Looking glass self - wikipedia Looking glass self This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. ( Learn how and when to remove these template messages ) This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this by adding secondary or tertiary sources. ( April 2013 ) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. ( April 2013 ) This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor 's personal feelings about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. ( April 2013 ) This article is written like a research paper or scientific journal that may use overly technical terms or may not be written like an encyclopedic article. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. ( December 2014 ) This drawing depicts the looking - glass self. The person at the front of the image is looking into four mirrors, each of which reflects someone else 's image of him back to him. The looking - glass self is a social psychological concept introduced by Charles Horton Cooley in 1902 ( McIntyre 2006 ). The concept of the no - glass self describes the development of one 's self and of one 's identity through one 's interpersonal interactions within the context of society. Cooley clarified that society is an interweaving and inter-working of mental selves. The term `` looking glass self '' was coined by Cooley in his work, Human Nature and the Social Order in 1902. The looking - glass self has three major components and is unique to humans ( Shaffer 2005 ). According to Lisa McIntyre 's The Practical Skeptic : Core Concepts in Sociology, the concept of the looking - glass self expresses the tendency for one to understand oneself through their own understanding of the perception which others may hold of them. This process is theorized to develop one 's sense of identity. Therefore identity, or self, is the result of learning to see ourselves as others do ( Yeung & Martin 2003 ). The looking - glass self begins at an early age, continuing throughout the entirety of one 's life as one will never stop modifying their self unless all social interactions are ceased. Some sociologists believe that the effects of the looking - glass self wane as one ages. Others note that few studies have been conducted with a large number of subjects in natural settings. Contents 1 Symbolic interaction 2 Three main components 3 Studies 3.1 Self reflection study 3.1. 1 Self - awareness manipulation 3.1. 2 Individuation manipulation 3.1. 3 Results 3.1. 4 Gender 3.1. 5 Year 3.2 Family study 3.2. 1 Findings 4 Critical perspectives 5 See also 6 Notes 7 References Symbolic interaction 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. The child learns that the symbol of his / her crying will elicit a response from his / her caregivers, not only when they are in need of necessities such as food or a diaper change, but is also a symbol that signals to caregivers that the child is in need of attention. Schubert references in Cooley 's On Self and Social Organization, `` 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. '' 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 ). Three main components There are three main components that comprise the looking - glass self ( Yeung, et al. 2003 ). We imagine how we must appear to others. We imagine and react to what we feel their judgment of that appearance must be. We develop our self through the judgments of others. Studies The term `` looking - glass self '' was coined by Cooley after extensive psychological testing in 1902, although more recent studies have since been published. In 1976 Arthur L Beaman, Edward Diener, and Soren Svanum ( 1979 ) performed an experiment on the looking - glass self 's effect on children. Another study in the Journal of Family Psychology in 1998, measured the validity of the looking glass self and symbolic interaction in the context of familial relationships. Self reflection study On Halloween night, 363 children trick - or - treated at 18 different homes in Seattle, Washington. Each of these 18 homes was selected to take part in the experiment and was in turn arranged in similar ways. In a room near the entry way there was a low table and on it was a large bowl full of bite sized candy. A festive backdrop was also placed in sight of the candy bowl with a small hole for viewing ; behind the backdrop was an observer who would record the results of the experiment. The experiment was conducted in the same way at each of the 18 different homes, with each home conducting two different conditions of the experiment, self - awareness manipulation and individuation manipulation. All of the homes conducted both conditions ; half of the homes conducting self - awareness manipulation while the other half conducted individuation manipulation. In each of the conditions a woman would answer the door commenting on the children 's costumes and inviting them in. She would then instruct the children to take only one piece of candy from the bowl and excuse herself to another room. Self - awareness manipulation Self - awareness manipulation was the first of two conditions performed in Beaman, Diener, and Svanum 's experiment. The self - awareness manipulation condition was performed with a mirror placed at a ninety degree angle directly behind the entry - way table fifty percent of the time. The mirror was placed in such a way that the children could always see their reflection in the mirror when taking candy from the bowl ; the other half of the time there was no mirror in place and the children were left anonymous. Individuation manipulation There was some concern that the children involved in the study would only see their Halloween costumes and not their own self reflections, so a second condition was performed in Beaman, Diener, and Svanum 's experiment. This second condition was called individuation manipulation. The individuation manipulation condition was performed in the same way as the self - awareness manipulation. After greeting the children the woman at the door would ask each of the children their name and where he or she lived. These questions were asked in such a way that the children would think nothing of it because many other homes asked the children their names on Halloween night ; however, no effort was made to identify the children involved. Just as in the first condition, a mirror was used half of the time and was removed for the other half of the experiment. Results The children involved in the experiment were split into several different categories based on the results of the experiment. The criteria consisted of age, group size, and gender. Out of the 363 children involved in the study, 70 children transgressed when instructed not to. Children who arrived in groups were more likely to transgress than those children who arrived alone ; 20.4 % to 10.3 % respectively. Children arriving with adults were not included in the study. Gender The genders of those who participated in the study were recorded by the unobtrusive observer from behind the festive backdrop. Out of the 363 children, only 326 children 's genders could be determined because they were wearing Halloween costumes. Of those children whose genders could be determined there were 190 boys and 136 girls. While Cooley suggests that girls have a far higher impressionable social sensibility it was not the case in this study, as boys transgressed more often than girls. Fewer boys transgressed with the mirror present, than without ; 15.6 % to 35.8 %. This trend was the same for girls ; 8.4 % to 13.2 %. Year While the exact age of each child could not be determined due to the children 's anonymity, approximate ages were given to each child by the unobtrusive observer. The average age of the children was eight years old. The results of the study were split up into different categories based on the approximate age given to each child. The age groups were as follows : ages 1 -- 4, 5 -- 8, 9 -- 12 and 13 or older. The rate of transgression rose with the age of the child ; the 1 -- 4 year olds had a rate of transgression of only 6.5 % while the 5 -- 8 year olds transgressed 9.7 % of the time. The two older age groups transgressed far more often than the younger groups ; children aged 9 -- 12 transgressed 23.6 % of the time while the children aged 13 and older had a rate of transgression of 41.9 %. Family study The research article was included in the Journal of Family Psychology in 1998. The 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. The 51 participants of this study included four family members ( mother, father, college student and adolescent ) who returned surveys. The families were primarily white and middle class. The college student and adolescent were paid ten dollars each, if each family member completed the survey. 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 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 mother - adolescent 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. Critical perspectives 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 '. See also Psychology portal Sociology portal Expectancy effect Michelangelo phenomenon Self - concept Symbolic interactionism Notes Jump up ^ The term is sometimes hyphenated in the literature, sometimes not. Compare, for example, the titles of Shaffer ( 2005 ) and Yeung & Martin ( 2003 ), below. Jump up ^ From Charles Horton Cooley, Human Nature and the Social Order, New York : Scribner 's, 1902, pp. 152 : ^ Jump up to : Turner, J.C. ; Onorato, R.S. ( 1999 ). Tyler, T.R. ; Kramer, R.M. ; John, O.P., eds. `` Social identity, personality, and the self - concept : A self - categorization perspective ''. The psychology of the social self. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum : 11 -- 46. Jump up ^ David, B. ; Turner, J.C. ( 1992 ). `` Studies in self - categorization and minority conversion : Is being a member of the outgroup an advantage ? ''. British Journal of Social Psychology. 35 : 179 -- 200. doi : 10.1111 / j. 2044 - 8309.1996. tb01091. x. Jump up ^ Turner, J.C. ( 1991 ). Social influence. Milton Keynes : Open University Press. Jump up ^ Turner, J.C. ( 1999 ). Ellemers, N. ; Spears, R. ; Doosje, B., eds. `` Some current issues in research on social identity and self - categorization theories ''. Social identity. Oxford : Blackwell : 6 -- 34. References McGraw Hill Ryerson `` Challenge and Change : Patterns, Trends and Shifts in Society '' New York : 2012 pp. 130 ISBN 0 - 07 - 094157 - 2 for quote `` '' In Cooley 's words, `` I am not what I think I am and I am not what you think I am ; I am what I think you think I am. '' `` '' Cooley, Charles H. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York : Scribner 's, 1902. Confer pp. 183 -- 184 for first use of the term `` looking glass self ''. Cooley, Charles H. On Self and Social Organization. Ed. Schubert Hans - Joachim. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1998. ISBN 0 - 226 - 11509 - 7. ( pp. 20 -- 22 ) Cook, William L., and Douglas, Emily M. `` The Looking Glass Self in Family Context : A Social Relations Analysis. '' Journal of Family Psychology 12, no. 3 ( 1998 ) : 299 -- 309. Coser, Lewis A., Masters of Sociological Thought : Ideas in Historical and Social Context, New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971. ISBN 0 - 15 - 555128 - 0. He has a chapter on Cooley and the Looking Glass Self. Hensley, Wayne. `` A Theory of the Valenced Other : The Intersection of the Looking - Glass - Self and Social Penetration. '' Social Behavior and Personality : An International Journal 24, no. 3 ( 1996 ) : 293 -- 308. McIntyre, Lisa. The Practical Skeptic : Core Concepts in Sociology. 3rd ed. New York : McGraw Hill, 2006. ISBN 0 - 07 - 288524 - 6. Shaffer, Leigh. `` From Mirror Self - Recognition to the Looking - Glass Self : Exploring the Justification Hypothesis. '' Journal of Clinical Psychology 61 ( January 2005 ) : 47 -- 65. Starks, Rodney. Sociology. 10th ed. Belmont, CA : Thomson Wadsworth, 2007. ISBN 0 - 495 - 09344 - 0. ( pp. 73 -- 75 ) Yeung, King - To, and Martin, John Levi. `` The Looking Glass Self : An Empirical Test and Elaboration. '' Social Forces 81, no. 3 ( 2003 ) : 843 -- 879. Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looking_glass_self&oldid=814918038 '' Categories : Conceptions of self Hidden categories : Articles lacking reliable references from April 2013 All articles lacking reliable references Articles needing additional references from April 2013 All articles needing additional references Wikipedia articles needing style editing from April 2013 All articles needing style editing Wikipedia articles needing style editing from December 2014 Articles with multiple maintenance issues All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from February 2013 All articles with specifically marked weasel - worded phrases Articles with specifically marked weasel - worded phrases from February 2013 Talk Contents About Wikipedia Čeština Deutsch Tiếng Việt 中文 Edit links This page was last edited on 11 December 2017, at 18 : 06. About Wikipedia

Question: who gave the concept of looking glass self
Answer: Charles Horton Cooley