Contemporary Exemplar Work Building upon the early research of Greenstein (1965) and others, more recent work on childhood exemplars has sought to focus on specific types of exemplars. Athletes and entertainers are the most popular areas of research, with general archetypes also being examined. Despite the fact that these studies do not overtly focus on the political nature of exemplars, these studies contribute both initial assumptions for what types of individuals are likely to be current childhood exemplars and provide additional frameworks through which to examine political childhood exemplars. The examination of archetypes has been more common among contemporary exemplar work rather than examinations of specific heroes. Gash and Conway
…show more content…
Respondents may have a number of reasons for wishing to emulate an exemplar, and these archetypes can help illuminate the values that an individual possesses that are considered important. Other contemporary exemplar studies have focused not on the attributes of the exemplars, but more closely on the positions they hold in society. In this sense, these studies more closely approximate those undertaken by Greenstein (1965).
Pleiss and Feldhusen (1995) examined the heroes, mentors, and role models of gifted children and compared them to those of the general population. Again, a gender difference is found, with males identifying athletes as their prime exemplars and citing identification attachments with these individuals, while females were more likely to endorse male entertainers and cite romantic attachments. It should be noted, however, that these participants ranged in age from 12 up to 23. Amongst gifted children, however, it was more common that historical figures or contemporary “serious” entertainers were identified as exemplars. Though, again athletes and entertainers were common exemplars of even gifted …show more content…
In this theory, individuals identify with others based on perceived similarity. This similarity may be physical, such as skin tone, or psychological such as party identification. Further, these identities may be learned first hand, as is the case with racial discrimination, or learned via social learning, as is the case of racial prejudice. These identities help individuals form in-groups for those most similar to them, and out-groups for those dissimilar (Haslam et al. 2014). These groups then can act as heuristics priming individuals to adopt beliefs of those who they view as similar to them regardless of content or context (Iyengar et al.
Respondents may have a number of reasons for wishing to emulate an exemplar, and these archetypes can help illuminate the values that an individual possesses that are considered important. Other contemporary exemplar studies have focused not on the attributes of the exemplars, but more closely on the positions they hold in society. In this sense, these studies more closely approximate those undertaken by Greenstein (1965).
Pleiss and Feldhusen (1995) examined the heroes, mentors, and role models of gifted children and compared them to those of the general population. Again, a gender difference is found, with males identifying athletes as their prime exemplars and citing identification attachments with these individuals, while females were more likely to endorse male entertainers and cite romantic attachments. It should be noted, however, that these participants ranged in age from 12 up to 23. Amongst gifted children, however, it was more common that historical figures or contemporary “serious” entertainers were identified as exemplars. Though, again athletes and entertainers were common exemplars of even gifted …show more content…
In this theory, individuals identify with others based on perceived similarity. This similarity may be physical, such as skin tone, or psychological such as party identification. Further, these identities may be learned first hand, as is the case with racial discrimination, or learned via social learning, as is the case of racial prejudice. These identities help individuals form in-groups for those most similar to them, and out-groups for those dissimilar (Haslam et al. 2014). These groups then can act as heuristics priming individuals to adopt beliefs of those who they view as similar to them regardless of content or context (Iyengar et al.