Self-identity and our interaction with others.

At the core of human existence lies an injunction: 'Know thyself,' an ancient maxim, inscribed on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, Greece; encapsulating the timeless human desire for self-awareness and understanding. Modern scholars refer to this conjecture as Self-identity and are continuously investigating the construction and maintenance of said concept. Of current times self- identity is known as the process in which one conceptualises and categorises their thoughts, feelings and beliefs; much like ‘Know thyself’. In short, it is a multifaceted construct, embedded in the key frameworks of Sociological and Psychological theory. Though these disciplines are commonly adjoined; they take contrasting positions, contradictory to the macro attitudes Sociology and Psychology traditionally take. For instance, within the foundational theories of Self-identity, Psychologists have tended to focus on the ‘Others’ whereas Sociologists have concentrated on the ‘I’. These theories will be discussed, referenced and analysed throughout the essay, in depth; drawing on multiple concepts to argue to the dynamic approach of Self-identity. This will be further evidenced within the analysis of primary theories that can be seen as pillars to the work of scholars succeeding them; this includes Social Identity Theory (Stryker, Tajfel & Turner, 1979), as well as Identity Theory (Burke & Stets, 1980’s). Furthermore, there will be a utilisation of empirical case studies focusing on gang membership and cognitive and social processes when converting to another faith. This will lead onto the postulation of the influence of others in social identity, employing Role taking (Mead, 1934), Looking Glass Self theory (Cooley, 1902) with an emphasis on the Dramaturgical principle of social identity (Goffman, 1959). There will also be a discussion surrounding the impacts of social deprivation on an individual's psyche, through case studies such as Genie Wiley. In addition, the concluding arguments will investigate internal processes through Educational Theory. This will involve deliberating over the works of theorists such as, Piaget, Vygotsky and Foucault; debating the significance of self-reflexivity in order to construct, maintain and change one's self-identity.

At the core of academic research surrounding the maintenance and construction of identity stands the two pillars of theory, in which have laid the foundation for Scholars succeeding: the two theories being that of Social Identity Theory (SIT) and Identity Theory (IT). One must take note of each theory if to attempt to explain the extent in which self-identity is constructed, maintained and changed through our interaction with others. In this comprehensive analysis, I will elucidate both SIT and IT in the chronological sequence they emerged, allowing for a nuanced comprehension of their development and facilitating a more efficient grasp of their fundamental principles and implications. Thus, commencing with SIT we first take a psychological perspective. SIT, proposed by Tajfel and Turner in the 1970’s has since gained widespread recognition amongst both social psychologists and mental health practitioners, as it stands as a pivotal concept for understanding and theorising about social processes. It has been identified that, ‘one of the reasons for this increasingly central role is the ability of social identification for understanding and theorising about social processes’ (Dueax, 2000. Pg.4). This theory was crafted to demonstrate the intricate dynamics between categorisation and intergroup discrimination. Notably, Turner has further expounded on and extended the categorisation facets of this model. He has devised a cognitively oriented theory of self-categorisation, accentuating the differentiation between personal and social identity contingent upon situational saliency. In Laymen’s terms: SIT in based upon four main concepts; social categorisation, category accentuation effect, social identification as well as social comparison and positive distinctiveness. One starts with a psychological need for a personal identity, also known as definition of self, this is aided through social identification. Social identification is a process via social categorisation that facilitates distinct social groups. Consequently, there is a ‘we’ assigned to the in-group and a ‘they’ assigned to the out-group. This interaction is known as intergroup comparison and is crucial (according to Tajfel) for a satisfied social identity. To summarise, ‘SIT argues that a person’s social Idenity is comprised of a theoretically unlimited number of social roles that are based on various groups to which a person may belong’ (Lauger, 2020. Pg.4). Other key components include the influence of self esteem; and that personal idenity is intrinsically linked to inclusion, achievements and group favouritism. The phenomenon is clearly demonstrated in Tajfel's seminal work (1970), where participants exhibited a bias towards their in-group even in the absence of competition. Similarly, Jane Elliot's groundbreaking study (1968) on the effects of group membership, particularly in the context of the blue eyes/brown eyes experiment, underscored how one's self-perception within a group can significantly influence behaviour towards out-groups. However, a significant criticism levelled against SIT is its perceived neglect of internal cognitive processes and individual temperament. While SIT offers valuable explanations for group dynamics and intergroup behaviour, critics argue that its emphasis on external social categorisations downplays the role of internal psychological mechanisms, such as cognitive biases and emotional responses, in shaping identity and behaviour. Moreover, SIT's tendency to prioritise social context over individual differences fails to account for variations in personality traits, motivations, and personal experiences involving schemas that may influence an individual's adherence to group norms and behaviours. It has been suggested that ‘identities are multifaceted and entail individual, interpersonal and social processes embedded within social structures’ (Davis et al, 2019. Pg.258). Therefore, by overlooking these internal processes and personal predispositions, SIT may provide an incomplete understanding of the complexities involved in identity formation and group dynamics.

This critique is what led to the emergence of IT. IT followed shortly after SIT and was proposed and worked on via a variety of sociologists; two of which were Burke and Stets. IT aimed to offer a comprehensive framework for understanding how individuals navigate their social worlds, negotiate their identities, and maintain a sense of self within various social contexts. Burke and Stets argue that identities are not fixed, but rather are constantly negotiated and reaffirmed through social interactions. Individuals actively engage in identity work, which involves managing, validating, and aligning their identities with societal norms and expectations. They acknowledged the work done by Tajfel within SIT and expanded the theory to cover multiple dimensions; specifically, that identity work may entail behaviours such as impression management, self-presentation, and identity verification. The key components illustrated within IT are identity salience, identity verification, identity work, acceptance of multiple identities and identity conflicts as well as resolution. This intricate theory enables are deeper understanding of to what extent identity is constructed, maintained and changed through social interactions with others. In a pivotal assertion, Burke and Stets underscore the convergence between IT and SIT, stating, “We present core components of identity theory and social identity theory and argue that although differences exist between the two theories, they are more differences in emphasis than in kind, and that linking the two theories can establish a more fully integrated view” (Burke & Stets, 2000, p. 3). Of recent times many scholars have chosen to take the dynamic reasoning for the formation of identity; this is a result of the academic focus on such concept. The likes of Erikson, Mead, Cooley, Gergen and Butler have evidenced the advantages of taking the dynamic approach through psychosocial theory based upon clinical trials, interdisciplinary research, empirical studies, and readings on gender perfortmativity, drawing upon philosophical and literacy analysis. Consequently, enabling a greater expansion on identity theory in specific relations (to be discussed); allowing sociologists and psychologists to further understand to what extent our identity is constructed, maintained and changed through our interactions with others.

One of these empirical subjects that researchers have employed concerning SIT and IT is the involvement in gang membership and how it can influence individuals' identity as a collective. Exploring gang membership within the discourse of identity formation is crucial, especially given that ‘over 80% of gang members identify their gang affiliation as a core component of their identity’ (Smith et al., 2020). However, when reading into gang membership it is critical to acknowledge the villianisation of the working class; there are a variety of sociopolitical and socioeconomic influences as to why someone may join a gang, that simply cannot be ignored. Thus, I will attempt to eloquently provide an analysis of what fellow researchers have concluded with an emphasis on identity formation rather than any potential motives or comments on in-group behaviours. Though, that is not to say we shouldn’t hold a space for discourse surrounding the pacification of people under capitalism; this is illustrated through Credit/Debt and Human Capital (Bowsher, 2019). As, at its core, gang membership provides an evolutionary anomaly for our humanistic desire for survival.  Although, one common motivator for gang membership is that it serves as a cohesive unit of peers, providing individuals with a sense of belonging and social support within their community. This unit not only offers a shared identity but also fosters camaraderie and solidarity among members; this has been evidenced with, ‘youth tend to join gangs for social reasons’ (Goldman, 2014 Pg.818). The social aspect of gang membership links cohesively with SIT and IT when referring to collective identity. Collective identity alludes to the shared sense of belonging, values, beliefs, and norms that individuals within a group or community perceive as common to them. Horowitz (1983) introduced the concept of collective identity, highlighting how gangs must cultivate public images to promote or maintain their reputation. Building upon this notion, Vigil (1988) further developed the concepts of personal and social identity, which closely align with a gang's ideals and shape how members respond to various social situations. Furthermore, drawing from Tropp and Brown’s (2004) research indicating that individuals tend to engage in behaviours they perceive as beneficial, peripheral group members exhibit a greater willingness to demonstrate loyalty when they anticipate full acceptance by their group. All of which suggests the increased identity salience members experience when categorising themselves amongst peers in the gang; demonstrated through the likes of postcode gangs. Furthermore, the strength of identity salience in gang membership is perhaps most apparent when analysing the linguistics of ‘gang talk’, specifically within drill music. ‘Drill music in particular is a hip-hop sub-genre from youth located in Southside of Chicago, USA’ (Irwin-Rogers & Pinkney, 2017). And though at the forefront it appears to be simply a style of music, linguists have argued that it is a key mode of communication, especially between groups, both lyrically and through videography. Analysing linguistics of a group can be of vast importance as ‘language and nonverbal cues, the modalities for creating and sharing meaning, are imperfect representations of the understandings that communicators hold’ (Ogden & Richard’s, 1923/1947). In all, drill music, as well as slang, influenced predominantly by Jamaican Patois, functions as a vehicle for storytelling and asserting group identity, while slang serves as a linguistic marker of belonging and insider status within the gang subculture. Together, these cultural forms not only reinforce existing identities but also facilitate the adaptation and transformation of identity within the dynamic context of gang membership; consequently, exhibiting the extent in which identity is constructed, maintained and changed through our interaction with others, referring to gang identity.

Our attention now shifts from theories rooted in cognitive and social processes of categorisation within SIT and IT; to those emphasising a degree of self-reflection through interaction with others and the roles we assume, suggesting their significant influence on the maintenance, construction, and evolution of identity. This echoing the sentiment, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” (Shakespeare, 1623). De facto, Goffman coined the term Dramaturgy as an attempt to define the process in which we take upon roles in attempt to form and maintain an identity. Dramaturgy theory is perhaps best conceptualised as an umbrella term for theories such as the Looking Glass Self (LGS) and will aim to provide a grounding point before exploring the works of Cooley and Mead. Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical theory posits that social interaction is akin to a theatrical performance, where individuals strategically present themselves to others, managing their impressions to convey desired identities. In this perspective, people act as actors on a stage, with front-stage performances tailored to the expectations of their audience, while backstage behaviours reveal their true selves. As Goffman stated, “Life itself is a dramatically enacted thing.” (Goffman, 1959). An example of this is within the subject of Autistic masking, an emerging research area, that employs the foundational work of SIT, in hope to explain the behaviour and whether or not it is conscious or an unconscious mechanism. In a conceptual analysis, researchers suggested, ‘that masking is an unsurprising response to the deficit narrative and accompanying stigma that has developed around autism’ (Pearson, 2021). This is especially significant due to the arising issue of the ‘female phenotype’ of autism getting consistently misdiagnosed due to the influence masking has had on the individual's identity to fit with societal norms; itself providing substantial evidence towards the extent in which social interactions have an influence on one’s identity. Amongst the developing research there is an acknowledgment to Meads Role-taking perspective, similar to Goffman’s Dramaturgy theory. Developed in the early 20th century, Mead’s theory of role-taking, known as symbolic interactionism, offers profound insights into how individuals construct their sense of self through social interactions. At the heart of Mead’s theory is the concept of taking the role of the other, where individuals learn about themselves by imagining how they are perceived by others. This imaginative process involves assuming the perspectives of different individuals in social situations, enabling individuals to gain a deeper understanding of themselves and their place in society. Mead further distinguishes between the “I,” representing the spontaneous aspect of the self, and the “me,” which encompasses the socially learned attitudes and expectations internalised through role-taking. Through language and symbolic communication, individuals engage in a dynamic process of negotiation and interpretation, constructing shared understandings of reality. Mead’s theory underscores the interplay between individual agency and social structure in shaping the formation of the self-concept, offering valuable insights into the complexities of human identity within social contexts. Furthermore, this links to Cooleys’ LGS theory, who was inspired by the works of Mead and Goffman. LGS, according to research posits, ‘individuals' self-representation (SR) stem from interactions with significant others, reflecting associations between what significant others think of them (i.e., actual appraisals), individuals' perceptions of significant other appraisals of them (ie. Reflected appraisals), and SR.’ (Silva, 2022. Pg.15). Self-representations, also known as self schemas, are conceptualised as ‘cognitive generalisations about the self, derived from the past experience, that organise and guide the processing of the self-related information contained in an individuals social experience’ (Markus, 1977, Pg.1). In essence, our sense of self is shaped by our interpretations of social interactions and the feedback we receive from others even if falsely perceived. This has been reinforced through Henrique (2003) Tree of Knowledge (ToK) system; explaining that the ego has evolved due to humans being the only animal in which have had to justify their behaviour to others, and that our self is the mental organ of justification. All three theories provide an explanation towards the influence of social interactions upon our identities whilst recognising the scientific credibility of the dynamic approach. However, there has to be an acknowledgement of the oversimplification, dismissing temperament and perhaps biological and cultural influences. As we carry forward, we will explore the consequences of social deprivation in an attempt to comprehend to just what extent our social interactions influence the maintenance, construction and formation of our identity.

By examining the repercussions of social deprivation, one can truly discern the profound impact of social interaction on our identity. Through an analysis of Gene Wiley's case, we can assess the validity of the aforementioned theories and research. The Gene Wiley case study stands as a compelling and poignant exemplar, vividly illustrating the profound and longitudinal consequences of social deprivation on human development and identity formation. Gene Wiley’s experience, documented in studies such as Harlow and Harlow’s groundbreaking work in 1965, serves as a reminder of the devastating effects of isolation from meaningful human interaction. Born into extreme deprivation, Gene Wiley was subjected to a life devoid of nurturing social interactions, confined to a barren environment with minimal human contact. As a result, she exhibited severe developmental deficits, including profound emotional disturbances, cognitive impairments, and an inability to form meaningful relationships. Her story highlights the fundamental need for social connection and interpersonal relationships in fostering healthy psychological development and identity formation. Social deprivation, a term emphasised within Gene Wileys story, refers to the lack or absence of meaningful social interaction, connection, and support within an individual’s environment, leading to a sense of isolation, loneliness, and disconnection from social networks and communities (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015). Social deprivation can have profound cognitive effects on individuals, impacting various aspects of cognitive functioning. Research has shown that prolonged isolation and lack of social interaction can lead to deficits in cognitive abilities such as attention, memory, and executive functions (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009). For example, individuals who experience social deprivation may struggle with maintaining focus and attention on tasks, leading to decreased productivity and impaired learning. Moreover, social isolation has been linked to declines in memory performance, as the absence of social stimuli and interactions can hinder the formation and retrieval of memories. Additionally, social deprivation can impair executive functions, including problem-solving, decision-making, and impulse control, as individuals may lack the opportunity for social learning and feedback that helps develop these skills. Consequently, Wiley’s case echoes the findings of other studies conducted by renowned psychologists such as John Bowlby and René Spitz. For instance, the groundbreaking work on attachment theory, first articulated in 1951, emphasised the crucial role of early social bonds in shaping individuals’ emotional and psychological development. Bowlby argued, ‘“The infant and young child should experience a warm, intimate, and continuous relationship with his mother (or permanent mother substitute) in which both find satisfaction and enjoyment.” (Bowlby, 1951); otherwise to the detriment of the child’s development.  This is further demonstrated by Spitz (1945) who illustrated the psychological consequences of maternal deprivation, underscoring the critical importance of social interaction. This is further reinforced through the monumental work of Maslow (1943) and the Hierarchy of Needs theory. According to Maslow, once individuals have satisfied their physiological and safety needs, they seek social connections and relationships to fulfil their need for belongingness and love. In all, social deprivation can have huge affects on the development of the brain. Due to this, one can understand that without social interactions; the schemas and processes are not there to enable SIT nor IT/dynamic approach and thus, within the findings of studies aforementioned, we can acknowledge the validity of the the mass extent in which social interactions can influence ones identity.

Having explored the cognitive dynamics apparent in interpersonal interactions, our focus now shifts towards examining the reflective processes originating from within individuals, aiming to ascertain the validity and significance of prevailing theories. As one could find it quite ironic that our identity comes from others when so inherently personal to ourselves. Thus, one theorist who emphasised autonomy within identity formation was Jean Piaget (1974). Jean Piaget argued that internal cognitive processes, such as assimilation and accommodation, interact with external experiences to shape an individual’s understanding of the world and, consequently, their identity. Piaget emphasised the active role of the individual in constructing knowledge and understanding through these processes. He believed that individuals have the freedom to explore and interact with their environment, using their cognitive abilities to make sense of their experiences and form their identities. In essence, Piaget’s theory suggests that individuals have the autonomy and free will to engage in cognitive processes that contribute to the formation and development of their identities. Piaget's assimilation theory stands as a cornerstone in the field of developmental psychology. One of the theory's key strengths lies in its emphasis on the active role of individuals in the learning process. By highlighting the process of assimilating new information into existing cognitive structures, Piaget underscores the agency and engagement of learners in shaping their own understanding. Moreover, the theory's universal applicability across diverse contexts and age groups has contributed to its widespread influence, serving as a framework for understanding cognitive development from infancy through adulthood. This broad scope has not only informed educational practices but also stimulated a wealth of research in developmental psychology, further enriching our understanding of cognitive processes and problem-solving strategies. Piaget's theory, with its developmental progression and focus on active learning, continues to shape educational practices and curriculum development, emphasising student-centred approaches that foster critical thinking and conceptual understanding. This is in similarity with, Narrative Identity Theory (McAdams, 1993) who further suggests that individuals construct their identities through storytelling and narrative-making; and while social interactions may provide the raw material for these narratives, individuals ultimately interpret and frame their experiences in ways that align with their sense of self. However, in light of our inquiry into the infleunces of social interactions in identity formation and the recognition of the dynamic nature of human development, it becomes imperative to examine theories that integrate individual agency alongside social interactions to provide a comprehensive understanding. A theory that utilises this as well as offering a complementary perspective to Piagets is the sociocultural theory proposed by Lev Vygotsky (1978).  Vygotsky emphasised the role of social interactions, cultural influences, and language in shaping cognitive development and identity formation. According to Vygotsky, individuals' identities are shaped through social interactions with others, particularly more knowledgeable peers and adults, who provide guidance, support, and cultural tools for learning and development. Vygotsky argued that individuals internalise social and cultural practices through these interactions, leading to the formation of their identities within a sociocultural context. In essence, Vygotsky's theory suggests that identity formation is inherently intertwined with social interactions, cultural norms, and language, emphasising the importance of social context in shaping individual identity. However, an important criticism is to be noted. As many scholars are familiar with, reality itself has many theories; in fact, it is known to be, ‘only what we perceive it to be.’ (Russell, 1983 Pg.102). Therefore, if we as individuals rely on our own reality to form our identity; how can we be certain it is truly formed on our experiences and not perceived memories? A perspective that attempts to answer this, is Self-Reflexivity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Self-reflexivity, Lincoln and Guba's Constructivist paradigm, particularly their work on qualitative research methodology, offers valuable insights into identity formation. In their approach, they emphasise the subjective nature of reality and the importance of individuals' interpretations and meanings in constructing their identities. Lincoln and Guba argue that individuals construct their identities through their interactions with their social and cultural environments, drawing on their lived experiences and interpretations of reality. They advocate for the use of qualitative research methods, such as participant observation and in-depth interviews, to explore these subjective constructions of identity and understand the complexity of human experience. Overall, Lincoln and Guba's Constructivist paradigm underscores the significance of individual perspectives, lived experiences, and social interactions in shaping identity formation. As an example, they used the process in which researchers become self-critical of their work and how they, ‘critically interrogate [themselves] and one another regarding the ways in which research efforts are shaped and staged around the binaries, contradictions, and paradoxes that form our own lives’ (Lincoln & Guba, 2003 Pg.283). To sum, according to Lincoln and Guba my experiences, perceptions of reality, and general background would have influenced my cognitive ability to have written and formed this essay. Therefore, suggesting even at a self agency level, social interactions are still pivotal to identity formation, maintenance and construction; to the extent in which some readers could analyse this essay to determine key identification charctertics of myself.

In all, identity formation is a complex multidimensional process with a variety of influences. However, one certainty is that social interactions with others does in fact motivate maintenance, construction and change within an individual's identity; and though there are key self-agency controls, without social interactions there can be dire consequences of our identity and basic psychology implying the great extent to which it has impact. So, to conclude, I shall employ an ancient maximin. In which the story goes, in ancient Greece, the Ship of Theseus, stood as a great monument of a heroic action. They were determined to continue its legacy, replacing a panel with an identical piece whenever the boat was in need of repair. Eventually all panels were replaced. The question remains: is it the same boat?

Bibliography

Anon., 2024. CHAPTER 12 DESIGNATION OF CRIMINAL GANG AFFILIATES [online]. American Legal Publishing. Available from: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/malheurcoor/latest/malheurco_or/0-0-0-1240 [Accessed 13 Mar 2024]

Bowsher, J., 2019. Credit/debt and human capital: Financialized neoliberalism and the production of subjectivity. European Journal of Social Theory [online], 22 (4), 513–532. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368431018800506 [Accessed 13 Mar 2024].

Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 3(3), 355–533. Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 3(3), 355–533.

Brown, D. K., 2003. Goffman’s Dramaturgical Sociology: Developing a Meaningful Theoretical Context and Exercise Involving ‘Embarrassment and Social Organization’. Teaching Sociology [online], 31 (3), 288. Available from:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3211326?origin=crossref [Accessed 11 Mar 2024].

Burke, P. J. and Stets, J. E., 2009. Identity Theory [online]. Oxford University Press. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/book/1954 [Accessed 11 Mar 2024].

Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009). Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.005

Davis, J. L., Love, T. P. and Fares, P., 2019. Collective Social Identity: Synthesizing Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory Using Digital Data. Social Psychology Quarterly [online], 82 (3), 254–273. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/48588950 [Accessed 2 Mar 2024].

Deaux, K., 2000. Social Identity Processes: Trends in Theory and Research. In: Social Identity Processes: Trends in Theory and Research [online]. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2–14. Available from: https://sk.sagepub.com/books/social-identity-processes/n1.xml [Accessed 2 Mar 2024].

Goldman, L., Giles, H. and Hogg, M. A., 2014. Going to extremes: Social identity and communication processes associated with gang membership. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations [online], 17 (6), 813–832. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368430214524289 [Accessed 3 Mar 2024].

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T. and Stephenson, D., 2015. Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review. Perspectives on Psychological Science [online], 10 (2), 227–237. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691614568352 [Accessed 16 Mar 2024].

Lauger, T. R., 2020. Gangs, identity, and cultural performance. Sociology Compass [online], 14 (4), e12772. Available from: https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/soc4.12772 [Accessed 3 Mar 2024].

Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G. and Pilotta, J. J., 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. International Journal of Intercultural Relations [online], 9 (4), 438–439. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0147176785900628 [Accessed 17 Mar 2024]

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.

McAdams, D. P., 1993. The stories we live by: personal myths and the making of the self. 1st ed. New York, N.Y: W. Morrow.

Pearson, A. and Rose, K., 2021. A Conceptual Analysis of Autistic Masking: Understanding the Narrative of Stigma and the Illusion of Choice. Autism in Adulthood [online], 3 (1), 52–60. Available from: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/aut.2020.0043 [Accessed 14 Mar 2024]

Piaget, J., 1974. The origins of intelligence in children. 1st I.U.P. pbk. print. New York: International Universties Press

Pinkney, C. and Robinson-Edwards, S., 2018. Gangs, music and the mediatisation of crime: expressions, violations and validations. Safer Communities [online], 17 (2), 103–118. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/SC-01-2017-0004 [Accessed 3 Mar 2024].

Shaffer, L. S., 2005. From mirror self‐recognition to the looking‐glass self: Exploring the Justification Hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Psychology [online], 61 (1), 47–65. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.20090 [Accessed 6 Mar 2024].

Stets, J. E. and Burke, P. J., 2000. Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly [online], 63 (3), 224–237. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2695870 [Accessed 2 Mar 2024].

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C., 2004. The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In: Jost, J. T. and Sidanius, J., eds. Political Psychology [online]. Psychology Press, 276–293. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781135151355/chapters/10.4324/9780203505984-16 [Accessed 11 Mar 2024].

Silva, C. S. and Calheiros, M. M., 2022. “(I Think) My Mother Thinks I Am, Therefore I Am.” The Looking-glass Self in Maltreated Children and Adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence [online], 37 (17–18), NP15670–NP15699. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08862605211016352 [Accessed 6 Mar 2024].

Takemura, M., 1983. On the Relationship between Bodhiruci’s Translation Work and the Awakening of Faith. JOURNAL OF INDIAN AND BUDDHIST STUDIES (INDOGAKU BUKKYOGAKU KENKYU) [online], 32 (1), 222–227. Available from: http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ibk1952/32/1/32_1_222/_article [Accessed 17 Mar 2024].

Thomas, D. L., 1972. Role-Taking and Power in Social Psychology. American Sociological Review [online], 37 (5), 605. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2093455?origin=crossref [Accessed 11 Mar 2024].

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.