Social comparison, individualism-collectivism, and self-esteem in china and the United States

Possible differences in social comparison choices between individualistic and collectivistic cultures and individuals were explored among a sample of 235 student participants from the United States and China, focusing on self-esteem as a possible mediating variable. A self-report social comparison measure was developed and factor analyzed. Correlations revealed that higher collectivism scores were associated with an increased desire to compare in general, an increased desire to make upward comparisons, and a decreased desire to make downward comparisons. It is speculated that upward self-improvement comparisons for the sake of the group may be more common for those high in collectivism.     

Effects of intergroup and interpersonal context, and individuals' appraisal of their in-group on the intragroup comparison process

The present study examined whether individuals' endorsement of intergroup context moderates the social comparison process not only in the intergroup upward comparison condition, but also in the downward comparison condition, by experimentally manipulating the direction of intergroup comparison and interpersonal comparison for participants who appraise their in-group as high or low. As predicted, participants who appraise their in-group as high showed reflection processes in the intergroup upward comparison condition, but comparison processes in the intergroup downward comparison condition because of their endorsement of their in-group position. In contrast, participants who appraised their in-group as low showed comparison processes in the intergroup upward comparison condition, but reflection processes in the intergroup downward comparison condition. These results imply that the interplay between intergroup context and individuals' internal factors affect intragroup comparison processes.     

The effects of intergroup discrimination and social values on level of self-esteem in the minimal group paradigm

The proposition that individuals engage in intergroup discrimination to increase or maintain positive social identity and a high level of self-esteem has received some empirical support. An attempt was made to extend prior findings by evaluating whether intergroup allocation behaviour consistent with subjects' social values would lead to higher self-esteem than inconsistent allocation behaviour. More specifically, it was predicted that competitive subjects' self-esteem will be higher following discriminatory choices than fair choices and prosocial subjects' self-esteem will be higher following fair choices than discriminatory choices. It was also predicted that after subjects were constrained to make discriminatory choices, competitors' self-esteem would be higher than prosocials' self-esteem and after subjects were constrained to make fair choices, prosocials' self-esteem would be higher than competitors' self-esteem. Experiment I supported the first of these predictions when a measure of personal self-esteem was used as a dependent variable. Experiment 2 attempted to extend the generality of the findings of Experiment 1 by defining and measuring self-esteem in collective terms. The expected prior pattern of results did not occur again. Constraining subjects to make discriminatory choices increased their collective self-esteem regardless of their social values.     

Social comparison, individualism-collectivism, and self-esteem in china and the United States

Possible differences in social comparison choices between individualistic and collectivistic cultures and individuals were explored among a sample of 235 student participants from the United States and China, focusing on self-esteem as a possible mediating variable. A self-report social comparison measure was developed and factor analyzed. Correlations revealed that higher collectivism scores were associated with an increased desire to compare in general, an increased desire to make upward comparisons, and a decreased desire to make downward comparisons. It is speculated that upward self-improvement comparisons for the sake of the group may be more common for those high in collectivism.     

被动性社交网站使用与自尊和自我概念清晰性:有调节的中介模型

为探讨被动性社交网站使用对自尊和自我概念清晰性的影响及其作用机制,在社会比较理论和乐观的保护性作用的视角下,采用问卷法对1208名大学生进行调查。结果表明:(1)被动性社交网站使用对自尊没有直接的预测作用,但能通过上行社会比较的中介作用负向预测自尊;(2)被动性社交网站使用不仅能够直接负向预测自我概念清晰性,还能通过上行社会比较的中介作用对其产生影响;(3)上行社会比较的中介效应受到乐观的调节,相对于乐观水平高的个体,间接效应在乐观水平低的个体中更为显著;(4)此外,在乐观水平高的个体中,上行社会比较对自尊的负向预测作用以及上行社会比较在被动性社交网站使用与自尊之间的中介作用都不显著,但是上行社会比较对自我概念清晰性的负向预测作用以及上行社会比较在被动性使用与自我概念清晰性之间的中介作用仍然显著。研究结果有助于揭示被动性社交网站使用行为对自尊以及自我概念清晰性的影响及其作用机制,对维护与促进个体自我概念健康发展有一定启示意义。     

Downward comparison, prejudice, and evaluations of others: effects of self-esteem and threat

In two studies, we explored the effects of trait self-esteem and threats to the self-concept on evaluations of others. In Study 1, subjects high, moderate, and low in self-esteem received either success, failure, or no feedback on a test and later evaluated three pairs of targets: in-groups and out-groups based on a minimal intergroup manipulation, those who scored above average and those who scored below average on the test, and themselves and the average college student. Study 2 explored the effects of self-esteem and threat on in-group favoritism in a real-world setting, campus sororities. Together, the results of these studies indicate that individuals high in self-esteem, but not those low in self-esteem, respond to threats to the self-concept by derogating out-groups relative to the in-group when the group boundaries have evaluative implications.     

Collective self-esteem, personal self-esteem, and collective efficacy in in-group and outgroup evaluations

In assessing the relationship between self-esteem and in-group/outgroup evaluations, this study examined whether self-esteem is better measured at a collective (collective self-esteem [CSE]) than a personal level (personal self-esteem [PSE]). It was expected that subjects high in CSE would engage in more in-group favoritism (measured by in-group evaluations), whereas those low in CSE would engage in more outgroup derogation (measured by outgroup evaluations). No effect for PSE was predicted. Furthermore, the study explored whether perceptions of collective efficacy may underlie this relationship. Subjects played a public goods task. The in-group's outcome was compared to the outcome of other relevant outgroups, enhancing pressures towards intergroup differentiation. Consistent with the predictions, subjects high in CSE evaluated in-group members more positively than those in low CSE (i.e., in-group favoritism), whereas subjects low in CSE evaluated outgroup members more negatively than those high in CSE (i.e., outgroup derogation). Also in line with our predictions, no effect for PSE was found. Perceptions of collective efficacy appeared to be a mediator of the effect of CSE.     

Collective self-esteem, personal self-esteem, and collective efficacy in in-group and outgroup evaluations

In assessing the relationship between self-esteem and in-group/outgroup evaluations, this study examined whether self-esteem is better measured at a collective (collective self-esteem [CSE]) than a personal level (personal self-esteem [PSE]). It was expected that subjects high in CSE would engage in more in-group favoritism (measured by in-group evaluations), whereas those low in CSE would engage in more outgroup derogation (measured by outgroup evaluations). No effect for PSE was predicted. Furthermore, the study explored whether perceptions of collective efficacy may underlie this relationship. Subjects played a public goods task. The in-group's outcome was compared to the outcome of other relevant outgroups, enhancing pressures towards intergroup differentiation. Consistent with the predictions, subjects high in CSE evaluated in-group members more positively than those in low CSE (i.e., in-group favoritism), whereas subjects low in CSE evaluated outgroup members more negatively than those high in CSE (i.e., outgroup derogation). Also in line with our predictions, no effect for PSE was found. Perceptions of collective efficacy appeared to be a mediator of the effect of CSE.     

Opposing effects of personal and collective self-esteem on interpersonal and intergroup comparisons

The relationship between self-esteem deriving from both personal and social identity and comparisons at both interpersonal and intergroup level was examined. Participants took part in individual and group brainstorming tasks which they later had the opportunity to evaluate. In the case of the individual task, participants' own solutions were judged in conjunction with solutions provided by a member of their ingroup and a member of the outgroup. For the group task, the ingroup solution was compared with an outgroup solution. Both personal and collective self-esteem were found to influence these ratings, but in different ways. In terms of intergroup comparisons, participants with high personal self-esteem (PSE) showed greatest ingroup bias. In contrast, this same effect was associated with low public collective-self esteem (CSE), that is, people who felt that their group was viewed negatively differentiated most strongly. Furthermore, this opposition of the effects of PSE and CSE also applied to the interpersonal comparisons. Participants with high PSE self-enhanced relative to participants with low PSE, while the reverse pertained for CSE scores. Participants with low private CSE rated both their own and the ingroup member's solution more positively than the outgroup solution. An analysis is presented which explains these effects in terms of threat experienced as a result of incongruency between comparative context and optimal identity enhancement strategies. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

上行比较影响行为表现—不同类型高自尊的作用

已有研究表明,上行比较对高自尊个体产生积极效应。然而鉴于高自尊包括安全性高自尊和防御性高自尊,有必要在上行比较影响不同任务领域内的行为表现这一观点的基础上探讨高自尊的不同类型对上行比较与行为表现之间关系的影响。两个实验均采用高自尊类型、上行比较和任务领域一致性的2×2×2混合因素设计,不同之处在于其分别采用创造性测验和非创造性的语词测验作为不同领域任务。结果表明,防御性高自尊个体没有像安全性高自尊个体那样采取领域转换策略来修复自我关注,由上行比较所引起的领域转换只对安全性高自尊个体产生积极影响。     

Social comparison activity under threat: downward evaluation and upward contacts

Social comparison processes include the desire to affiliate with others, the desire for information about others, and explicit self-evaluation against others. Previously these types of comparison activity and their corresponding measures have been treated as interchangeable. We present evidence that in certain groups under threat, these comparison activities diverge, with explicit self-evaluation made against a less fortunate target (downward evaluation), but information and affiliation sought out from more fortunate others (upward contacts). These effects occur because downward evaluation and upward contacts appear to serve different needs, the former ameliorating self-esteem and the latter enabling a person to improve his or her situation and simultaneously increase motivation and hope. Implications for the concept, measurement, and theory of social comparison are discussed.     

When self-disclosure goes awry: Negative consequences of revealing personal failures for lower self-esteem individuals

Despite the potential benefits of self-disclosure, individuals with lower self-esteem (LSEs) tend to avoid self-revelations. The present study investigated the role of self-esteem in predicting detrimental responses to the disclosure of a personal failure. We employed a novel experimental design where all participants experienced a lab-induced stressor (failure feedback on a competence test) and half were randomly assigned to disclose this information to their dating partner. In contrast to LSEs who concealed the personal failure, LSEs who disclosed the failure reported several negative consequences that may further contribute to relationship-based distress. However, individuals higher in self-esteem (HSEs) benefitted from disclosing the personal failure in comparison to LSEs who disclosed and HSEs who concealed the failure. We discuss the consequences of disclosing personal failures to partners for HSEs and LSEs.     

Social identity and intergroup evaluative bias: Realistic categories and domain specific self-esteem in a conflict setting

Social identity theory predicts a link between self-esteem and intergroup discrimination. Previous research has failed to find consistent support for this prediction. Much of this research has, however, been beset by a number of methodological shortcomings. These shortcomings may have hindered attempts to discern a consistent relationship between self-esteem and intergroup discrimination. The current investigation sought to overcome these difficulties by utilizing, realistic groups, multidimensional measures of self-esteem and testing self-esteem before and after the manifestation of intergroup evaluative bias. The results demonstrate that when the members of realistic groups engage in evaluative intergroup bias, the esteem in which they hold specific self-images is enhanced. Of the 13 facets of self-esteem delineated by the instrument used in the present study significant increases were found in six particular domains: honesty, academic ability, verbal ability, physical appearance, religion and parental relations. Global self-esteem was unaffected by the display of bias. These findings emphasize the importance of using realistic groups and domain specific self-esteem when attempting to assess the role of self-esteem in intergroup discrimination.     

Ethnic identity and its relation to personal self-esteem: a comparison of Canadian-born and foreign-born Chinese adolescents.

Ethnic identity and its relation to personal self-esteem were examined by comparing 31 Chinese adolescents who immigrated to Canada and 31 Chinese adolescents who were Canadian born. The foreign-born adolescents were more likely to identify themselves as Chinese (rather than Chinese Canadian) and to include references to their ethnicity in response to an open-ended Who Am I Questionnaire, a variation of the Twenty Statements Test (M. H. Kuhn & T. S. McPartland, 1954). For the foreign-born group only, aspects of collective self-esteem were positively related to personal self-esteem. The differences between the groups supported a contextual emphasis for associating collective self-esteem with personal self-esteem. The data were consistent with an interpretation involving collectivistic-individualistic distinctions, with the foreign-born sample being more collectivistic.     

Shifting social identities as a strategy for deflecting threatening social comparisons

Results of three studies suggest that the multifaceted nature of identity provides a strategic basis for reducing the threat involved in upward social comparisons. After performing worse than a comparison standard, people may strategically emphasize aspects of their identity that differentiate them from the standard, thereby making the standard less relevant for self-evaluation. On the basis of previous research showing that persons low in self-esteem are less likely to make effective use of self-protection strategies, we hypothesized that this strategy of deflecting the threat involved in upward comparison (i.e., decreasing perceived comparability by emphasizing an unshared social identity) would be used primarily by persons who are characteristically high in self-esteem. This pattern was confirmed in three studies. Moreover, use of the strategy was associated with relatively more positive affect following threatening upward comparisons.     

Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination

The background and development of motivational hypotheses in social identity theory are examined, revealing two general motives for intergroup discrimination: a desire for cognitive coherence, or good structure; and a need for positive self-esteem. The latter (self-esteem hypothesis: SEH) has received most attention. Both the theoretical and empirical bases of the SEH are largely rooted in research using the minimal group paradigm. However, it remains unclear whether self-esteem is to be considered primarily as a cause or an effect of discrimination. When real social groups are considered the SEH appears to provide only a partial explanation, and a variety of more or less powerful alternative social motives may underlie discriminatory behaviour. We explore some social-structural, individual and interpersonal limits to the SEH, and we call for an awareness of these motives and a re-examination of the good-structure thesis. The SEH, as it stands, provides only a partial contribution to our understanding of the relationship between social identity and discriminatory intergroup behaviour.     

It's not my fault: when and why attributions to prejudice protect self-esteem

This study tested the hypothesis that awareness of the possibility of being a target of discrimination can provide individuals with a means of self-esteem protection when they are faced with negative outcomes. Men and women contemplated being rejected from a course due to sexism, personal deservingness, or an exclusively external cause. Regardless of gender, participants in the sexism condition blamed themselves less, attributed the rejection less to internal causes, and anticipated feeling less depressed than those in the personal deservingness condition. Furthermore, the more participants discounted the rejection--blamed it more on discrimination than themselves--the less depressed emotions they anticipated feeling. Discounting did not buffer participants from feeling hostility or anxiety. These findings advance our understanding of when and why attributions to prejudice protect emotional well-being.     

Tainted recommendations: The social comparison bias

The present analysis reveals the social comparison bias – a bias that emerges from the social comparison process and taints recommendations. We hypothesize that people who have high standing on a relevant dimension (e.g., quantity of publications) begin to protect their social comparison context by making recommendations that prevent others, who might surpass them on the relevant dimension, from entering their comparison context. Studies 1 and 2 instantiate this effect in both hypothetical and real decision situations, showing that people tend not to recommend individuals who surpass them on the relevant dimension on which they have high standing. Finally, Study 3, in a sample of real employees, links the effect to one’s concern for protecting self-esteem. Theoretical and organizational implications are discussed.     

Sex-role orientation,identity formation,and self-esteem in college men and women

Contrasting hypotheses that psychological androgyny (Bem, 1974, 1975) would be associated with (1) identity confusion and a lack of personal integration or (2) identity achievement and high levels of integration were tested. Sex-role orientation, ego-identity status, and self-esteem were determined for 111 college men and women. The results support the second hypothesis, that high levels of masculinity and femininity (androgynous orientation) are conducive to identity achievement and high self-esteem. In contrast, low levels of masculine and feminine characteristics (undifferentiated sex-role orientation) were associated with uniformly low self-esteem and a lack of personal integration (identity diffusion). Sex-typing was most often associated with premature identity commitments and a lack of personality differentiation (identity foreclosure) and with high self-esteem in males but low self-esteem in females. Cross-sex-typing was associated with high levels of self-esteem and identity achievement in females, but with somewhat lower self-esteem in males and either unsuccessful (diffusion) or transitional (moratorium) levels of identity resolution.This research was supported by University of Missouri Summer Research Fellowship 3694-1100. The author would like to express his gratitude to Mona Asbed, Richard Baker, Sheila Ginsburg, Keith Shaw, and Marsha Whitson for conducting and rating the identity status interviews.     

Defensiveness versus remediation: self-theories and modes of self-esteem maintenance

How people maintain and repair their self-esteem has been a topic of widespread interest. In this article, the authors ask, What determines whether people will use direct, remedial actions, or defensive actions? In three studies, they tested the hypothesis that a belief in fixed intelligence (entity theory) would produce defensiveness, whereas a belief in improvable intelligence (incremental theory) would foster remediation. In each study, participants assigned to the entity condition opted for defensive self-esteem repair (downward comparison in Studies 1 and 3; a tutorial on already mastered material in Study 2), but those in the incremental condition opted for self-improvement (upward comparison in Studies 1 and 3; a tutorial on unmastered material in Study 2). Experiment 3 also linked these strategies to self-esteem repair; remedial strategies were the most effective in recovering lost self-esteem for those in the incremental condition, whereas defensive strategies were most effective for those in the entity condition.