THE CHANGING NATURE OF SOCIALISATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21276/IERJ257608719138Keywords:
Culture, Social Values, Social Change, Humanity, Society, Ambition, SuccessAbstract
Primary socialization, which is particularly intense and occurs in the early years of life, and secondary socialization, which occurs throughout the life course are the two social processes that help new members of society develop awareness of social norms and values and help them achieve a distinct sense of self. Socialization is the process that turns a helpless infant into a self-aware, knowledgeable person who is skilled in the ways of a society's culture. According to the customs, traditions, religious and ethical beliefs, political ideologies, and other aspects of the many civilizations that have persisted on this planet and in the modern day when humans are separated into numerous nations, socialization is a given. Therefore, the nature of socialization is altering in accordance with social change. This means that when fundamental changes occur in the tenets of a particular race or culture, the socialization process also reflects these changes. We have discovered how higher education students' socializing is evolving thanks to exploratory research designs. Understanding the fundamental societal ideals of socialization in modern society and the driving factor behind socialization motivation are the goals of this research. With the aid of the tools at our disposal, we had created the notion that money, power, and status have drastically replaced societal values. We also developed the theory that ambition and success serve as the primary socialization drivers in today's culture. The outcomes match the hypothesis and are as expected. The modern youth's mindset and attitude have entirely been replaced by a materialistic mindset and self-centered behaviors.
References
I. Anderson C.A., Shibuya A., Ihori N., Swing B.J., Bushman E.L., Sakamoto A., Saleem M. Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, behavior in eastern and western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 2010;136:151–173. doi: 10.1037/a0018251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
II. Carlo G. Care-based and altruistically based morality. In: Killen M., Smetana J.G., editors. Handbook of Moral Development. Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ, USA: 2006. pp. 551–579. [Google Scholar]
III. Hoffman M.L. Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 2000. [Google Scholar]
IV. Eisenberg N., Fabes R.A., Spinrad T.L. Prosocial Development. In: Eisenberg N., Damon W., Lerner R.M., editors. Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2006. pp. 646–718. [Google Scholar]
V. Eisenberg N., Miller P., Shell R., McNalley S., Shea C. Prosocial Development in Adolescence: A Longitudinal Study. Dev. Psychol. 1991;27:849–857. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.849. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
VI. Ferguson C.J. Do Angry Birds Make for Angry Children? A Meta-Analysis of Video Game Influences on Children’s and Adolescents’ Aggression, Mental Health, Prosocial Behavior, and Academic Performance. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2015;10:646–666. doi: 10.1177/1745691615592234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
VII. Flook L., Zahn-Waxler C., Davidson R.J. Developmental differences in prosocial behaviour between preschool and late elementary school. Front. Psychol. 2019;10:876. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
VIII. Foulkes L., Leung J.T., Fuhrmann D., Knoll L.J., Blakemore S.J. Age differences in the prosocial influence effect. Dev. Sci. 2018;21:e12666. doi: 10.1111/desc.12666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
IX. Sanders T., Parker P.D., del Pozo-Cruz B., Noetel M., Lonsdale C. Type of screen time moderate effects on outcomes in 4013 children: Evidence from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2019;16:117. doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0881-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
X. Vaish A., Carpenter M., Tomasello M. Sympathy through Affective Perspective Taking and Its Relation to Prosocial Behavior in Toddlers. Dev. Psychol. 2009;45:534–543. doi: 10.1037/a0014322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
XI. Van den Bos W., Van Dijk E., Westenberg M., Rombouts S.A.R.B., Crone E.A. Changing brains, changing perspectives: The neurocognitive development of reciprocity. Psychol. Sci. 2011;22:60–70. doi: 10.1177/0956797610391102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
XII. Vecchione M., Picconi L. Differenze di genere nella condotta prosociale. In: Caprara G.V., Bonino S., editors. Il Comportamento Prosociale. Aspetti Individuali, Familiari e Social. Centro Studi Erickson; Trento, Italy: 2006. [Google Scholar]
XIII. Zhao J., Zhang Y., Jiang F., Ip P.K., Ho F., Zhang Y., Huanq H. Excessive Screen Time and Psychosocial Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Body Mass Index, Sleep Duration, and Parent-Child Interaction. J. Pediatr. 2018;202:157–162.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.06.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Education and Research Journal (IERJ)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.