Personality and Socialization. Society has several mechanisms for building us and our personality. Socialization is one of them. Through socialization we learn who we are and what is expected of us and others in our culture. All of our identities come from society. Socialization begins in childhood and continues throughout our lives as we encounter and move through different institutions.

Society has several mechanisms for building us and our personality. The first mechanism is socialization and the second mechanism is social control

Through socialization we learn who we are and what is expected of us and others in our culture. All of our identities come from society. Socialization begins in childhood and continues throughout our lives as we encounter and move through different institutions. By defining what behavior is good, society also defines what is deviant.

In the 20th century, two very different perspectives have been taken on the study of personality. The psychodynamic tradition has been characterized by an emphasis on intensive observation of human behavior in clinical settings as the basis for developing and modifying theories, with little focus on defining theories in a manner that allows them to be disproven based on contrary evidence. On the other hand, the tradition of personality research has attempted to present theories which can be supported or disproven scientifically. In both cases, the usefulness of a theory in advancing knowledge about personality depends on the relationship between the theory and the method in which it was derived. For instance, a theory built and modified almost exclusively based on intensive observation of human behavior may have more relevance to actual personality functioning than a theory which was derived in part based on defining terms that can be conveniently tested. On the other hand, it may be that methods emphasizing testability allow for a more self-correcting process of developing knowledge. In fact, the history of personality research has been characterized by self-criticism and dramatic shifts in methodology as it has attempted to correct for limitations in earlier perspectives. - University of Virginia (Course on Personality and Personality Disorders).

Society has several mechanisms for building us and our personality. The first mechanism is socialization. A second mechanism society has for building us is social control, which is used to re-build deviants or at least keep them from interfering with the normal operation of society. Social control ranges from gossip and ridicule to imprisonment and execution.

Society also has mechanisms for distributing valued resources. Through stratification society categorizes people and distributes valued resources to them based on the categories. Among the most important categories are class, race and gender. Our class, race and gender affect how we are socialized, what type of social control we face, what opportunities we receive and what obstacles weface.

Finally, society provides us with ideologies, justifications for our systems of socialization, social control and stratification, and other social arrangements. When people ask questions about why things are the way they are, ideologies provide answers. Sociologists use the term sociological imagination to describe the ability to see the impact of these processes on our private lives, i.e., that we are a consequence of society. People are also the cause of society, i.e., we build it. Because of the continuous operation of the four mechanisms society uses to produce us, it is difficult for a single person to make significant societal changes. However, many important changes happen because of social movements, which consist of many people organized to promote social change. Although society has many mechanisms for creating us, the operation of these mechanisms all depend upon our everyday interactions. In other words, we participate in socializing others, carrying out social control, reproducing the stratification system, and promoting ideologies. This is another way that we build society. Sociologists use the term the social construction of reality to describe how people build the social world, especially as it is done through our everyday interactions. - David Schweingruber

Allport, F. H., & Allport, G. W. (1921). Personality traits: Their classification and measurement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 16, 6-40.

Allport, G. W. (1933). The study of personality by the experimental method. Character and Personality; a Quarterly for Psychodiagnostic and Allied Studies, 1, 259-264.

Allport, G. W. (1945). The psychology of participation. Psychological Review, 52, 117-132.

Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology. American Journal of Sociology, 44, 868-897.

Murray, H. A. (1936). Basic concepts for a psychology of personality. Journal of General Psychology, 15, 241-268.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

Cronbach & Meehl (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.

Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality: A systematic, theoretical, and factual study. New York: McGraw-Hill. With good bibliography. [Read chapters 3-7 and 9.]

Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The scientific study of personality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. [Read chapters 2-4 and 7-8.]

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 89, 730-755.

Fiske, D. W. (1974). The limits of the conventional science of personality. Journal of Personality, 42, 1-11.

Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506-520.

Rorer, L. G., & Widiger, T. A. (1983). Personality structure and assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 431-463.

Carlson, R. (1984). What’s social about social psychology? Where’s the person in personality research? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1304-1309.

Kihlstrom, J. F., & Hastie, R. (1997). Mental representations of persons and personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.) Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp.712-736). San Diego: Academic Press. With good bibliography.

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33.

McAdams, D. P., Diamond, A., de St. Aubin, E., Mansfield, E. (1997). Stories of commitment: The psychosocial construction of generative lives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 678-694.

Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 459-491.

Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 269-288.

Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1994). Reactive and effortful processes in the organization of temperament. Development & Psychopathology, 9, 633-652.

Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Segal, N. L., & Tellegen, A. (1990). Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Science, 250, 223-228. With good bibliography.

Kagan, J., Arcus, D., & Snidman, N. (1993). The idea of temperament: Where do we go from here? In R. Plomin & G. E. McClearn (Eds.), Nature, nurture, and psychology (pp. 197-210). With good bibliography. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

McClelland, D. C. (1951). Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. With good bibliography. [Read preface only.]

Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson. With good bibliography. [Read chapters 1-3 and 5.]

Aron, L. (1996). A meeting of minds: Mutuality in psychoanalysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press. With good bibliography. [Read chapters 1,2, and 5.]

Westen, D. (1998). The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 333-371.

Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), The automaticity of everyday life: Advances in social cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 1-61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. With good bibliography.

Ceci, S. J. & Bronfenbrenner, U. (1991). On the demise of everyday memory: “The rumors of my death are much exaggerated” (Mark Twain). American Psychologist, 46, 27-31.

Vaillant, G., & Drake, R. (1985). Maturity of defenses in relation to DSM-III Axis II personality disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 597-601.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1997). Longitudinal stability of adult personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 269-285). San Diego: Academic Press. With good bibliography.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1988). Mood and the mundane: Relations between daily life events and self-reported mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 296-308.

Watson, D., & Hubbard, B. (1998). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the context of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 64, 737-774.

Revelle, W. (1995). Personality processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 295-328.

Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., Klohnen, E. C., Duncan, L. E. (1998). Traits and motives: Toward an integration of two traditions of personality research. Psychological Review, 105, 230-250.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246-268.

McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329-361.

Meehl, P. E. (1977). Specific etiology and other forms of strong influence: Some quantitative meanings. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 2, 33-53.

Meehl, P. E. (1993). Philosophy of science: Help or hindrance? Psychological Reports, 72, 707-733.

Freud, A. (1936/1968). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense. Translated by C. Baines. London: Hogarth. With good bibliography. [Read chapters 1-6 and 8-9.]

Freud, S. (1930/1989) Civilization and Its Discontents. Translated by J. Strachey. New York: Norton. With good bibliography.

A Complementary Perspective to Primary Socialization Theory
David N. Nurco, D.S.W.
Monroe Lerner, Ph.D., L.H.D. (Hon.)

Abstract: Primary socialization theory as formulated by Oetting and his associates emphasizes the transmission of societal norms during childhood and adolescence within society’s three major socializing agencies: family, school, and small, intimate peer groups. The norms thus transmitted may be pro-social or deviant, with pro-social norms more likely to be transmitted through strong bonds to healthy families or schools. Personality traits and other personal characteristics influence negative outcomes, such as deviance or drug abuse, only to the extent that they interfere with socialization to family or school.

Our own research does not address primary socialization theory directly in that we have not focused on the transmission of norms per se as central. Nevertheless, we have studied social factors, personality factors, and various psychopathologies as etiological for deviance and substance abuse. By and large our research has supported the hypotheses of primary socialization theory, ever extending them in specific areas, such as the importance of family influences as etiological. Our work has also emphasized the significance of rebelliousness and impulse control in this regard.

Like all large-scale theories which necessarily abstract from the totality and diversity of human behavior, primarily socialization theory leaves some gaps requiring further elucidation. Among these is its ethnocentric and temporocentric perspective, but even within this perspective it understates the difficulties for adolescents in making a successful transition to adult social roles (Kingley Davis) and in establishing a unique identity independent of parents (Erik H. Erikson). Also, it generally ignores the salience of the youth culture as rebellious against the older generation, a particularly important characteristic of modern society. And finally, it should cover the processes of "maturing out" of deviance, which perhaps result in a reaffirmation of the legitimacy of norms transmitted earlier, and it should cover also gender differences in their transmission and legitimization.

Nevertheless, despite these caveats and especially because of this theory’s insightfulness and path-breaking character, its hypotheses should be tested in carefully-designed, large-scale studies. These studies should allow, among other factors, measurement of the effects of genetic factors on the early emergence of deviant personality attributes and of their impact on the transmission of pro-social norms. - http://www.friendssocialresearch.org/2003_%20src_abstracts.htm

On the Malleability of Automatic Attitudes: Combating Automatic Prejudice With Images of Admired and Disliked Individuals http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/press_releases/november_2001/psp815800.html
Nilanjana Dasgupta - Department of Psychology - New School University
Anthony G. Greenwald - Department of Psychology, University of Washington
ABSTRACT
Two experiments examined whether exposure to pictures of admired and disliked exemplars can reduce automatic preference for White over Black Americans and younger over older people. In Experiment 1, participants were exposed to either admired Black and disliked White individuals, disliked Black and admired White individuals, or nonracial exemplars. Immediately after exemplar exposure and 24 hr later, they completed an Implicit Association Test that assessed automatic racial attitudes and 2 explicit attitude measures. Results revealed that exposure to admired Black and disliked White exemplars significantly weakened automatic pro-White attitudes for 24 hr beyond the treatment but did not affect explicit racial attitudes. Experiment 2 provided a replication using automatic age-related attitudes. Together, these studies provide a strategy that attempts to change the social context and, through it, to reduce automatic prejudice and preference.

The Legacy of Parents' Marital Discord: Consequences for Children's Marital Quality - http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/press_releases/october_2001/psp814627.html
Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth - Department of Sociology - Pennsylvania State University
ABSTRACT
Drawing on a national longitudinal study of 297 parents and their married offspring, the authors found that parents' marital discord was negatively related to offspring's marital harmony and positively related to offspring's marital discord. The transmission of marital quality was not mediated by parental divorce, life-course variables, socioeconomic attainment, retrospective measures of parent—child relationships, or psychological distress. Offspring's recollections of parental discord, however, mediated about half of the association between parents' reports of marital discord and offspring's reports of discord in their own marriages. Parental behaviors most likely to predict problematic marriages among offspring included jealousy, being domineering, getting angry easily, being critical, being moody, and not talking to the spouse.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology - http://www.apa.org/journals/psp.html