[MUSIC] Individuals who are willing to break from tradition, beyond a low level of sensitivity to a particular norm, should also be relatively insensitive to general pressures of conformity and be autonomous in their decision making. To identify such individuals, one must first overcome the hurdles of defining and operationalize autonomy. There are several psychological definitions of autonomy that are useful when attempting to identify a potential trendsetter. But, even these operation definitions of autonomy are not all predictive of the same kind of trendsetter. One primary distinction that has been made between two different forms of autonomy is reactive and reflective autonomy. Or the distinction between the freedom from the governance of others and the freedom to self-govern respectively. Many of the proposed ways to measure autonomy tend to tap into one of these two definitions. Measurements that tap into reactive autonomy appear to assess an independent form of autonomy, manifested in agency and interpersonal separation. While measurements that tap into reflective autonomy represent an interdependent form of autonomy, strongly and positively interpersonal in nature. These two forms of autonomy are only loosely associated in individuals. Individuals who score high on measurement of reflective autonomy tend to be extroverted, assertive, altruistic and open to new values. While individuals who score high on reactive autonomy tend to be somewhat disagreeable and introverted, though, assertive. Both types of autonomous people tend to be agentic and willing to deviate to from customary behaviors if given adequate reasons for doing so. One would imagine that people will score high on reflective autonomy, that is, who tend to be independently motivated, yet positively interpersonal, are more likely to be central in a particular social network. While the people who score high on reactive autonomy, and therefore who tend to be independent and solitary, are more likely to be peripheral members of the social network. In general, people would more likely be influenced by the actions of reflectively autonomous agents. If they are central in their social network, their actions would be more readily observable and their likeable personalities would make people more willing to listen to and follow them. That said, these likely more central autonomous individuals, would also be subject to a greater number of potential social sanctions than social epithelial and autonomous individuals. Often, people who are at the center of a network and occupy a leading position, are prototypical. In the sense that they embody the norms and values of their community. In this respect, it is the reactive autonomous and less central individuals who will be more likely to deviate on their own. Studies often point out that trend setters are more likely to be fringe members of society. That said, this fringe behavior will not have much influence until it is adopted by more central and integrated members of society. The case may be different for powerful people who could, to a point, be subject to fewer sanctions for a variety of reasons. One being the fear of retaliation that the powerful can exact on the less powerful. An example of a reflectively autonomous agent was the wife of a village leader, who after being convinced of the merits of exclusive breast feeding, decided to reject feeding her newborn water and instead breast feed. Here, the leader's wife was autonomous, in that she was sufficiently uninfluenced by the pressures of conformity to feed their child water instead of colostrum. And was reflectively so, because she deviated, at least in part, for the benefit of her peers. In addition, being in a position of power, she knew her behavior would be especially scrutinized by other villagers, but also possibly used as a model for changing their own behavior. Indeed, after the villagers saw how her child did not become sick, as they had anticipated, they began to reconsider early breast milk as a viable food for newborns. However, it is important to acknowledge that they're being in a position of power and at the center of a network made their action much more visible and more subject at least in principle to potential sanctions. But their powerful position also mitigated the risk of criticism. Trendsetter perception of risk is another crucial element we will explore in the next lecture. >> Child marriage is a local phenomenon, and the agents of change, not least adolescence girls and boys and their parents, have to come from the local community. Some of the girls from the adolescent girls groups supported by UNICEF became trendsetters and role models by personally intervening to stop child marriages. Religious leaders, caste leaders, community leaders, teachers and health workers, also have important roles to play to set new trends and to be agents of change. >> There have been people who have broadly come out and declared in Sudan that's, we've stopped cutting in our family, we are not cutting our children. In fact, one of the things that's been done in the is the idea of. Well known people who come out and openly say, that we declare for not cutting girls. And we might call them trendsetters because they are the face of the new movement not to cut girls.
