Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Generalized other

The generalized other is a theoretical construct in social psychology and sociology, introduced by philosopher George Herbert Mead, denoting the organized attitudes and expectations of a social group that an individual internalizes to form the structured "me" component of the self, enabling coordinated social action and self-unity.^[1] Mead described it as "the organized community or social group which gives to the individual his unity of self," distinguishing it from particular others (specific individuals) by encompassing the abstract, collective perspective of the group as a whole.^[2] In Mead's developmental framework, the generalized other arises during the "game stage" of childhood socialization, following the "play stage" where children imitate isolated roles of specific others, such as pretending to be a teacher or parent; here, the child must simultaneously assume multiple interdependent roles (e.g., in a baseball game, grasping positions of pitcher, batter, and fielder relative to rules), internalizing the group's normative structure to anticipate responses and regulate behavior.^[1] This process bifurcates the self into the spontaneous "I" (the response to the internalized attitudes) and the reflective "me" (the internalized attitudes themselves), fostering social control through self-regulation rather than external coercion.^[3] Mead's ideas, compiled posthumously in Mind, Self, and Society from student notes after his 1931 death, underpin symbolic interactionism, emphasizing that the self emerges causally from interactive role-taking rather than innate traits or isolated cognition.^[1] The concept has shaped understandings of identity formation, deviance, and social norms, informing qualitative studies in sociology where individuals' behaviors are analyzed as alignments with perceived group expectations, though extensions recognize multiple, ranked generalized others across overlapping groups like family, profession, or community, reflecting real-world social complexity beyond a singular abstract entity.^[4] Critiques highlight its abstractness, which complicates empirical testing—symbolic interactionism relies heavily on interpretive methods prone to subjective bias, with limited quantitative validation of causal links between internalized group attitudes and self-unity, as much post-Meadian research prioritizes narrative over controlled experimentation.^[5] Despite this, it remains a cornerstone for causal explanations of how societal structures constrain individual agency through internalized mechanisms, influencing fields from education to criminology.^[6]

Historical Origins

Charles Horton Cooley developed the concept of the "looking-glass self" in his 1902 work Human Nature and the Social Order, describing how individuals form their self-conception by imagining their appearance to others, interpreting the perceived judgments of those others, and responding with corresponding emotions such as pride or mortification.^[7] This process relies on reflected appraisals from specific individuals in primary groups, laying groundwork for later ideas about internalized social perspectives without extending to broader societal attitudes.^[8] Pragmatist philosopher William James contributed foundational distinctions in self-theory through The Principles of Psychology (1890), differentiating the empirical self into material (possessions and body), social (recognized by others), and spiritual (inner thoughts and feelings) components, with the social self emerging from interactions and validations in concrete social circles.^[9] James's emphasis on the self as a dynamic, relational construct influenced subsequent American thinkers by highlighting how social recognition shapes personal identity, though his framework remained tied to observable behaviors and habits rather than abstract communal viewpoints.^[10] In contrast, Émile Durkheim's The Division of Labor in Society (1893) introduced collective consciousness as the shared body of beliefs, values, and sentiments common to a society's members, functioning as an external regulatory force that integrates individuals through mechanical solidarity in simpler societies or organic solidarity in complex ones.^[11] While Durkheim viewed this consciousness as a sui generis social fact transcending individual agency, early interactive theories diverged by prioritizing personal internalization of group attitudes over reified collective entities.^[12]

George Herbert Mead's Development of the Concept

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931), an American philosopher, sociologist, and psychologist affiliated with the University of Chicago, articulated the generalized other as a central mechanism in social behaviorism, emphasizing how individuals internalize collective social perspectives to form a coherent self.^[13] His ideas, drawn from lectures delivered between 1927 and his death on April 26, 1931, were compiled and published posthumously as Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist in 1934 by editor Charles W. Morris.^[14] In this text, Mead described the generalized other as "the organized social attitudes of the given social group to which an individual belongs," which the individual assumes toward themselves, thereby achieving a unified self that mirrors the community's structured expectations.^[15] Mead situated the generalized other within symbolic interactionism, a perspective positing that human social processes arise from gesture-based exchanges that become meaningful symbols when individuals anticipate and internalize others' responses.^[13] Unlike earlier stages of self-development involving isolated role-taking, the generalized other crystallizes in what Mead termed the "game stage," where children engage in organized activities requiring awareness of multiple interdependent roles, such as in team sports, fostering comprehension of the community's abstract, unified viewpoint.^[15] This stage marks a shift from particular others to the community's holistic attitudes, enabling the self to function as an active participant in social coordination. The causal mechanism underlying this development rests on the internalization of "conversation of gestures," where initial non-symbolic responses evolve into significant symbols through mutual role-taking, allowing the individual to simulate the group's response to their own actions.^[16] By adopting the generalized other, the self gains continuity and efficacy, as fragmented personal impulses align with institutionalized social processes, a dynamic Mead grounded in observable behavioral adjustments rather than innate psychological structures.^[13] This formulation underscores Mead's commitment to empirical social origins of mind, rejecting dualistic separations between individual and society.

Theoretical Foundations

Role-Taking Stages in Self-Formation

George Herbert Mead outlined a developmental sequence of role-taking abilities that enables the emergence of the self through social interaction, progressing from undifferentiated imitation to the internalization of societal perspectives. This process, rooted in observable behaviors in children, posits that self-formation arises causally from the child's capacity to adopt others' attitudes via symbolic communication, particularly language and gesture.^[13]^[17] In the preparatory stage, young children mimic actions and sounds of those around them without grasping the roles or viewpoints involved, relying on reflexive imitation rather than intentional perspective-taking. This phase, evident in infants and toddlers repeating parental gestures or speech, lays a foundational behavioral repertoire but does not yet involve assuming an other's attitude toward oneself. Mead derived this from observations of early childhood responses, where such mimicry precedes symbolic understanding.^[1]^[13] The play stage marks the onset of specific role-taking, where children assume the position of particular others, such as a child enacting a mother's role by "feeding" a doll or scolding a sibling. Here, the child alternately views themselves and situations from the standpoint of a single significant other, fostering initial empathy and role differentiation through solitary or dyadic pretend play. This stage typically emerges around ages 3 to 5, as documented in developmental observations, enabling the child to coordinate attitudes in limited interpersonal contexts.^[1]^[17] Culminating in the game stage, children integrate multiple interdependent roles within organized activities, requiring simultaneous anticipation of diverse attitudes and adherence to collective rules, as in baseball where a player must align with the pitcher's, batter's, and field's expectations to function effectively. This coordination internalizes the generalized other as a unified set of societal norms and expectations, typically developing by school age through group play. Mead emphasized this stage's basis in empirical instances of children's games, where failure to apprehend the whole structure disrupts participation, illustrating the causal role of multi-perspective synthesis in self-regulation.^[1]^[13]

Relation to the 'I' and 'Me'

In George Herbert Mead's framework, the "me" denotes the socialized aspect of the self, formed by the internalization of the generalized other's organized attitudes, which encapsulate the community's established norms and expectations toward the individual.^[18]^[13] This "me" functions as a conventional, habitual structure, enabling the individual to anticipate and align with collective responses, thereby facilitating social coordination and self-objectification through reflective role-taking.^[14] The "I," by contrast, represents the unpredictable, impulsive phase of the self, manifesting as a creative response to the "me" and the generalized other it embodies.^[18]^[13] Known only retrospectively in memory after action, the "I" introduces novelty and resists full conformity, acting as the source of individual initiative that can challenge or reconstruct the social attitudes comprising the "me."^[14] This interplay reveals a core tension: the generalized other imposes social determination via the "me," promoting conformity to communal standards, while the "I" asserts agency, allowing the self to transcend rigid socialization.^[13]^[18] The resulting dialectic enables adaptive self-regulation, as the "I" evaluates and modifies the "me," averting absolute determinism and permitting incremental social evolution through individual innovation within communal constraints.^[14]^[13]

Child Development and Socialization

The generalized other facilitates children's acquisition of social norms through iterative role-taking in family, school, and peer contexts, culminating in the game stage where individuals internalize the organized attitudes of a collective group. In this stage, typically emerging during school years, children assume multiple interdependent roles simultaneously, as in organized games like baseball, where actions align with the unified expectations of all participants rather than isolated others.^[19] Empirical evidence from perspective-taking, a developmental correlate of role-taking, supports this process; a longitudinal study of 108 children found that Level 1 perspective-taking proficiency at 27 months (mean accuracy 58%) significantly predicted cognitive flexibility at 52 months (r = 0.31, p = 0.029), indicating early social perspective skills underpin later norm-internalization capacities.^[20] Cross-cultural data highlight variations in how children engage social inputs to form the generalized other, with reliance on others' cues for behavior decreasing variably by society—for example, more rapidly in Western contexts—while majority preference in norm selection exhibits a universal U-shaped developmental pattern peaking in early (ages 4–6) and later (12–14) childhood across seven diverse societies.^[21] These differences underscore cultural influences on socialization pace, yet innate factors impose limits on environmental determinism; empirical studies show child temperament interacts with parental socialization, such that high negative affect combined with low parental effortful control elevates externalizing problems (β interactions significant at p < 0.05), demonstrating biological dispositions modulate responsiveness to social norms.^[22] By enabling anticipation of group attitudes, the generalized other fosters cooperation in youth, as children coordinate prosocial actions through shared role understandings, reducing conflict in peer and institutional settings.^[19] This socialization mechanism achieves norm compliance and group harmony, but integrations with biological frameworks reveal its partial scope; attachment theory emphasizes innate predispositions for secure bonding as foundational to effective role-taking, where early caregiver interactions biologically prime children for broader social internalization, complementing rather than supplanting Mead's social emphasis.^[22]

Institutional and Cultural Contexts

In institutional environments, such as professions and organizations, the generalized other manifests as the organized attitudes and expectations of the relevant social group, exerting causal influence on individual behavior by internalizing collective norms into the self. For instance, professionals like physicians or lawyers adopt the perspective of their field's generalized other, which encompasses formalized standards such as ethical codes and procedural protocols, guiding decisions beyond personal impulses toward alignment with institutional goals. This process reflects Mead's view of the generalized other as a mechanism for social control, where the "me" aspect of the self incorporates these structured attitudes to regulate conduct within hierarchical systems.^[4]^[23] Empirical applications in organizational sociology demonstrate this through role conformity, where employees rank and internalize multiple generalized others—such as managerial hierarchies over peer groups—to navigate workplace dynamics and maintain status. In healthcare settings, nurses, for example, prioritize the profession's ethical generalized other, leading to behaviors that conform to standardized practices even amid conflicting immediate pressures, thereby enhancing organizational cohesion and performance. Such conformity underscores causal pathways from institutional expectations to behavioral outcomes, as individuals adjust actions to anticipated collective appraisals, reducing deviance and fostering predictability in structured environments.^[4] Debates persist regarding the generalized other's cultural specificity versus universality, with some interpretations emphasizing subgroup variations—such as distinct professional norms across nations—that tailor it to local contexts, while others highlight the resilient, cross-cultural mechanism of internalizing social attitudes to modify innate impulses. This universality arises from the functional integration of novel responses into the self via interaction, enabling adaptive behavior amid diverse institutions without reliance on purely fluid social constructs. Evidence from symbolic interactionist extensions supports this balance, showing the process's endurance in sustaining institutional order despite cultural differences, as shared normative tensions between particular roles and broader communities drive consistent motivational patterns.^[24]^[4]

Extensions and Variations

Multiple and Ranked Generalized Others

Post-Meadian analyses in symbolic interactionism extend the generalized other to encompass multiple such entities, recognizing that individuals participate in diverse social groups that each impose distinct normative expectations on the self. These multiple generalized others arise from overlapping memberships in networks such as family, occupational communities, ethnic groups, or peer circles, leading to plural selves shaped by varying role-taking perspectives.^[4] For instance, an individual might internalize a familial generalized other emphasizing loyalty and emotional interdependence alongside a professional one prioritizing achievement and autonomy.^[4] Ranked generalized others further refine this framework by positing a hierarchy of influence, where certain generalized others hold greater salience based on factors like emotional attachment, commitment levels, and situational relevance. In identity theory, which builds on interactionist foundations, salience determines which identities—and by extension, their associated generalized others—are activated in behavior, with higher-ranked ones exerting stronger control over self-conception and actions.^[4] Empirical studies in this vein, such as those examining panel data on student identities across universities, demonstrate that salience hierarchies predict behavioral commitment, with more prominent roles overriding less salient ones in decision-making.^[25] This ranking has implications for identity conflicts, as clashing expectations from competing generalized others can generate internal tension, resolved through prioritization or compartmentalization. For example, racial identity research highlights dual consciousness, where marginalized groups navigate dominant societal generalized others against subgroup-specific ones, often leading to adaptive strategies like code-switching.^[4] However, causal realism informed by evolutionary psychology suggests that innate kin-based hierarchies—rooted in inclusive fitness principles favoring relatives—may persistently override purely social rankings, as evidenced by cross-cultural patterns of nepotism where family ties supersede professional or institutional loyalties even in modern contexts.^[26]^[27] Such biological priors underscore limitations in fully socially constructed models of self-formation.

Equivalents in Other Psychological Frameworks

In psychoanalytic theory, Sigmund Freud's superego constitutes the internalized representation of parental and societal moral standards, emerging from resolution of the Oedipus complex around ages 3-6 and enforcing conscience through guilt. This structure parallels the generalized other by incorporating collective norms into self-regulation, as both serve as internalized societal judges influencing behavior.^[28] However, Freud's model derives primarily from intrapsychic conflicts and instinctual drives, such as aggression and libido, rather than Mead's emphasis on emergent role-taking through symbolic interactions in social play.^[29] Empirical assessments favor Mead's interactive basis, as longitudinal studies of child socialization demonstrate perspective-taking skills developing via observable peer exchanges, testable through behavioral tasks, unlike the superego's reliance on retrospective clinical interpretations with lower inter-rater reliability.^[30] Jean Piaget's concept of decentration, integral to the transition from preoperational to concrete operational thinking (typically ages 7-11), involves overcoming egocentrism to adopt multiple viewpoints, as evidenced in tasks like the three-mountains experiment where children conserve and coordinate perspectives. This cognitive mechanism overlaps with the generalized other's role in integrating diverse social attitudes for self-formation, both enabling coordinated action in group contexts.^[31] Yet Piaget attributes development to endogenous maturation and logical restructuring, with social input secondary, contrasting Mead's view of self arising endogenously from dialogic exchanges; neuroimaging data from 2010s studies show perspective-taking activating mirror neuron systems during interactive scenarios, aligning more closely with Mead's social causality than Piaget's stage-invariant timelines.^[32] Timing overlaps exist, but mechanisms diverge: Piagetian decentration emphasizes decontextualized logic puzzles, while Meadian processes require symbolic mediation in real-time interactions. Lev Vygotsky's zone of proximal development (ZPD) delineates the gap between independent performance and potential achievements scaffolded by more capable peers or adults, with internalization occurring through cultural tools like language, as observed in collaborative problem-solving experiments from the 1930s. Resemblances to the generalized other appear in both theories' stress on social origins of higher mental functions, where guided interactions foster adoption of communal viewpoints.^[33] Vygotsky's framework, however, centers dyadic or small-group mediation leading to tool-mediated autonomy, differing from Mead's broader assimilation of institutionalized attitudes via the "game" stage; cross-cultural studies since 2000 confirm ZPD effects in skill acquisition but highlight variability in collective norm internalization, supporting Mead's model for explaining stable societal self-conformity over Vygotsky's emphasis on proximal variability.^[34] Interactional evidence, such as microgenetic analyses of joint attention in toddlers, underscores causal roles for reciprocal exchanges in both, prioritizing observable processes amenable to experimental replication.

Modern Interpretations and Applications

Imagined Audiences in Digital Media

In digital media environments, the concept of the generalized other has been extended to "imagined audiences," where users mentally construct diverse, networked viewers rather than a unified societal perspective, as articulated by Eden Litt in her 2012 analysis of social network sites (SNS).^[35] Users on platforms like Twitter (now X) and Facebook anticipate interactions with heterogeneous groups—friends, family, colleagues, and strangers—leading to strategic self-presentation that balances multiple expectations, unlike Mead's singular community attitude.^[35] This adaptation highlights a shift from broadcast-style communication to collapsed contexts, where a single post reaches unintended observers, prompting users to curate content cautiously.^[36] Empirical research from the 2020s demonstrates how performative self-presentation on social media manifests as users role-take from imagined audience viewpoints, often resulting in inauthentic or fragmented identities. A 2024 study of 1,200 U.S. adults found that heightened focus on self-presentation correlates with perfectionism and disordered eating, as individuals internalize niche audience approvals over broader self-concepts.^[37] Similarly, a 2025 analysis of young adults in Saudi Arabia revealed that frequent platform use intensifies tailored posting to align with perceived viewer norms, exacerbating anxiety from mismatched expectations.^[38] These dysjunctions arise in echo chambers, where algorithmic feeds reinforce homophilous interactions, fragmenting the generalized other into siloed subgroups that limit exposure to diverse societal attitudes.^[39] Critics argue this dynamic amplifies niche "others" at the expense of a cohesive societal generalized other, potentially eroding shared norms by prioritizing insular validation. For instance, echo chamber effects on platforms like TikTok have been shown to accelerate misinformation spread within like-minded clusters, diminishing collective adherence to evidence-based consensus as of 2023 data from over 10 million users.^[39] Such fragmentation fosters extremity bias, where niche audience feedback shifts perceived norms toward outliers, as evidenced by experimental studies indicating users overestimate radical views as mainstream after prolonged exposure.^[40] This contrasts with Mead's emphasis on integrated community perspectives, raising concerns that digital imagined audiences hinder the development of a stable, society-wide self.^[41]

Empirical Applications in Contemporary Research

In empirical research, the generalized other has been quantified through scales assessing individuals' baseline positivity or negativity toward others. Rau et al. (2020) introduced the Online Test Assessing Perceptions of Others (O-TAPE), a validated instrument that measures generalized other-perceptions via participants' first-impression ratings of unfamiliar targets shown in social media profiles or brief videos; across five studies with over 1,000 participants, the scale exhibited high internal consistency (Cronbach's α > .80) and predictive validity, linking more positive generalized perceptions to higher agreeableness, trust, and prosocial behavior, while negative perceptions correlated with antagonism and lower well-being. Educational studies apply the generalized other as a frame of reference in the big-fish-little-pond effect (BFLPE), where classroom achievement averages serve as the collective benchmark influencing self-concept. For instance, students of comparable ability develop lower academic self-concepts in high-performing classes due to unfavorable comparisons with this aggregated other, as evidenced by multilevel analyses of PISA data from 2000–2018 across 60+ countries, showing effect sizes of d ≈ 0.20–0.30 for math and science domains, with the pattern persisting after controlling for individual priors.^[42]^[43] Dehumanization research has tested the generalized other as an internalized societal norm against which outgroups are evaluated. A 2024 study with U.S. and U.K. samples (N > 1,500) demonstrated that greater schematic distance between participants' generalized other (idealized ingroup norms) and perceived outgroup traits predicts blatant dehumanization, measured via the Ascent to the Animal scale; regression models indicated β ≈ 0.25–0.35 effects for political opponents, moderated by intergroup contact but robust to covariates like ideology. This causal link was experimentally manipulated by priming generalized other alignment, reducing dehumanization by 15–20%.^[44]

Criticisms and Debates

Theoretical Limitations and Philosophical Critiques

Critics of Mead's generalized other highlight its overreliance on social constructionism, which marginalizes the influence of innate biological dispositions on self-formation. Evolutionary psychology posits that humans possess evolved cognitive modules and behavioral universals—such as in-group preferences, mating strategies, and basic emotional architectures—that manifest across cultures independently of variable socialization processes, challenging the notion that the self emerges solely through internalization of communal attitudes.^[45] This framework, as articulated by figures like Steven Pinker, underscores how denying such hereditary constraints leads to an incomplete causal account of human agency, where social norms interact with, rather than wholly determine, predisposed traits. Philosophically, the generalized other introduces unresolved tensions between uniformity and individuality, as its role in standardizing the 'Me' aspect of the self struggles to accommodate persistent variations in personal responses without invoking ad hoc mechanisms. Mead's counterbalance, the 'I' as an unpredictable response to social stimuli, provides nominal room for novelty but fails to specify a non-social causal origin for divergent behaviors, rendering the theory vulnerable to charges of circularity in explaining innovation or resistance to norms.^[13]^[2] This inadequacy echoes broader critiques of symbolic interactionism, where subjective meanings purportedly arise endogenously yet presuppose unexamined biological or rational priors for their generation.^[46] The theory's emphasis on conformity to an abstract social audience also invites scrutiny for potentially eroding individual autonomy, as internalized group perspectives may foster excessive deference to collective expectations at the expense of personal moral accountability and creative divergence. Individualist thinkers argue that true selfhood derives from endogenous rational deliberation rather than emergent social synthesis, warning that over-privileging the generalized other could stifle entrepreneurship and ethical independence by framing deviation as mere reactive impulse rather than principled agency.^[47] Such conformist implications align with historical concerns in liberal philosophy about how socially derived selves subordinate the sovereign individual to undifferentiated communal pressures.^[13]

Empirical Validity and Measurement Challenges

Direct empirical validation of Mead's generalized other remains limited, as the concept was developed primarily through theoretical and observational analysis rather than controlled experimentation, leading critics to highlight the absence of falsifiable tests for its core claims about internalized community attitudes shaping the self.^[48] ^[49] Measurement approaches have historically depended on indirect methods, such as explicit self-reports of perceived social expectations or aggregated judgments in simulated group interactions, both of which are vulnerable to response biases including social desirability, recall inaccuracies, and situational priming effects that confound true internalization with conscious rationalization.^[50] ^[51] Quantifying the "generalized" aspect—distinct from specific role-taking—poses ongoing challenges, as scales attempting to capture abstract attitudes toward the collective other often yield constructs overlapping with related ideas like stereotypes or collective representations, yet fail to isolate causal pathways from social interaction to self-formation due to correlational designs and confounding variables such as personality traits or cultural priming.^[52] ^[53] Recent instruments, including the Other-Trait Averaged Perception Estimate (OTAPE), aggregate perceiver judgments across multiple targets and traits to derive a positivity score for generalized other-perceptions, demonstrating improved reliability over prior self-report tools (e.g., Cronbach's alpha > 0.80 in validation samples), but still struggle with ecological validity, as lab-based trait ratings may not reflect dynamic, real-world internalization processes.^[50] Cross-cultural applications reveal potential Western-centric biases in the framework, with empirical tests in individualistic societies showing stronger reported internalization of generalized attitudes compared to collectivist contexts, where innate cognitive universals or familial influences may temper social determinism, though direct comparative studies remain scarce and often rely on translated self-reports prone to equivalence issues.^[54] ^[55] Overall, while perceptual measures correlate modestly with behavioral outcomes like cooperation (r ≈ 0.20-0.30), establishing the generalized other as a distinct, causally potent construct requires longitudinal designs controlling for alternative explanations, such as genetic or neurodevelopmental factors, which current methodologies inadequately address.^[56] ^[57]

References

[1]
[PDF] Mind, Self, and Society. - Free
... generalized other, Mead might well have been influenced by the English ... mind, self, and society. [ 254 ] are of lower type than the social ...Missing: quote | Show results with:quote
[2]
[PDF] Philosophy, Social Theory, and the Thought of George Herbert Mead
Thought of George Herbert Mead ... There is a tension between the particular and the universal in. Mead's concept of the generalized other, and this tension can ...
[3]
[PDF] George Herbert Mead's Theory of the Self - MacSphere
called 'the generalized other. ,,,7 This is the attitude of the ... Mead, Mind, Self, and Society, p. 83. 17. Ibid. , p. 27. 18. Ibid. I p. 43 ...
[4]
[PDF] Multiple and Ranked Generalized Others in Symbolic Interactionist ...
since the generalized other can be a powerful tool as W. E. B. DuBois' concept of"dual ... George Herbert Mead and Human Conduct. T. Morrione (ed.). London ...
[5]
The Personal and the Social: Mead's Theory of the `Generalized Other'
Aug 10, 2025 · The Generalized Other is a special case of role-taking in which the individual responds to social gestures, and takes up and adjusts common attitudes.
[6]
A Study of Symbolic Interactionism and Communication from the ...
Oct 28, 2022 · Symbolic interactionism regards human interaction by means of symbols as the main mechanism of self-formation. Through interaction, people ...
[7]
[PDF] An Analysis of the Influence of Charles Horton Cooley's Concept of ...
... Influence of Charles Horton Cooley's Concept of the Primary Group. Upon ... psychic elements of the looking-glass self! (1) the Imag ination of one*a ...
[8]
Chapter 7: Symbolic Interactionism — George Herbert Mead ...
Charles Horton Cooley introduced the looking-glass self ... This sounds close to Cooley's looking-glass self, but Mead's ... •Community – “Generalized Other ...
[9]
George Herbert Mead and the Unity of the Self - OpenEdition Journals
... generalized other. However, even here questions immediately arise, for ... Mead, (1934), Mind, Self and Society. Henceforth, MSS. 2 Noteworthy books ...
[10]
[PDF] The Psychological Contributions of Pragmatism and of Original ...
provided by William James, who, in his Principles of Psychology, investigated the role of habits in both the individual and collective dimension. In the ...
[11]
[PDF] Durkheim, Mead and Contemporary Social Theory - OAKTrust
The “collective consciousness” for Durkheim and the “generalized other” in. Mead effectively describe comparable social phenomenon, which these authors.
[12]
[PDF] Norbert Wiley - UNLV Center for Democratic Culture
The generalized other is Mead's catch-all category, for it includes all ... This suggests an affinity with Durkheim's collective consciousness. The habits ...
[13]
George Herbert Mead - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
George Herbert Mead ... The organized community or social group which gives to the individual his unity of self may be called “the generalized other.” The ...
[14]
Mead, George Herbert | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
George Herbert Mead (1863—1931) ... This description has important consequences regarding the way in which the concept of the generalized other is to be applied ...
[15]
George Herbert Mead: Mind Self and Society: Section 34
Feb 22, 2010 · When we arouse such attitudes, we are taking the attitude of what I have termed a " generalized other. ... organized social attitudes and ...
[16]
George Herbert Mead: Mind Self and Society: Section 21
Feb 22, 2010 · The self to which we have been referring arises when the conversation of gestures is taken over into the conduct of the individual form. When ...
[17]
George Herbert Mead: The Genesis of the Self and Social Control
Feb 22, 2010 · It is interesting to note that in the development of the individual child, there are two stages which present the two essential steps in ...
[18]
George Herbert Mead: Mind Self and Society: Section 25
Feb 22, 2010 · "The "I" and the "me" as phases of the self", Section 25 in Mind Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist (Edited by Charles ...
[19]
George Herbert Mead: Mind Self and Society - Brock University
Feb 22, 2010 · The organized community or social group which gives to the individual his unity of self may be called "the generalized' other."
[20]
Early perspective taking predicts later cognitive flexibility: A ...
Sep 10, 2024 · In the longitudinal study, we investigated the development of Level 1 perspective taking (at 27 months) and Level 2 perspective taking (at 52 ...
[21]
The development of human social learning across seven societies
May 25, 2018 · We report that while we find cross-cultural variation in both children's reliance on social information and majority preference, only the ...Missing: socialization | Show results with:socialization
[22]
Interactions between child and parent temperament and child ... - NIH
Interactions between child and parent temperament dimensions predicted higher levels of externalizing, internalizing, and attention problems.
[23]
[PDF] “Collective Representations” and the “Generalized Other”
Jun 9, 2012 · Mead‟s “generalized other” is that the suicide rate, for ... As can be found in Mind, Self and Society (Mead, 1967:89-90):. This ...
[24]
http://cdclv.unlv.edu/pragmatism/aboulafia_intro_mead.pdf
[25]
The Causal Ordering of Prominence and Salience in Identity Theory
This study examines their causal ordering using three waves of panel data from 48 universities focusing on respondents' identities as science students.Missing: generalized | Show results with:generalized
[26]
Priorities in social categories - Kinzler - 2010 - Wiley Online Library
May 13, 2010 · In this paper we review evidence from social, developmental, and evolutionary psychology to raise a common question: Are there priorities in ...
[27]
[PDF] Evolutionary Influences on Assistance to Kin: Evidence from the ...
Dec 16, 2023 · No social scientific evidence of evolutionary influences on assistance to kin, however, has been produced using large national samples in which ...
[28]
The Psychology of Life Stories - Dan P. McAdams, 2001
Someone is always listening or watching, be it friends and acquaintances, parents and children, or be it Freud's superego, Mead's generalized other, ...
[29]
[PDF] Others in the Making of Selves - e-Publications@Marquette
Unlike the singular Unconscious Other, an individual may have multiple Generalized Others because the individual can hold membership in multiple “societies ...
[30]
Symbolically Mediated Interaction and Perspective- taking: A Social ...
Dec 31, 2019 · ... generalized other, which represents the whole of the social process. The generalized other is a. symbolized unity that comprises the rule ...
[31]
Sage Reference - Perspective Taking in Communication
[Page 443]Multiple particular perspectives are combined into what Mead referred to as the generalized other. This is the attitude of the ...
[32]
[PDF] The interactive development of perspective-taking in early childhood
In Mead's terms, he realizes the 'generalized other' (Mead, 1962). This is the foundation for acquiring self-consciousness in the full sense: to reflect on ...
[33]
[PDF] Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds
audience (like Mead's generalized other) that Bakhtin and Voloshinov ... zone of proximal development.” 6. Vygotsky's insistence on a genetic method ...
[34]
Three Dimensions of the Sociality of Action - OpenEdition Journals
Mead's generalized other)” (Tomasello 2009b: 41f.). Thus, we should look into the similarities and difference with regard to the motivational dimension of ...
[35]
Knock, Knock. Who's There? The Imagined Audience
For more than a century, scholars have alluded to the notion of an “imagined audience”—a person's mental conceptualization of the people with whom he or she ...Missing: Litman | Show results with:Litman
[36]
The Imagined Audience on Social Network Sites - Sage Journals
Feb 24, 2016 · The imagined audience is a “mental conceptualization of the people with whom we are communicating” (Litt, 2012, p. 331), and it serves as a ...Missing: Litman | Show results with:Litman
[37]
Focus on self-presentation on social media is associated with ...
Sep 10, 2024 · Findings suggest that focus on self-presentation and upward social comparison on social media is associated with perfectionism and disordered eating.Missing: empirical 2020s
[38]
Exploring how social media usage shapes self-presentation ...
May 12, 2025 · This study examines how self-presentation on social media is affected by usage patterns among young adults in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.Missing: empirical 2020s
[39]
Echo chamber effects on short video platforms | Scientific Reports
Apr 18, 2023 · According to recent studies, the echo chamber effect of social media can promote the spread of misleading information, fake news, and rumors.
[40]
Is social media shifting social norms to more extreme levels?
University researcher teams up with undergraduate student to discover how extremes in user-generated content on social media affect our perception of normality.Missing: eroding | Show results with:eroding
[41]
[PDF] Shouting Matches and Echo Chambers
The following section explores why, despite having strong reactions, most did not express them on social media. Political Discourse and Imagined Audiences.
[42]
Social Comparison Effects on Academic Self-Concepts—Which ...
One key assumption of the BFLPE is that students compare themselves with a “generalized other” (i.e., the average achievement of their classmates) to ...
[43]
Social comparison and big-fish-little-pond effects on self-concept ...
Social comparison and big-fish-little-pond effects on self-concept and other self-belief constructs: Role of generalized and specific others. Citation.
[44]
Imagined otherness fuels blatant dehumanization of outgroups
May 6, 2024 · How do the outgroup schema and the generalized other schema that people imagine in their minds jointly relate to dehumanization? Consider ...
[45]
(PDF) Evolutionary Social Constructivism - ResearchGate
The intellectual positions most fiercely opposed to sociobiology and evolutionary psychology include social constructivism, postmodernism, and ...
[46]
G.H. Mead – Self, Symbolic Interactionism & Social Behaviorism
Mead argues that the self and identity are not static or biologically determined but emerge through an ongoing process of social interaction.
[47]
George Herbert Mead: Review of Individualism - Brock University
Feb 22, 2010 · Professor Fite's Individualism is a notable discussion of the conceptions of the individual and society in their reciprocal relations.
[48]
George Herbert Mead : Mind, Self and Society - Budding Sociologist :
... empirical validation to support his claims. This lack of ... Postmodernists have critiqued Mead's reliance on universal concepts like the generalized other ...
[49]
GH Mead's Interactional Self Theory: Concepts and Critiques
A central concept in Mead's theory is the "generalized other," which refers to the internalized ... 6 of empirical validation: Some critics point out that Mead's ...
[50]
Seeing the Best or Worst in Others: A Measure of Generalized Other ...
Feb 26, 2020 · Previous research has measured generalized other-perceptions by relying on either explicit self-reports or judgments made in group settings.Missing: post- | Show results with:post-
[51]
(PDF) Seeing the Best or Worst in Others: A Measure of Generalized ...
Mar 3, 2020 · Previous research has measured generalized other-perceptions by relying on either explicit self-reports or judgments made in group settings.Missing: challenges | Show results with:challenges
[52]
[PDF] A Measure of Generalized Other-Perceptions - Richard Rau
In order to understand people's feelings, behaviors, and social relationships, it is of key importance to know which general view they hold about others.
[53]
[PDF] How accurate are national stereotypes? A test of different ...
However, when estimating the agreement between two profiles, a bias called “generalized other” can distort the estimated level of agreement (Cronbach, 1955).
[54]
Symbolic Interactionism Theory & Examples - Simply Psychology
Mar 3, 2025 · Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level sociological theory that explains how individuals construct social reality through shared meanings and interpretations.
[55]
The effects of culture and gender on perceived self-other similarity in ...
First, evidence suggests the way we perceive the generalized other underlies interpersonal behaviors, including troublesome tendencies (e.g. narcissistic ...
[56]
Do Perceiver Effects in Interpersonal Perception Predict ...
Jul 24, 2020 · In Study 1, perceiver effects predicted cooperation beyond self-reported and group-related control variables. ... generalized other-perception.
[57]
Which Measures of Beliefs About Others' Prosociality Predict ...
Aug 7, 2024 · Seeing the best or worst in others: A measure of generalized other-perceptions. Assessment, 28(8), 1897–1914. https://doi.org/10.1177 ...Missing: challenges | Show results with:challenges