Friday, March 21, 2008
Conference!
Wednesday's conference went really well. I definitely love one on one time with the teacher. You can get a lot done. I went there slightly confused and with many questions. By the time I left, I had answers to all of my questions, a better understanding of the assignment, and a little extra! Mrs. Bowles certainly helped a lot. After getting advice from her, I was able to expand my paper which is usually a BIG problem for me. Conferences are AWESOME!!!! I wouldn't mind another one of these. Also, the conference helps the teacher see the student in a different light. They are actually able to sit down and go through your paper with you page by page and explain what you need to do. They can also, see what type of writer you are and find the areas in which you may need improvement. I really liked that one on one time and it was truly helpful.
Peer Review Letters!!
This is a great way to gain insight on how well your expressing your topic. What's even better about this is that you are getting feedback from classmates. These are the people who are probably freaking out just as much as you are!!! I don't know about you but that makes me feel a whole lot better!...My paper was reviewed by Raechael. She told me a great deal. Her imformation and advice was very useful. That's a reason why I like peer review so much. Also, it's a way to communicate with your classmates which something we all should do a lot more.
Hmmmm...
I am becoming more aware of things everyday. I think this whole proposal thing is really cool considering the fact that I'm also working on one for my sociology class right now. Being that I have both of these to work on at once, it can become tiresome but I managed to pull through. Honestly, I've been focusing my attention moreso on this proposal rather than my sociology proposal. This is only because this proposal is due at a earlier time. However, I like the fact that we are learning and researching!...Hmmmm, I kinda feel like a sociologists or someone important, lol...
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Charles Horton Cooley in 1902 (McIntyre 2006): This information came from wikipedia. According to this article, there are three components that contribute to creating an identity. We formulate an identity by using the preceptions or views of others. We learn to see ourselves as if we are looking through the eyes of others. When focusing on the three components, they are:
1. We imagine. This is where we tend to imagine how others view us. Most people are curious about how they are viewed in the eyes of others.
2. We interpret others’ reactions. Here, we gain some sense as it relates to how individuals evaluate us. Also, you can gain insight on the reason someone likes or dislikes you based on your actions.
3. We develop a self-concept. One will discover that developing a self-concept is an ongoing process. It continuously goes through steps for a life-time. This leaves room for improvement.
1. We imagine. This is where we tend to imagine how others view us. Most people are curious about how they are viewed in the eyes of others.
2. We interpret others’ reactions. Here, we gain some sense as it relates to how individuals evaluate us. Also, you can gain insight on the reason someone likes or dislikes you based on your actions.
3. We develop a self-concept. One will discover that developing a self-concept is an ongoing process. It continuously goes through steps for a life-time. This leaves room for improvement.
Research!
Pro Quest is an excellent way to find articles concerning your research topic/area. I have found a lot more detailed articles and journals since using this database. At first, I was clueless and worried about finding enough sources to support may argument but I'm coming along just fine now. I now have a better feeling about this whole research thing!
Summary 7
Self-Concept Change and Self-Presentation: The Looking Glass Self Is also a Magnifying Glass Tice, Dianne M. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Washington: Sep 1992. Vol. 63, Iss. 3; pg. 435
“Experiments showed that identical behaviors had greater impact on the self-concept when performed publicly rather than privately.” This shows that people present themselves differently to gain a sense of acceptance. These actions extend to changes in behavior and usually occur when participants are unaware of being observed.
“Experiments showed that identical behaviors had greater impact on the self-concept when performed publicly rather than privately.” This shows that people present themselves differently to gain a sense of acceptance. These actions extend to changes in behavior and usually occur when participants are unaware of being observed.
Summary 6
(e.g., Ausubel, Schiff & Gasser 1952; Miyamoto & Dornbusch 1956; for a review of early studies, see Shrauger & Schoeneman 1979).
“Empirical tests of the looking glass approach to self construction have largely focused on the congruence between how any person (ego) views herself and how others (alter) view ego. Researchers have generally assumed that any congruence found, which we shall term the looking glass effect, is the result of a process of internalization (Gecas 1982). Since such congruence could also arise as a result of the externalization process, or even simply because ego is "objectively" of such and such a character, is known by others to be such, and knows herself to be such, this may be seen as a relatively weak test of the looking glass self. Yet there have been only a few studies providing empirical support.”
“Empirical tests of the looking glass approach to self construction have largely focused on the congruence between how any person (ego) views herself and how others (alter) view ego. Researchers have generally assumed that any congruence found, which we shall term the looking glass effect, is the result of a process of internalization (Gecas 1982). Since such congruence could also arise as a result of the externalization process, or even simply because ego is "objectively" of such and such a character, is known by others to be such, and knows herself to be such, this may be seen as a relatively weak test of the looking glass self. Yet there have been only a few studies providing empirical support.”
Summary 5
The looking glass self: An empirical test and elaboration
King-To Yeung, John Levi Martin. Social Forces. Chapel Hill: Mar 2003. Vol. 81, Iss. 3; pg. 843, 37 pgs
This article stresses the causes behind the looking-glass self. It tries to hypothesize and make generalizations based on tests. Researchers tested the hypothesis made by Charles Cooley and Mead which was “that one's self-perceptions are an internalization of the perceptions of the views of others.” They used a great amount of network data consisting of information from about 56 naturally occurring communities. During the study, researchers discovered that there is common argument associated with symbolic interactionism which is that the self is a result of the social process whereby we learn to see ourselves as others do. Cooley argued that we are influenced by those whom we see as "ascendant" over us: "In the presence of one whom we feel to be of importance there is a tendency to enter into and adopt, by sympathy, his judgment of ourself.”
King-To Yeung, John Levi Martin. Social Forces. Chapel Hill: Mar 2003. Vol. 81, Iss. 3; pg. 843, 37 pgs
This article stresses the causes behind the looking-glass self. It tries to hypothesize and make generalizations based on tests. Researchers tested the hypothesis made by Charles Cooley and Mead which was “that one's self-perceptions are an internalization of the perceptions of the views of others.” They used a great amount of network data consisting of information from about 56 naturally occurring communities. During the study, researchers discovered that there is common argument associated with symbolic interactionism which is that the self is a result of the social process whereby we learn to see ourselves as others do. Cooley argued that we are influenced by those whom we see as "ascendant" over us: "In the presence of one whom we feel to be of importance there is a tendency to enter into and adopt, by sympathy, his judgment of ourself.”
Summary 4
Looking-Glass Self: Goffman as Symbolic Interactionist
Thomas J. Scheff. Symbolic Interaction. Berkeley: Spring 2005. Vol. 28, Iss. 2; pg. 147
In this article, the information presented is by Ervin Goffman, who too is a sociologist with the same beliefs as Cooley. However, he felt the need to add a fourth step to the three original steps formulated by Cooley in the development of a self concept. This step was the management of embarrassment or shame.
Thomas J. Scheff. Symbolic Interaction. Berkeley: Spring 2005. Vol. 28, Iss. 2; pg. 147
In this article, the information presented is by Ervin Goffman, who too is a sociologist with the same beliefs as Cooley. However, he felt the need to add a fourth step to the three original steps formulated by Cooley in the development of a self concept. This step was the management of embarrassment or shame.
Summary: 3
The Looking-Glass Self in Family Context: A Social Relations Analysis
Journal article by William L. Cook, Emily M. Douglas; Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 12, 1998. This journal informs the readers about the sociological concept, looking-glass self from a family context perception. This study tests theaccuracy of young individual's metaperceptions within the context of their family relationships. In most cases, your family usually give you a sense of self. Our parents or significant others train us and demonstrate behaviors that we in turn use them to develop a self-concept.
Journal article by William L. Cook, Emily M. Douglas; Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 12, 1998. This journal informs the readers about the sociological concept, looking-glass self from a family context perception. This study tests theaccuracy of young individual's metaperceptions within the context of their family relationships. In most cases, your family usually give you a sense of self. Our parents or significant others train us and demonstrate behaviors that we in turn use them to develop a self-concept.
Annotated Bibligraphy: Summary 2
Charles Horton Cooley in 1902 (McIntyre 2006): This information came from wikipedia. According to this article, there are three components that contribute to creating an identity. We formulate an identity by using the preceptions or views of others. We learn to see ourselves as if we are looking through the eyes of others.
Annotated Bibliography: Summary 1
Charles Horton Cooley, Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner's, 1902, pp. 179-185. I found this through a website. This article discusses the “social self”. It says that we create ideas based on our social interaction with others. Our behavior is modified and we take on the behavior and ideas of others as if they were our very own.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)