(NOTE HIGHLIGTHS THE IMPORTANT ONLY F NOT
CLOSE PARENTHISES THATS EXPLAIN...)
Again good morning everyone, today we will
proceed to the next part of this topic which is “
CHARLES COOLEYS THEORY: LOOKING GLASS SELF”
As we proceed in this topic... in your own idea or
understanding what is looking glass self?
Okay so looking glass self - It is described as our
reflection of how we think we appear to others..
(explanation naa sa 1 ka paper)
(explain).....
The looking-glass self comprises three main
components that are unique to humans (Shaffer
2005).[4]
1. We imagine how we must appear to others in a
social situation.
2. We imagine and react to what we feel their
judgment of that appearance must be.
3. We develop our sense of self and respond
through these perceived judgments of others.
Ex;
On a dance floor, many people who see themselves as
“good” dancers, may in fact perceived as “bad” dancers,
but will nonetheless react as if they are good dancers.
While individuals’ self-image are shaped by others, this
only happens through the mediation of their own minds.
According to cooley, the human mind is social and
mental. This means that the mental process
occurring in the human mind are the direct result of
social interaction.
The result is that individuals will change their
behavior based on what they feel other people think
about them, even if not necessarily true. In this way,
social interaction acts as a "mirror" or a "lookingglass," since one's sense of self and self esteem is
built off of others. For example, an individual may
walk into a job interview with confidence and attempt
to display this confidence. A person in this situation
most often examines the reactions of the
interviewers to see if they are positively or negatively
reacting to it. If the individual notices positive
reactions, such as nodding heads or smiles, this
might further develop the individual's sense of selfconfidence. If the individual notices negative
reactions, such as a lack of interest, this confidence
in self often becomes shaken and reformed in order
to better oneself, even if the perceived judgments
were not necessarily true.
Symbolic interaction[edit]
In hypothesizing the framework, "the mind is mental"
because "the human mind is social". From the time
they are born, humans define themselves within the
context of their social interactions. Children learn
that the symbol of their crying will elicit a response
from their caregivers, not only when they are in need
of necessities such as food or a diaper change, but
also when they are in need of attention. Cooley best
explains this interaction in On Self and Social
Organization, noting that "a growing solidarity
between mother and child parallels the child's
increasing competence in using significant symbols.
This simultaneous development is itself a necessary
prerequisite for the child's ability to adopt the
perspectives of other participants in social
relationships and, thus, for the child's capacity to
develop a social self."[5]
George Herbert Mead described the creation of the
self as the outcome of "taking the role of the other",
the premise for which the self is actualized. Through
interaction with others, we begin to develop an
identity of our own as well as developing a capacity
to empathize with others. As stated by Cooley, "The
thing that moves us to pride or shame is not the
mere mechanical reflection of ourselves, but an
imputed sentiment, the imagined effect of this
reflection upon another's mind" (Cooley 1964).
Role in social media[edit]
The rise of social media very much reflects the
mechanisms of the looking-glass self, as the different
forms of social media offer all different "mirrors" in which
individuals present themselves, perceive judgements of
others based on likes, follows, etc., and further develop
their sense of self. Indeed, as cyberpsychologist Mary
Aiken, PhD. explains, social media has created a concept
named the "cyber self," a version one wishes to portray
online and to the public to others and based on the
judgements of others. Unlike the real self, different forms
of media allow judgements to be clearly posted, so in
many cases, judgements may not even need to be
imagined. Aiken explains this concept best, noting that
"selfies ask a question of their audience: Like me like
this?"[6]
Far different from face-to-face interactions, social media is
intended to be accessible and public at all times. This
means social media users are constantly exposed to
criticism and judgement from others. Additionally, given
the nature of social media, being a platform to share
certain aspects of an individual's life at any time and in any
means possible, the cyber self can be very easily changed
and perfected to fit the supposed acceptance of others.
These aspects of social media and its relationship with the
looking-glass self present a whole range of effects on
social media users. Aiken notes that individuals, and
particularly teenagers, who are increasingly involved in
updating their online personas, risk damaging the
development of their real-world self. She also notes that
this effect may be even greater among users who display
all different sorts of "cyber selves" among different
platforms with different purposes, such as between
Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn.[6] A social media study
also uncovered a host of positive effects of the use of
social media and in developing oneself, with dozens of
creators citing that producing content gave them a sense
of self-confidence and self-worth, enhanced their
creativity, increased their sense of professionality, and
their platforms offered a positive space to interact with
others.[7] The negative effects of the concept of the
looking-glass self can be harmful to the people's mentality.
According to Zsolt Unoka and Gabriella Vizin's To See In a
Mirror Dimly. The Looking-Glass is Self-Shaming in
Borderline Personality Disorder, shame is a large factor in
the development of Borderline Personality Disorder.[8] The
feeling of shame and insufficient self-worth comes from
traumatic experiences such as abuse, neglect,
abandonment, shaming family situations, and harsh
upbringing.[8] The looking-glass self can cause feelings of
insufficient self-worth and mental health issues.
According to Susan Harter's The Perceived Directionality
of the Link Between Approval and Self-Worth: The
Liabilities of a Looking Glass Self-Orientation Among
Young Adolescents, self-worth in adolescents is based
mainly on their peer's approval of them.[9] In a world of
social media, seeking attention and approval from others
is how adolescents determine their self-worth. They create
an image of themselves they think others will approve of.
This is in close relation to the concept of the looking glass
self. Adolescents experience anxiety and depression
based on a low opinion of self-worth.[10] They base this
self-worth off other's opinions of them.[10]
Studies[edit]
The term "looking-glass self" was coined by Cooley after
extensive psychological testing in 1902.
Self reflection study in children[edit]
Procedure[edit]
In 1976,[11] Arthur L Beaman, Edward Diener, and Soren
Svanum (1979) performed an experiment on the lookingglass self's effect on children, exploring the relationship
between self-awareness and transgressive behavior. In
the study, 363 children trick-or-treated at 18 homes in
Seattle, Washington, instructed to take only one candy
while the greeter was occupied in another room. In each
house, an observer who was hidden could record the
results of the experiment. In half of the homes, the
researchers performed self-awareness manipulation, and
a mirror was placed at a ninety degree angle so that the
children could always see their reflection in the mirror
when taking candy from the bowl. After greeting the
children at the door, a second condition named
individuation manipulation[further explanation needed] was
performed, with a woman at the door asking each of the
children their name and where he or she lived. Just as in
the first condition, a mirror was used half of the time and
was removed for the other half of the experiment.
Findings[edit]
While the study offers interesting results involving the
gender, age, and whether children trick-or-treated in a
group, Beaman, Diener, and Syanum's study truly
highlights the effects of self-awareness of other's thoughts.
Out of the 363 children involved in the study, 70 children
transgressed, taking more than one candy when instructed
not to. Overall, self-awareness induced by the mirror
decreased rates of transgression. 15.6% of boys
transgressed when the mirror was present and
individuation manipulation was performed, compared to
35.8% with lack of both manipulations. This trend was the
same for girls; 8.4% to 13.2%. However, what is important
to note is that if children were left anonymous to the
greeter, transgression rates did not change, regardless of
the presence of the mirror. This indicates that the
children's actions were directed through fear or deference
of the greeter and what the greeter thought about them,
and not by mere reminder of one's individual sense of
morality as the mirror might present.[11]
Family study[edit]
In another study[12] in the Journal of Family Psychology in
1998, researchers Cook and Douglas measured the
validity of the looking glass self and symbolic interaction in
the context of familial relationships. The study analyzed
the accuracy of a college student's and an adolescent's
perceptions of how they are perceived by their parents,
surveying mothers, fathers, college students, and
adolescents.
Three areas were investigated: assertiveness, firmness,
and cooperation. In reference to the three areas
respondents were asked the following: how they behave
toward the target, how the target behaves toward them,
and how they think they are viewed by the target. The
study identified the looking glass self as a
"metaperception" because it involves "perception of
perceptions." One of the hypotheses tested in the study
was: If "metaperceptions" cause self-perceptions they will
necessarily be coordinated. The hypothesis was tested at
the individual and relationship levels of analysis.
Findings[edit]
The study determined that the hypothesis is strongly
supported at the individual level for cooperation for both
college students and adolescents, but is only partially
supported for assertiveness for college students. Also for
college students, at the relationship level with their
mothers the study supported assertiveness. There was an
irregular finding regarding firmness in the motheradolescent relationship that indicated that the firmer
adolescents were perceived by their mothers, the less firm
they rated themselves in the relationship. While there was
not strong support of the hypothesis on the relationship
level, on the individual level the findings suggest that how
college students and adolescents think about themselves
is directly correlated to how they think they are perceived
by their parents.
Social media study[edit]
In 2015,[7] Julie Jones, a professor at the University of
Oklahoma, asked a range of questions to 46 Youtube
producers to evaluate how producing in media has
positively or negatively affected them. As Jones explains,
"digital media can serve as a mediated mirror and social
media sites provide the space where others' judgments
are clearly posted."[7]
Findings[edit]
Of the Youtube producers asked, many noted that
producing content gave them a sense of self-confidence
and self-worth, enhanced their creativity, increased their
sense of professionality, and their platforms offered a
positive space to interact with others.
Critical perspectives[edit]
It has been argued that the looking glass self
conceptualization of the social self is critically incomplete
in that it overlooks the divergent roles of ingroups and
outgroups in self-definition.[13] That is, it has been
demonstrated that while individuals will converge upon the
attitudes and behaviours of ingroup members, they will
also diverge from the attitudes and behaviours of outgroup
members.[14] The neglect of the latter scenario is attributed
to the looking glass approaches' implicit focus on ingroup
member appraisals. This alternative perspective is derived
from the self-categorization theory analysis of social
influence.[15] Indeed, it is further argued that the looking
glass self metaphor fails to reflect the fact that influence
derives from the self-categorization of other individuals as
part of the self.[13][16] In other words, people are not shaped
by the reflections from 'others', but rather are shaped by
the creation of a collective social identity that contrasts
'us' against relevant 'others'. Therefore, the concept of
self-identity may be considered an example of a social
construction.
The "looking-glass self" is a concept drawn originally from the
work of George Herbert Mead, encapsulating the idea that our
self-image - the mental idea we have of who and how we are is shaped by our interactions with others. This has three steps:
1. We imagine how we appear to another person.
2. We imagine what judgements that person makes of us
based on our appearance and the way we present
ourselves.
3. We imagine how that person feels about us, on the basis
of the judgements they've made.
It's common to see people interpret this theory as one that
encapsulates the ubiquitous, rampant insecurity of the modern
human condition: in an age characterised by the proliferation of
social media, a thousand shoddy opinion pieces have been
written in an attempt to use the looking-glass self - or what
they imagine it to be - to bemoan a generation lost to
narcissism and obsession with self-presentation.
This misses most of the important nuance of Cooley's ideas. On
face, this concept might look like one in which the individual is
passive: we're constantly beholden to the judgements of others,
shaped by their impressions of us. But this couldn't be further
from the truth if it were wearing a "Make America Great
Again" baseball cap.
The important thing to clarify is that Cooley doesn't see this
process as a one-way internalisation of others' perceptions.
Instead, we play an active role in trying to shape how others
perceive, judge and feel about us. In fact, Cooley specifically
focusses on our participation in forming our self-image. He
stresses three things:
First, the active role the individual plays in interpreting the
perceived responses of others. That means that we don't know cannot know - how we actually appear to other people. All we
can know is how we imagine we appear. If you go out to a
karaoke baron a Friday night, you'll encounter a surfeit of
people who think they appear tuneful, articulate and soulful,
even if how they actually appear to you is as the physical
embodiment of nails dragging down a chalkboard. Our
perceptions of others' judgements can be highly inaccurate.
This applies to the second and third steps, too: we can't know
how others judge us or how they feel about us. Instead, we
depend on our imagination: either thinking about how they
might react when we're looking in the mirror, or observing
their responses and attempting to infer from those to their inner
ruminations.
What this means is that our self-image is shaped by others, but
only through the mediation of our own mind.
Second, Cooley stresses the individual's selective application
of the looking glass self. The reason this concept doesn't
predict or explain constant, crippling insecurity on the part of
every single person in society, like some kind of pound-shop
Black Mirror episode, is because we aren't constantly engaging
with it. There are some circumstances in which we care more
about others' perceptions of us than others. If I'm moving
anonymously through a city I've never visited before, I might
be less self-conscious than I would be on a date with someone
I'm infatuated with. We have the capacity to care more about
some things than others, and our self-image is no exception to
this.
Third and finally, Cooley says we use the looking-glass self to
control and manipulate the responses and evaluation of others.
Because we are aware that others are watching us, reacting to
us, and judging us, he says, we are able to use that knowledge
to shape the impressions we try to give off.
This means, for example, that a person might boast to their
friends about the sheer volume of alcohol they consumed last
weekend, recounting in painstaking (and boring) details every
shot, bottle and glass, because they think that doing so will
impress their peers and win them respect and street cred (or
whatever the kids are calling "street cred" since the end of the
90s). They would be less likely to tell their boss about this
event in any great detail, and they might even go out of their
way to hide it - upping the privacy settings on their social
media profiles, untagging themselves from incriminating
photos, and taking pains to appear a functional human being on
Monday morning.
In imagining how others will respond to our actions and
presentation, we allow ourselves to manage the kind of selfimage we attempt to project - but crucially, as Cooley
highlights, there is no way to truly know what others think of
us.