Lepper, M. R., Social Control processes and the internalization of social
values: An attributional perspective. In E.T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, &
W. W. Hartup (eds.), Social Cognition and social development, 1983
To internalize: th incorporate within the self as conscious or unconscious
guiding principles through learning or socialization
To comply: to conform or adapt one's actions
The goal is this chapter is to consider internalization and compliance.
Social control and attitude change began in Lewin's group dynamics studies.
Kelman identified three process of attitude change -- compliance, idenficiation,
and internalization. With compliance the person will voice the new opinion
only when advantageous to. In identification the attitude will be salient
as long as the source of that attitude change is still present. Internalized
attitudes will remain in any situation. "It is the shift from initially
external forms of control to later internalized social-control mechanisms
that is the hallmark of successful socialization.
Not only is complaince and internalization different, techniques to produce
compliance may reduce subsequent internalization, and techniques for internalization
may not produce initial compliance. These include psychologicall insufficient,
objectively insufficient, and psychologically oversufficient social-control
attempts.
Psychologically "Insuficient" justification
Cognitive dissonance studies showed that when people freely choose and are
personally responsible for an action in which there was little external
threat, they conclude their actions were reflective of their true internal
state and adjust attitudes appropriately. This works for engaging in an
act or not engaging in the act.
Both situations suggest that the more threat you use to change behavior,
the less internalization you will achieve.
Objectively insufficient justification
This occurs when the incentive/threat isn't enough to achieve compliance.
The mild/severe initiation studies of Aronson is an example of how a mild/severe
dis-incentive to join a group had the opposite effect -- compliance in the
severe initiation generated more positive attidue toward the group. The
other side of the coin (obj. insufficient justification to engage in behavior)
was confirmed with a counter-attitudinal study of $0.50/$2.50 by Darley
and Cooper (where all subjects refused to comply).
From an attribution view, when the external justification is weak, people
will attribute behavior to internal states.
Psychologically "oversufficient" justfication
This is best seen in the "magic marker" study where children pre-selected
for liking magic markers were asked to draw pictures 1)for a reward 2) for
no reward or 3)suprise award. Those who did it for a reward (overjustificaiton)
devalued the activity and subsequently did it less.
In subsequent studies it seems that these effects depend on whether the
child attributes their behavior to external effects. Even unnecessarily
close surveillance can inhibit future interest in the activity. In fact
"you must do x to get y" will devalue interest in x.
The opposite also seems true. Children under mild (vs severe) threat to
NOT engage in an activity (forbidden toy) were less likely to engage in
dishonest behavior ina future unrelated activity. They seemed to attribute
compliance in the underjustfied condition to their own honesty and behaved
accordingly in later activities.
The minimum sufficiency principle
"Techniques of social control that are successful in producing
compliance but at the same time asufficiently subtle (rather than obviously
coercive) to prevent the individual from viewing such compliance solely
as a function of those extrinsic controls, will be most likely to promote
subsequent internalization".
Applications to Previous Socialization Research
At first glance, it appears that the use of overjustification in the home
could lead to less internalization and less application outside the home.
Hoffman has distinquished three ways to train children at home: power-assertion,
low-withdrawal, and induction. Power assertion is physical punishment or
deprivation, love-withdrawal is non-physical such as ignoring,isolating,
or stating dislike. Induction explains to the child why the behavior is
unacceptable. Studies showed that power assertion promotes less internalization
than inductive techniques. These findings support the attributional model.
Furthermore, social influence attempts that verbal persuasion are less effective
than more subtle incentives or sanctions.
Baumrind found authoritarian (values obedience), permissitve (supportive
in all cases), and authoritative (direct activities in a rational manner).
Children from authoritative homes show more social responsibility.
Implications for Future Research
It appears that focus on how the children interpret social-control techniques
and the attributions they make about their own behavior may be useful.
For example, does initial compliance imply increased chance of compliance
in future activities? Can one achieve compliance through the "illusion
of free choice"?
Maybe a suggestive approach is more effective than a directive approach.
Modeling the appropriate response is also a good strategy.
Ultimately the question remains "what are the strategies that particularly
effective parents, or teachers, use to elicit compliance without produceing
resistance and perceptions of constraint?
Limitations of Model
* doesn't explain how chidren actually internalize values in long-term
* value of reward vs punishment
* reciprocality of social interaction (child's effect on the parent)