Hubbry Logo
Generalized otherGeneralized otherMain
Open search
Generalized other
Community hub
Generalized other
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Generalized other
Generalized other
Generalized other
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The generalized other is a concept introduced by George Herbert Mead into the social sciences, and used especially in the field of symbolic interactionism. It is the general notion that a person has of the common expectations that others may have about actions and thoughts within a particular society, and thus serves to clarify their relation to the other as a representative member of a shared social system.[1]

Any time that an actor tries to imagine what is expected of them, they are taking on the perspective of the generalized other.

An alternative name of the mentally constructed idea of who an audience is without real or complete insight is imagined audience.

Precursors

[edit]

Mead's concept of the generalised other has been linked to Adam Smith's notion of the impartial spectator[2] – itself rooted in the earlier thinking of Addison and Epictectus.[3]

Adam Smith wrote: "We Conceive ourselves as acting in the presence of a person quite candid and equitable, of one who...is meerly a man in general, an impartial Spectator who considers our conduct with the same indifference with which we regard that of other people".[4]

Role-play and games

[edit]

Mead began by contrasting the experience of role-play and pretence in early childhood, in which one role simply gives way to a different one without any continuity, with that of the organised game: "in the latter", he stated, "the child must have the attitude of all the others involved in that game".[5] He saw the organised game as vital for the formation of a mature sense of self, which can only be achieved by learning to respond to, and take on board, the others' attitudes toward the (changing) common undertakings they are involved in: i.e. the generalized other.[6]

Mead argued that "in the game we get an organized other, a generalized other, which is found in the nature of the child itself....in the case of such a social group as a ball team, the team is the generalized other in so far as it enters – as an organized process or social activity – into the experience of any one of the individual members of it".[7]

By seeing things from an anonymous perspective, that of the other, the child may eventually be able to visualize the intentions and expectations of others, and see him/herself from the point of view of groups of others – the viewpoint of the generalized other.

The attitude of the generalized other is the attitude of the larger community. According to Mead, the generalized other is the vehicle by which we are linked to society.

Multiple generalized others

[edit]

Arguably, a modern differentiated society contains as many generalized others as there are social groupings:[8] as Mead put it, "every individual member of any given human society, of course, belongs to a large number of such different functional groups".[9] The result is that everybody will articulate aspects of the range of socio-cultural values in their own way, taking on the perspectives of a set of generalized others in a unique synthesis.[10]

With rising levels of socialisation and individuation, more and more people, and more and more aspects of the self come into play in the dialectic of self and generalized other.[11]

Psychoanalytic equivalents

[edit]

As a concept, the generalised other is roughly equivalent to the idea of the Freudian superego. It has also been compared to Lacan's use of the Name of the Father,[12] as the third party created by the presence of social convention, law, and language in all human interaction.[13] It is also similar to Bakhtin's (Superaddressee) "superaddressee" presumed to receive and understand human communication.

Imagined audiences in social media

[edit]

Specifically referencing modern social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, Eden Litt and Eszter Hargittai explain that the imagined audience refers to a mental construct people form of their audience without real insight into who is actually consuming their online content.[14]

This disconnect between a user's imagined audience and actual audience is affected by social norms and context, and could play a large role on impression management — if a user believes their audience is composed of certain people, they may curate their social media feed and image to reflect this belief. Notably, academic scholar Jacqueline Vickery found in a study that her informants attempted to dissociate themselves from peers they considered "ghetto." Since her informants were aware that Facebook friend connections are visible to everyone, those who were worried about associating with certain people then needed to maintain online distance by declining those friend requests.[15]

Scholar danah boyd argues that the "imagined audience ... resembles the concept of the White audience inherent to respectability politics; namely, that one must be able to successfully perform a White-defined bourgeois self to achieve upward mobility."[16] The relationship between the dominant, acceptable social norms and intersections of class, gender, racial, or ethnic norms creates tension when managing impressions for both the imagined audience and the invisible audience.

As sharing on social media continues to become more commonplace, the imagined audience will continue to play a role in how people choose to represent themselves on different platforms. For instance, a study on impression management in online dating found that participants had to navigate mediating conflict between the pressures of impression management and their desire to present an authentic sense of self.[17] Other similar studies have also found that there are significant instances of misrepresentation in online dating: 86% of participants in one study felt that other members of their dating sites misrepresented their physical appearance.[18] Misrepresentation, particularly on sites where participants are looking for companionship and love, could be explained by the idea of the imagined audience — as participants form the idea of who is actually viewing their profiles, they may cater their own online representation to be more appealing.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Generalized other

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The generalized other is a theoretical construct in and , introduced by philosopher , denoting the organized attitudes and expectations of a that an internalizes to form the structured "me" component of the , enabling coordinated and self-unity. 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. In Mead's developmental framework, the generalized other arises during the "game stage" of childhood , following the "play stage" where children imitate isolated roles of specific others, such as pretending to be or ; here, the child must simultaneously assume multiple interdependent roles (e.g., in a game, grasping positions of , batter, and fielder relative to rules), internalizing the group's normative structure to anticipate responses and regulate behavior. This process bifurcates the into the spontaneous "I" (the response to the internalized attitudes) and the reflective "me" (the internalized attitudes themselves), fostering through self-regulation rather than external . Mead's ideas, compiled posthumously in from student notes after his 1931 death, underpin , emphasizing that the emerges causally from interactive role-taking rather than innate traits or isolated cognition. 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. 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. 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.

Historical Origins

Precursors in Social Theory

developed the concept of the "" 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. 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. Pragmatist philosopher contributed foundational distinctions in self-theory through (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. James's emphasis on the self as a dynamic, relational construct influenced subsequent American thinkers by highlighting how social recognition shapes , though his framework remained tied to observable behaviors and habits rather than abstract communal viewpoints. In contrast, Émile Durkheim's The Division of Labor in Society (1893) introduced 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 in simpler societies or organic in complex ones. While Durkheim viewed this consciousness as a transcending individual agency, early interactive theories diverged by prioritizing personal internalization of group attitudes over reified collective entities.

George Herbert Mead's Development of the Concept

(1863–1931), an American philosopher, sociologist, and psychologist affiliated with the , articulated the generalized other as a central mechanism in social behaviorism, emphasizing how individuals internalize collective social perspectives to form a coherent . His ideas, drawn from lectures delivered between 1927 and his death on April 26, 1931, were compiled and published posthumously as from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist in 1934 by editor . 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 that mirrors the community's structured expectations. Mead situated the generalized other within , a perspective positing that human social processes arise from gesture-based exchanges that become meaningful symbols when individuals anticipate and internalize others' responses. Unlike earlier stages of -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. This stage marks a shift from particular others to the community's holistic attitudes, enabling the 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. By adopting the generalized other, the gains continuity and efficacy, as fragmented personal impulses align with institutionalized social processes, a dynamic grounded in observable behavioral adjustments rather than innate psychological structures. This formulation underscores 's commitment to empirical social origins of mind, rejecting dualistic separations between individual and society.

Theoretical Foundations

Role-Taking Stages in Self-Formation

outlined a developmental sequence of role-taking abilities that enables the emergence of the through social interaction, progressing from undifferentiated to the internalization of societal perspectives. This process, rooted in behaviors in children, posits that self-formation arises causally from the child's capacity to adopt others' attitudes via , particularly and gesture. In the preparatory stage, young children mimic actions and sounds of those around them without grasping the roles or viewpoints involved, relying on reflexive rather than intentional . This phase, evident in infants and toddlers repeating parental gestures or speech, lays a foundational behavioral but does not yet involve assuming an other's attitude toward oneself. derived this from observations of responses, where such precedes symbolic understanding. 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 by "feeding" a doll or scolding a . Here, the child alternately views themselves and situations from the standpoint of a single , fostering initial 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. 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 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 age through group play. emphasized this stage's basis in empirical instances of children's games, where failure to apprehend the whole structure disrupts participation, illustrating the causal of multi-perspective synthesis in self-regulation.

Relation to the 'I' and 'Me'

In 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. 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. 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. Known only retrospectively in memory after action, the "I" introduces novelty and resists full , acting as the source of individual initiative that can challenge or reconstruct the social attitudes comprising the "me." This interplay reveals a core tension: the generalized other imposes social determination via the "me," promoting to communal standards, while the "I" asserts agency, allowing the self to transcend rigid . The resulting enables adaptive self-regulation, as the "I" evaluates and modifies the "me," averting absolute and permitting incremental social evolution through individual innovation within communal constraints.

Applications in Social Processes

Child Development and Socialization

The generalized other facilitates children's acquisition of social norms through iterative role-taking in family, , and peer contexts, culminating in the game stage where individuals internalize the organized attitudes of a group. In this stage, typically emerging during school years, children assume multiple interdependent roles simultaneously, as in organized games like , where actions align with the unified expectations of all participants rather than isolated others. Empirical evidence from , a developmental correlate of role-taking, supports this process; a of 108 children found that Level 1 perspective-taking proficiency at 27 months (mean accuracy 58%) significantly predicted at 52 months (r = 0.31, p = 0.029), indicating early social perspective skills underpin later norm-internalization capacities. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. For instance, an individual might internalize a familial generalized other emphasizing loyalty and emotional interdependence alongside a professional one prioritizing achievement and autonomy. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). Users on platforms like (now ) and 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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.

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 , linking more positive generalized perceptions to higher , trust, and , while negative perceptions correlated with antagonism and lower . 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 . 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 data from 2000–2018 across 60+ countries, showing effect sizes of d ≈ 0.20–0.30 for math and domains, with the pattern persisting after controlling for individual priors. Dehumanization research has tested the generalized other as an internalized societal norm against which outgroups are evaluated. A 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 , 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 . This causal link was experimentally manipulated by priming generalized other alignment, reducing by 15–20%.

Criticisms and Debates

Theoretical Limitations and Philosophical Critiques

Critics of Mead's generalized other highlight its overreliance on , which marginalizes the influence of innate biological dispositions on self-formation. 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 processes, challenging the notion that the emerges solely through internalization of communal attitudes. This framework, as articulated by figures like , 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. This inadequacy echoes broader critiques of symbolic interactionism, where subjective meanings purportedly arise endogenously yet presuppose unexamined biological or rational priors for their generation. 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. Such conformist implications align with historical concerns in liberal philosophy about how socially derived selves subordinate the sovereign individual to undifferentiated communal pressures.

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. 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. 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. 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., > 0.80 in validation samples), but still struggle with , as lab-based trait ratings may not reflect dynamic, real-world internalization processes. 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 , though direct comparative studies remain scarce and often rely on translated self-reports prone to equivalence issues. Overall, while perceptual measures correlate modestly with behavioral outcomes like (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.

References

  1. http://tankona.free.fr/mead1934.pdf
  2. https://cdclv.unlv.edu/pragmatism/aboulafia_intro_mead.pdf
  3. https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/10749/1/fulltext.pdf
  4. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=sociology_reports
  5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247743486_The_Personal_and_the_Social_Mead%27s_Theory_of_the_Generalized_Other%27
  6. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-review/article/study-of-symbolic-interactionism-and-communication-from-the-perspective-of-american-social-psychology/662A86E81178F2E1A6373900D8BF5566
  7. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/context/studentwork/article/2582/viewcontent/EP73517.pdf
  8. https://pressbooks.montgomerycollege.edu/commtheory/chapter/chapter-5-symbolic-interactionism-george-herbert-mead-herbert-blumer/
  9. https://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/465
  10. http://et.worldeconomicsassociation.org/files/2020/07/WEA-ET-9.1-Hermann.pdf
  11. https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/6df9e0ee-b0a0-4372-b4fe-a7cecbef2bca/content
  12. https://cdclv.unlv.edu/pragmatism/wiley_agency.pdf
  13. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mead/
  14. https://iep.utm.edu/mead/
  15. https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Mead/pubs2/mindself/Mead_1934_34.html
  16. https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Mead/pubs2/mindself/Mead_1934_21.html
  17. https://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Mead/pubs/Mead_1925.html
  18. https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Mead/pubs2/mindself/Mead_1934_25.html
  19. https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Mead/pubs2/mindself/Mead_1934_20.html
  20. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/icd.2537
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5970179/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3319037/
  23. https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/jsr/article/download/1934/1598
  24. http://cdclv.unlv.edu/pragmatism/aboulafia_intro_mead.pdf
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4896744/
  26. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.739
  27. https://sociologicalscience.com/download/vol_10/december/SocSci_v10_964to988.pdf
  28. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1037/1089-2680.5.2.100
  29. https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=socs_fac
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338352546_Symbolically_Mediated_Interaction_and_Perspective-_taking_A_Social-relational_Perspective_on_Social_Cognitive_Development
  31. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/encyclopedia-of-language-development/chpt/perspective-taking-communication
  32. https://sannekedehaan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/de-haan-de-jaegher-fuchs-mayer-expanding-perspectives-the-interactive-development-of-perspective-taking-in-early-childhood.pdf
  33. https://www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/holland02.pdf
  34. https://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/782
  35. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08838151.2012.705195
  36. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2056305116633482
  37. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-024-19317-9
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12104280/
  39. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-33370-1
  40. https://www.unr.edu/nevada-today/news/2019/extremity-bias
  41. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/download/9927/2743
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9281383/
  43. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-10939-002
  44. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00087-4
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228758425_Evolutionary_Social_Constructivism
  46. https://www.sociologyguide.com/thinkers/gh-mead.php
  47. https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Mead/pubs/Mead_1911b.html
  48. https://buddingsociologist.in/george-herbert-mead/
  49. https://www.studocu.com/in/document/our-lady-of-fatima-convent-secondary-school/mathematics-applications-and-interpretation-sl/gh-mead/96875510
  50. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1073191120905015
  51. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339511503_Seeing_the_Best_or_Worst_in_Others_A_Measure_of_Generalized_Other-Perceptions
  52. https://richrau.github.io/publication/2021_02_01_rau_et_al-2021-otape/2021_02_01_Rau_et_al-2021-OTAPE.pdf
  53. https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/files/54317623/HrebickovaEtalEJP2018HowAccurateAreNationalStereotypes.pdf
  54. https://www.simplypsychology.org/symbolic-interaction-theory.html
  55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656614000774
  56. https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/6/1/35/114449/Do-Perceiver-Effects-in-Interpersonal-Perception
  57. https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/10/1/121385/202994/Which-Measures-of-Beliefs-About-Others
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.