Sample Sociology Paper on Divides and influence on personality

Divides and influence on personality

Social psychologists’ studies on personal behaviors indicate a relative level of individual conformity to social norms.  Their reports found out different levels of personal conformity with the social norms to affect their personal orientation of idiocentric.  These social psychologists’ numerous investigations, using a variety of methods have empirically demonstrated the impact of cultural variations on psychological domains. The researchers consider the English-speaking countries such as the United States of America to have a high level of individualism while areas such as Asia, Latin America, and Africa promote collectivism (Prentice, 1999).

Triadic et al 1985, in his study, categorically proposed the different personality dimensions of allocentric and ideocentrism to the level of individualism and collectivism that occur at the social level of an individual. Since then, researchers have explored different facets and elements of personal conformity to social norms.  They have noticed that Social identities are conceptions of individual distinction from others in a social group. The distinction of people based on gender and race is the obvious basis of the categorization.  Many social psychologists believe that human categorization in this base is primitive, invertible, and unnecessary since all people share the same genes. Individual categorization usually depends on his characteristics, social and cultural background.  Most of these social categorization motivates individuals to feel superior to others and acquire favoritism at the expense of others (Prentice, 1999).

Throughout its history, America has been inhabited by various individuals from different ethnic groups. The color line relationship between the dominant whites relatively lowers the status. Africans, Indiana s, and Asians have a common form of relationship restructure. These ethical groups have created unnecessary hierarchy groups, one-way assimilation, and group separation across the globe, with the most dominant group conceiving all the societal charter, rights, and privileges.  This led to the enslavement of the blacks and the creation of emigrants during the 19th century.  In most cases as observed in America, during the formulation of relevant policies American culture of Europe is usually taken as superior to other minority cultural groups. The professed goal of such an agenda is equality, yet the exact issue is the superiority, dominance, and purity of a given culture. To the citizens, a sigh of relief as sociologists have proved that one way of assimilation is not a viable and accepted way of accommodating the group variations across the globe.  The well-developed democracy and cultural diversity have allowed the American citizens to create mutual understanding, interaction, and cooperation (Prentice, 1999).

Cultural diversity has also created group separation. This is due to the desire of other social groups desire to separate themselves from American society. This notion of group separation emanates from ethnocentric beliefs with the aim to achieve a self-governing community and ethnic confederation. This social form of adoption was mainly politically driven and can be considered unnecessary to the social-economic growth of countries. To the social scholars, it is considered as a utopian vision of expressing feelings of the depths of alienation by the disadvantaged groups in American society. This retrogressive device usually has minimum chances of achieving equality in group cultures (Prentice, 1999).

Ethnic separations as observed have a greater impact on individuals’ behavior. To those who feel alienated and receive most of the social injustices, they may decide to disunite themselves from the other superior groups. Therefore, multicultural countries such as the United States of America should embrace prompt ethnic relationships to achieve a better society from the former.


Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1999). Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 1-465 Retrieved from