Looking-glass self

This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (April 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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. Find sources: "Looking-glass self" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The term looking-glass self was created by American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley in 1902,^[1] and introduced into his work Human Nature and the Social Order. It is described as our reflection of how we think we appear to others.^[2] Essentially, people use others as a mirror to observe themselves, which is accomplished by imagining how one appears to others, then internalizing those imagined images.^[3] This can lead to one's self-evaluations becoming consistent with how other people perceive them.

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 the perception which others may hold of them.^[4]

Cooley takes into account three steps when defining "the looking glass self".^[1]

1) The imagination of our appearance from another person’s perspective

2) The imagination of the person's judgment of us.

3) An emotional reaction such as pride or shame, based on the judgment attributed to the other person.

As a result of the three step process, individuals may change their behavior based on what they feel other people think about them. In this way, social interaction acts as a "mirror" or a "looking-glass", 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 self-confidence. 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.

Social media reflects the mechanisms of the looking-glass self, as different forms of social media offer many 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, that is based on the judgements of others.^[5] 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?" Far different from face-to-face interactions, social media is intended to be accessible and public at all times. Users are constantly exposed to criticism and judgement from others, and so the cyber self can be 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.^[5] 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 X (previously Twitter), Instagram, and LinkedIn.^[5] 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 that their platforms offered a positive space to interact with others.^[6]

The negative effects 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.^[7] The feeling of shame and insufficient self-worth comes from traumatic experiences such as abuse, neglect, abandonment, shaming family situations, and harsh upbringing.^[7] Therefore, 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.^[8] 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, and they base this self-worth on other's opinions of them.^[9]

The term "looking-glass self" was coined by Cooley after extensive psychological testing in 1902.

In another study^[10] 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.

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.

In 2015,^[6] 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."^[6]

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.

With online communications becoming a prominent part of interpersonal relationships, a literature review^[11] conducted in 2022 suggested that the looking-glass self can be produced, reinforced, and reshaped by online media.

Emojis and memes work as tools that assist in an aspect that online text communications essentially cannot provide: visual expression. They offer other important and useful information about a persona that otherwise cannot be expressed or communicated through text, such as emotion, attitude, and voice. A survey^[11] collected from 460 respondents has statistically shown that 30.6% of them use emojis to shape how they are presented to other users, which suggests that online users utilize these visual components as a tool for self-expression and building personal images in online spaces. The reinforcement or shift in the looking-glass self is activated when users receive feedback from these attempts to better express their understanding of self through the usage of emojis and memes.

Thus, not only do emojis and memes help to simply express one’s personality and character, it plays a significant role in shifting the looking-glass self and how we perceive ourselves.

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.^[12] 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.^[13] 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.^[14] 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.^[12][15] 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 Sociometer Hypothesis was created by Mark R. Leary, Ellen S. Tambor, Sonja K. Terdal, Deborah L. Downs. Ultimately, the hypothesis aims to explain self-esteem as a measure of one’s acceptance into society (i.e. their inclusionary status), to indicate whether one is at risk of being socially ostracized. This ability is speculated to have evolved from monitoring the expressions as a method to gauge group membership.

Furthermore, it theorizes parts of the self are constructed based on qualities that are thought to be highly valued by others (i.e. intelligence, athleticism, temperament, etc). These values are reflected in how an individual weighs different domains of their self regarding desirability (i.e. traits that are perceived to be more socially sought out for hold greater significance). These values are then reflected in the evaluation of one’s self-esteem; that is, the higher the self-esteem, the more an individual perceives them as socially accepted and vice-versa. Hence why individuals with low esteem are thought to be sensitive to indicators of social acceptance, whereas those with high self-esteem are less susceptible.

Decreases in self-esteem are deemed as a warning sign that one’s interpersonal relationships may be at risk of being jeopardized. On the other hand, occasions that threaten one’s ego signal a decline in one's bonds. Ergo, in response to observing a change in their self-esteem, it is predicted that the individual will engage in maintenance behaviours.

Affect is also thought to be closely intertwined with self-esteem. As a byproduct of self-esteem, fluctuations are predicted to produce feelings of social anxiety.

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."^[17]

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).

• Expectancy effect
• Michelangelo phenomenon
• Self-concept
• Symbolic interactionism

• Beaman, AL; Klentz, B; Diener, E; Svanum, S (1979). "Self-awareness and transgression in children: two field studies". J Pers Soc Psychol. 37 (10): 1835–46. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1835. PMID 512839.
• 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.'"
• Cook, W. L.; Douglas, E. M. (1998). "The looking-glass self in family context: A social relations analysis". Journal of Family Psychology. 12 (3): 299–309. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.12.3.299.
• 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)
• 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 (1996). "A Theory of the Valenced Other: The Intersection of the Looking-Glass-Self and Social Penetration". Social Behavior and Personality. 24 (3): 293–308. doi:10.2224/sbp.1996.24.3.293.
• 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; Martin, John Levi (2003). "The Looking Glass Self: An Empirical Test and Elaboration". Social Forces. 81 (3): 843–879. doi:10.1353/sof.2003.0048. S2CID 143702092.