Peer Popularity: Understanding Social Dynamics of Peer Relations

McLellan & Pugh (1999) claim that peer relations are essential to understanding identity both individually and socially. Considering peer relations are important during school years, this essay will focus on the dimension of peer culture called peer popularity. This essay will firstly discuss the definition of peer popularity. Then, through expanding on these definitions, some of the psychological and social characteristics of being popular will be explored. Finally, some of the social psychological variables that contribute to popularity will be discussed.

What is Peer Popularity?

In order to understand what makes someone popular amongst their peers, we must first define what it means to be popular. Research suggests that peer popularity can be broken down into two sub categories, they are, peer perceived popularity (also known as consensual popularity) and sociometric popularity (de Bruyn & van den Boom, 2005; Kosir & Pecjak, 2005; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). Kosir & Pecjak define socieometric popularity as “students who are well liked by many and disliked by few“ (p.129). In contrast Kosir & Pecjak state that students who are perceived as being popular are those who are described as popular by their peers but are not necessarily like.

It is important to distinguish the two forms of popularity, as both forms differ in their characteristics (Kosir & Pecjak, 2005). Kosir & Pecjak also explain that peer popularity differs from peer friendships. The sociometric measures of popularity does not explore one on one friendships, but rather, perceived status or acceptance within a larger group (Kosir & Pecjak).Therefore, the definition of popularity, is not the amount of friends you have or don’t have; it is how you are viewed within a group.

What Characteristics make you popular?

Not surprisingly children who are sociometiricly popular carry likeable personality traits. These children are easy to get along with because they are cooperative, sharing, forgiving and able to keep promises (de Bruyn & van den Boom, 2005). Furthermore they tend not to be mean, dominating or overly emotional (de Bruyn & van den Boom). Lease, Kennedy, & Axelrod (2002) support this view, suggesting that children who are sociometricly popular have higher levels of prosocial behaviour and lower levels of aggressive and disruptive behaviour.

Peer perceived popularity on the other hand is has different characteristics. Lease et al. (2002) claim the peers perceived as being popular have expressive equipment, spending power and are above average in social aggression and social visibility. In addition LaFontana and Cillessen's (2002) study suggests that peers perceived as being most popular were rated at higher levels attractiveness, social connectedness, intelligence and athleticism. This evidence may suggest that popularity can influence perception of favoured personal characteristics or that favoured characteristics can influence perceptions of popularity.

Peer perceived popularity, also has some associations with sexual activity (Prinstein, Meade & Cohen, 2003). Results from Prinstein et al. suggest that higher reports of oral sex were associated with peer popularity, but not likeability. However, if the number of sexual partners increased, popularity decreased (Prinstein et al.). Prinstein et al. claim that being sexually active fits the prototype of being popular. Therefore more students are likely to engage in sexual activity or report that they are sexually active to gain status.

Common characteristics of Sociometric Popularity and Peer Perceived Popularity.

A common characteristic of both sociometric popularity and peer perceived popularity is attractiveness (Boyatzis, Baloff & Duriex, 1998). Analysis suggest, that the perception of attractiveness is related to the perception of popularity (Boyatzis et al.). That is, as perceptions of attractiveness increases so does perceptions of popularity. These correlations were found both within the female population and the male population (Boyatzis et al.). Adams & Roopnarine (1994) supports these findings as they found that facial attractiveness plays an important role in both peer perceived popularity and sociometric popularity.

In addition both sociometric and peer perceived popularity tend to have positive correlations with social competence (Adams & Roopnarine, 1994). However, the 2 subcategories of popularity use their social competencies differently, but, both know how to use their skill to their advantage. For example, those who are perceived as being popular know their goals and how to achieve them, even if it means being aggressive and manipulative (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002). This is because they are competent in understanding social structures. However, sociometrically popular students use their skills to gain friendships (see Appendix C for examples).

Does not being Popular make you Unpopular?

According to Kosir & Pecjak (2005) those who are not considered popular in school are not unpopular. Popularity should be considered on a continuum, as either being high or low in popularity. As Kosir and Pecjak (2005) state “the absence of acceptance does not imply the presence of rejection, and the absence of rejection does not imply the presence of acceptance” (p.130). Therefore, being considered popular is independent of being considered unpopular (Kosir & Pecjak). We will now explore some of the characteristics of those children who are considered unpopular.

According to LaFontana and Cillessen (2002) students who were considered unpopular had significantly lower levels of favoured characteristics. In comparison to popular people, there were significantly lower reported differences found in attractiveness, intelligence, athleticism and social connectedness (LaFontana & Cillessen). Figure 1 provides a graphical representation of these differences. Generally the children who were considered unpopular had significantly lower measures of desired characteristics than those seen in popular children.


Social Psychological Variables Contribute to Popularity

Groups are formed amongst peers, just like in life, through social categorisation (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Those who are considered popular have to maintain their status so they tend affiliate with those who are similar to them. This is because, the people you associate with will influenced how one is perceived by their peers (Boyatzis et al., 1998). Making, Stigma by association an evident dynamic of peer association.

Less popular children seek to join popular groups because they can attain higher status. However, popular children have to reject attempts from others to join their group to avoid stigma by association (Steinberg, 1993). This creates segregation and in-group and out groups structures (de Druyn & van de Boom, 2005). de Druyn and van de Boom suggest that initial likings towards the popular group may became negative because of rejection and jealously. Therefore, the paradoxical idea of popularity is formed (Steinberg).

According to some researchers, children generally have well formed stereotypes about who they consider to be popular and unpopular (LaFontana & Cillessen, 1998). These stereotypes are either confirmed or dismissed depending on personality. For example, those who fit the unpopular stereotype are given less positive attributions by other peers (LaFontana & Cillessen). Therefore, if unpopular children behaviour negatively it further confirms the unpopular stereotype. In addition, less stable attributions were given for more for positive behaviour of the unpopular children (LaFontana & Cillessen).

In contrast the popular children have a mixture of positive and negative attributions towards them from their peers. Popular children are held less responsible for negative behaviours. However, they also had less stable attributions for their positive behaviour (LaFontana & Cillessen, 1998). According to de Bruyn & van den Boom (2005) some of less stable or even negative attributions towards those who are perceived as being popular may be due to judgement, envy or jealousy.

Just like many individuals who interact in a group, children and adolescents over a period of time create group norms and values (Sebald, 1992). These norms can be based on stereotypes but according to Sebald, clothing and appearance is the most predominant group norm. Many students, in particular females, tend to have desires to be more popular (Sebald). Therefore, students are more likely to be susceptible to the normative influences (Bushman & Baumeister, 2008). Sometimes failure to meet the expected norms can lead to rejection or ostracism (Sebald).

Norms are typically created and passed down from earlier generations within the school or are made by the current leader (Bishop et al., 2004). According to Bishop, et al., leaders create norms which reinforce the popularity and authority of a crowd. The popular student leaders are able to control the norms, as other students look up to them to determine what is cool and uncool (Bishop et al). Therefore, the popular students are used as a reference group or an example of behaviours which will maintain ones social acceptance (Bishop et al; Sebald, 1992).

Peers who are perceived as being popular are also considered the trendsetters. They have the ability to integrate cultural dress norms depicted in the media to the school grounds. Therefore, those who are able to create this integration, successfully gain status, prestige and dominance (de Bruyn & van den Boom, 2005). This is an example of how norms from broader society can become norms in the school context and can influence group structures.

McClellands theory of needs might explain some of the social interactions in peer groups. McClellands theory of needs suggests that humans are motivated by three needs (Deckers, 2005). Those needs are affiliation, achievement and authority (Deckers). McCelland’s theory may give some insight as to why these social groups occur in the first place. As identified earlier peer interactions are important to the development of personal identity. Personal identities can be shaped from the attempt to meet these needs in social environments. (See Appendix D for examples)

Conclusion

From the research presented here it is evident that social interactions between children and adolescents are complex. This essay distinguished two different types of popularity and provided a snapshot of what it means to be popular. However, it has not come close to describing the full dynamics associated with peer popularity. Through looking at social categorisation, stigmas, norms, attributions and stereotypes we get a glimpse of the complexity of the popularity system.

Appendices
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms
Appendix B: Paradoxical Popularity
Appendix C: Social Competencies
Appendix D: Affiliation, Achievement & Authority
Appendix E: Evaliation

References
Adams, G. R. & Roopnarine, J. L. (2004). Physhical attractiveness, social skills and same-sex peer popularity. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Phychodrama & Sociometry, 47(1). 15-36.

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature (1st ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth

Bishop, J. H., Bishop, M., Bishop, M., Gelbwasser, L., Green, S., Peterson, E., Runinsztaj, R. & Zuckerman, A. (2004). Why we harass nerd and freaks: a formal theory of student culture and norms. Journal of School Health, 74(7). 235-251.

Boyatzis, C. J. Baloff, P. & Durieux, C. (1998). Effects of perceived attractiveness and academic success on early adolescent peer popularity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159(3), 337-344.

de Bruyn, E.H. & van den Boom, D. C. (2005). Interpersonal behaviour, peer popularity and self-esteem in early adolescence. Social Development, 14(4). 555- 573.

Deckers, L. (2005). Motivation: Biological, psychological and environmental. (2nd ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Kosir, K. & Pecjak, S. (2005). Sociometry as a method for investigating peer relationships: what does it actually mean? Educational Research, 47(1), 127-144.

LaFontana , K. M. & Cillessen, A. H. N. (1998). The nature of children’s stereotypes of popularity. Social Development, 7(3), 301-320.

LaFontana , K. M. & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: a multimethod assessment. Developmental Pscyhology, 38(5), 635-674.

Lease, A. M., Kennedy, C. A. & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Children’s social construction of popularity. Social Development, 11(1), 87-109.

McLellan, J. A. & Pugh, M. J. V. (1999). The Role of Peer Groups in Adolescent Social Identity: Exploring the Importance of Stability and Change. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Parkhurst, J.T. & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer perceived popularity, two distinct dimensions of peer status. The Journal of Early Adolescents, 18(2).

Prinstein, M. J., Meade, C.S., & Cohen, G. L. (2003). Adolescent Oral Sex, Peer Popularity, and Perceptions of Best Friends' Sexual. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28, (4), 243-249.

Sebald, H. (1992). Adolescents: a Social Psychological Analysis (4th ed). New Jersey; Prentice Hall.

Steinberg, L. (1993). Adolescence (3rd ed.). Sydney; McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Figure 1: Descriptions of Popular and Unpopular Study Targets

Figure 1. This figure represents the means of each category for popular and unpopular targets. (Click to enlarge)

LaFontana , K. M. & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: a multimethod assessment. Developmental Pscyhology, 38(5), 635-674.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms

Attribution- cognitive process of assigning meaning to a symptom or behaviour (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 156)

Expressive Equipment: relates to being attractive and having spending power (Lease, Kennedy, & Axelrod, 2002)

In-group- those belonging to the same group “Us” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 404)

Normative Influence- Going along with the crowd in order to be liked or accepted (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 267)

Norms- social standards that prescribe what people ought to do (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 256)

Out-group- Those belonging to a different group “them” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 404)

Reference group- groups that people look to when evaluating or deciding qualities, circumstances, attitudes, values and behaviours (Steinberg, 1993)

Social aggression-consists of actions directed at damaging another's self-esteem, social status, or both, and includes behaviors such as facial expressions of disdain, cruel gossipping, and the manipulation of friendship patterns (Galen & Underwood, 1997).

Social Categorisation- Sorting people into groups on the basis of common characteristics (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 404)

Social visibility- described as being perceived as ‘cool and athletic’ (Lease, Kennedy, & Axelrod, 2002)

Stereotypes-beliefs that associate groups of people with certain traits (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 403)

Stigma- an attribute that is perceived by others as broadly negative (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 227)

Stigma by association- rejection of those who associate with stigmatised others (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 408)


Definitions from:

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature (1st ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1998). A developmental investigation of social aggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 589-600.

Lease, A. M., Kennedy, C. A. & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Children’s social construction of popularity. Social Development, 11(1), 87-109.

Steinberg, L. (1993). Adolescence (3rd ed.). Sydney; McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Appendix B: Paradoxical Popularity

Appendix B: Paradoxical Popularity

Steinberg's (1993) Explanation of Paradoxical Popularity

"There are limits to the number of friendships that anyone person can maintain. Because popular girls get a high number of affiliative offers, they have to reject more offers of friendships than other girls. Also, to maintain their higher status, girls who form the elite group must avoid associations with lower status girls.. These girls are likely to ignore the afflilative attempts of many other girls, leading to the impression that they are stuck-up. Shortly after these girls reach their peak of popularity, they become increasing disliked" (p. 183)

Steinberg, L. (1993). Adolescence (3rd ed.). Sydney; McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Appendix C: Social Competencies of Sociometricly Popular Students

Appendix C: Social Competencies of Sociometricly Popular Students

Some examples of Social Competencies that are described in the Gale Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescents (1998):

• Correctly interpret other children's body language and tone of voice. Well-liked children can distinguish subtleties in emotions. For example, they can distinguish between anger directed toward them versus toward a parent.

• Directly respond to the statements and gestures of other children. Well-liked children will say other children's names, establish eye contact, and use touch to get attention.

• Give reasons for their own statements and gestures (actions). For example, well-liked children will explain why they want to do something the other child does not want to do.

• Cooperate with, show tact towards, and compromise with other children, demonstrating the willingness to subordinate the self by modifying behavior and opinions in the interests of others. For example, when joining a new group where a conversation is already in progress, well-liked children will listen first, establishing a tentative presence in the group before speaking (even if it is to change the subject).

Gale Encyclopedia of Childhood & Adolescence, (1998). [Accessed October 2007]. Peer Acceptance. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2602/is_0004/ai_2602000424

Appendix D: Authority, Achievement and Affiliation

Appendix D: Authority, Achievement and Affiliation

Here are a few examples of how McClelland's Theory of Needs could work in a peer relations context

Authority: Students who are popular have domination and prestige. They gain authority through their status. Therefore, one may be motivated to be popular depending on how much they had a high need for authority.

Achievement: Students may want to work their way up in the social scene because they want to achieve more on a social level. If there is a high need for achievement, popular status may be considered a goal

Affiliation- Students want to feel accepted and liked by others. Within schools the status of popularity has many social benefits. Although, peer perceived popularity may not mean that you are liked by all. Therefore those with a drive to be sociometricly popular (liked by others) may have a higher need for affiliation.

Appendix E: Evaluation

Appendix E: Evaluation

Theory
Although I have covered a number of contributing factors to popularity, I feel as though I have not done the topic justice. Due to the extensive amount of research I had to be selective with the information included in the blog. Some areas that could have been covered more includes, cultural age and gender differences. There were many social pyschological variables which related to popularity however the most popular theories were covered only in breif.

With regards to Australian society, I took an approach which was general and could be applied in most western cultures. For example, I did not focus on American groups such as "Jocks" and "Preps" but focused on the general perspective of social interaction between peers. I could have discussed directly relating to Australian society however, I was restricted by some of the Australian articles being avaliable.

Research-
A majority of the research was American however, I feel like I explored research relevant to the questions. I felt satisfied with the amount of research I used and I was able to use journal articles and books to discuss key concepts of the essay.

Online Engagement
I felt satisified with my efforts of online engagement. I contributed to a number of blogs and also posed a number of blogs through out the term. The links can be found below

Blogs posted by me
Special Beauty Report: Erasing Ethnicity
More on Sex...
Sociometrics and popularity-
Popularity- Definition? and a spanner.
Teen Challange Day
SEX and popularity
Which group were you?!
How To...
Friendship, Popularity and Peer Acceptance
POPULARITY!!

Comments on other peoples blogs
Emily's Blog
Amanda's Blog
Rebecca's Blog
Rachels Blog
Emily's Blog
Mikes blog
Zoe's blog
Jess's Blog
Laurens blog
Erins blog

Readability

Word Count- 1,599
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 13.6
Flesch Reading Ease: 27.4

Special Beauty Report: Erasing Ethnicity

Hey everyone! I know you are all working hard on your blogs. However, my internet homepage is set on ninemsn website... and this article caught my attention

Special Beauty Report: Erasing Ethnicity

What do people think about the whole idea??
Im slightly be shocked by it!! It goes to show how the media really influences ideal beauty.

Good luck with your blogs everyone

More on Sex...

I was just searching through another lot of articles and I came across another article relating to sex and popularity. This journal article is a little bit more in depth. I found it quite interesting. The article talks about a number of things however I have summarised some key concepts here.

The idea of the article was to explore the benefits of sexual intercourse and oral sex on adolscents. Most benefits were found among peer relations and perceptions through the use of sociometric assessment. The results found that adolescents' reports of oral sex and intercourse were significantly associated with peer perceived popularity but not likability among peers. According to Prinstein, Meade & Cohen (2003) these results suggests that adolescents may either enjoy higher status or they feel pressure to report higher sexual activity.


Prinstein, Meade & Cohen (2003) conclude that
"Adolescents may believe that sexual activity best matches a prototype of popular, high-status adolescents. Reputation-based measures of peer status identify those individuals who best match this prototype of popularity; indeed, only this measure of status was associated with sexual behavior. The desire to engage in, or simply report, sexual activity may reflect adolescents' motivation to imitate that prototype (e.g., Gibbons & Gerrard, 1995)."

In contrast they found that the more sexual partners, the more likely popular status and peer acceptance declined. I thought this research was useful, as it clearly identifies the differences between being liked and being popular within their research. I hope you all found it interesting, a link to the article can be found below.

Prinstein, M. J., Meade, C.S., & Cohen, G. L. (2003) Adolescent Oral Sex, Peer Popularity, and Perceptions of Best Friends' Sexual. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28, (4), 243-249.

Sociometrics and popularity-

James has brought to my attention "sociometrics", so I have decided just to do a little blog defining what it is and how I might be able to use it for some research for my topic. James also raised a good point by stating that popularity is differently defined by different people. I think this is important point to keep in mind as individuals and cultures will all have a different definition of peer popularity.

Sociometry is the known as the method for measuring social relationships. Sociometrics can reveal structures that give a group its form: the alliances, the subgroups, the hidden beliefs, the forbidden agenda’s and the ideological agreements. I think that sociometry can be used in order to increase the understanding of peer relations and how peers and others measure the popularity of each other.

Wu, Hart, Draper and Olsen (2001), describe research which suggests that "it is peer perceptions representing the perspective of many 'insiders' (peers, as apposed to outsiders such as teachers and parents) that may ultimately determine a child's sociometric status." Wu, Hart, Draper and Olsen (2001) state that sociometrics is used to identify children that may be rejected or neglected by their peers. Its and interesting this sociometry stuff so as I immerse myself in readings, I'm sure my understanding of it will blossom too ;o)

I also found this abtract to this an article which I found really interesting regarding the 2 types of popularity definitions that I was struggling with.

Sociometric popularity is computed based on peer liking and dislike. The relation between sociometric popularity and perceived popularity, based on peer identification of school associates considered popular, was investigated in a sample of 727 middle school students (7th and 8th grades). Most sociometrically popular students were not high on perceived popularity. Most students high on perceived popularity were not sociometrically popular. Perceived popularity was correlated more highly with a measure of dominance than was sociometric popularity. Sociometrically popular students who were not high on perceived popularity were characterized by peers as kind and trustworthy but not as dominant, aggressive, or stuck-up. Students who were high on perceived popularity but not sociometrically popular were characterized as dominant, aggressive, and stuck-up but not as kind and trustworthy. Sociometrically popular students who also were high on perceived popularity were characterized as kind, trustworthy, and dominant but not as aggressive or as stuck-up. (Parkhurst, 1998)

I shall try and get hold of the whole article because its very interesting. Well that's all for now my furry friends of the forrest! take care..




Parkhurst, J. T. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer perceived popularity. The Journal of Early Adolescents, 18(2), 125-144. Retrieved on the 3rd of October from: http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/2/125

Wu, X., Hart, C. H., Draper, T. W., & Olsen, J. A. (2001). Peer and teacher sociometrics for preschool children: Cross-informant concordance, temporal stability, and reliability. Merrill Palmer Quarterly.

Popularity- Definition? and a spanner.

Hey everyone,
I have recently being thinking about what popularity means within the school context. Now, alot of literature that I have being reading suggests that popularity refers to how well liked someone is . However, I was thinking about what the 'popular' group was like when I was at school. The popular group at my school were those who were into partying, boys, fashion, taking risks and always looked good. They seemed to do reasonably ok at school and were quite confident. However, they weren't necessarily liked by their peers but they were idolised. It was strange because although no one really liked them, but most people wanted to be them!

So I'm finding a bit of a clash in definitions. Because I'm getting the sense that the popular kids by definition are the 'good', involved, smart and well liked kids. This could also have something to do with the American literature.

Sternberg (1993) does suggest that popularity is a bit paradoxical.

Here is the quote from Sternberg (1993) about paradoxical popularity
" There are limits to the number of friendships that anyone person can maintain. Because popular girls get a high number of affiliative offers, they have to reject more offers of friendships than other girls. Also, to maintain their higher status, girls who form the elite group must avoid associations with lower status girls.. These girls are likely to ignore the afflilative attempts of many other girls, leading to the impression that they are stuck-up. Shortly after these girls reach their peak of popularity, they become increasing disliked" (p. 183)

This doesn't really solve my dilemma so I thought I'd got your comments about whether the popular group at your school were 'good', involved, smart and well liked kids? or were they a bit deviant? or a bit of both?

Sternberg, L. (1993) Adolescence 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York.

Teen Challange Day

SEX and popularity

well I found this little article about sexual experience and popularity. Lauren commented that a lot of the popular people at her school were the more sexually experienced ones. So I thought this research was interesting. Sorry the text isn't that great if you click on the article it should open to a readable size

Hollander, D. (2003). How to win friends? Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 25(5), 200-200

Which group were you?!

I've just been reading a few journal articles to see what sort of research is out there about popularity within schools. I found one article which summarises 5 groups which are generally found within schools

• Popular- peers perceive them as social leaders
• Average status- they are not considered leaders and not rejected by peers
• Controversial- sometimes showing leadership skills but at times can be aggressive
• Neglected- usually are withdrawn or neglected by peers
• Rejected- actively unaccepted or shunned by the rest of the peer group

Gumpel, T. S. & Ish-Shalom, K. V. (2003). How do young adults remember their social status? A retrospective analysis of peer rejection in childhood and adolenscence, and protective factors predictive factors predictive of its remission, 6,(2). 129-157

How To...

Hello again.
Today's lecture got me thinking about sociocultural competencies in regard to my topic. I found this article in the Encyclopedia of Childhood and Adolescence. It highlights some of the reasons children tend to be more accepted by their peers. The section focuses more on peer acceptance than popularity, but I thought it was quite good.

Ive pasted section from the article which I found interesting:

Factors such as physical attractiveness, cultural traits, and disabilities affect the level of peer acceptance, with a child's degree of social competence being the best predictor of peer acceptance. Children who are peer-accepted or popular have fewer problems in middle and high school, and teens who are peer-accepted have fewer emotional and social adjustment problems as adults. Peer-accepted children may be shy or assertive, but they often have well-developed communication skills. Peer-accepted children tend to:

• Correctly interpret other children's body language and tone of voice. Well-liked children can distinguish subtleties in emotions. For example, they can distinguish between anger directed toward them versus toward a parent.
• Directly respond to the statements and gestures of other children. Well-liked children will say other children's names, establish eye contact, and use touch to get attention.
• Give reasons for their own statements and gestures (actions). For example, well-liked children will explain why they want to do something the other child does not want to do.
• Cooperate with, show tact towards, and compromise with other children, demonstrating the willingness to subordinate the self by modifying behavior and opinions in the interests of others. For example, when joining a new group where a conversation is already in progress, well-liked children will listen first, establishing a tentative presence in the group before speaking (even if it is to change the subject).

This highlights how sociocultural competencies effect peer acceptance at school. Groups within schools create a "Cultural Map" indicating how one should act in certain situations, how we should dress, and how we should view others. They define what is culturally acceptable (or 'cool' enough) with in their school culture. If we stray from this map the consequence my result in not being accepted.

I found a lot of the things outlined in the article pretty obvious reasons to why children are more accepted. However, for some people (i.e those from another culture) might not find these social directions or rules as obvious.

Friendship, Popularity and Peer Acceptance

Hey ALL.
Just found this site which expands a bit on friendship, popularity and peer acceptance.

What are peer relationships and friendship?

Peer acceptance represents social status or popularity within a large group, whereas friendships represent relationships based on mutual respect, appreciation, and liking. Early adolescence is a time characterized by friendships that share more common feelings and are more supportive than when children are younger (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987). At the same time, youth who have more mutual friends (i.e., individuals with a similar degree of affection for one another) are more likely to be accepted by their larger peer group (George & Hartmann, 1996; Parker & Asher, 1993).

Peer acceptance and friendships are distinct constructs and contribute to youth development. Peer acceptance has been shown to be associated with greater feelings of belonging (Brown & Lohr, 1987) and fewer behavioral problems in youth (Coie, Terry, Lenox, Lochman, & Hyman, 1995), whereas, friendships have been shown to directly influence feelings of loneliness (Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1993). However, both peer acceptance and friendships similarly provide youth with self-esteem and improved psychological adjustment (Parker & Asher, 1993).

Taken From - Jin Yu,J., Tepper, K. H. & Russell, S. T. (2007). Peer relationships and friendships. http://cals-cf.calsnet.arizona.edu/fcs/content.cfm?content=peer_rel

POPULARITY!!

Hello everyone, welcome to blog topic~ number 2
I have chosen my own topic which for blog number 2 with James' help, my question is as follows

Peer Popularity
A significant issue for many people during adolescence is negotiating peer popularity at school.

• What are the psychological and social characteristics of popular versus unpopular school students (amongst peers) (e.g., attractiveness, personality, etc.)?


• And what dynamic social psychological variables also contribute to popularity (e.g., social influence, social categorisation, etc.)?


• Where possible, discuss in relation to Australian society, although international research is likely to be relevant. Note that some of the bullying literature may be useful.

The concept of peer popularity has fascinated my ever since I started school. During my schooling years and I'm sure most other people's schooling years there has always been this idea of 'the popular group.'

I'm wondering if

• anyone didn't have a popular group at their school?
• popularity differs for guys? (guys out there I'd love to hear your thoughts on this one)
• Popular people consider themselves popular?

Well I thought I'd just get the ball rolling by introducing my topic. Feel free to leave comments about your experiences or ideas about 'popular groups' you've encountered during your life time.

I'm sure I'm not the only one out there who can't help but think of the film Mean Girls. Its very exaggerated and stereotypical I know. But just something the get the cogs whirling... here's the trialer for the movie for those of you who haven't seen it... enjoy..

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT YOU KNEW ALL THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT YOUSELF. Understanding the Social Self: A Personal Analysis

My Social Self

According to Vaughan & Hogg (2005) a person’s identity can be divided into 2 components, personal identity and the social identity. I believe that personal and social identity interacts and do not act separately from each other. George Herbert Mead in 1969, proposed the theory of symbolic interactionism. His theory suggests that individuals create meaning through the interaction of their perception and the environment. Therefore, theory gives individuals cognitive understanding about who they are, which is then expressed in their behaviours and emotions. (Hewitt, 1997).


This essay will discuss some of the psycho-social variables that contribute to my social identity. I also address how social variables influence some constructs of personal identity. These concepts have been summarised on a concept map. From exploring McClelland's theory of needs I will also provide some underlying needs, that might explain social behaviour. This is done on the basis of how I have created meaning from myself, the environment and their interaction.


Social Roles

Within life we give ourselves a number of titles which are also known as social roles. A Social role according to James, Witte & Galbraith (2006) is an expectation of a behaviour, attitude or function in which a position in society holds. James, Witte & Galbraith (2006) have highlighted a number of common roles played by adults. I play a number of these social roles and they contribute to my social identity. Within my family environment some of my roles include sister, daughter, cousin and niece. Within the community, my social roles are diverse and include citizen, church member, friend, neighbour, and student.


Most of these roles remain constant throughout my life; however roles can change daily or over time. I also have roles which I anticipate I will play in the future. Some of which are already in progress, as I am engaged, and I will be getting married and taking on the role as wife. After I graduate, I hope that my degree will assist me in becoming the role of a counsellor or psychologist. These social roles are important as they put in place scripts about how to behave in certain situations.


Social Categorisation

Within these social roles, according to Baumeister & Bushman (2008) humans have a natural tendency to divide themselves into groups. The social categorisation theory proposes that society influences individual identity (Goa, 2007). These social groups are established based on a shared identity with other group members (Rogers & Lea, 2005). Rogers & Lea (2005) state that these commonalities are based not interpersonal relations between individuals (such as liking someone), but are based around the common factor. Social categorisation occurs when I place myself into groups that are either like me (in-groups) or not like me (out-groups) (Kashima, Foddy & Platow, 2002).


The most obvious example of this is being female. From this personal attribute I clearly distinguish myself from being male. I have various other social groups in my life that contribute to my social identity, such as my race. My mother is Tongan and my father is Australian. Therefore, I am connected in various ways to the Tongan community and the Australian community. However, living in Australia I tend to identify myself more with Australians. This observation supports Kashima, Foddy & Platow’s (2002) claim that social categorisation differs depending on context. Again, a clear distinction has been made between me (who I am) and any other race that is not either Tongan or Australian (not me).


My values and beliefs are another area of my life where social categorisation is evident. Being a Christian I have similar morals and values to many other Christians. By placing myself in the Christian category, produces the statement that I am Christian and I am not Atheist or Agnostic. My family has also instilled in me certain values and priorities which connects to or disconnects from a vast number of groups. Categorisations determine who I am, and who I am not in society. Impacting on my cognition's and can be seen in action via my social roles and self presentation.


Social catagorisation may occur for a number of reasons. Baumiester & Bushman (2008) claim that people use the stereotyping heuristic (another form of social catergorisation). This heuristic is used create mental shortcuts to simplify the world. McClelland's theory of needs also bring to light the need for another possible reason for social catagorisation. McClelland's theory suggests that humans have a need for affiliation. Social catergorisation may be a way to improve and create a sense of affiliation.


Social Comparison

The self comparison theory that was proposed by Festinger in 1954, suggests that we compare our abilities and opinions with others (Chien- Huang & Chia-Ching, 2007). Vaughan & Hogg (2005) go as far as stating that our cognitions, emotions and behaviours are formulated around the behaviours, emotions and cognitions of other people. This concept is personally confronting but at the same time very real. Social comparison can be made in order to validate oneself and are more likely to occur when insecurity is present (Chien- Huang & Chia-Ching, 2007). Social comparison can be used to enhance, validate, improve or destruct one’s social identity, depending on the direction of the comparison (Chien- Huang & Chia-Ching, 2007).


On a personal level, social comparisons have an impact on my social identity. I often associate and make comparison with those who are like me. These similarities are mainly found in those who have the same interests and those who are of the same background (i.e. Tongan and Australian). I would describe myself as generally optimistic, happy, caring, honest, open, humorous and passionate. These descriptions are based on my comparison of myself to people who I interact with regularly. When comparing myself with someone like Mother Teresa, I wouldn’t consider myself as caring as initially described.

The same goes for my social class, I consider myself to be middle class. This concept of myself would change depending on context and geographical location. Yet in the context of my current situation, I consider myself to be similar to those around me. According to Zuckerman & O’Loughlin (2006), we are more likely to associate with people who enhance our self-esteem. This leads to better mental health. This research, although confronting can pose questions about the people we associate with and why we associate with them. This evidence could support McClelland’s theory of needs regarding power (Deckers, 2005).

Other comparisons manifest themselves in physical attractiveness. Being a female in today’s society it is hard to avoid physical comparisons. Western culture focuses on stereotypical form of attractiveness. I use upward social comparisons against 'ideal' images. Jones & Buckingham (2005) conducted a study which suggests that women with high and low self esteem are both sensitive to comparison of attractiveness. However, the direction of social comparison differs. Jones & Buckingham’s (2005) finding suggest that the direction of my social comparison is due to low trait self esteem.

Self Presentation

Social comparisons can give positions or places in society and contribute to the types of groups we which associate. The labels I give myself as a result of these positive or negative comparisons are instilled in my cognitions. Self presentation, allows me to either hide or promote these characteristics from society. Fiske (2004) claims that we present ourselves differently depending on how we want others to perceive us. Fiske (2004) defines 5 common forms of self presentations which include integration, self promotion, intimidation, exemplification and supplication.

Self presentation for me assists in gaining approval about my social self from peers, friends, family and other social groups. Through using the looking glass self, I imagine how others view me. When I first meet someone I am generally quiet and reserved. My looking glass self tells me that if I’m loud and rude at first, the other person might think I’m terrible company. After becoming acquainted I tend to open up more and become more active in the social situation. This is an example of my most predominant self presentation technique, integration (Fiske, 2004). This may also suggest a high need for affiliation according to McClelland's theory of needs (Deckers, 2005).


Culture

Finally my cultural background also has influence on my social identity. In contrast with Australia, an individualistic culture (Malim, 1997), Tonga has a collectivist culture (Malim, 1997). Living in Australia, the western culture has dominated my social interactions in the community. My Tongan heritage, on the other hand, has more of an influence on my family interactions. I believe it is from my Tongan background that I have developed an interdependent self. Myers (2008) suggests that interdependent people define themselves by their social connections.

Conclusion

The interactions of these psycho-social variables all influence my social self and self concept. This essay only covered a brief description of myself. However, from the theory, it is evident that I have an influence on society just as much as society has an influence me. The symbolic interactionism theory gives an understanding of how these variables, my perception of the world and the environment, interact to create my self concept.

Appendices
Appendix A: Social-psycho Variables that Contribute to the Creation of My Social Self
Appendix B: Glossary
Appendix C: Social Presentation
Appendix D: Symbolic Interactionism
Appendix E: Motives and Directions of Social Comparison
Appendix F: Reasons for Social Comparisons
Appendix G: Social Roles
Appendix H: Self Evaluation

References- includes glossary references
Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human
Nature (1st ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth

Carr, S. C. (2003). Social Psychology. Context, Communication and Culture.Milton: John Wiley

Chien-Huang, L. & Chia- Ching, T. (2007). Comparison conditions, comparison patterns and models of comparative behaviour. Social Behaviour and Personality, 35(6), 761-776

Deckers, L. (2005). Motivation: Biological, psychological and environmental. (2nd ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Fiske, S. T. (2004). The self: Social to the core. In S. T. Fiske (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. (Ch 5, pp. 169 - 214). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley

Goa, C. D. (2007). Social identity theory and the reduction of inequality: can cross cutting categorization reduce inequality in mixed race groups? Social Behaviour and Personality, 35(4), 537-550

Hewitt, J.P. (1997). Self and Society a Symbolic Interactionism Social Psychology. (7th ed.), London: Allyn and Bacon.

James, W. B., Witte, J.E., & Galbraith, M. W. (2006). Havighurst’s social roles revisited. Journal of Adult Development, 13(1). 52-60.

Jones, A. M. & Buckingham, J. T. (2005). Self-esteem as a moderator of the effect of social comparisons on women’s body image. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(8), 1164-1187.

Kashima, Y., Foddy, M. & Platow, M. J. (2002), Self and Identity. Personal, Social and Symbolic. New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Malim, T. (1997). Social Psychology. (2nd Ed). Wiltshire. Macmillan press Ltd

Myers, D. G. (2008). Social Psychology. (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill

Rogers, P. & Lea, M. Social presence in distributed group environments: the role of social identity. Behaviour & Information Technology, 24(2). 151-158

Vaughan, G.M. & Hogg, M. A. (2005). Introduction into Social Psychology. (4th ed.) Harlow: Pearson Education

Zuckerman, M. & O’Loughlin, R. E. (2006). Self-enhancement by social comparison: a prospective analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 751-760

Appendix A: Psycho-social Variables that Contribute to the Creation of My Social Self

Click on the concept map to see a larger version.

Appendix B: Glossary

Glossary

Collectivist Culture- The extent to which an individual or group are orientated towards the group (Carr, 2003.). Priorities are given to the groups goals (Myers, 2008)

Individualistic Culture- The extent to which an individual or group are orientated towards themselves (Carr, 2003). Priorities are given to the individuals goals over the group’s goals (Myers, 2008).

Interdependent Self- Constructing one’s identity in relations to others (Myers, 2008).
Personal Identity-definition of self in terms of traits, idiosyncrasies and personal relationships (Vaughan & Hogg, 2005).

Looking glass self- The tendency to look at oneself, by imagining how another person perceives you. (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008)

McClelland's Theory of Needs- Humans are motivated by three categorises of needs
affiliation, achievement and authority (Deckers, 2005) - Previous blog posting titled "McClelland's Theory of Needs" gives further explanation of McClellands Theory of needs.

Social Categorisation/ Groups- The tendency to divide the social world into separate categorises. Therefore creating the ‘us’ group and ‘them’ group (Baron & Byrne, 2004).

Social Comparison-comparing own abilities and opinions to with others (Myers, 2008).

Self Concepts-Information the self including, self awareness, self esteem and self deception. From these components self beliefs are constructed about oneself (Baron & Byrne, 2004; Malim, 1997).

Self Esteem-how favourably one views themself (Baumeiter & Bushman, 2008)

Self presentation- Self presentation is the desired personal representation expressed to society through behaviour (Fiske, 2004).

Social Identity-A personal definition of who you are. This can include personal attributes and shared attributes with others (Baron & Byrne, 2004).

Social Roles-Different roles played by individuals within society. Social roles change depending on context. They also create scripts about how to behaviour in social situations (Myer, 2008; Baumeister & Bushman, 2008; Baron & Byrne, 2004)

Upward Social Comparison- Veiwing oneself below that of another person (Baumeiter & Bushman, 2008)

Appendix C: Social Presentation

Social Presentation can be used for:

Exemplification- to be seen as worthy and moral (can be seen in parents and religious leaders). (Fiske, 2004)

Integration-to be liked. Can avoid conflict, and conform to opinions. (Fiske, 2004)

Intimidation-to be feared (can be seen by people in authority such as parents. Can use vocal or physical gestures to instill fear or create high standards and goals. Furthermore, can use fear to control others. (Fiske, 2004)

Self promotion- to be seen as competent (often seen in a job interview) rather than be liked. Often self promoters seek out expressions of respect and awe. (Fiske, 2004)

Supplication-to be seen as helpless. Attract attention, and seeks assistance from those around them in a variety of areas. (Fiske, 2004)

Taken From
Fiske, S. T. (2004). The self: Social to the core. In S. T. Fiske (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. (Ch 5, pp. 169 - 214). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley

Appendix D: Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a theory which is based on how humans define the interaction between their:

• identities
• expereiences
• behaviours
• realities and
• social interactions

Humans create self idenitity based on their interactions and experiances with others. (Armstrong, 2007).

Armstrong (2007) claims the three basic principles of symbolic interactionism are:

"a) Humans act toward thing/experiences on the basis of the meaning those things/experience have for them.

b) The source of the meanings for thing/experiences are derived from or arises out of soial interaction with others and

c) The meanins of things/experiences are handled in an modified through an interpretive process used by the individual in dealing with the things he/she encounters." (Armstrong, 2007).

Taken from
Armstrong, K. L. (2007). Self, situations, and sport consumption: An exploratory study of symbolic interactionism. Journal of Sport and Behavior, 30(2), 111-129

Appendix E: Motives and Direction of Social Comparison

Chien- Huang & Chia-Ching, (2007) also hypothesised and confirmed the following motives and directions for social comparision

• People will make lateral comparisons for self-evaluation.
• People will make lateral comparisons for common bond.
• People will make upward comparisons for self-destruction.
• People will make upward comparisons for self-improvement.
• People will make downward comparisons for self-enhancement.
• People will make downward comparisons for altruistic reasons.

Taken from-
Chien-Huang, L. & Chia- Ching, T. (2007). Comparison conditions, comparison patterns and models of comparative behaviour. Social Behaviour and Personality, 35(6), 761-776

Appendix F: Reasons for Social Comparisons

According to Chien- Huang & Chia-Ching (2007) social comparisions are more likely to occur as age increases. Chien- Huang & Chia-Ching (2007) also hypothesised reasons that will lead people to engage in social comparisions including:
1: Conditions of ability
2: Uncertainty
3: Frustration
4: Self-relevant domains


Taken from
Chien-Huang, L. & Chia- Ching, T. (2007). Comparison conditions, comparison patterns and models of comparative behaviour. Social Behaviour and Personality, 35(6), 761-776

Appendix G: Social Roles

13 Major Adult social roles in contemparary society defined by James, Witte & Galbraith (2006)

• Friend is the interaction with both females and males
with whom one has chosen to spend time and develop a
relationship.

• Spouse/Partner includes activities associated with one’s
marriage or intimate relationship involving both couple
and individual identity.

• Kin/Relative role encompasses the relationships and
activities with all relatives other than parents, children,
and spouses.

• Learner role activities relate to the acquisition of knowledge
and the development of learning skills.

• Daughter/Son is one’s adult relationship and activities
with parents/stepparents or with the spouse’s parents/
stepparents.

• Parent includes the relationship and activities relating to
being a father, mother, or stepparent.

• Citizen involves community/civic, environmental, political,
patriotic, or volunteer activities related to neighborhood,
town, state, national, or international social issues/concerns.

• Home/Services Manager role includes activities involved
in acquiring a place to live, managing ordinary household
tasks, handling financial aspects of living, and performing
as a consumer of various services.

• Worker includes activities related to the job for which
one receives pay or still performs although retired.

• Leisure Time Consumer includes the activities undertaken
for recreation or diversion during one’s discretionary
time.

• Religious Affiliate pertains to participating in religious
activities related to one’s beliefs in a spiritual being(s).

• Grandparent role consists of the relationships and activities
related to being a grandparent.

• Association/Club Member includes participation and
activities in organized groups, involving social, civic, fraternal,
athletic, patriotic, and/or auxiliary groups.

Taken From-
James, W. B., Witte, J.E., & Galbraith, M. W. (2006). Havighurst’s social roles revisited. Journal of Adult Development, 13(1).52-60.

Appendix H: Self Evaluation

Theory- I feel that I have understood the concepts related to the psycho-social variables that contribute to the social self. My examples of theoretical literature through out the essay give a clear indication of my understanding. However, I could have expanded more on the integration of the social self and personal self. I could have identified other psycho-social variables that influence the social self including self schema's and expanding on self concept.

Research- I felt the research I have done was quite extensive. With the use of journal articles, books and websites I was able to build my understanding. However, theoretical aspects were focused on more by me. Although I found a variety of interesting research relating to the self I did not use them in my essay. This could have been useful in expanding on some of my theoretical concepts.

Written Expression-
Flesch Reading Ease- 38.1
Flesch Kincaid Grade Level- 11.8
Word Count- 1,496

Both my reading ease and grade level could have been improved with shorter sentences and the use of less complex words.

My APA style could be improved within my appendices. I felt I used consistent APA referencing style through the text. I struggle with written expression; however, I tried to keep the paragraphs as short and succinct as possible. My use of headings created flow and structure to a topic which had a variety of fuzzy overlapping concepts. My concept map was not APA format, however, the colours created and indication of the differing levels of concepts.I also don't know if my glossary in the appendices was useful or just confusing (I ended up only placing links on the word only when first mentioned, to reduce confusion with links that lead to other areas).

Online Engagement- I created my blog later in the term, however, once online I made attempts to interact and create blogs regularly. I feel my online engagement with students could be improved by making more meaningful contributions to others blogs. Comments on other peoples blogs can be found on the following links. I enjoyed collaborating and networking with other students.

Jess' Blog 2
Beck's Blog
Karen's blog
Christina's Blog
Jess's Blog
Jules' Blog
My blog
Zoe's Blog
Rachels Blog
Zoe's Blog 2

My Personal blog entries can be found on these links
Life. be in it!
Getting down to the nitty gritty
Please don't ask me how ideas for my blog ended up...
it's a hard life :o)
Funny little cartoon, made me smile.
McClellands Theory of Needs
Guilty of Ignorance-
Some thoughts on Prejudice
Is anyone innocent?
Where to begin

Incomplete Draft 1 Social Self

--> add introduction here <--

Social Roles
Within life we give ourselves a number of titles which are also known as social roles. A Social role according to James, Witte, Galbraith (2006) is an expectation of a behaviour, attitude or function in which a position in society holds. I play a number of social roles that contribute to my social identity. Within my family environment some of my roles include sister, daughter, cousin and niece. Within the community, my social roles are diverse and include a citizen, church member, friend, neighbour, and student. Most of these roles remain constant throughout my life; however, roles can change daily or over time. These social roles are important as they put in place scripts about how to behave in certain situations.

Social Categorisation
Within these social roles, according to Baumeister & Bushman (2008) humans have a natural tendency to divide themselves into groups. The social categorisation theory proposes that society influences individual identity (Goa, 2007). These social groups are established based on a shared identity with other group members (Rogers & Lea, 2005). Shared identities may include gender, race, religion, values and beliefs. Rogers & Lea (2005) state that these communalities are based not interpersonal relations between individuals (such as liking someone), but are based around the common factor. Social categorisation occurs when I Place myself into groups that are either 'me' (in-groups) or 'not me' (out-groups) (Kashima, Foddy & Platow, 2002).

The most obvious example of this is being female. From this personal attribute I clearly distinguish myself from being male. I have various other social groups in my life that contribute to my social identity, such as my race. My mother is Tongan and my father is Australian. Therefore, I am connected in various ways to the Tongan community and the Australian community. However, living in Australia I tend to identify myself more with Australians. This observation ** supports Kashima, Foddy & Platow’s (2002) claim that social categorisation differs depending on context. Again, a clear distinction has been made between me (who I am) and any other race that is not either Tongan or Australian (not me).

My values and beliefs are another area of my life where social categorisation is evident. Being a Christian I have similar morals and values to many other Christians. Placing myself in the Christian category, produces the statement that I am Christian and I am not Atheist or Agnostic. My family has also instilled in me certain values and priorities which connects me to or disconnect me from a vast number of groups. Categorisations determine who I am, and who I am not in society. Impacting on my cognitions and can be seen in action via my social roles and self presentation.

Social Comparison
The self comparison theory that was proposed by Festinger in 1954, suggests that we compare our abilities and opinions with others (Chien- Huang & Chia-Ching, 2007). Vaughan & Hogg (2005) go as far as stating that our cognitions, emotions and behaviours are formulated around the behaviours, emotions and cognitions of other people. This concept is personally confronting but at the same time very real. Social comparison can be made in order to validate oneself and is more likely to occur when insecurity is present (Chien- Huang & Chia-Ching, 2007). Social comparison can be used to enhance, validate, improve or destruct one’s social identity, depending on the direction of the comparison (Chien- Huang & Chia-Ching, 2007).

On a personal level, social comparisons have an impact on my social identity. I often associate and make comparison with those who are like me. These similarities are mainly found in those who have the same interests and those who are of the same background (i.e. Tongan and Australian). I would describe myself as generally optimistic, happy, caring, honest, open, humerous and passionate. These descriptions are based on my comparison of myself with people who I interact with regularly. When comparing myself to someone like Mother Theresa, I wouldn’t consider myself as caring as initially described.

The same goes for my social class, I consider myself to be middle class. This concept of myself would change depending on context and geographical location. Yet in the context of my current situation and context, I consider myself to be similar to those around me. Other comparisons manifest themselves in physical attractiveness and fitness. Being a female in today*s society I find it hard to avoid physical comparisons. Western culture focuses on stereotypical form of attractiveness, which I do not fit ***. That being said, I join social groups with those who are not overly concerned with appearance.

Self Presentation
Social comparisons can give positions or places in society and contribute to the types of groups we which associate **. The labels I give myself, as a result of these positive or negative comparisons, are instilled in my cognitions. Self presentation, allows me to either hide or promote these characteristics from society. Fiske (2004) claims that we present ourselves differently depending on how we want others to perceive us. Fiske (2004) defines 5 common forms of self presentations which include integration, self promotion, intimidation, exemplification and supplication.

Self presentation for me *** assists in gaining approval about my social self by peers, friends, family and other social groups. Through using the looking glass self, I imagine how others view me. When I first meet someone I am generally quiet and reserved. My looking glass self tells me that if I’m loud and rude at first, the other person might think I’m terrible company. After becoming acquainted I tend to open up more and become more active in the social situation. This is another form of social presentation because I don’t want to be considered boring and unexciting.

--> Add more here<-- Culture

Finally, my cultural background also has influence on my social identity. In contrast with Australia, an individualistic culture (Malim, 1997), **Tonga has a collectivist culture (Malim, 1997). Living in Australia, the western culture has dominated my social interactions in the community. My Tongan heritage, on the other hand, has more on an influence of my family interactions. I believe it is from my Tongan background that I have developed an interdependent self. Myers (2008) suggests that interdependent people define themselves by their social connections. This concept of culture extends from my cultural heritage, to various aspects of my life.

--> Add more here <-- -->Add Conclusion here<-- ***Note*** link of difinitions still to be added Hyperlinks still to be added Reformat reference list
Table to be added

References
Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature (1st ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Chien-Huang, L. & Chia- Ching, T. (2007). Comparison conditions, comparison patterns and models of comparative behaviour. Social Behaviour and Personality, 35(6), 761-776

Goa, C. D. (2007). Social identity theory and the reduction of inequality: can cross cutting categorization reduce inequality in mixed race groups? Social Behaviour and Personality, 35(4), 537-550

Fiske, S. T. (2004). The self: Social to the core. In S. T. Fiske (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. (Ch 5, pp. 169 - 214). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley

James, W. B., Witte, J.E., & Galbraith, M. W. (2006). Havighurst’s social roles revisited. Journal of Adult Development, 13(1). 52-60.

Malim, T. (1997). Social Psychology.( 2nd Ed). Wiltshire. Macmillan press Ltd

Kashima, Y., Foddy, M. & Platow, M. J. (2002), Self and Identity. Personal, Social and Symbolic. New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Myers, D. G. (2008). Social Psychology (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill

Rogers, P. & Lea, M. Social presence in distributed group environments: the role of social identity. Behaviour &amp; Information Technology, 24(2). 151-158

Vaughan, G.M. & Hogg, M. A. (2005). Introduction into Social Psychology (4th ed.) Harlow: Pearson Education

Life. be in it!

Does anyone remember the 'Life. be in it!' campaign. With good old 'Norm'

I thought this campaign would be interesting for those who are doing attitude change, because of the recent campaign relaunch. I wonder if the relaunch because of the success the campaign had in the past?

Getting down to the nitty gritty

Hi everyone, Well its taken me a while to get this map on here so that you can view it. If you click on it, you should be able to see a larger version of it. My concept map was developed after reading Fiske's (2004) chapter on The Self. I have used the map to developed visual representation of some concepts described in the chapter. The map helps me understand how these concepts relate to each other. This is a starting point for my final blog1, it gives me some bearings of where I need to go from here. For my final blog1 I think I need to focus towards factors of my social identity. The factors in concept map all connect to my social identity, however I think the map only shows a small section of a very big picture. I think the process now is going from concepts to examples. I'm trying not to over complicate things.

Here are a few random bits and pieces Ive round around the place that I might be able to use somewhere.

• Social Identity- A person's definition of who they are, including personal and shared attributes with others. (Baron & Byrne, 2004)
• Tajfel and Turner 1979- Social Identity Theory- it includes Categorization (i.e male, female, christian, Muslim), identification (member of a group, links self concept) and comparison (between us and others-links to self esteem).
• Social and individual identity integration- heritage, culture, upbringing, society. http://forbin.qc.edu/mediastudies/mediasite/newtech/notes1.htm
• Looking glass self- seeing our self through the eyes of others, - links to self presentation
• Social roles- sister, daughter, friend, student ect http://www.sociology.org.uk/p2s4a.htm
  

Hopefully I can try and get a bit more structure into this different aspects. Well back to the drawing board for me.
-Kara

Baron, R. A & Byrne, D. (2004). Social Psychology. (10th ed). United States of America. Pearson Education, Inc

Fiske, S. T. (2004). The self: Social to the core. In S. T. Fiske (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. (Ch 5, pp. 169 - 214). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Please don't ask me how ideas for my blog ended up being a story about shoes!!!!!

In 1985 a mother gave birth to a strong, healthy baby. At this point in her life the baby had 1 major thing that contributed to her existence. That was her family. Her family fed her, clothed her, and nurtured her. As the baby grew older, she learnt to walk, talk and do things for herself. As years went by she realised that in many ways she was similar to her family and in many ways she was different to her family. She began to realise that there was more to life than just her and family.

As she grew up and made friends she found that they did things differently to her? Little things such as the way they brushed their teeth and how they eat dinner, fascinated her. A few more years went by and she realised that she started thinking about things more. She had opinions, values, ethics, and beliefs that were either slightly or enormously different to her friends or family’s opinions. She also realised her opinions and values changed as time went by.

During high school she became concerned about the way she looked, and the way she did things and soon discovered, it was easier to be normal. She was confused as what ‘normal’ was, but played it cool anyway, because everyone else seemed to know what ‘normal’ was. After a few years of being ‘normal’ she decided that being normal was like putting on high heels and having to wear them all day. So instead she settled with just being herself and soon discovered that being herself was like wearing thongs all day, comfortable and free. Then she realised that if she was herself all time she might be considered far from normal, also know as ‘a freak’. She didn’t want to be a freak and she didn’t want to be normal. So she found a happy medium somewhere in the middle of normal and freak. To her it was more like wearing joggers, comfortable, but when you get home you can’t wait to take them off.

By the time she reached University the girl began to see that she was becoming more and more like her mother, and father. She thought to herself “I’m not like them! They are far from normal!!” Then she remembered that when she was herself she was far from normal to. She thought about all the people she knew in her life and which ones had seen her in which shoes. She then thought that everyone might have found that happy medium and were only ‘themselves’ around those they were close to.

In her final semester of her undergraduate degree she was given an assignment asking her to talk about herself. She thought this will be easy I’ve been myself for 22 years! As she began to ponder about who she was she began to write a story just like this. She also thought that many people’s stories in brief might sound similar to this. But she wanted to know what it was about her story that made her so different to everyone else. What parts of her story needed to be changed for her to have turned out differently?

Looking back to when she was born she remembered that she was born with no shoes on. When you have no shoes on, it’s can be bit uncomfortable at times and you are vulnerable to getting your feet hurt. But you feel free. She knew that there proberbly wasn't a moment that she was more vulnerable and more herself then when she was born. The more she thought about her assignment the more she thought about how she could relate her different pairs of shoes the different theories in psychology.

She decided to post her story on her blog and see where it could go from there.