The first agent of socialization is the family. It’s where a child first learns norms, values, and behaviors that shape their understanding of the world.
Key Takeaways
- First Agent: The family is the first agent of socialization because it has the earliest and greatest contact with the child.
- Lifelong Process: Socialization begins at birth and continues through other agents, such as school, peers, and mass media.
- How It Works: Children learn norms, values, beliefs, and attitudes from what the family does as well as from what it says.
- What Varies: Race, socioeconomic class, time period, religion, and culture all shape which norms a family passes on.
- Modern Evidence: Large meta-analyses find the family’s measured effect on children’s adjustment is consistently positive but small (Barger et al., 2019).
What Is Socialization?
Socialization is the process by which individuals acquire social skills, beliefs, values, and behaviors necessary to function effectively in society or a particular group.
Socialization is necessary for people to learn how to interact with others, and to develop a sense of self and identity.
An agent of socialization is a person or group that helps an individual learn the norms, values, and behaviors of a particular society or culture. Some of this teaching is deliberate. Most of it is not.
Agents of socialization can be powerful forces in shaping an individual’s beliefs and behaviors. Family, friends, teachers, religious leaders, and the media are all examples of agents of socialization.
People first learn to use both the objects of material culture in these settings, as well as being introduced to the beliefs and values of society.
What Is The First Agent Of Socialization?
The family is traditionally considered the first agent of socialization. It is the first group a child learns from.
This family can consist of any formation, ranging from young children living with their biological parents to those raised by adoptive guardians. What makes it first is its position in time, not its shape.
What The Family Teaches
The family teaches children basic norms and values, such as how to speak, behave, and think. It is also the first group to provide emotional support and care.
Family members show children how to use objects, such as clothes, computers, eating utensils, books and bikes. They show children how to describe their relationships to others. They also teach what is real, what is imagined, and how else to relate to the world.
Why The Family Comes First
Four features explain why the family holds this position. None of them is about teaching skill.
- Firstness: The family is usually the first social group a child meets, tending to the child from birth. Early lessons arrive with nothing already in place to contradict them.
- Duration: Caregivers spend more time with children than anyone else does, and they are the most important people during the years of fastest learning and growth.
- Control: Parents choose what books a child reads, what television they watch, and who their friends are. They filter which other agents reach the child at all.
- No exit: A child did not choose these people and cannot leave them, so identifying with them is close to automatic.
Parental Support And Teenage Drinking
Research supports the claim that family involvement shapes later behaviour. Children with supportive, involved parents are less likely to drink as teenagers than children without that support.
- Aim: To test whether parental support, parental control and parents’ own drinking predict adolescent drinking behaviour.
- Method: A survey of adolescents and their parents measured parental warmth, monitoring and rule-setting, and parents’ own alcohol use against the teenagers’ reported drinking.
- Results: More parental support went with less drinking. Control showed a curve, not a line: teenagers with very little or very heavy control drank more than those in between.
- Conclusion: Family socialization works through several channels at once, and more control is not straightforwardly better (Barnes, Farrell, & Cairns, 1986).
One limit is worth naming. The design was a cross-sectional survey, so the causal arrow cannot be fixed, and heavy-drinking teenagers may themselves draw harsher control and less warmth from their parents.
How Families Transmit Norms And Values
Family socialization is mostly informal. Only a small part of what a child picks up at home is taught on purpose. Most of it arrives as a by-product of ordinary daily life, through five main channels.
Language And Meaning
Language is the master channel. Everything else runs through it. A child learning a first language also learns the categories it encodes: which relationships count as family, which behaviours have names, which feelings are recognised.
So the family’s linguistic role cannot be separated from its moral one. Teaching a child the word “rude” teaches a moral category, not just a vocabulary item.
Modelling And Example
Children copy what they see long before they can be reasoned with. They copy most readily when the model is warm, powerful, and similar to themselves. That is what a parent tends to be. Social learning theory sets out the mechanism.
It also explains a familiar failure. A parent who shouts “don’t shout” transmits the shouting, not the rule.
What travels most reliably is style rather than content: children of parents who negotiate tend to negotiate too.
Discipline And Internalization
Not all discipline socializes equally. Grusec and Goodnow (1994) argued that whether a child truly internalizes a value depends on two things the child must do.
Internalizing means adopting the value as your own, rather than obeying only while someone is watching. The child has to perceive accurately what the parent means.
Then they have to accept it, rather than merely submit. Giving reasons supports both steps. Relying on parental power alone secures obedience, but gives the child no reason to hold the value.
This locates the family’s power in the quality of its explanation rather than in its authority. The child is an active interpreter.
Programmes built on this principle teach warmth combined with clear, explained expectations, rather than obedience secured by threat.
Ascribed Status
From birth a child is assigned an ascribed status: a class position, an ethnicity, a religion, a regional and linguistic identity. None of it is earned. None of it can be changed quickly.
The family is the vehicle for that assignment. What is passed on is not only a disposition inside the child, but a position in a structure outside them. That position then generates further experiences of its own.
Emotional Security
All of this assumes a relationship the child wants to keep. Internalization travels alongside identification, and identification requires attachment.
Whether the quality of that bond is itself passed down has been tested directly. A synthesis of three decades of research, covering 95 samples and 4,819 participants, confirmed that caregivers’ own attachment patterns predict their child’s security (Verhage et al., 2016).
The transmission gap narrowed here. The correlation was r = .31 for secure-autonomous transmission and r = .21 for unresolved states of mind (Verhage et al., 2016).
The link was real but modest, and weaker than estimates published two decades earlier. Family transmission is replicable. It is also smaller, and less well understood, than the classic account implies.
Cultural and Linguistic Capital in the Home
Family socialization does more than pass on norms. It also passes on resources that schools and workplaces later reward, often without anyone involved noticing it is happening.
Speech Codes and Cultural Capital
Early research on class and language found that families in different class positions tend to use different speech patterns (Bernstein, 1971).
One style is implicit and depends on shared context. The other is explicit and spells things out. Schools run on the explicit style, so they reward children whose homes already supplied it.
A related account describes cultural capital: the tastes, dispositions and linguistic confidence a child absorbs unconsciously at home. Schools and employers later treat these as signs of ability rather than as an inherited head start (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977).
The advantage is invisible inside the family. It only becomes visible at the point where home meets school.
The “30 Million Word Gap”: A Re-Examination
The best-known version of this claim comes from longitudinal observation of American families. Children in professional households were found to hear millions more words in their early years than children in households receiving welfare support (Hart & Risley, 1995).
Researchers called this the 30 million word gap. A later study tested the claim directly, with results that complicate the original figure.
- Aim: To test, for the first time with independent data, the claim that poorer households give children 30 million fewer words in early life (Sperry, Sperry, & Miller, 2019).
- Method: Five studies combined ethnographic fieldwork with longitudinal home observation of 42 children aged 18 to 48 months. Families were sampled across five American communities spanning the socioeconomic range, including working-class and poor communities the original study had not covered.
- Results: The original claim was not supported: word exposure varied substantially within every income group rather than falling neatly between them. Counting only a primary caregiver’s speech underestimated how many words children in low-income households actually heard.
- Conclusion: The size, and possibly the direction, of the class gap in early language exposure depends heavily on which talk gets counted (Sperry, Sperry, & Miller, 2019).
The sample was small, just 42 children, so the study shows that the 30-million figure is not robust rather than proving a different number. It is a reason to treat any single family-socialization statistic as provisional rather than settled.
Factors That Can Affect The First Agent Of Socialization
There are several factors that can affect the first agent of socialization, namely:
Time period
The time period in which a child is raised can affect the first agent of socialization. For example, in the past, it was acceptable for parents to be strict with children.
Children were treated as small adults, subject to corporal punishment and, in extreme cases, sent to work. Then the view changed. The 20th century brought the idea that childhood was a distinct life stage, and that children should be protected and nurtured.
Industries developed around providing entertainment appropriate for children, and parents sought to help their children reach certain developmental milestones.
Socioeconomic status
A child’s socioeconomic status can also affect the first agent of socialization. Children from lower-income families are more likely to be raised by a single parent or by grandparents.
In general, children from lower-income families have less access to resources and opportunities, which can influence their development.
With varying social class comes varying values. Children from lower-class families are more often raised toward obedience and conformity. Children from middle- or upper-class families are more often raised toward individuality and self-expression.
Kohn (1977) identified what drives the difference. It is not income or education, but occupational self-direction: how much independent judgement a parent’s own job demands.
Parents supervised closely at work value obedience at home, and parents who exercise judgement at work value self-direction.
These different values can lead to different outcomes in life. A child raised to value individuality may seek a career that expresses who they are. A child raised less individualistically may look to provide for their family first.
Class and hardship are not the same thing. The family stress model describes a different route.
Low income and financial strain raise caregiver distress and conflict between adults. That disrupts parenting, which then affects the child (Conger & Donnellan, 2007).
The damage runs through the caregiving relationship, not through poorer families holding worse values.
Race/ethnicity
A child’s race or ethnicity can also affect the first agent of socialization. Children from minority groups may have less contact with people from other racial or ethnic groups, which can limit their exposure to different perspectives.
In addition, children from minority groups may experience discrimination, which can lead to feelings of isolation and inferiority.
Identity matters here. A strong sense of belonging to one’s cultural group protects against that isolation. Without it, a child may develop an identity crisis, with consequences later in life (Horn, Ruck, & Liben, 2016).
How much does this help? A systematic review and meta-analysis pooled 102 studies covering 27,221 participants. Ethnic-racial socialization, the family’s teaching about heritage and discrimination, was positively but modestly related to young people’s self-perceptions and relationships (Wang et al., 2020).
Cultural socialization, which passes on heritage, history and pride, showed the most consistently positive pattern. The effect is real and differentiated, not decisive.
Gender
A child’s gender can also affect the first agent of socialization. Boys and girls are often treated differently by their parents and other adults, which can lead to different experiences and expectations.
From the beginning of life, girls and boys are dressed differently and given different toys. Those choices shape social and material norms early.
Boys are often encouraged to be active and independent, while girls are encouraged to be nurturing and caregiving.
These different messages can lead to different outcomes in life. For instance, females dominate many “nurturing” professions, such as nursing and caregiving, while men are prominent in active and technical fields, such as law enforcement and engineering.
Religion
Children raised in a religious household may attend religious education classes and take part in religious rituals. The lessons are not only spoken. They are also exposed to a particular set of beliefs and values through the behavior of their family members.
As a result, religion can play a significant role in shaping a child’s worldview, regardless of whether they stay in that religion or not.
The effect can last a lifetime. Take a child raised where eating pork is forbidden and shoes come off at the door. As an adult, they may still be repulsed by bacon and uneasy wearing shoes indoors.
That holds whether or not they are still religious (Handel, 2011). The doctrine can be rejected. The habit is harder to shift, because it was installed before the child could argue with it.
FAQs
How does the first agent of socialization differ between cultures?
The first agent of socialization differs between cultures in a few ways. One way is how parents interact with their children. In some cultures, parents are more hands-on with their children, while in other cultures parenting styles are more relaxed.
The structure of families can differ radically across time and space. Some children may be raised by a single parent or nuclear pair, while others are by a family compound or even an entire village.
This can lead to differences in what values are emphasized. Cultures where children are raised by large groups of elders may hold age in particular esteem.
Those cared for by many unrelated and extended relatives may be more collectivistic than those raised by one or two adults (Handel, 2011).
The differences are smaller than the older debate assumed.
A meta-analysis of 428 studies found that the direction of parenting effects is largely similar across cultures, even where the size of those effects varies (Pinquart & Kauser, 2018).
What is the difference between the first agent of socialization and primary socialization?
The first agent of socialization is the agent that has the most contact with the child in their earliest years.
Primary socialization, meanwhile, is the period early in a child’s life when they first learn and build themselves through experience, taking on basic social norms and customs.
It is a stretch of time, not a person.
For example, when parents toilet-train their children, the children experience primary socialization. While the first agent of socialization is an actor that imparts values and norms, primary socialization is the period and experiences that lead to the learning of the norms.
Racial socialization is a distinct strand. It describes how children learn the behaviors, attitudes, values and perceptions of their ethnic group.
It is also how they come to see themselves and others as members of that group.
Parents teach children about race and social status through messaging, activities, and behaviors. Heritage and history come first.
From those, children can learn racial pride, see the inequalities between groups, and prepare to cope with discrimination.
Children can also learn to emphasize individual character traits, such as valuing hard work over group membership. The message is one of individual excellence.
Building positive character this way promotes feelings of self-worth (Horn, Ruck, & Liben, 2016).
Are children destined to become exactly like their parents?
No, children are not destined to become exactly like their parents. The family has a great impact and can shape a child in many ways. But other agents matter too. Peer groups, schools, and the media all exert their own influence.
Additionally, as children grow older they begin to think for themselves more and may challenge some of the values that were imparted to them by their parents.
Ultimately, each individual is responsible for the choices they make and no one is destined to become exactly like anyone else.
Critical Evaluation
The classical account assumes that differences in how families raise children produce differences in how adults turn out. That assumption has been tested hard since the 1980s, and it survives in a weaker form than most textbooks suggest.
How Much Does Family Socialization Explain?
Families pass on genes as well as norms. Any study comparing children raised in different families confounds the two, so twin and adoption designs are needed to separate them.
A meta-analysis of virtually the entire twin literature pooled 2,748 publications, 17,804 traits and more than 14.5 million twin pairs. Reported heritability averaged 49%. For most trait domains the data were inconsistent with a substantial influence of the environment siblings share (Polderman et al., 2015).
Two cautions matter here. Heritability describes the sources of variance in a particular sample under particular conditions, not how fixed any one person’s traits are.
It is also suppressed when a sample contains few extreme environments. If almost no family in a study is severely depriving, family environment will explain little variance even where severe deprivation matters enormously.
The traits catalogued are individual differences. They are not the cultural content sociologists mean by socialization. Nobody claims that language, religion or ethnic identity is genetically inherited.
The Peer Group Challenge
A second challenge accepts those findings and asks where the environmental influence went. As Judith Rich Harris argued, it went to the peer group. Children learn context-specifically, and are shaped most durably where they must find a position among near-equals (Harris, 1995).
Her strongest evidence is linguistic. Children of immigrants take the accent and language of their peers, not their parents, which a strong parental-influence account struggles to explain.
The argument has limits. It is a theoretical review rather than a new test, so it inherits the confounds of the studies it surveys. It also underplays selection: parents largely decide which peer group a child joins, by choosing neighbourhood, school and permitted friendships.
It addresses personality rather than transmitted content. For religion, political affiliation and native language, parent-to-child transmission remains strong.
Genetic Nurture
The most important recent development comes from genetics itself. Researchers separated the gene variants parents passed to a child from the variants they did not pass on, then measured the effect of each on the child’s educational attainment.
Variants a child never inherited cannot act through that child’s genome. So any effect must be environmental.
Across 21,637 people with at least one genotyped parent, the non-transmitted score had an effect equal to 29.9% of the transmitted one (Kong et al., 2018).
The authors called this genetic nurture. It is the strongest causal evidence available that the family environment shapes children’s outcomes, and it came from a genetic design rather than a sociological one.
One limit stands out. The study shows that a parental environmental effect exists without saying what it consists of: books, conversation, expectations, school choice, or something else again.
Child Effects: Does the Arrow Point the Other Way?
Much of this evidence treats a correlation between parenting and child behaviour as proof that parents cause the outcome. A foundational critique argued that many of these correlations run just as easily in reverse, with a child’s own temperament eliciting the parenting they receive (Bell, 1968).
A difficult, easily upset infant reliably draws harsher, less warm parenting than an easy-going sibling gets from the very same parent. The direction of cause is not obvious.
The field’s current position is bidirectional: parent and child shape each other over time. One of the largest parenting meta-analyses in this section reports exactly that pattern for parenting and children’s externalizing problems, not a one-way effect (Pinquart, 2017).
When The First Agent Is Absent
If being first matters, its absence should show.
The clearest test comes from children who spent up to 43 months in severely depriving Romanian institutions before being adopted into UK families (Sonuga-Barke et al., 2017).
Children adopted before six months of deprivation looked much like non-deprived UK adoptees. Those who spent longer showed raised rates of autism-spectrum symptoms, disinhibited social engagement and inattention into their mid-twenties.
Not everything persisted.
Cognitive impairment was marked at ages 6 and 11 but had largely remitted by young adulthood. About one in five of the extended-deprivation group was problem-free at every assessment.
The follow-up sample was modest. It included 72 people in the high-deprivation group. Romanian institutional conditions were also extreme, so this is powerful evidence about deprivation and a poor guide to ordinary variation between adequate families.
Contemporary Research
Research since 2015 has changed the question.
The older literature asked whether families socialize children; the current literature asks how large the effect is and how much survives once confounds are removed.
How Big Is The Family Effect?
The most authoritative single estimate pools 448 independent studies covering 480,830 families. Parental involvement in schooling was positively associated with children’s academic adjustment, with correlations from .13 to .23. Involvement also related positively to social and emotional adjustment, and negatively to delinquency (Barger et al., 2019).
One result stands out. Parents’ homework assistance was negatively associated with achievement, most plausibly because struggling children draw more help rather than help causing the struggle.
An updated meta-analysis of 1,435 studies found similarly small associations between parenting dimensions and children’s externalizing problems. Several of those relationships were bidirectional over time (Pinquart, 2017).
Does It Hold Across Cultures?
A random-effects meta-analysis of 428 studies tested whether parenting-style associations vary between ethnic groups, world regions and levels of national individualism. It found more similarity than difference.
Authoritative parenting was linked to at least one positive outcome in every region examined, and authoritarian parenting to at least one negative outcome (Pinquart & Kauser, 2018). The moderations that emerged were real but secondary.
Read together, the two parenting meta-analyses suggest that the direction of parenting effects is largely culture-general while their size is culture-sensitive.
References
Arnett, J. J. (1995). Adolescents’ uses of media for self-socialization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(5), 519-533.
Barger, M. M., Kim, E. M., Kuncel, N. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2019). The relation between parents’ involvement in children’s schooling and children’s adjustment: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 145(9), 855-890. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000201
Barnes, G. M., Farrell, M. P., & Cairns, A. (1986). Parental socialization factors and adolescent drinking behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48(1), 27-36. https://doi.org/10.2307/352225
Baumrind, D. (1980). New directions in socialization research. American Psychologist, 35(7), 639-652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.7.639
Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75(2), 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025583
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control: Volume 1, Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage.
Bugental, D. B., & Goodnow, J. J. (1998). Socialization processes.
Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 175-199. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551
Cromdal, J. (2006). Socialization.
Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 4-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.4
Grusec, J. E., & Lytton, H. (1988). Socialization and the family. In Social development (pp. 161-212). Springer, New York, NY.
Handel, G. (Ed.). (2011). Childhood socialization. Transaction Publishers.
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102(3), 458-489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.458
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Paul H. Brookes.
Horn, S. S., Ruck, M., & Liben, L. (2016). Equity and justice in developmental science: Implications for young people, families, and communities. Academic Press.
Kohn, M. L. (1977). Class and conformity: A study in values (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Kong, A., Thorleifsson, G., Frigge, M. L., Vilhjalmsson, B. J., Young, A. I., Thorgeirsson, T. E., Benonisdottir, S., Oddsson, A., Halldorsson, B. V., Masson, G., Gudbjartsson, D. F., Helgason, A., Bjornsdottir, G., Thorsteinsdottir, U., & Stefansson, K. (2018). The nature of nurture: Effects of parental genotypes. Science, 359(6374), 424-428. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan6877
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1994). Group socialization: Theory and research. European review of social psychology, 5 (1), 305-336.
Maccoby, E. E. (2007). Historical overview of socialization research and theory. Handbook of socialization: Theory and research, 1, 13-41.
Mortimer, J. T., & Simmons, R. G. (1978). Adult socialization. Annual review of sociology, 421-454.
Ochs, E. (1999). Socialization. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9 (1/2), 230-233.
Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873-932. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000295
Pinquart, M., & Kauser, R. (2018). Do the associations of parenting styles with behavior problems and academic achievement vary by culture? Results from a meta-analysis. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(1), 75-100. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000149
Polderman, T. J. C., Benyamin, B., de Leeuw, C. A., Sullivan, P. F., van Bochoven, A., Visscher, P. M., & Posthuma, D. (2015). Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics, 47(7), 702-709. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3285
Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S., Kennedy, M., Kumsta, R., Knights, N., Golm, D., Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Schlotz, W., & Kreppner, J. (2017). Child-to-adult neurodevelopmental and mental health trajectories after early life deprivation: The young adult follow-up of the longitudinal English and Romanian Adoptees study. The Lancet, 389(10078), 1539-1548. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30045-4
Sperry, D. E., Sperry, L. L., & Miller, P. J. (2019). Reexamining the verbal environments of children from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Child Development, 90(4), 1303-1318. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13072
Vandell, D. L. (2000). Parents, peer groups, and other socializing influences. Developmental psychology, 36 (6), 699.
Verhage, M. L., Schuengel, C., Madigan, S., Fearon, R. M. P., Oosterman, M., Cassibba, R., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2016). Narrowing the transmission gap: A synthesis of three decades of research on intergenerational transmission of attachment. Psychological Bulletin, 142(4), 337-366. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000038
Wang, M.-T., Henry, D. A., Smith, L. V., Huguley, J. P., & Guo, J. (2020). Parental ethnic-racial socialization practices and children of color’s psychosocial and behavioral adjustment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 75(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000464
