presentation of looking glass self

Looking Glass Theory

The Looking Glass Theory: Understanding the Reflection of Self

The Looking Glass Theory, also known as the Mirror Theory, is a concept within social psychology that explores how our self-perception is influenced by the way others perceive and interact with us. Coined by American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley in 1902 , this theory examines how we develop our sense of self through social interactions and feedback from others.

Psychologists largely agree that our self-concepts centers on our perceptions of how we fit into our different social roles . Consequently, public interactions has an influential impact on our construction of self concepts. Dianne Tice, PhD. explains that “because the self is publicly constructed in relation to others, public events should have greater impact on self-concept than private events” ( Tice, 1992 ).

The looking glass theory adds to our understanding of self, and varying roles we play in society. T. Franklin Murphy wrote, “people act differently in different roles. Some characteristics, values, and proclivities bleed through role boundaries but in many ways, our personalities transform, absorbing characteristics that fit the particular social role” ( Murphy, 2021 ).

Key Definition:

The Looking Glass Theory , also known as the Cooley’s Looking-Glass Self, is a sociological concept proposed by Charles Horton Cooley. It suggests that a person’s self-concept is primarily formed through their perception of how others view them.

The Basics of the Looking Glass Theory

The sense of self.

One of the most basic psychological concepts is the foundational sense of self. We see the world through the basic lens of self. Cooley explains, “the emotion or feeling of self may be regarded as an instinct, doubtless evolved in connection with its important function in stimulating and unifying the special activities of individuals.” Our goals, desires, and world conforms to the foundational framework of self.

We prefer to see the self as consistent and unwavering but, in reality, we vary within different c ontexts . Concepts such as the “ true self ” lose validity when we understand the flexibility and altering nature of our self in different environments. However, we do have many biological constraints on our variability. Cooley wrote that the self “seems to exist in a vague though vigorous form at the birth of each individual, and, like other instinctive ideas or germs of ideas, to be defined and developed by experience, becoming associated, or rather incorporated, with muscular, visual and other sensations; with perceptions, apperceptions and conceptions of every degree of complexity and of infinite variety of content; and, especially, with personal ideas.”

He continues, “Meantime the feeling itself does not remain unaltered, but undergoes differentiation and refinement just as does any other sort of crude innate feeling. Thus, while retaining under every phase its characteristic tone or flavor, it breaks up into innumerable self-sentiments” (Cooley, 1902, p. 139). From here emerges Cooley’s concepts of the looking glass in the formation of self-concepts.

Three Main Components of Looking Glass Theory

According to the Looking Glass Theory, our self-concept is not solely based on our personal thoughts and beliefs about ourselves. Instead, our perception of self is shaped by how we imagine others perceive us. Here’s a breakdown of the three main components of this theory:

• Imagination of Others’ Perception : We often try to imagine how others perceive us. We absorb cues such as their verbal and non-verbal cues, body language, and reactions. Basically, we scan others for cues to their internal perceptions.
• Interpretation of Others’ Evaluation : Once we have imagined how others perceive us, we interpret their evaluation. We step into their mind, so to speak, through a process we refer to in psychology as theory of mind . If we interpret that someone sees us as intelligent, attractive, or talented, we tend to internalize those perceptions. On the other hand, if we sense negative evaluation, we might develop a negative self-image.
• Emotional Response : The final stage involves emotions. Our interpretation of others’ evaluation influences our emotions, which can either boost or diminish our self-esteem . Positive evaluation tends to make us feel good about ourselves, whereas negative evaluation may lead to feelings of self-doubt and insecurity. The point here is we respond emotionally to our interpretations, whether those interpretations are accurate or not. Cooley specifically names “pride and shame” as the feeling responses to our interpretation ( Schreff, 2005) .

Cooley explains that our self-concepts are not fixed or stagnant but changeable based on continuous social interactions. The feedback we receive from others shapes our perceptions of ourselves, and this process continues throughout our lives. Basically, Cooley’s theory suggests that our self-concepts are derived passively, through conforming to data we receive from others ( Franks & Gecas, 1992 ).

Perhaps, this is correct. However, many theorist believe we can intervene in the development of self concepts through the addiction of reflected appraisals.

We live in the minds of others. They perceive us a certain way. Just as we perceive others. Imaginatively, we enter their minds, absorb how we believe they perceive us, and then these imaginative journeys evoke emotions.

Looking Glass Self and Distorted Mirrors

Recently, I met up with a childhood friend for dinner. He was in the area on business and we haven’t spoken in several decades. We reminisced about our childhood friendship. Interestingly, he perceived me as a much different person than I perceived myself. He pointed out character strengths and attitudes that I felt resembled those I respected but certainly not the child I perceived myself to be. Consequently, because of these perceptions he had of me, the mirror he looked into was distorted when imagining how I perceived him.

When we see someone as confident and courageous, but really they are frightened and protective, we may misread symbols from their expressions and words, falsely interpreting their perceptions, and accordingly internalizing faulty messages of self-concepts.

Implications and Criticisms

The Looking Glass Theory has several implications in understanding human behavior and social interactions:

• Self-Fulfilling Prophecy : When we internalize others’ perceptions of us, it can affect our behavior and attitude. For example, if someone constantly tells us we’re not good enough, we might start believing it and act accordingly. This theory highlights the power of words and their impact on self-perception.
• Perceived Social Identity : Our self-concept is not only influenced by individual interactions but also by social groups we belong to. We may seek validation and acceptance from specific social circles, which further shapes our self-perception within those contexts.
• Influence on Relationships : The Looking Glass Theory reminds us of the importance of providing positive and constructive feedback to others. It highlights how our evaluations and interactions with others can deeply affect their self-esteem and overall well-being.

Critics of the theory argue that it oversimplifies the complexity of self-perception, disregarding personal internal experiences and the role of individual cognition. However, the theory remains a valuable framework for understanding how social interactions impact our self-perception and overall sense of self.

Other Associated Theories

The Looking Glass Self theory, proposed by Charles Horton Cooley, is closely associated with the broader school of thought known as  Symbolic Interactionism . This sociological perspective emphasizes the role of social interaction in the development of self and society. Here are some theories and concepts related to the Looking Glass Self:

• Symbolic Interactionism : This framework suggests that people develop and rely upon the process of social interaction to create a sense of self and to interpret the meanings of their social world.
• George Herbert Mead’s Social Behaviorism : Mead’s theory complements Cooley’s by explaining how the self is constructed through role-taking, where individuals take the perspective of others to understand social situations.
• Erving Goffman’s Self- Presentation Theory : Goffman’s dramaturgical analysis describes how people present themselves in various social roles, akin to actors on a stage, which aligns with Cooley’s ideas about the self being shaped by social interactions.

These theories collectively contribute to our understanding of how individuals perceive themselves through the ‘mirrors’ of social interaction. They highlight the importance of the perceptions, interpretations, and reactions of others in shaping one’s self-concept.

The Looking Glass Theory emphasizes the pivotal role social interactions play in shaping our self-concept. By understanding how others perceive us and the interpretations we make, we can gain insight into how our self-esteem and self-image are continually evolving. This theory serves as a reminder of the importance of positive feedback, empathy, and supportive relationships in nurturing a healthy sense of self.

Last Update: April 10, 2024

Type your email…

References:

Cooley, Charles Horton ( 1902 ). Human Nature and the Social Order.

Franks, David; Gecas, Viktor ( 1992 ). Autonomy and Conformity in Cooley’s Self‐Theory: The Looking‐Glass Self and Beyond. Symbolic Interaction, 15(1) . DOI: 10.1525/si.1992.15.1.49

Murphy, T. Franklin ( 2021 ). Self-Complexity. Psychology Fanatic . Published 6-30-2021, Accessed 12-8-2023.

Scheff, Thomas J. ( 2005 ). Looking‐Glass Self: Goffman as Symbolic Interactionist. Symbolic Interaction, 28(2). DOI: 10.1525/si.2005.28.2.147

Tice, Dianne M. ( 1992 ). Self-Concept Change and Self-Presentation: The Looking Glass Self Is Also a Magnifying Glass. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 435-451. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.435

Resources and Articles

Please visit Psychology Fanatic’s vast selection of articles , definitions and database of referenced books .

Topic Specific Databases:

PSYCHOLOGY – EMOTIONS – RELATIONSHIPS – WELLNESS – PSYCHOLOGY TOPICS

Share this:

About the author.

T. Franklin Murphy

Related posts.

Subjective Reality: A Cognitive Process

Subjective reality refers to an individual's unique perception influenced by emotions, beliefs, experiences, and culture. It shapes cognition, memory, and relationships. Understanding it is crucial…

Read More »

Self-Aspects

Through self-aspects we see ourselves as good, evil, or competent. Context often influences the self aspect drawing our attention.

Perception: A Cognitive Process

Perception is the intricate lens through which we understand the world. It involves sensory input, cognition, biases, and cultural influences. Various psychological theories and strategies…

Ideal self is an image of the self that we desire to be. Ideal self images motivates goal directed behaviors and impose self sanctions.

Psychologist’s Fallacy

The psychologist's fallacy, coined by William James, involves mistaking subjective conclusions for objective truths. Our personal experiences and biases heavily influence our interpretations of others'…

Idealization of Self-Image: A Defense Mechanism

The idealization of self-image is a defense mechanism to protect self-esteem. While providing temporary relief, it can lead to distorted perception and hinder personal growth.…

Discover more from Psychology Fanatic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

• Corrections

The Theory of Self-Image: The Concept of the Looking-Glass Self

How do others influence our self-image? What can a looking-glass reveal about ourselves?

George Horton Cooley was one of the first sociologists to understand how deeply we are affected by others in our self-perception. What we think of ourselves is directly tied to how others see us, or rather by how we think they see us. Cooley suggested that other people act like a looking-glass for our Self-Image. Today, we know that he was right in his intuition. But how does this process work exactly? And what does it entail for our everyday lives?

Self-Image and the Looking-Glass Self in George Horton Cooley’s Work

Usually, when we think about Self-Image, we think about something that originates in ourselves. After all, that’s why it’s called Self-Image: it’s how we view ourselves, what we think about ourselves, and so on. Even though this is true, Self-Image is heavily influenced by what’s happening around us, especially by other people.

Let’s think about it. How many of the things that we say about ourselves are based on something we heard someone else say about us? Let’s think about how we are perceived by every person we know. Truth be told, we can be sure that every person we know has a different vision of us based on their personal experience.

This phenomenon is masterfully depicted in novel form by Luigi Pirandello, an Italian dramatist and poet who received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1932. Some of his farces are rightfully considered precursors to the Theatre of the Absurd (facing the meaninglessness of the world became most important for Western culture, as we can also see in Albert Camus’ work ).

Get the latest articles delivered to your inbox

Please check your inbox to activate your subscription.

Many of Pirandello’s novels deal with the theme of identity, but we want to take a look at one of his most-known works, which is “One, No One and One Hundred Thousand.” The protagonist, Vitangelo Moscarda, one day looks at himself in the mirror, and he starts to realize something he has never thought about before. Vitangelo Moscarda is not a single person. There are as many Vitangelo Moscarda as the people who know him.

His wife knows one version of Vitangelo Moscarda; each of his friends knows a different Vitangelo Moscarda, and so on. Vitangelo Moscarda is all of these personas but is also someone completely different at the same time. That’s where the title of the novel comes from: Vitangelo Moscarda is one, no one, and one hundred thousand personas.

What this tells us is that there are many versions of us, as they are perceived by every person we know. Even if the theme of identity was already explored in philosophy by authors such as David Hume , in the 20th century this became one of the most prominent fields of research both in philosophy and in psychology. George Horton Cooley studied this phenomenon from a different perspective, asking how our Self-Image is influenced by the reflection cast upon us by other people.

What other people think about me will have a direct influence on how I perceive myself. This is explained by Cooley through the Looking-Glass Self theory.

The Three Components of the Looking-Glass Self

Cooley introduced the Looking-Glass Self concept to explain how our Self-Image is (at least partially) a product of what other people think about us. This process has three stages.

In the first stage, we imagine how we must appear to others in social situations. Let’s make a quick and easy everyday life example. Let’s say I’m attending a work-related interview. I want to make a good impression, so I’m dressing up for the occasion, and I try to sound as confident as possible when I speak. In this first stage, I’m thinking about how I must appear to my could-be future boss. It doesn’t matter if my opinion about myself is positive or negative: at this stage, I’m just imagining how I must look to the other person, and there’s no judgment involved yet.

In the second stage, we imagine and react to what we feel the other person’s judgment is to said appearance. Looking back at our example, during my interview, I’m constantly checking how my interviewer is behaving. I try to study what he says, both verbally and non-verbally, to understand what he must think of me.

There’s something that should be underlined about this second stage. We don’t react to what the other person’s judgment is. We react to what we feel their judgment is. This is something completely different: I’m not reacting to what the other person is saying or doing (or not saying and doing) but to my interpretation of what they are saying or doing. Which, of course, is influenced by my background.

Let’s go back to our example. While I talk to my interviewer, I see that he sometimes nods his head. I could take this as a good sign: he must be liking what I’m saying. Of course, this could be true, but it could also be that the other person is nodding just as a personal habit.

In the third stage, we develop our sense of self and respond through this perceived judgment of others. Once again, let’s continue with our example. After seeing my interviewer nodding multiple times, I begin to think that I must be a good speaker. I think that I succeeded in being confident during my interview, so my Self-Image will reflect that going forward.

Of course, this process is not so streamlined in real life, as the process is much longer and much more complicated. Our Self-Image obviously cannot be easily shaped in the course of a single conversation. But in the end, this is basically what forms our Self-Image, at least according to Cooley.

Do Other People Shape Our Self-Image?

The purpose of the Looking-Glass Self concept is to explain our tendency to understand ourselves through the perception others have of us. Let’s go back to Pirandello’s Vitangelo Moscarda. What changes Vitangelo’s life is this exact realization. He finds it difficult to describe himself without using something that others would say about him.

Now, we should inquire further on this matter. Do other people shape our Self-Image? The answer is, of course, yes (this echoes what Sartre thought of the matter , to a certain degree). There are countless studies on this matter, and even if we don’t know if this process works exactly as Cooley described it, his theory is still an interesting take on what happens in social relations.

Today, we know that the way parents react to what their children say and do is very important. The child’s self-image is heavily reliant on their parent’s reactions. If a child is constantly scolded and yelled at, this will have a deeply negative effect on their Self-Image. It will take a long time before this scar can be healed while the child is growing up.

But other people influence our Self-Image throughout our lives, and not only during childhood. The more important we think a person is, the deeper the effect their view has on us. What we feel our parents think of us (if we have a good relationship with them, that is) will always have a greater impact on us than something said by a stranger. Every significant other will deeply affect our Self-Image in one way or another.

The Looking-Glass Self, Self-Image, and Self-esteem

The fact that we can influence people’s Self-Image so deeply leaves us with a great deal of responsibility towards others. Everything that we do and say has an impact on other people, especially those who are dearest to us. For the longest time, we did not give words and gestures the importance they have. We did not value enough how something we do or say can change how another person looks at themselves.

It should be clear from this that the Looking-Glass Self concept is tied not only to Self-Image but to Self-esteem as well. One person’s Self-esteem does not rely solely on his personality. Self-esteem is built over time and heavily depends on external support. If a person feels they’re getting a negative reflection from other people, they will probably build a negative view of themselves over time.

There are life stages at which people are much more sensitive to their peers’ judgment. We have already talked about children. Children’s Self-Image is heavily reliant on their parents’ reflections. To put it simply, children don’t know who they are yet. Try asking a child how they would describe themselves: they will probably answer using something that their parents or another significant adult have said in the past about them.

Another critical life stage is adolescence. At this point, the person’s Self is undergoing a dramatic change, abandoning who they were as kids and trying to make out who they will be as adults. If a person does not get positive feedback about who they are becoming during this age, this could potentially lead to serious emotional damage, which could, in turn, lead to social anxiety, depression, and more.

Parents still play an important role during a person’s adolescence, and they can still help out their children by providing positive feedback, but teenagers will most likely give their peers’ opinions more weight, thus giving them the power to shape their Self-Image. This is why teenagers strive so hard to be accepted by their peers: it’s crucial for shaping their Self-Image and Self-esteem.

Of course, we are making things seem a little more streamlined than they are in real life, but this is basically what happens to our Self-Image during our lives. We are constantly shaped by what other people think of us, whether we are aware of that or not.

And even if childhood and adolescence are probably the most delicate phases for building Self-Image, this process does not stop there. Throughout our lives, we are still subject to other people’s opinions, to what we feel they think of us. This will always affect our Self-Image, even during adulthood.

What we should conclude from this is that we play a crucial role in how the people around us see themselves. Our parents, our children, our partners, our friends, our colleagues, our neighbors, and so on are all affected by our vision of them. We should never underestimate what we can do to help a person in building a positive Self-Image (in terms of importance, we can add this lesson to what philosophy teaches us about love ). This is ultimately the most important lesson that we can take from George Horton Cooley’s Looking-Glass Self.

Albert Camus on Absurd Creation: Art as a Reaction to Meaninglessness

By Nicolo Bicego MA Psychology, MA Philosophy Nicolo holds a Master’s Degree in Psychology and a Master’s Degree in Philosophy, his main passions alongside writing. His alma mater is the University of Pisa and his main academic interests include philosophy of the mind, social philosophy, study of emotions and intersubjectivity.

Frequently Read Together

Hume on Personal Identity: Who Are We?

“Hell Is Other People”: Sartre’s Famous Quote Explained

Who am I? The Philosophy of Personal Identity

Impression Management: Erving Goffman Theory

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

• Impression management refers to the goal-directed conscious or unconscious attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object, or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction.
• Generally, people undertake impression management to achieve goals that require they have a desired public image. This activity is called self-presentation.
• In sociology and social psychology, self-presentation is the conscious or unconscious process through which people try to control the impressions other people form of them.
• The goal is for one to present themselves the way in which they would like to be thought of by the individual or group they are interacting with. This form of management generally applies to the first impression.
• Erving Goffman popularized the concept of perception management in his book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , where he argues that impression management not only influences how one is treated by other people but is an essential part of social interaction.

Impression Management in Sociology

Impression management, also known as self-presentation, refers to the ways that people attempt to control how they are perceived by others (Goffman, 1959).

By conveying particular impressions about their abilities, attitudes, motives, status, emotional reactions, and other characteristics, people can influence others to respond to them in desirable ways.

Impression management is a common way for people to influence one another in order to obtain various goals.

While earlier theorists (e.g., Burke, 1950; Hart & Burk, 1972) offered perspectives on the person as a performer, Goffman (1959) was the first to develop a specific theory concerning self-presentation.

In his well-known work, Goffman created the foundation and the defining principles of what is commonly referred to as impression management.

In explicitly laying out a purpose for his work, Goffman (1959) proposes to “consider the ways in which the individual in ordinary work situations presents himself and his activity to others, the ways in which he guides and controls the impression they form of him, and the kind of things he may or may not do while sustaining his performance before them.” (p. xi)

Social Interaction

Goffman viewed impression management not only as a means of influencing how one is treated by other people but also as an essential part of social interaction.

He communicates this view through the conceit of theatre. Actors give different performances in front of different audiences, and the actors and the audience cooperate in negotiating and maintaining the definition of a situation.

To Goffman, the self was not a fixed thing that resides within individuals but a social process. For social interactions to go smoothly, every interactant needs to project a public identity that guides others’ behaviors (Goffman, 1959, 1963; Leary, 2001; Tseelon, 1992).

Goffman defines that when people enter the presence of others, they communicate information by verbal intentional methods and by non-verbal unintentional methods.

According to Goffman, individuals participate in social interactions through performing a “line” or “a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts by which he expresses his view of the situation and through this his evaluation of the participants, especially himself” (1967, p. 5).

Such lines are created and maintained by both the performer and the audience. By enacting a line effectively, a person gains positive social value or “face.”

The verbal intentional methods allow us to establish who we are and what we wish to communicate directly. We must use these methods for the majority of the actual communication of data.

Goffman is mostly interested in the non-verbal clues given off which are less easily manipulated. When these clues are manipulated the receiver generally still has the upper hand in determining how realistic the clues that are given off are.

People use these clues to determine how to treat a person and if the intentional verbal responses given off are actually honest. It is also known that most people give off clues that help to represent them in a positive light, which tends to be compensated for by the receiver.

Impression Management Techniques

• Suppressing emotions : Maintaining self-control (which we will identify with such practices as speaking briefly and modestly).
• Conforming to Situational Norms : The performer follows agreed-upon rules for behavior in the organization.
• Flattering Others : The performer compliments the perceiver. This tactic works best when flattery is not extreme and when it involves a dimension important to the perceiver.
• Being Consistent : The performer’s beliefs and behaviors are consistent. There is agreement between the performer’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors.

Self-Presentation Examples

Self-presentation can affect the emotional experience . For example, people can become socially anxious when they are motivated to make a desired impression on others but doubt that they can do so successfully (Leary, 2001).

In one paper on self-presentation and emotional experience, Schlenker and Leary (1982) argue that, in contrast to the drive models of anxiety, the cognitive state of the individual mediates both arousal and behavior.

The researchers examine the traditional inverted-U anxiety-performance curve (popularly known as the Yerkes-Dodson law) in this light.

The researchers propose that people are interpersonally secure when they do not have the goal of creating a particular impression on others.

They are not immediately concerned about others’ evaluative reactions in a social setting where they are attempting to create a particular impression and believe that they will be successful in doing so.

Meanwhile, people are anxious when they are uncertain about how to go about creating a certain impression (such as when they do not know what sort of attributes the other person is likely to be impressed with), think that they will not be able to project the types of images that will produce preferred reactions from others.

Such people think that they will not be able to project the desired image strongly enough or believe that some event will happen that will repudiate their self-presentations, causing reputational damage (Schlenker and Leary, 1982).

Psychologists have also studied impression management in the context of mental and physical health .

In one such study, Braginsky et al. (1969) showed that those hospitalized with schizophrenia modify the severity of their “disordered” behavior depending on whether making a more or less “disordered” impression would be most beneficial to them (Leary, 2001).

Additional research on university students shows that people may exaggerate or even fabricate reports of psychological distress when doing so for their social goals.

Hypochondria appears to have self-presentational features where people convey impressions of illness and injury, when doing so helps to drive desired outcomes such as eliciting support or avoiding responsibilities (Leary, 2001).

People can also engage in dangerous behaviors for self-presentation reasons such as suntanning, unsafe sex, and fast driving. People may also refuse needed medical treatment if seeking this medical treatment compromises public image (Leary et al., 1994).

Key Components

There are several determinants of impression management, and people have many reasons to monitor and regulate how others perceive them.

For example, social relationships such as friendship, group membership, romantic relationships, desirable jobs, status, and influence rely partly on other people perceiving the individual as being a particular kind of person or having certain traits.

Because people’s goals depend on them making desired impressions over undesired impressions, people are concerned with the impressions other people form of them.

Although people appear to monitor how they come across ongoingly, the degree to which they are motivated to impression manage and the types of impressions they try to foster varies by situation and individuals (Leary, 2001).

Leary and Kowalski (1990) say that there are two processes that constitute impression management, each of which operate according to different principles and are affected by different situations and dispositional aspects. The first of these processes is impression motivation, and the second is impression construction.

Impression Motivation

There are three main factors that affect how much people are motivated to impression-manage in a situation (Leary and Kowalski, 1990):

(1) How much people believe their public images are relevant to them attaining their desired goals.

When people believe that their public image is relevant to them achieving their goals, they are generally more motivated to control how others perceive them (Leary, 2001).

Conversely, when the impressions of other people have few implications on one’s outcomes, that person’s motivation to impression-manage will be lower.

This is why people are more likely to impression manage in their interactions with powerful, high-status people than those who are less powerful and have lower status (Leary, 2001).

(2) How valuable the goals are: people are also more likely to impress and manage the more valuable the goals for which their public impressions are relevant (Leary, 2001).

(3) how much of a discrepancy there is between how they want to be perceived and how they believe others perceive them..

People are more highly motivated to impression-manage when there is a difference between how they want to be perceived and how they believe others perceive them.

For example, public scandals and embarrassing events that convey undesirable impressions can cause people to make self-presentational efforts to repair what they see as their damaged reputations (Leary, 2001).

Impression Construction

Features of the social situations that people find themselves in, as well as their own personalities, determine the nature of the impressions that they try to convey.

In particular, Leary and Kowalski (1990) name five sets of factors that are especially important in impression construction (Leary, 2001).

Two of these factors include how people’s relationships with themselves (self-concept and desired identity), and three involve how people relate to others (role constraints, target value, and current or potential social image) (Leary and Kowalski, 1990).

Self-concept

The impressions that people try to create are influenced not only by social context but also by one’s own self-concept .

People usually want others to see them as “how they really are” (Leary, 2001), but this is in tension with the fact that people must deliberately manage their impressions in order to be viewed accurately by others (Goffman, 1959).

People’s self-concepts can also constrain the images they try to convey.

People often believe that it is unethical to present impressions of themselves different from how they really are and generally doubt that they would successfully be able to sustain a public image inconsistent with their actual characteristics (Leary, 2001).

This risk of failure in portraying a deceptive image and the accompanying social sanctions deter people from presenting impressions discrepant from how they see themselves (Gergen, 1968; Jones and Pittman, 1982; Schlenker, 1980).

People can differ in how congruent their self-presentations are with their self-perceptions.

People who are high in public self-consciousness have less congruency between their private and public selves than those lower in public self-consciousness (Tunnell, 1984; Leary and Kowalski, 1990).

Desired identity

People’s desired and undesired selves – how they wish to be and not be on an internal level – also influence the images that they try to project.

Schlenker (1985) defines a desirable identity image as what a person “would like to be and thinks he or she really can be, at least at his or her best.”

People have a tendency to manage their impressions so that their images coincide with their desired selves and stay away from images that coincide with their undesired selves (Ogilivie, 1987; Schlenker, 1985; Leary, 2001).

This happens when people publicly claim attributes consistent with their desired identity and openly reject identities that they do not want to be associated with.

For example, someone who abhors bigots may take every step possible to not appear bigoted, and Gergen and Taylor (1969) showed that high-status navel cadets did not conform to low-status navel cadets because they did not want to see themselves as conformists (Leary and Kowalski, 1990).

Target value

people tailor their self-presentations to the values of the individuals whose perceptions they are concerned with.

This may lead to people sometimes fabricating identities that they think others will value.

However, more commonly, people selectively present truthful aspects of themselves that they believe coincide with the values of the person they are targeting the impression to and withhold information that they think others will value negatively (Leary, 2001).

Role constraints

the content of people’s self-presentations is affected by the roles that they take on and the norms of their social context.

In general, people want to convey impressions consistent with their roles and norms .

Many roles even carry self-presentational requirements around the kinds of impressions that the people who hold the roles should and should not convey (Leary, 2001).

Current or potential social image

People’s public image choices are also influenced by how they think they are perceived by others. As in impression motivation, self-presentational behaviors can often be aimed at dispelling undesired impressions that others hold about an individual.

When people believe that others have or are likely to develop an undesirable impression of them, they will typically try to refute that negative impression by showing that they are different from how others believe them to be.

When they are not able to refute this negative impression, they may project desirable impressions in other aspects of their identity (Leary, 2001).

Implications

In the presence of others, few of the behaviors that people make are unaffected by their desire to maintain certain impressions. Even when not explicitly trying to create a particular impression of themselves, people are constrained by concerns about their public image.

Generally, this manifests with people trying not to create undesired impressions in virtually all areas of social life (Leary, 2001).

Tedeschi et al. (1971) argued that phenomena that psychologists previously attributed to peoples’ need to have cognitive consistency actually reflected efforts to maintain an impression of consistency in others’ eyes.

Studies have supported Tedeschi and their colleagues’ suggestion that phenomena previously attributed to cognitive dissonance were actually affected by self-presentational processes (Schlenker, 1980).

Psychologists have applied self-presentation to their study of phenomena as far-ranging as conformity, aggression, prosocial behavior, leadership, negotiation, social influence, gender, stigmatization, and close relationships (Baumeister, 1982; Leary, 1995; Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi, 1981).

Each of these studies shows that people’s efforts to make impressions on others affect these phenomena, and, ultimately, that concerns self-presentation in private social life.

For example, research shows that people are more likely to be pro-socially helpful when their helpfulness is publicized and behave more prosocially when they desire to repair a damaged social image by being helpful (Leary, 2001).

In a similar vein, many instances of aggressive behavior can be explained as self-presentational efforts to show that someone is willing to hurt others in order to get their way.

This can go as far as gender roles, for which evidence shows that men and women behave differently due to the kind of impressions that are socially expected of men and women.

Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3-26.

Braginsky, B. M., Braginsky, D. D., & Ring, K. (1969). Methods of madness: The mental hospital as a last resort. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Buss, A. H., & Briggs, S. (1984). Drama and the self in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1310-1324. Gergen, K. J. (1968). Personal consistency and the presentation of self. In C. Gordon & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), The self in social interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 299-308). New York: Wiley.

Gergen, K. J., & Taylor, M. G. (1969). Social expectancy and self-presentation in a status hierarchy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 79-92.

Goffman, E. (1959). The moral career of the mental patient. Psychiatry, 22(2), 123-142.

• Goffman, E. (1963). Embarrassment and social organization.

Goffman, E. (1978). The presentation of self in everyday life (Vol. 21). London: Harmondsworth.

Goffman, E. (2002). The presentation of self in everyday life. 1959. Garden City, NY, 259.

Martey, R. M., & Consalvo, M. (2011). Performing the looking-glass self: Avatar appearance and group identity in Second Life. Popular Communication, 9 (3), 165-180.

Jones E E (1964) Ingratiation. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. Psychological perspectives on the self, 1(1), 231-262.

Leary M R (1995) Self-presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal Behaior. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Leary, M. R.. Impression Management, Psychology of, in Smelser, N. J., & Baltes, P. B. (Eds.). (2001). International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 11). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological bulletin, 107(1), 34.

Leary M R, Tchvidjian L R, Kraxberger B E 1994 Self-presentation may be hazardous to your health. Health Psychology 13: 461–70.

Ogilvie, D. M. (1987). The undesired self: A neglected variable in personality research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 379-385.

• Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management (Vol. 222). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 65-99). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization model. Psychological bulletin, 92(3), 641.

Tedeschi, J. T, Smith, R. B., Ill, & Brown, R. C., Jr. (1974). A reinterpretation of research on aggression. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 540- 563.

Tseëlon, E. (1992). Is the presented self sincere? Goffman, impression management and the postmodern self. Theory, culture & society, 9(2), 115-128.

Tunnell, G. (1984). The discrepancy between private and public selves: Public self-consciousness and its correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 549-555.

Further Information

• Solomon, J. F., Solomon, A., Joseph, N. L., & Norton, S. D. (2013). Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: Insights from Erving Goffman. Accounting, organizations and society, 38(3), 195-213.
• Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of management, 14(2), 321-338.
• Scheff, T. J. (2005). Looking‐Glass self: Goffman as symbolic interactionist. Symbolic interaction, 28(2), 147-166.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

7.7: Roles and the Presentation of Self

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 60140
• Lumen Learning

Learning Outcomes

• Describe how individuals present themselves and perceive themselves in a social context

Status and Roles

Sociologists use the term status to describe the responsibilities and benefits that a person experiences according to their rank and role in society. Some statuses are ascribed —those you do not select, such as son, elderly person, or female. Others, called achieved statuses , are obtained by choice, such as high school dropout, self-made millionaire, or nurse. As a daughter or son, you occupy a different status than as a neighbor or employee.

As you can imagine, people employ many types of behaviors in day-to-day life. Roles are patterns of behavior that we recognize in each other, and that are representative of a person’s social status. Currently, while reading this text, you are playing the role of a student. However, you also play other roles in your life, such as “daughter,” “neighbor,” or “employee.” These various roles are each associated with a different status.

If too much is required of a single role, individuals can experience role strain . Consider the duties of a parent: cooking, cleaning, driving, problem-solving, acting as a source of moral guidance—the list goes on. Similarly, a person can experience role conflict when one or more roles are contradictory. A parent who also has a full-time career can experience role conflict on a daily basis. When there is a deadline at the office but a sick child needs to be picked up from school, which comes first? When you are working toward a promotion but your children want you to come to their school play, which do you choose? Being a college student can conflict with being an employee, being an athlete, or even being a friend. Our roles in life powerfully affect our decisions and help to shape our identities.

One person can be associated with a multitude of roles and statuses. Even a single status such as “student” has a complex role-set , or array of roles, attached to it (Merton 1957).

https://assessments.lumenlearning.co...essments/13312

Presentation of Self

Of course, it is impossible to look inside a person’s head and study what role they are playing. All we can observe is outward behavior, or role performance. Role performance is how a person expresses his or her role. Sociologist Erving Goffman presented the idea that a person is like an actor on a stage. Calling his theory dramaturgy , Goffman believed that we use impression management to present ourselves to others as we hope to be perceived. Each situation is a new scene, and individuals perform different roles depending on who is present (Goffman 1959). Think about the way you behave around your coworkers versus the way you behave around your grandparents or with a blind date. Even if you’re not consciously trying to alter your personality, your grandparents, coworkers, and date probably see different sides of you.

Watch the following video to learn more about Erving Goffmann’s concept of dramaturgical analysis and consider the various roles you play on the different “stages” of your life. What is your front-stage self and your back-stage self?

An interactive or media element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: http://pb.libretexts.org/its/?p=170

As in a play, the setting matters as well. If you have a group of friends over to your house for dinner, you are playing the role of a host. It is agreed upon that you will provide food and seating and probably be stuck with a lot of the cleanup at the end of the night. Similarly, your friends are playing the roles of guests, and they are expected to respect your property and any rules you may set forth (“Don’t leave the door open or the cat will get out.”). In any scene, there needs to be a shared reality between players. In this case, if you view yourself as a guest and others view you as a host, there are likely to be problems.

Impression management is a critical component of symbolic interactionism. For example, a judge in a courtroom has many “props” to create an impression of fairness, gravity, and control—like her robe and gavel. Those entering the courtroom are expected to adhere to the scene being set. Just imagine the “impression” that can be made by how a person dresses. This is the reason that attorneys frequently select the hairstyle and apparel for witnesses and defendants in courtroom proceedings.

https://assessments.lumenlearning.co...essments/13314

Again, Goffman’s dramaturgical approach expands on the ideas of Charles Cooley and the looking-glass self . We imagine how we must appear to others, then react to this speculation. We put on certain clothes, prepare our hair in a particular manner, wear makeup, use colog ne, and the like—all with the notion that our presentation of ourselves is going to affect how others perceive us. We expect a certain reaction, and, if lucky, we get the one we desire and feel good about it. But more than that, Cooley believed that our sense of self is based upon this idea: we imagine how we look to others, draw conclusions based upon their reactions to us, and then we develop our personal sense of self. In other words, people’s reactions to us are like a mirror in which we are reflected.

Watch this Khan Academy video to learn more about Charles Cooley’s looking-glass self.

Think It Over

• Describe a situation in which you have tried to influence others’ perception of you? How does Goffman’s impression management apply to this situation?
• Draw a large circle, and then “slice” the c ircle into pieces like a pie, labeling each piece with a role or status that you occupy. Add as many statuses, ascribed and achieved, that you have. Don’t forget things like dog owner, gardener, traveler, student, runner, employee. How many statuses do you have? In which ones are there role conflicts?

https://assessments.lumenlearning.co...essments/13313

• Modification, adaptation, and original content. Authored by : Sarah Hoiland for Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Social Constructions of Reality. Authored by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : Home . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected] .
• Charles Cooley Looking Glass Self. Authored by : Brooke Miller. Provided by : Khan Academy. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/embed/XCxe9HbfJcM?enablejsapi=1 . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
• Dramaturgy (Dramaturgical Analysis). Provided by : Sociology Live!. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=5Qe5TI__ZDU . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

Looking-Glass Self

Looking-glass self definition.

Looking-Glass Self History and Modern Usage

The looking-glass self was first proposed by Charles Horton Cooley. According to Cooley, self-perceptions are based on reflected appraisals of how others see us (i.e., our impression of others’ impressions of us), which are in turn based on how others actually see us.

The looking-glass self theory is controversial for two reasons. First, this view supposes that people have a good idea of how significant others see them. Psychological research reveals that people’s beliefs about how others see them are not very accurate. Indeed, our reflected appraisals of how we think others see us are much more closely related to how we see ourselves than to how others see us. Some researchers have argued that this evidence implies that the looking-glass self theory is actually backward—it could be that people simply assume others see them the same way they see themselves.

The second reason why the looking-glass self theory is controversial is that other theories of self-perception provide alternative explanations for how people form their self-views. For example, self-perception theory claims that self-views are based on direct observations of one’s own behavior, rather than on how we imagine others see us. Nevertheless, our impressions of what others think of us are extremely important to us. People go to great lengths to obtain feedback about how others see them, such as posting their photographs on a Web site where others will rate their attractiveness. Some researchers have even proposed that the main purpose of self-esteem is to serve as an internal “sociometer”—a gauge of our relative popularity or worth among our peers.

Some evidence indicates that people’s reflected appraisals of how others see them influence their self-views and their behavior, particularly in close relationships. Research on romantic relationships suggests that our reflected appraisals of how our partners see us may be particularly important in this context. This is especially true for people who have doubts about how their partner feels about them. People with negative impressions of how their partner sees them tend to cause strain and dissatisfaction in their relationships.

References:

• O’Connor, B. P., & Dyce, J. (1993). Appraisals of musical ability in bar bands: Identifying the weak link in the looking-glass self chain. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 69-86.
• Shrauger, J. S., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of the self-concept: Through the looking-glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 549-573.

Search form (GSE) 1

Perception is reality: the looking-glass self.

Behavior and self esteem are dictated by a person's predictions of how they’ll be perceived by others.

When it comes to understanding ourselves, social interaction plays a more important role than many of us realize. According to sociologist Charles Horton Cooley, individuals develop their concept of self by observing how they are perceived by others, a concept Cooley coined as the “looking-glass self.” This process, particularly when applied to the digital age, raises questions about the nature of identity, socialization, and the changing landscape of self.

The Looking-Glass Self

The looking-glass self describes the process wherein individuals base their sense of self on how they believe others view them. Using social interaction as a type of “mirror,” people use the judgments they receive from others to measure their own worth, values, and behavior. According to Self, Symbols, & Society , Cooley’s theory is notable because it suggests that self-concept is built not in solitude, but rather within social settings. In this way, society and individuals are not separate, but rather two complementary aspects of the same phenomenon.

Core Assumptions

According to Society in Focus , the process of discovering the looking-glass self occurs in three steps:

• An individual in a social situation imagines how they appear to others.
• That individual imagines others’ judgment of that appearance.
• The individual develops feelings about and responds to those perceived judgments.

In practice, the process might look like this:

Someone meets a group of new work colleagues for the first time. This individual believes she can easily demonstrate professionalism and competence to others. During this interaction with her new co-workers, the individual pays attention to her colleagues’ body language, word choices, and reactions to the conversation. If these coworkers provide positive feedback, such as maintaining eye contact or offering a firm handshake, the individual’s belief in her own professionalism will be upheld. However, if the colleagues provide negative feedback, such as looking away or leaving the conversation quickly, the individual might question how professional they truly are.

The process of the looking-glass self is further complicated by the context of each interaction and the nature of the people involved. Not all feedback carries the same weight, for instance. People may take the responses from those whom they trust more seriously than those of strangers. Signals may be misinterpreted. People also usually take their own value systems into consideration when thinking through any changes to their behavior or views of self.

Ultimately, the process of the looking-glass self is one of alignment. People constantly seek to create consistency between their internal and external worlds and, therefore, continue to perceive, adjust, and strive for equilibrium throughout their lives.

The Role of Social Media

The rise of social media makes the process of the looking-glass self infinitely more complex. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and the like make it possible to connect with others in ways never before imagined. However, this exposure has led to an ever-increasing number of “mirrors,” thus proposing new questions about the development of self.

Social media has brought with it the concept of the “cyber” self, Mary Aiken explains . The cyber self is the version of him or herself a person chooses to present on a digital platform. As in real life, the cyber self may interact with other individuals, receive social feedback, and align to social conformities. However, the differences between the cyber self and actual self are profound.

A person may possess many versions of the cyber self, for example. He or she may present a professional self on LinkedIn, a casual self on Twitter, or an artistic self on Pinterest. The cyber self also continues to exist in social spaces even when people are not interacting with those environments in real time. In this way, social media users are never fully removed from exposure to judgment and criticism. And unlike the actual self, the cyber self is far more malleable when it comes to being shaped, updated, and perfected.

These unique qualities of the cyber self raise a host of psychological issues and concerns, Aiken explains. Individuals may experience a greater sense of urgency to return to or remain in digital spaces. They may be increasingly involved in the curation of their online identities, possibly at the cost of developing their real-world selves. The host of digital platforms involved also brings into question whether one’s identity may become splintered, or whether developmental problems will result. All these consequences are more severe when digital users are young or in their teens.

However, changes to the social self via digital platforms are not always steeped in such negative implications. A study published in the Journal of Social Media and Society , for example, describes a host of positive outcomes that arise from the digital looking-glass self. When YouTube video producers were interviewed about their content-creation practices and its influence on their sense of self, they offered a range of positive responses. Results included:

• A sense of gained confidence
• Enhanced creativity
• Overcoming of major social hurdles
• Increased sense of self-worth
• A strengthened professional image
• Feelings of altruism and “helping others” through their content
• Interacting in a positive social space

Whether digital platforms are ultimately a help or a hindrance to self-identity remains to be seen. The human mind is still very much a frontier of modern science. For individuals who wish to ask the psychological questions essential for modern times, however, the right career begins with the right degree.

Additional sources:  Human Nature and the Social Order

A Modern Career in Psychology

At Lesley University, the online Bachelor of Science in Psychology degree program prepares students to succeed in this ever-evolving field. Lesley’s well-rounded curriculum trains students in a variety of subject areas, including cognition, abnormal behavior, development, and more. Required laboratory and internship work means students gain valuable hands-on experience that provides a competitive edge after graduation. Because Lesley’s program is offered fully online, students have ultimate flexibility when earning their degrees.

Related Articles & Stories

Read more about our faculty, students and alumni.

The Science of Personality Development

Janet Echelman ’97

What Can You Do With a Psychology Degree?

Stages of Memory Formation

Looking-Glass Self: 10 Examples and Definition (Sociology)

The looking-glass self is a concept developed by American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley which states that individuals form their view of themselves based on how they believe they appear to others. 

Essentially, it suggests that to understand ourselves, we must first attempt to understand how other people see us and use this knowledge to shape our own personal identities .

The concept consists of three components:

• The imaginings of how one appears to another person
• The imagination of how one is judged by that person
• The feelings generated from these imaginations

A simple example would be if someone were to imagine their classmate giving them an approving look for correctly answering a question in class. 

It would lead them to develop a better opinion about themselves as it confirms that somebody else finds them smart and competent.

The looking-glass self helps humans understand themselves by considering what others think of them and drawing conclusions from those thoughts. 

Ultimately, this concept provides insight into how people construct their social identities and why it is so important for them to maintain positive relationships with those around them.

Definition of Looking-Glass Self

The looking-glass self posits that people’s identities are based on how they perceive themselves through the eyes of others.

It is a sociological concept emergent from the interactionist perspective and informing social identity theory .  

According to Thompson and colleagues (2019), the term looking-glass self is used to:

“…describe the process in which individuals use others as mirrors and base their conceptions of themselves on what is reflected back to them during social interaction” (p. 91).

This concept involves three components: 1) the imaginings of how one appears to another person, 2) the imagination of how that person judges one, and 3) the feelings generated from these imaginations (Baumeister & Bushman, 2017).

These three elements combine to shape an individual’s sense of self, particularly within social relationships, as it is important to form and maintain positive connections between individuals and understand oneself better.

Rousseau (2002) states that:

“…the concept of the looking-glass self demonstrates that self-relation, or how one views oneself, is not a solitary phenomenon but rather includes others” (p. 86).

If people want to understand who they truly are, they must first look at the reflections that others provide and then use those reflections to understand their own identity. 

Simply, the looking-glass self encapsulates the idea that people create their own identity by perceiving how they appear to others. 

10 Examples of Looking-Glass Self

• Appearing more confident in an interview due to the approving looks from the panel of interviewers : In this example, an individual may think they performed poorly during the job interview, but upon receiving approving looks from their interviewers, they may gain a better opinion of their own performance.
• Feeling embarrassed when delivering a speech after noticing someone’s disapproving looks and comments : This situation could make the individual self-conscious about their ability to speak in public and prompt them to perceive themselves as inadequate in such situations.
• Being conscious of one’s fashion choices when meeting new people for the first time : If someone notices somebody else giving them an approving look or complimenting their outfit, it could make them feel better about their sense of style.
• Trying to avoid eye contact with strangers out of fear that they will be judged negatively : Here, the individual’s feelings towards themselves are tied directly to how they believe they appear to others and how they think they will be perceived by those around them.
• Taking pride in independently completing tasks after eliciting admiration from friends and family members : Receiving praise regarding achievements can make someone feel proud of themselves, thus increasing their self-esteem.
• Becoming shy or withdrawn when faced with a group of unfamiliar people due to anxiety over how one appears in front of strangers : Here, this person is worried that they won’t appear socially competent, leading them to feel inadequate compared to everyone around them.
• Perceiving negative comments from acquaintances as personal attacks even if none were intended or implied by the other person involved : This situation can lead an individual into believing what was said regardless if this was indeed meant or not, leading them into developing negative feelings towards themselves as a result.
• Acting differently within different social circles depending on who is being watched or judged at any given moment : In this case, the individual adapts their behavior according to whom they are with and what kind of image they want to convey while avoiding potential judgment from those present.
• Feeling inadequate if somebody interacts with another instead of oneself because it implies that one isn’t interesting enough for the other person’s attention : Here, an individual perceives that there is something wrong with them; otherwise, why would someone else choose another person above them?
• Gaining confidence in online conversations (e.g., messaging apps) is easier since physical signs of shyness or anxiety aren’t visible : This case allows individuals to focus on crafting thoughtful responses without worrying about appearing awkward or reserved, leading to better overall communication.

Origins of Looking-Glass Self

The looking-glass self theory was first proposed by American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley in 1902 in his book Human Nature and the Social Order (Cooley, 2017).

Cooley (2017) proposed that individuals create their own identities based on how they perceive themselves through the eyes of others.

The concept of the looking-glass self is not entirely new and can be seen to stem from philosopher Immanuel Kant’s idea of ‘self-knowledge’ and psychologist William James’ notion of ‘the social self’ (Mclean & Syed, 2016)  

Yet it was Cooley (2017) who developed this concept further by proposing three components that make up an individual’s sense of self.

They include 1) imagination of how one appears to another person, 2) imagination of how that person judges one, and 3) feelings generated from these imaginations.

Cooley (2017) also argued that while each individual can form their own opinion about themselves, opinions formed through perceiving oneself through the eyes of others are likely to have greater influence in identity formation and maintenance. 

Thus, it gives greater importance than ever before to maintain healthy relationships with those around us since our perceptions towards ourselves are so heavily influenced by them.

Impact of Looking-Glass Self Theory on Individuals

The looking-glass self theory greatly impacts individuals, both psychologically and socially – from how people develop their sense of identity to how they interact with others.

To explore how this is the case, let us look at the three components of one’s sense of self as proposed by Charles Horton Cooley:

1. Imagination of How One Appears to Another Person

One’s opinion about themselves is greatly influenced by how one thinks one appears to others (Cooley, 2017).

For example, if someone perceives that their peers perceive them as too outspoken or intimidating, they may then take measures to present themselves differently so that others can have a more favorable view of them.

2. Imagination of How One Is Judged By That Person

This component focuses on the individual’s perception regarding how they think another person judges them (Cooley, 2017).

If a person believes that they are not meeting someone else’s expectations, they could be inclined to feel disappointment in themselves, which could manifest itself into further feelings such as insecurity and doubt.

3. Feelings Generated From These Imaginings

The imagination of how one appears to another and how that person judges one can lead to various emotions, such as fear, pride, embarrassment, or shame, depending on the situation at hand (Cooley, 2017).

For example, if an individual receives praise from someone else for completing a task successfully, it could make them feel proud and appreciative of their capabilities. 

On the other hand, if an individual feels as though their peers disapprove of something about them (be it behavior or outlook), it might make them embarrassed or ashamed, harming their self-esteem.

Criticism of Looking-Glass Self Theory

Critics of the looking-glass self theory point out that it places too much emphasis on the opinions of others when forming one’s identity and sense of self (Allen & Henderson, 2017).

It can be seen as problematic in cases where individuals are transitioning to adulthood, as they may feel pressured to conform to society’s standards or expectations to fit into social groups .

Furthermore, this theory could lead to feelings of inadequacy for those struggling to meet certain expectations set upon them by their peers or family members; or even a lack of understanding for those who do not feel the need to conform. 

As such, it is argued that an individual’s identity should be formed from within first rather than being a mere reflection of what others think about them.

Critics also argue that this theory fails to consider certain issues, such as prejudice and discrimination, which greatly influence individuals’ perceptions of themselves through another person’s eyes (Mcnair, 2004).

For example, if someone belongs to a minority group , they may feel ignored or invisible due to stigma around their group, influencing the way they perceive themselves. Or, similarly, they may feel like they’re pressured to conform to the model minority stereotype .

The looking-glass self theory, developed by Charles Horton Cooley, highlights the impact of other people’s perceptions on an individual’s self-concept and identity formation. 

By understanding the three components of this theory—imagining how one appears to another person, how that person judges one, and the feelings generated from these imaginations—one can better comprehend the social dynamics that influence their sense of self. 

While the theory has critics who argue that it overemphasizes external opinions, it remains an important concept in understanding how individuals form and maintain their identities. 

Acknowledging the looking-glass self can help individuals navigate social relationships, adapt to different situations, and foster a deeper understanding of their self-perception.

Allen, K. R., & Henderson, A. C. (2017).  Family theories: Foundations and applications . New York: Wiley Blackwell.

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2017).  Social psychology and human nature . Los Angeles: Cengage Learning.

Cooley, C. H. (2017).  Human nature and the social order.  London: Routledge. (Original work published 1902)

Mclean, K. C., & Syed, M. (2016).  The Oxford handbook of identity development . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mcnair, R. (2004).  Student self-esteem and the looking-glass self: Perceptions of emotional support, role models, and academic success on a community college campus . https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/38903988.pdf

Rousseau, N. (2002).  Self, symbols, and society: Classic reading in social psychology . New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Thompson, W. E., Hickey, J. V., & Thompson, M. L. (2019).  Society in focus: An introduction to sociology . New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Viktoriya Sus (MA)

Viktoriya Sus is an academic writer specializing mainly in economics and business from Ukraine. She holds a Master’s degree in International Business from Lviv National University and has more than 6 years of experience writing for different clients. Viktoriya is passionate about researching the latest trends in economics and business. However, she also loves to explore different topics such as psychology, philosophy, and more.

• Viktoriya Sus (MA) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Free Enterprise Examples
• Viktoriya Sus (MA) #molongui-disabled-link 21 Sunk Costs Examples (The Fallacy Explained)
• Viktoriya Sus (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Price Floor: 15 Examples & Definition
• Viktoriya Sus (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Linguistic Relativity: 10 Examples and Definition

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Positive Punishment Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Self-concept change and self-presentation: the looking glass self is also a magnifying glass

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7123.
• PMID: 1403623
• DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.63.3.435

Studies 1 and 2 showed that identical behaviors had greater impact on the self-concept when performed publicly rather than privately. That is, the self-concept is more likely to change by internalizing public behavior than by internalizing behavior that is identical but lacks the interpersonal context. The self-concept change extends even to behavioral changes and occurs even when participants are unaware of being observed. In addition, those who are high in self-monitoring are more likely to internalize their behavior than those who are low in self-monitoring. Study 3 provided evidence about what components of a public situation affect the internalization of behavior. Choice about making the self-portrayal, drawing on episodes from one's own past rather than relying on a yoked script, and expecting future interaction with the audience all increased the internalization of a public behavior.

Publication types

• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
• Adaptation, Psychological
• Internal-External Control*
• Interpersonal Relations*
• Personality
• Reality Testing*
• Self Concept*

Module 4: Socialization

Roles and the presentation of self, learning outcomes.

• Describe how individuals present themselves and perceive themselves in a social context

Status and Roles

Sociologists use the term status to describe the responsibilities and benefits that a person experiences according to their rank and role in society. Some statuses are ascribed —those you do not select, such as son, elderly person, or female. Others, called achieved statuses , are obtained by choice, such as high school dropout, self-made millionaire, or nurse. As a daughter or son, you occupy a different status than as a neighbor or employee.

As you can imagine, people employ many types of behaviors in day-to-day life. Roles are patterns of behavior that we recognize in each other, and that are representative of a person’s social status. Currently, while reading this text, you are playing the role of a student. However, you also play other roles in your life, such as “daughter,” “neighbor,” or “employee.” These various roles are each associated with a different status.

If too much is required of a single role, individuals can experience role strain . Consider the duties of a parent: cooking, cleaning, driving, problem-solving, acting as a source of moral guidance—the list goes on. Similarly, a person can experience role conflict when one or more roles are contradictory. A parent who also has a full-time career can experience role conflict on a daily basis. When there is a deadline at the office but a sick child needs to be picked up from school, which comes first? When you are working toward a promotion but your children want you to come to their school play, which do you choose? Being a college student can conflict with being an employee, being an athlete, or even being a friend. Our roles in life powerfully affect our decisions and help to shape our identities.

One person can be associated with a multitude of roles and statuses. Even a single status such as “student” has a complex role-set , or array of roles, attached to it (Merton 1957).

Figure 1. Parents often experience role strain or role conflict as they try to balance different and often urgent competing responsibilities. (Credit: Ran Zwigenberg/flickr)

Presentation of Self

Of course, it is impossible to look inside a person’s head and study what role they are playing. All we can observe is outward behavior, or role performance. Role performance is how a person expresses his or her role. Sociologist Erving Goffman presented the idea that a person is like an actor on a stage. Calling his theory dramaturgy , Goffman believed that we use impression management  to present ourselves to others as we hope to be perceived. Each situation is a new scene, and individuals perform different roles depending on who is present (Goffman 1959). Think about the way you behave around your coworkers versus the way you behave around your grandparents or with a blind date. Even if you’re not consciously trying to alter your personality, your grandparents, coworkers, and date probably see different sides of you.

As in a play, the setting matters as well. If you have a group of friends over to your house for dinner, you are playing the role of a host. It is agreed upon that you will provide food and seating and probably be stuck with a lot of the cleanup at the end of the night. Similarly, your friends are playing the roles of guests, and they are expected to respect your property and any rules you may set forth (“Don’t leave the door open or the cat will get out.”). In any scene, there needs to be a shared reality between players. In this case, if you view yourself as a guest and others view you as a host, there are likely to be problems.

Impression management is a critical component of symbolic interactionism. For example, a judge in a courtroom has many “props” to create an impression of fairness, gravity, and control—like her robe and gavel. Those entering the courtroom are expected to adhere to the scene being set. Just imagine the “impression” that can be made by how a person dresses. This is the reason that attorneys frequently select the hairstyle and apparel for witnesses and defendants in courtroom proceedings.

Figure 2. Janus, another possible “prop”, depicted with two heads, exemplifies war and peace. (Photo courtesy of Fubar Obfusco/Wikimedia Commons)

Again, Goffman’s dramaturgical approach expands on the ideas of Charles Cooley and the looking-glass self . We imagine how we must appear to others, then react to this speculation. We put on certain clothes, prepare our hair in a particular manner, wear makeup, use colog ne, and the like—all with the notion that our presentation of ourselves is going to affect how others perceive us. We expect a certain reaction, and, if lucky, we get the one we desire and feel good about it. But more than that, Cooley believed that our sense of self is based upon this idea: we imagine how we look to others, draw conclusions based upon their reactions to us, and then we develop our personal sense of self. In other words, people’s reactions to us are like a mirror in which we are reflected.

Think It Over

• Describe a situation in which you have tried to influence others’ perception of you? How does Goffman’s impression management apply to this situation? 
• Draw a large circle, and then “slice” the c ircle into pieces like a pie, labeling each piece with a role or status that you occupy. Add as many statuses, ascribed and achieved, that you have. Don’t forget things like dog owner, gardener, traveler, student, runner, employee. How many statuses do you have? In which ones are there role conflicts?
• Modification, adaptation, and original content. Authored by : Sarah Hoiland for Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Social Constructions of Reality. Authored by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected].
• Social Constructions of Reality. Provided by : OpenStax. Located at : https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/4-3-social-constructions-of-reality . Project : Sociology 3e. License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/4-3-social-constructions-of-reality
• Charles Cooley Looking Glass Self. Authored by : Brooke Miller. Provided by : Khan Academy. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/embed/XCxe9HbfJcM?enablejsapi=1 . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
• Dramaturgy (Dramaturgical Analysis). Provided by : Sociology Live!. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=5Qe5TI__ZDU . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

The Looking Glass Lens: Self-concept Changes Due to Social Media Practices

• Julie M. Jones University of Oklahoma, Gaylord College

This study brought an enduring social psychology theory into the era of mass self-communication. Cooley’s (1902) looking glass self posits that the self-concept is built, in part, by how a person sees him- or herself and, in part, by the reaction of others. For social media producers, neither the reflection nor others’ judgment needs to be imagined. Digital media can serve as a mediated mirror and social media sites provide the space where others’ judgments are clearly posted. YouTube producers were asked if they had come to see themselves differently since posting to the mega-media site and, if so, how. Forty-six participants reported self-concept changes ranging from being more accepting of their physical appearance to gaining confidence from overcoming the sting of negative comments to being empowerment due to a new role within a global, digital environment. The combination of media and media sharing platforms can serve as a digital looking glass lens.

Author Biography

Julie m. jones, university of oklahoma, gaylord college.

• Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
• Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
• Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access ).

Information

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Part of the PKP Publishing Services Network

Based at Tarleton State University in Stephenville, Texas, USA, The Journal of Social Media in Society is sponsored by the Colleges of Liberal and Fine Arts, Education, Business, and Graduate Studies.