1 Innovation and Continuity in Socialization, Internalization, and Acculturation Leon Kuczynski and Ariel Knafo Kuczynski, L. and Knafo, A. (2013). Innovation and continuity in socialization, internalization and acculturation. In M. Killen and J.G. Smetana (Eds.). Handbook of Moral Development, 2 nd edition (pp. 93-112). Taylor and Francis Publishers. Internalization refers to the phenomenon whereby ideas, such as beliefs, values, and practices that are initially external to an individual become incorporated into the individual’s thoughts and actions (Kuczynski, Marshall, & Schell, 1997). Theoretical understanding of the process by which this comes about is undergoing major revision. Prior to the 1980s, internalization was considered to be an outcome of socialization, which at that time was itself conceptualized in a unidirectional and deterministic manner (see Grusec, Chaparro, Johnston, & Sherman, this volume). An implicit goal of early socialization theory was to understand the continuity of values from parents to children and, more generally, the process by which society and culture are reproduced in each succeeding generation (Corsaro, 1997). The products of internalization were considered in two ways: the transmission of cultural content such as values, beliefs, and practices from the older generation to the younger generation and the fostering of conformity to the demands and expectations of family and societal authorities (Kuczynski & Hildebrandt, 1997). The process of internalization was conceived as intergenerational transmission whereby children’s acquisition of values was accomplished through the direct action of socializing agents. This idea of socialization has been critiqued by psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists at both the macro level of individual and society and the micro level of parent– child relations. Early theories of socialization depicted society to be much more integrated and human nature as much more conforming than they really are (Wrong, 1961). The idea of intergenerational transmission neglected the phenomenon of social and cultural change in values (Straus, 1992; Valsiner, 2000). Moreover, socialization theory underestimated the active influence of children on parents and the innovative capacities of children as well as parents in interpreting or resisting the ideas and values of the previous generation (Kuczynski, Marshall, & Schell, 1997). Most researchers today endorse bidirectional conceptions of socialization, although there is a debate regarding behavioral/interactional versus dialectical/relational formulations of bidirectionality (Kuczynski & Parkin, 2007). However, studies linking parent variables, conceptualized as causes, and child variables, conceptualized as effects, remain dominant in basic research or applied interventions. The principal question asked by researchers concerns intergenerational transmission of similarity between the generations. However, an exclusive focus on continuity is only possible from a mechanistic perspective of causality. Continuity and similarity are not the expected outcome in organismic/dialectical approaches to human development, which have a defining focus on qualitative change or the emergence of novelty (Kuczynski & de Mol, in press). Parents themselves can change with time, and children’s ideas about values can be different from those of their parents because children are exposed to out-of-home environments, with competing values (e.g., Goodnow, 1997), or because of the effects that children’s genetic tendencies have on their values (Knafo & Spinath, 2011). Therefore, change or difference is not an error but an expected outcome of the internalization process.