Talk:Looking-glass self

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Justin Inbody.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alyssab2473.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kcj26.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Beaman, et. al.
I think the discussion regarding the Beaman study is too extensive. It reads like an extended abstract of the study itself, while not focusing heavily enough on why this study was relevant to Cooley's theory. I propose that we describe Cooley's theory in greater detail, including commentary on its connection to symbolic interactionism. Any objections? M. Frederick 00:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would go so far as to say that the reference to Beaman should be deleted-- yes, it involves a mirror, but it was a study of self-awareness, not of the Looking Glass Self at all. I think that it is quite a misapplication to represent it as evidence for the Looking Glass Self, and that it will only serve to confuse. --207.181.245.156 (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur. There is no mention of the looking glass self in that reference and it has therefore been deleted. Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Title translation and Data reporting
please traslate to spanish, this concept but, i dont understand a Name of the concept "looking-glass self", understand the teory, bot not the title.! thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.157.22.253 (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The article says the children took more candy when the mirror was present than when it wasn't. This is the opposite of what I have read on other sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.217.37.58 (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Check . Originally, the lower percentage numbers preceded the higher ones in text, which is the way the passage was originally like when it was added. Also, the very earliest versions of the article stated that the obvious presence of mirrors inhibited transgression. (This is also logical: when you know you are being monitored you are less likely to commit trangressions.) Therefore, you are right and there was clearly a mistake in the original phrasing: it should have said "fewer", not "more". I'll edit it accordingly. (By the way, a "looking-glass" is a mirror, for those who don't know, such as the Spanish-speaking IP user above. A Spanish translation would be el yo especular, I think.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

SSCI 2831U
The article has errors in writing style as well as language. I will work to make the article more encyclopaedically correct, provide proper citations and remove any personal notions or opinions. I will also be assessing race in relation of the Looking Glass Self by using articles written by; Aliya Saperstein and Andrew M. Penner, W. E. B. Du Bois. ApplesandPotatoes (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal one
There are three main components of the looking-glass self (Yeung, et al. 2003).


 * 1) We imagine how we must appear to others.
 * 2) We imagine and react to what we feel their judgment of that appearance must be.
 * 3) We develop our self through the judgments of others.

Changed to

1. An individual imagines how they will appear to others. (Cooley didn't say that we perceive how others judge us; rather, we imagine their perceptions and judgements) 2. The individual creates sense of self-awareness after the critiques and judgments. This creates an “image” or “self” that we maintain and change during our entire lives. 3. The individual develops his/her own subjective reality, in which we view ourselves as the central actor and those around us the actors through which the self is being reflected and defined.
 * The individual imagines the judgment that others may be making regarding their appearance.
 * The individual develops a self-image in relation to their reflection. The self-image that is developed is in direct relation to the critique and judgments of the individual from others.

Proposal two (addition of "Double Consciousness" section)
Double Consciousness is a term first coined by W. E. B. Du Bois in his book, “The Souls of Black People” (1903). It occurs when an individual has more than one social identity, usually from westernization of culture, leading to difficulty in developing a sense of self. Individuals in a suppressed group see themselves in their social group (African, Muslim) but also see themselves as “American” or “Canadian” leading them into a conflict of self identity. Cooley states that individuals derive their sense of self from how they imagine others perceive and judge them but the imagination is not based completely off of speculation, rather we look at cultural images, scripts (ways to behave), and expectations. Du Bois argues that Africans internalize the cultural images produced by the dominant western cultures in relation to their group-specific culture. The conflict between the dominant images and their traditional cultural images begin to produce contradictory thoughts in the individual. Du Bois insinuates that if a group is both economically and politically oppressed, they will be culturally oppressed. He states that there is a specific method in which double consciousness occurs; (1) label and define the group as a problem and as a troubled group; (2) emphasize the groups stereotypes and shortcomings (this is usually done by the media); (3) define them as a intrinsic group. After the three methodologies are followed the assumptions and misrepresentation, the group is taken for granted and negative attributes are placed upon the group.


 * Hi ApplesandPotatoes. It is a little unclear as to what you are proposing. Could you provide some commentary? Also, rather than placing draft material in this talk page, it is often better to place material in your sandbox space and then direct editors over to that location to review your suggestions. This avoids cluttering up the talk page with drafts. Does that make sense? Cheers Andrew (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey Andrew. Thank you for cleaning up my posts, I'm new. I want to clean up some bits of the page. I've changed the basic defining factors of the three defining factors in order to accurately portray what Cooley said. The "Double Consciousness" section was put in place in order to relate the looking glass self to race. I was thinking that it was a seamless transition; going from the looking glass self to the theory of double consciousness which talks about Cooley's looking glass self. I should of specified that the double consciousness section was to be put outside the actual explanation of the looking glass self (studies, concepts, symbolic interactionism and critical perspectives). Rather I'd place it in a new section which talks about different theories and the influence the looking glass self had on them (I'm sure we could find a better name for the section). Also, I was planning on re-reading the experiment conducted in 1976 on children in order to provide proper references and write up better sections. ApplesandPotatoes (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi ApplesandPotatoes. That all sounds good to me, and you should know that it isn't a necessary to get approval here before you make your changes, although it can be good practice. The one things I would be wary of is straying too far from the article topic in the new section that you propose. For example, any section on "double consciousness" should revolve around the linkages between the looking class self and that other theory. Moreover, these linkages must be supported by reliable sources, or risk be deleted as likely original research. I might also have some undue weight concerns here. Does that all make sense? Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160A
— Assignment last updated by Demiboutzy (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible nonsense
In we read: In hypothesizing the framework, "the mind is mental" because "the human mind is social". Problems: I don't know who authored this sentence, but it's possibly nonsense. So it needs deleting, or better, rewriting by a subject-matter expert. yoyo (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) This is not grammatical, as it's missing WHO SAID "the mind is mental" etc.
 * 2) Also the purported quote is a simple tautology, so adds nothing to our understanding, since you can't explain something purely in terms of itself.