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

Julie M. Jones: A Critical Review

Self-concept is built not on solitude, but also on how one believes he is perceived by others. The

concept of self is highly dependent on one’s interpersonal circumstances, their interaction with

others, and other’s perception of them. Nevertheless, this does not imply that there is no sense of
autonomy in the formation of one’s self-concept. In fact, in his theory of “Looking Glass Self,”

Cooley (1902) asserts that a person is actively involved in shaping how other people perceive,

judge, and feel about him. The study conducted by Julie Jones integrates different self-concept

theories into social media practices, particularly in the popular video sharing platform, YouTube.

There is an indubitable upsurge in the emergence of content creators in the past decade. Jones

interviewed YouTube content creators and asked them about the changes in their self-concepts

after uploading videos in the enormous media platform. The findings in the study are heavily

reliant on a specific selection of self-concept theories and do not explore the boundaries beyond

it. While the paper presents a decent job of amalgamating the different theories with the standard

practices of YouTube content creators, I believe there are angles Jones might have perhaps

overlooked, which could have made the study more comprehensive if explored further.

The proliferation of YouTube is one of the most notable phenomena of the decade. Along with

its continual emergence, there is an ascent in the number of content creators, loads of people are

jumping into the bandwagon, in hopes of relishing the possible bounty that chaperone it. Jones’

choice of centering the study around the YouTube setting, is consistent with the current

prominence of social media platforms. It is relevant and timely. Incorporating the different self-

concept theories into the responses of the content creators, although not extensive, sets an

adequate framework for further studies about the interaction between the concept of self and

social media practices. The study, although not solely focused, is grounded on Cooley’s (1902)

Looking Glass Self Theory. In his theory, he presents the idea that the self is a social product and

one’s behaviors and attitudes are based on how one thinks society perceives him (Yeung and

Martin, 2003). There is a need for me to point out that Jones’ study is more geared towards the

positive effect of YouTube on the self-concept of content creators. Of course, the findings are
beyond the control of the researcher. However, the slightly skewed sample being in favor of

certain demographics might have contributed to the lack of diversity in the answers. As stated by

Jones, there were more male participants than female participants. There is empirical evidence

that men generally have higher self-esteem than women. For the last two decades, a huge number

of studies on age and gender differences suggest that men have higher self-esteem than women

and aging plays a role in the elevation of self-esteem (American Psychological Association,

2016). A more balanced sample might have diversified the results and given the researcher the

leverage to explore on the negative impact of the concept as well. Self-concept is a spectrum.

Although Jones acknowledged that her study is merely a groundwork for more robust

investigations, it does not justify her abrupt dismissal of the other parts of the spectrum. Due to

the dynamic nature of self, considering the gender and age perspective would have curated a

more comprehensive framework. Another theory integrated in the study is James’ “me-self

theory.” James (1890) posits that humans are not reduced to gregarious animals who simply like

to be in sight of their fellows. Instead, they have an inherent predisposition to get oneself

noticed, and rather favorably, by the lot. The general assertion of Cooley’s theory is that the idea

of one’s self concept is drawn from the communicative life. Jones integrates this specific theory

in the social media context, particularly YouTube. She declares that the digital media serves as a

mediated mirror. Moreover, she adds the social media sites provide an avenue to freely post

comments of judgements and criticisms. While the general consensus of the Looking Glass Self

theory is that individuals form an “imagined judgement” from how they think people perceive

them, Jones argues that in the case of content creators, there is no need to imagine one’s

reflection or other’s judgement. As asserted by Cooley, “the social self is simply an idea, or

system of ideas, drawn from the communicative life, that the mind cherishes its own.” The
particular phrase “the mind cherishes its own” is an implication of the active participation of

one’s inner sense of self in the formation of the “imagined judgements”. Therefore, individuals

have the tendency to filter parts of the imagined judgement in compliance to what they hold

dearly. In the YouTube comment section, there is an option that allows the moderator of the

video to control the comments. One can block certain words and phrases thus conditioning the

comment section to one’s liking. This is similar to concept of “imagined judgement” in a sense

that the moderator imagines the possible “words” or “phrases” that the audience might throw at

him thus he filters it. But then again, the self-concept is a broad spectrum. Gecas (1982) posits

that numerous dimensions of the self-concept have been considered in social psychology. The

self-concept encompasses both the self-conceptions and self-evaluations. These two dimensions

have a minimal but nonetheless, useful distinction between them. Jones could have explored the

micro dimensions of the self-concept. Since the study merely scratches the surface of “self-

concept”, it does not provide adequate footing for the expounding of the self-concept theories

she discussed. Rather, the study was more focused on linking the findings with James’ theory of

empirical self. However, the theory merely served as one of its theoretical underpinnings. Jones

could have expounded on the concept of “self-esteem” since it is relevant to the discussion. The

answers of the respondents might be rooted in underlying self-esteem issues or lack thereof.

Nonetheless, there is a need to mention that Jones did an exquisite job in relating James’

empirical self-theory with the findings. That being said, the findings categorized under the

“material self” can be linked to self-esteem. The participants talked about gaining confidence and

enhancing their creative sides. Gecas (1982) asserts that the self-esteem or self-enhancement

motive can distort our perceptions and concepts. Therefore, two people might receive the same

evaluation but interpret it differently. Since most studies are focused on changes in the self-
concept of the audience or consumers of the content, its effect on the content creators themselves

are often overlooked. Another study that focuses on the effect of feedback on content creators is

“Social Media and Self: Influences on the Formation of Identity and Understanding of Self

through Social Networking Sites” by Madison Ganda. This study utilizes Goffman’s

dramaturgical theory to explain the effects of feedback on online identities on social media

platforms and its association with the development and formation off offline identities. The

findings in this study can be connected to James’ “social self” aspect of the empirical self. In

Jones study, a number of participants talked of the social networking/connecting aspect. It is

important to note that in order to connect to more people, content creators commit to selective

posting. Users perform a certain role and present themselves in a way they deem desirable to the

audience (Ganda, 2014). The issue of role-taking is also mentioned in Gecas’ study of the self-

concept. Going back to Jones, some of her findings suggest that getting feedback from the

audience evokes a sense of self-gratification. Some talked about YouTube giving them

empowerment. It is relevant to recount that there is a disparity between self-concepts and

appraisals of others (Gecas, 1982). By rekindling the issue of bias that distorts how one receives

the evaluation of others, it is safe to say that respondents acquiring a sense of empowerment

from feedbacks might have had their own individual biases that conditioned them to evaluate the

feedback as something grander than it actually is. Other respondents considered their online

persona as an extension of their self rather than a professional image (Jones, 2015). This suggests

that for some, there is no distinct separation between their online selves and offline selves.

Perhaps these people do not assume a certain “role” when creating their content. However, that is

believed to be unlikely since most content creators have a target demographic or audience.

Hence, they shape their online persona based on what their target audience might revere. There
have been numerous instances where YouTube content creators have been “exposed” for their

real personalities that are enormously different from their established persona on YouTube. Back

in 2018, the YouTube beauty community was entangled in a scandal due to unearthed racist comments

and remarks from renowned beauty gurus (The Verge, 2018). Jones claims that broadcasting the self on

digital platforms such as YouTube can act in the place of the traditional reflection of self and notes that

together the media and media platform become a “looking glass lens” that magnifies different dimensions

of the self. Indeed, social media platforms can serve as “mirror” not just to content creators who have a

large audience but to ordinary people as well. The comments on their Instagram posts, the number of

views they get on their Facebook stories, or perhaps the interactions they get on a single tweet on

Twitter – these trifles can have an effect on the self-concept of the regular person. Jones’ study is

the first to shed light on the self-concept changes as a result of posting content on social

networking sites. While this study is not extensive, it is a groundwork for more robust and

comprehensive research and investigations regarding self-concept changes from the viewpoint of

content producers themselves. Overall, I personally think that Jones was able to adeptly integrate

the different self-concept theories into the responses of the YouTubers.

It is crucial for extensive study and research on the “self” to consistently take place. For so long,

social psychology as a young science have been underappreciated by many scientists (Fleck,

1947). The untrained human mind often dismisses that the individual self has an integral effect

on its society and vice versa. Studies on the self and self-concept are devoted to understand why

humans are the way they are and the many factors that affect one’s disposition. Jones’ study is

certainly no exception. Indeed, humans relentlessly preach to “Know Thyself!” yet do not under

undertake the necessary measures to understand it.

References
Bleidorn, W., Arslan, R. C., Denissen, J. J. A., Rentfrow, P. J., Gebauer, J. E., Potter, J., &

Gosling, S. D. (2016). Age and gender differences in self-esteem-A cross-cultural window.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 396–410. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000078

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and social order. New York: Scribner’s Sons

Farokhmanesh, M. (2018, September 17). YouTubers are not your friends. The Verge. Retrieved

from https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/17/17832948/youtube-youtubers-influencer-creator-

fans-subscribers-friends-celebrities

Fleck, L. (1986). To look, to see, to know. In: Cohen, R.S. and Schelle, T. (eds), Cognition and

Fact—Materials on Ludwig Fleck. Dordrecht: D.Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 129–51. Flew,

A. (1973). Crime or Disease? New York: Barnes

Ganda, M. (2014). "Social Media and Self: Influences on the Formation of Identity and

Understanding of Self through Social Networking Sites". University Honors Theses, Paper 55.

doi: https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.64

Gecas, V., (1982). The Self-Concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8(1), 1-33. doi:

10.1146/annurev.so.08.080182.000245

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York,: H. Holt and company.

Jones, J. M. (2015). The looking glass lens: Self-concept changes due to social media practices.

The Journal of Social Media in Society, 4(1), 100–125.