of people and we believe they will live up to our expectation most of the time.The type of behavior that we want from a person can happen with the way we bait that persons response to our action. If a person is kind,friendly and well adjusted that's what you will reflect to others. The expectation is that others will give you that in return because of the way you present yourself to them. Setting an expectation for success seems to motivate people to conform to this. An employee is more likely to accomplish more when an authority figure sets expectations high. Assuming that someone is rude may affect the way we approach them and in return may change the reaction of that person to support our anticipated internal thought.

[edit] Conclusion

We preceive things as true according to our own beliefs and we have the power to convince others to conform to the way we think. Whether these views are right or wrong our minds are capable of being judgemental.Despite the outcome of our judgement or decision its amazing the way our minds will come to this conclusion,which often results in false assumption and harsh judgement.Persuasion can even be as easy as referencing a simple image in our mind or listening to a news briefing.

[edit] Module 10 - Clinical Intuition

ILLUSORY CORRELATIONS, p103-104

Often, we find ourselves anticipating outcomes by correlating two unique and unrelated events that just happen to coincide at the most opportune or inopportune time. To understand the Illusory Correlation phenomenon I started by looking within my own surroundings. One sunny morning last week as I struggled to clearly see the road in front of me, I realized that I hadn't washed my car in quite a while. Why not pull through an express wash and treat old reliable to a bath?, I said to myself. So, I did and back down the road I went. As fate would have it, by that afternoon a cold front moved in and brought with it a torrential downpour. So much for washing my car. Why does it always rain just after I wash my car anyway? My wife who delivers babies for a living dreads pulling call when the moon is in full phase, because she believes that most women tend to go into labor during this time. This in turn leads to long hours at the hospital followed by a weekend of total sleep deprivation. If I had some way to check how many times it actually rained after I washed my car the results would show that more times than not the day was rather nice. And my wife she does work hard, but I can recall quite a few times when she didn't even get a phone call during a full moon phase. The husband and wife research team of Loren Chapman and Jean Chapman (1969, 1971) confirmed through experimintation that illusory correlation was an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. Most of the research concerned with the illusory correlation is modeled after the seminal work of D. L. Hamilton and R. K. Gifford (1976) and concludes that observing in a unbias manner will bring more accurate judgments. Clinicians, because they are human can fall into a position in which they make judgements based on the frequency of the observed behaviors. The fact that some behaviors are similar does not make them the same. Misinterpreting these observations as being correlated can often lead to a misdiagnosis.

[edit] Hindsight, p104-105

As a kid, how many times did you get in trouble for doing something you probably shouldn't have only to hear your little brother or sister say "I told you so"? And it was very painful when you realized they were right? Hindsight, the I-should-have-known-all-along phenomenon is experienced in one form or another daily and much more than we realize. Goggin & Range, 1985 examined hindsight from the perspective of a suicide victim's family, friends and acquaintances. Typical responses from people viewed the suicide victim's family as somewhat responsible for the death. McIntosh and Kelly (1992) report there are more similarities than differences in the grief response among suicide, accident and natural death survivors. They did not find any guilt or social support differences, but they did find that suicide survivors differed from others in three ways. They blamed more people, felt stigmatized, and felt they could have done something to prevent the suicide. I have experienced the loss of a family friend by suicide. I do recall the feeling of guilt, but only because there were no obvious signs or red flags to predict that such a drastic departure would occur. In regards to clinical judgements, hindsight leaves the clinician open to error. The tendency to exaggerate a diagnosis usually leads to misinterpreting the true problem.

[edit] Self-Confirming Diagnosis, p105-107

Looking for a lost set of keys or a matching pair of socks can turn into quite a frustrating endeavor. In the clinical environment however, the clinician must not know what to expect of an individual if an honest judgment is to be made. Presumptive questioning will lead the interviewer to the diagnosis he/she seeks not the diagnosis that will clarify a pattern of behavior. Snyder and Swann (1978), conducted an experiment that proved that once a person received information and then is told it's invalid they still have problems clearing their mind to conduct an unbiased evaluation. Thus, creating error in judgment and a misdiagnosis. This reminds me of the conscientious attorney that declares in the courtroom that his client is guilty of all accusations. The judge then turns to the jury and says "disregard that last remark". It's just about impossible.

[edit] Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction, p107-108

Alot of cliicians and interviewers make the error of hindsight and self confirming diagnosis which leads them being more confident in their own predictions than in statistical prediction (such as using GPA of high school to predict how well the student will do in college). But using ones own predictions based off of intuition isnt nearly as accurate as statistical prediction.Most of the research favors statistical prediction over human intuition even thought neither one is completely reliable. After much research Paul Meehl (1986) writes how there is overwhelmingly more evidence toward statistical predictions as being more accurate than human intuition. "When you are pushing 90 investigatioins, predicting everything from the outcome of football games to the diagnosis of liver disease and when you can hardly come up with a half dozen studies showing even a weak tendency in favor of the clinician, it is time to draw a practical conclusion." Even in the face of all this research favoring statistical prediction, intuition is still used by experts to predict all kinds of things such as how well a high school student will do in college. Dawes (1976) tells us why statistics is more accurate by giving an example of interviewers relying on their intuitive ability rather than statistical information, which in this case is cumulative GPA of students interviewing for enrollment of college. "Yet you and I, looking at a folder or interviewing someone for a half hour, are supposed to be able to form a better impression than one based on 3 1/2 years of cumulative evaluations of 20-40 differnt professors."

[edit] Implications, 108-109

Clinicians make errors and have biases such as when thinking you see a connection between something you look for evidence to prove there is a connection. They also think their intuitive predictions are more accurate than they really are. Some ways to stay away from erroneous prediction is to realize that looking back can be tempting and may lead to overconfidence. Don't ask questions that may lead you to the answer you're looking for, and test your original thinking against different ideas. With all this bias and errors in research and diagnosis shows that Psychology has only extracted a drop of information from an ocean of knowledge. With this knowledge missing some psychologist try to create theories to make up for Psychology's ignorance, which only increases our ignorance. Science is but one way of seeking truth and will always be connected with human intuition.

[edit] Module 11 - Clinical Therapy:The Powers of Social Cognition

[edit] Social Cognition and Depression, p111-116

When it comes to depression people don't realize the things people go through that make them the way that they are. Doctors may find it hard to make a diagnosis because depression is so complex. In some cases depression may be hard to evaluate in some patients because it comes out of nowhere. Some patients may have no starting point, but there are ways to figure it out. The depressive explanatory style is one of those ways. (Peterson and Steen,2002: Sweeney and others,1986) This style gives us a better understanding of how it works. People suffering from depression usually are the ones who look at the positive and negative aspects of things while non depressed people may only look at the positives. If something negative happens in a depressed persons life they may automatically take the blame for what has happened and a non depressed person may find other things to blame the failure on. Two questions are always on mind when it comes to depression: Does depressed moods cause negative thinking or does negative thinking cause depressed moods? Automatically you may assume that negative thinking causes a person to be depressed. That is true but it can actually be both. Our moods do help us decide the way that we think. If we are in a good mood we think positive thoughts and if we are in a bad mood we think negative thoughts. When we are in bad moods we may think of past events that were bad and at that time we just kind of brushed it off and now all of a sudden we are depressed about it. Also do not forget that negative thinking can cause depressed moods. Say you start a new job and the first person you meet seems sad and depressed and the next person you meet seems the same way, well when meeting the next person you may think negatively towards that person before you even meet them because of your past experience with the last two people. Given these two questions we have to ask ourselves how does depression revolve? How does it start? Where does it end? Does it end? Well the cycle of depression helps us better understand the process. Our moods whether good or bad affect the way that we think and the way we act. To be in a bad mood we may remember a past event differently than if we were in a good mood. It also affects the way people view and act towards us. If we act sad and down a person may treat us differently than if we were happy.Below shows the cycle of depression and how it evolves.(Peter Lewinsohn)(1985)[49] All of these factors lead doctors to evaluate all their patients differently. Looking more into the way that each individual thinks more than the way that they act. Also, how they view their life and the life of others around them. When evaluating these factors doctors are able to give their patients the proper diagnosis and treatment.

[edit] Social Cognition and Loneliness, p116-118

Loneliness is something that most people feel atleast once in their life and most of the time it is unconscious. There is a difference between felling lonely and actually being physically alone. Most of the time loneliness is associated with depression but not always. The correlation between the two is relatively high. It is a negative correlation greater than .5 (Anderson et al. 1994: 549-557). Loneliness is also a cycle like depression. Since, people feel lonely they approach people shyly because the feeling of being lonely makes people feel that they are inadequate. They also feel that it is their fault that they are lonely. "A correlation study designed to more accuratley represent the self-blame conceptualization revealed that both behavioral and characterological self-blame contribute uniquely to depression and loneliness" (549). Since, people behave and characterologically self-blame they then place themselves into a cycle of loneliness that is difficult to get out of. People's thoughts and beliefs control their actions which give them specific results that then contribute to their previous thoughts (Anderson et al.).

[edit] Social Cognition and Anxiety, p118-119

Anxiety of certain situations occur for many different reasons. Most of them stem from fear. Fear of social evaluation, fear of self disclosure, and fear of having to evaluate others. Shyness and anxiety were highly correlated with the correlation equaling .75 (Asendorpf 1987: 542-549). Shy people are more likely to be anxious than people who are not shy.

[edit] Social-Psychology Approaches to Treatment, p120-122

Psychotherapists try change the way a patient thinks, their attitude, by first adjusting the patient's action, their behavior. These methods take place within a supportive environment such as a support group or self-help group. Behavior therapists implement a technique in which an individual takes on new verbal or physical behaviors in front of a supportive audience, and in repetitive practice the individual can eventually be empowered to employ what they've learned into their everyday life. We are assumed to generate our own emotions according to rational-emotive therapy, and self-help groups use this to generate new behavior from participants. Experiments have been done that indicate human emotion can be affected by what a person may say about themselves (Mirels 1977:1132-1133). Positive emotions like self-worth, happiness, and togetherness can be maintained through a cycle of positive experiences. Conversely, negative emotions like sadness, anger, and frusteration can be maintained through a cycle of negative events. People can be broken from a negative cycle by reversing their environment, encouraging good behavior, and getting them to be cognitively positive. Negative emotions are not just a figment of one's imagination, they actually do unhealthily portray themselves in a given social situation. This can be corrected with the observation and implementation of new behaviors in something like a support group, and the individual may then be able to respond more effectively in their everyday life. In behaving more positively the individual begins to retain a more positive image of themself. As a result they put themselves in better social situations and behave more positively in those situations. Explanatory style therapy implements a process in which a person changes their attributes which, in turn, changes their emotions. They learn how to define their actions and the outcomes of those actions which enables them to accurately evaluate a situation. Even if the outcome is negative, the fact that they know what they did wrong or what the external factors were lets them feel positive about a negative event. People with good social skills often can see themselves as socially awkward because their environment, or negative elements within that social situation. This type of person can be helped to reverse their their negative beliefs about themselves and that is the focus of explanatory style therapy. This therapy does not transform an individual into an omnipositive being that is appreciated by everyone in any given social situation. In addition their are positive and negative stages in every cycle. It is natural to react positively to positive events, and negatively to negative events. In this sense a negative self-perception is perfecly healthy and normal, as well as temporary.

[edit] Module 13: Gender, Genes, and Culture

[edit] Gender Differences

Are gender differences determined by natural selection or are they dictated through individual cultures? To answer this question we will need to examine the differences between how culture affects males and females. Cultural influenced differences have been found to surface in childhood. Boys have been found to seek a separation between themselves and their caregiver, whereas, girls tend to identify themselves through their social connections. These gender differences appear to follow a person into adulthood. For example, in group situations, men tend to focus on the task at hand whereas women focus more on personal relationships (Gabriel & Gardner, 1999). There are also gender differences in expressing empathy or experiencing how someone else feels as if you are feeling it also. Women tend to show more emotion, such as crying, than men when someone is distressed. This difference in empathetic reactions may possibly be explained by a woman’s superior sensitivity to nonverbal cues, which allow women to easily decode emotional messages being displayed by individuals.

[edit] Social Dominance

According to John Williams and Deborah Best, men are more dominant driven, and aggressive (John Williams and Deborah Best, 1990 a.p.15). There is no evidence of societies where women are more dominant than men (Pratto, 1996). Gender differences are shrinking over time as women assume more managerial and leadership positions.

[edit] Aggression

Aggression is defined by psychologists as behavior that is meant to hurt others (Myers, 2004). In surveys, men admit to having more aggression than women do.

[edit] Sexuality

When it comes to responses that are subjective and physiological, women and men are “more similar than different” (Griffitt, 1987). Statistics show that 48% of men and 12% of women can imagine themselves being comfortable and enjoying casual sex with different partners. How often do they think about sex? It is thought that 19% women and 54% men think about sex every day or several times a day (Laumann & others, 1994).

[edit] Evolution and Gender: Doing What Comes Naturally?

[edit] Gender and Mating Preferences

There is a theory known by evolutionary psychologists that says that men are more aggressive and dominant than females because they produce many more times the number of sperm than woman do eggs. They use this to explain why men have the more aggressive and dominant behavioral patterns. Because men have more genetics to pass on, they seek to spread their genes and fertilize as many women as possible. In contrast, woman are said to seek just one male who can help to support and take care of her and the child she will introduce into the world. Evolution in turn is supposed to be the cause of the male’s behavior. Physically dominant males are said to attract more woman, making it seem like they can better help support and care for them, forcing the other males to become more aggressive and dominant in order to spread their genes. In accordance with what was said about woman wanting a man who can help support them, woman tend to seek the highest paid or most successful of men when searching for a partner. Woman will go to great lengths, even starvation, to get model like beauty which men seek. In conjunction with this behavior, women tend to go after the more wealthy or dominant of men because they would be able to provide more for their offspring.

[edit] Gender and Hormones

Many people believe that sex hormones, mainly testosterone, are a key element in gender differences. Testosterone both influences masculine features and aggressiveness. Violent male criminals generally have much higher testosterone levels. It is also noted that most males seem to become much less aggressive as they grow older and testosterone levels drop.

[edit] Reflections on Evolutionary Psychology

There are two problems, hindsight bias and cultural socialization, that occur when researchers try to explain theories using evolutionary psychology. Hindsight bias is an attempt to explain behavior by examining history and working backward to find an explanation for this behavior. For example, if we were to say women are stronger and aggressive than in hindsight we can say that this is because women needed to be this way in order to protect their young (Myers, 2004). On the other hand, cultural socialization tests “evolutionary predictions through the utilization of cross-cultural and animal behavior observations, as well as hormonal and genetic studies (Myers, 2004). Evolutionary psychologists do agree however that evolution does play a role in explaining some of the things we have in common and the things that we differ in; however, they do not feel that evolution is solely responsible for predicting cultural variations in behavior through time (Myers, 2004).

[edit] Culture and Gender

Culture can be defined as the ideas, behaviors, attitudes and traditions that have been passed within a group through generations. Within a culture there are certain behavioral expectations. An example of one of these expectations would be gender roles in which there are certain behaviors that a culture expects females and males to conform to (Myers, 2004).

[edit] Gender Roles Vary with Culture and Time

Gender roles have gone through dramatic times in the last part of the century. For example, in 1938 only 1 out of 5 Americans agreed that a married woman could earn money in the industry and business fields. However, in 1996 a remarkable 4 out of 5 Americans approved of women working in these fields proving that time has greatly influenced changes in American culture (Niemi & others, 1989; NORC, 1996). This type of attitude change has also been accompanied by behavioral shifts. For instance, the proportion of 40 year old married women in America that are in the workplace has doubled since 1960 (Bureau of the Census, 1999). It is evident that it is not just evolution and biology that change gender roles but that culture affects gender roles also (Myers, 2004).

[edit] Conclusions: Biology and Culture

Biology and culture both play a role in how are attitudes and behaviors are affected. Genetics may predispose us to behave a certain way, but culture may accentuate these behaviors. There is an interaction between biological and cultural influences in that the effects of biology are dependent on the environment (Myers, 2004). For example, people (environment) tend to react differently to people with particular genetic traits (biology). An example of this would be that there is a significant cultural norm that dictates that males should be taller than their female companions. According to one particular study, only 1 in 720 couples were in violation of this cultural norm (Gillis & Avis, 1980). This interaction between biology and culture can be explained psychologically two different ways. Through hindsight, we could say that social power over women is perpetuated when a man is taller than she. On the other hand, using cultural socialization, we can explain that if partners preferred companions of equal height than taller men and shorter women would not have companions. Therefore, the cultural norm for height among couples may result from biology and culture because it is evident that evolution has brought about taller men and culture has dictated the same for couples (Myers, 2004).

[edit] Module 17: The Mere Presence of Others

Module 17: The Mere Presence of Others

Consider that many billions of people in their millions of communities and relationships interact at various levels nearly every moment of our 24-hour day. Is there something unique to our personal relationships that makes us better or just different when in the presence of others? Then, consider the fact that ants innately excavate more sand in the presence of others (Bayer, 1929; Chen, 1937; Larsson, 1956).

[edit] The Mere Presence of Others

What does the presence of others do to us? This question presented by social psychologists suggests that the mere presence of a person alters how well we accomplish a simple task such as eating, talking, or walking. Complex tasks such as solving an intimidating math problem or puzzle in front of peers can become an insurmountable task.

In one of the first social psychology lab experiments, Norman Triplett’s (1898) research revealed that the mere presence of a person enhances another’s performance. Although this can be true, several other studies have proven that the presence of another person can make performances slow and difficult, too.

Social psychologist Robert Zajone conceives that when aroused, easy tasks can be performed at an advanced level. More complex, unknown tasks, when aroused, become more difficult or are performed at a lower level. If stadiums and gyms are filled to capacity with screaming, supportive fans, athletes will be more vigorous in their play. Research done at 80,000 athletic events has proven that athletes are more energized and can perform better.

[edit] Crowding: The Presence of Many Others

In the beginning of Module 17 it was made clear that others’ presence alters performance. Even with an audience that is known to the performer such as family members, does not mean this will necessarily boost a performance. As the number of people increases, so does that arousal and interference. Being in a large crowd can have positive and negative reactions. Crowding has the same effect of arousal which can facilitate a dominant response. When sitting closely together in a crowd, co-actors set the pace for clapping and laughing. When in close quarters we have a tendency to join in with those who surround us.

[edit] Why Are We Aroused in the Presence of Others?

Tasks that we excel at will be accomplished in the presence of others. Tasks that we struggle with will seem difficult maybe even impossible with others present. One concern for this is that we’re always aware of how people are evaluating us. According to Nickolas Cottrell (1968), dominant response is greater when we think we’re being watched. Several points he makes are, that this helps explain why we perform better when a co-actor is superior at performing a task; arousal drops when opinions don’t matter; what others think matters most; and when others are unfamiliar with a task, it helps us perform better.

[edit] Driven by Distraction

When paying attention to others perform a task, this can put our cognitive system into overload. This means, concentrating on a co-actors performance rather than our own will lead us to distraction therefore, leading us to be driven by distraction.

[edit] Mere Presence

In conclusion, having other people present seems to energize us. Even animals are innately aware of another animal’s presence. Although they do not consciously evaluate their species performance, they are acutely aware of their presence. The social facilitation theory concludes that the presence of others enhances our dominate responses. Social facilitation may change when observing a participant but when we’re being observed, we’re always aware of how others perceive us.

[edit] Module 19: Doing Together What We Would Never Do Alone

With the liberation that came from the constraints of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship falling, great outpours of violence, chaos, and looting came with it. The National Museum in Baghdad was stripped of every last precious artifact. Where were the ethics in the people that were doing the looting? Why did the looting occur in the first place? How was looting in this situation initiated?

[edit] Deindividuation

Deindividuation is the loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension; it occurs in group situations that foster responsiveness to group norms, good or bad. Many experiments have found that deindividuated people are not regulated by themselves. They don’t think about themselves before they act and tend to be more focused on the particular situation in which they are involved. Deindividuated people tend to conform to the group norm by not being self-aware of their own actions. This is provoked by a sense of invisibility that an individual will feel when becoming a member of the group.

[edit] Group Size

Group size matters. The bigger the group, the more an individual will feel invisible. A member of a group will feel a sense of power when surrounded by other members of a group who feel the same. For example, an individual being the sole member of an audience at a concert would not allow their action to progress to an outrageous behavior. However, if the audience consisted of a large crowd, outrageous behavior would be much more evident. Behavioral actions, such as, booing the artist, throwing bottles, pushing, shoving, and fighting occur when members feel deindividualized. When this deindividuation occurs, it causes a person to lose their identity in a crowd while allowing them to keep their anonymity and act differently in a group than how they would act alone as an individual. When being able to remain anonymous in a group, according to Ed Diener’s (1976) experiment, children in groups took more candy than permitted than those children who were alone.

[edit] Physical Anonymity

When an individual in a group believes that he/she is no longer physically recognizable, then he/she has achieved physical anonymity. Physical Anonymity can be considered the life-blood of a large group and their actions in achieving a goal. Members of a group that achieve physical anonymity, feel they can be no longer picked out, pointed out, or identified individually from the rest of the group. Brian Mullen (1986a) says that lynch mobs permit individuals to lose self-awareness, therefore leading to articipation in villainous behavior. Gang members become incessantly bold and brazen in their act of violence because they feel empowerment in a group. Andrew Silke (2003) conducted a study of violent attack to discover attackers who wore masks, hoods, or other face disguises inflicted more serious injuries on their victims than attackers who did not disguise themselves. Achieving physical anonymity can be as extreme as being a disguised attacker to a member of a mob rioting through a city or be a subtle as being known just by a screen name on the internet.

[edit] Arousing and Distracting Activities

Large groups usually start small and with only enough acting to arouse someone’s attention. Once their attention is focused on the group’s actions, their focus and perspective is diverted away from self-awareness and solely on the group’s action. With many individuals entering a group in this fashion, everyone within the group will behave, feel, and act the same. When we see others act as we are acting, we think they feel as we do, which reinforces our own feelings (Orive, 1984).

[edit] Diminished Self-Awareness

Self-awareness is the opposite of deindividuation. Deindividuated people tend to act on a situation with a group. Their actions require no thought and personal values are of no concern. When an individual is self-aware or made to be self-aware, their actions reflect more of their attitudes and beliefs. However, when their self-awareness is diminished, they act completely opposite. In contrast, by remaining self-aware, an individual will not become deindividuated.

[edit] Module 21: Power to the Person

[edit] Interacting Persons and Situations

-Interaction occurs in three different ways: First, any given social situation affects everybody differently. Because we all see and think differently, we react to things based on how we perceive the situation. Also, some people are more sensitive and corresponsive than others. Second, interaction, whether between situations or persons, most often occurs because people choose, and are responsible, for the situations they are in. For example, quiet people might choose to be in a quiet or nonsocial environment. Another example would be when people choose the college they want to attend; conservatives would most likely not choose to attend a liberal college. Third, more often than not, people create the situations they are in. For example, if we perceive or expect someone to be unfriendly, the way we treat that person may cause that person to act unfriendly or distant. Our social environment is what we make of it.

- Dispute between whether or not reacting or acting upon our environments does also come into play. In one perspective, it is sensible to see ourselves as the product of our environment, and to see others as “free actors.” In another perspective, it may be sensible to see the opposite; to see ourselves as the agents and others as the products. For example, if we see others as being influenced by their environments, we would be more likely to understand them, rather than to just say they are lazy or corrupt. In conclusion, we are both the products and the designers of our own environments and social worlds.

[edit] Resisting Social Pressure

[edit] Reactance

The much supported theory of reactance states that “people do indeed act to protect their sense of freedom”, (Myers, 229). Experiments also showed that people often do the opposite of what is expected of them in order to express their freedom. Freedom is very important to all individuals, and they often rebel when they think it might be in jeopardy. An example of this might be underage drinking, because surveys show that more people get drunk when they are under the legal drinking age than those over the drinking age(Engs & Hanson, 1989). Another example of individuals rebelling due to their sense of threat of their freedom is by the act of rape. While committing rape a man or woman may feel their freedom is restricting by the rejection of the other partner.

[edit] Asserting Uniqueness

“People feel uncomfortable when they appear too different from others….. they also feel uncomfortable when they appear like everyone else” (Myers, 230). Individuals think of themselves highly when they appear unique, but not too different so they won’t appear as outcasts. The yearning for such uniqueness is evident in the selection in names of babies. Children also present the desire for uniqueness in many ways. One example, which was reported by William McGuire and his colleagues at Yale University is that when students are asked to tell others about themselves they often state something rather unique about themselves. Also, individuals recognize their differences especially when it comes to the differences in gender (Cota & Dion, 1986). For example, one sex is more likely to notice they are different when surrounded by the opposite sex. This provides us with an understanding of how minorities become quite conscious of their differences and surroundings. “When the people of two cultures are nearly identical, they still will notice their differences, however small” (Myers, 231). Hostility usually occurs more when one party has a greater correspondence to the other.

[edit] Minority Influence

What is it that makes a minority persuasive? In the book, there are three things that minorities achieve to gain the attention and respect of the majority. We find that consistency of a minority that never falters in it's beliefs and stances on an issue is gradually accepted by the majority. Self-confidence, which is a product of consistency, also establishes to the majority that the minority is assertive and empowered in their beliefs and claims. And last, defections of the majority help to increase the popularity of the minority. A product of the first two, defection from the majority can help to further a minorities cause.

[edit] Is Leadership Minority Influence?

-Some leaders surface based on their group and how they interact, others are formally agreed upon or elected. Good leadership depends on the situation. For example, the best person to lead the swim team may not be the best person to lead a debate team. The most common types of leadership include task leadership and social leadership. Task leadership includes setting standards, organizing, and goal achievement. Task leaders most commonly have a dictative style-one that can work well if the leader is smart and adequate enough to give good instructions or guidelines. Also, since the task leadership wants to achieve their goals, they would be good at keeping the group on track making sure things are getting done. Experiments done on the subject show that a mixture of detailed and perhaps tough goals and intermittent advancement helps stimulate students’ achievement. Social leadership includes being sympathetic and/or supportive, structuring teamwork, and intervening conflicts. This is often a self-governing method. Many researchers think this type of leadership is also good for self-confidence. Also, when workers feel that they are in control over what they are doing, they are more likely to be motivated and therefore achieve more.

-Studies have shown that the best types of leaders include those who fall under both categories-task and social leadership. They are concerned both with the progression of the work, and are also sympathetic and understanding to the needs and feelings of their workers. Effective leaders also exude a self-confident charisma, and they are consistent with sticking to their goals. Charismatic leaders usually have a convincing vision or idea of what they desire, and are able to communicate these ideas clearly, showing hopefulness and confidence in their group to enthuse others to follow.

-Groups also influence their leaders. Sometimes a leader who strays too much from their groups standards may be “thrown out.” Smart leaders most often stick with the majority, and are careful as to what they say.

Important concepts to remember:

• "Reactance - A motive to protect or restore one’s sense of freedom. Reactance arises when someone threatens our freedom of action."
• "Leadership- The process by which certain group members motivate and guide the group."

[edit] Module 27: The Ups and Downs of Love

[edit] Passionate Love

To better understand the principles of love, it must first be examined and measured. Psychologist Robert Sternberg (1998) views love as a triangle, whose three sides consist of passion, intimacy, and commitment. Love can be best described in reference to a relationship between two people. Love is more evident in relationships that contain a mutual understanding, giving and receiving support, and enjoying the loved one’s company. Passionate love is mostly expressed in a physical manner while maintaining an exclusive relationship. Passionate love is also a love that is shared between two people who are intensely fascinated with their partners. Passionate love is an emotional love that is both exciting and intense. Elaine Hatfield (1998) defined it as “a state of intense longing for union with another” (p.193). Love assumes many variations. Time and culture both have an affect on the love formed in a relationship. Time can be consistent with the age of the individuals involved in the relationship, or it could even be the age difference between the partners. Culture plays a strong role in love and relationships. An individual’s ethnicity, background, religion, or even financial stability can affect the love in a relationship.

[edit] Companionate Love

Companionate love is best defined as a passionate love that has settled to a warm enduring love between the two partners in a relationship. The companionate love shared between two partners consists of fewer ups and downs than what is found in passionate love. It’s more stable and a deeper respect and affectionate attachment between partners is more evident. Passionate love is a fire burning hot and rapidly. Companionate love is the hot coals left over after the fire is gone. Companionate love is often found in marriages. In marriages, the passion has often left the relationship, but a deep affection and commitment for the other person still remains. Companionate love is often a person relation shared amongst partners. The longer the relationship lasts, the less of an emotional rollercoaster it will have.

[edit] Maintaining Close Relationships

One important factor of any close relationship is equity. Being able to achieve equity is an important key in a relationship. Elaine Hatfield, William Walster, and Ellen Berscheid (1978) have proclaimed an equity principle of attraction: What you and your partner get out of a relationship should be proportional to what you each put into it. In other words, for a relationship to work, each partner must invest certain feeling and actions into their relationship. Long-term equity is achieved by not focusing on “who owes who” in a relationship. When one partner provides the other with their needs, a form of return in not expected. Be able to look past and not feel that a debt is owed, is what allows the relationship to last. One clue that an acquaintance is becoming a close friend is that the person shares when sharing is unexpected (Miller & others, 1989). Happily married people tend not to keep score of how much they are giving and getting (Buunk & Van Yperen, 1991).

[edit] Ending Relationships

Relationships normally end when the love that is shared between the partners is no longer significant. Enduring relationships are rooted in enduring love and satisfaction, but also in inattention to possible alternative partners, fear of the termination cost, and a sense of moral obligation (Adams & Jones, 1997).

[edit] Who Divorces?

Divorce rates are currently on the high and high nearly doubled since the middle of the century. Divorce is ultimately the result of unhappiness in a relationship, a lost of love between partners, and the outcome of consistent conflict within a marriage. Recent Risk of divorce also depends on who marries whom (Fergusson & others, 1984; Myers, 2000a; Tzeng, 1992). People usually stay married if they:

• married after age 20.
• both grew up in stable, two-parent homes.
• dated for a long while before marriage.
• are well and similarly educated.
• enjoy a stable income from a good job.
• live in a small town or on a farm.
• did not cohabit or become pregnant before marriage.
• are religiously committed.
• are of similar age, faith, and education.

These results can vary from marriage to marriage, but at least every divorce or loss of love in a relationship can be related back to one of these circumstances. Obviously, without a way to attach or relate yourself to another person, a relationship or even a marriage will become increasingly difficult to maintain.

[edit] Module 28: Causes of Conflict

Conflict- a perceived incompatibility of actions or goals

[edit] Social Dilemmas

Many of the choices that we make in regards to our own self-interest can be collectively punishing.

[edit] Prisoner’s Dilemma

Two men are questioned by the District Attorney in regards to a crime they are guilty of committing but the DA only has enough evidence to convict them both of a lesser crime, so he splits them up and talks to them one at a time, giving them both three choices • Confess and if the other man doesn’t than you will be given immunity and he will have to serve your sentence along with his own • If both of you confess then you will each have to serve out five year sentences • If neither of the two men confess they will both be assigned very light punishment

This puts the two men in a predicament because they are left with the uncertainty that the other will try to get away scot-free. Even though if neither of them confess they will both be sentenced to a far less harsh punishment, they are left to consider the risk that if they decide not to confess they could potentially be left to serve out both sentences alone. So the majority of people would just choose to confess so that they don’t potentially have to deal with the others selfishness. So just a simple thing like mistrust can make cooperation out of the question.

[edit] The Tragedy of the Commons

In most social dilemmas more than one party is responsible for contributing to the problem.

EXAMPLE: Between restockings, a cookie jar holds enough cookies (if conserved properly) for the children to eat three a day. However cooperation and regulation of the out of cookies is very unlikely, instead, the children who are afraid of being exploited by each other just start shoveling cookies into their mouths and then the supply is exhausted immediately. A lack of trust in eachother and cooperation now leaves them without cookies until the next time the jar is filled, (Gifford & Hine, 1997). This is an example of a non-zero game, instances in which acting rationally still results in a negative outcome

[edit] Resolving Social Dilemmas

[edit] Regulation

if it becomes mandatory to follow guidelines which contribute to the overall good of the group it is more likely that the system will last

[edit] Small is Beautiful

If a group remains small then the members are more likely to feel an obligation to the group and they will most likely see their input or contribution as important. If a group grows too large than many of the members might feel like their role is unimportant and will feel little ambition to remain active in the groups prosperity, (Kerr, 1989).

[edit] Communication

When a group communicates and expresses their concern or addresses a dilemma, the group members often act in the interest of everyone, this also adds pressure on the other members to contribute so they will not be singled out of possibly reprimanded.

[edit] Changing the Payoffs

If the reward for co-operation is more appealing than the reward for exploitation more people are likely to cooperate, for instance; car pool lanes on busy highways so that the number of cars contributing to the traffic and pollution problems is decreased.

[edit] Appeals to Altruistic Norms

If it is likely to benefit the common good, people might feel responsible to act in the interest of the group, (social responsibility norm) even if it could possibly put their own life in danger, or inconvenience them.

Image provided by:www.tomshardware.com File:060619 teched2006 019.jpg

The above image is a ex