Success with a twinge of distress: Antecedents and consequences of outperformance-related discomfort

Although outperforming others brings intrapersonal benefits, it may also carry interpersonal costs. The term Sensitivity about being the Target of a Threatening Upward Comparison (STTUC) captures the discomfort that outperformers may feel when they perceive that their success upsets an outperformed person. This paper reviews 20+ years of research on STTUC. It begins by defining STTUC and its three essential criteria. It then delineates situation and person variables that explain variability in STTUC. It follows by describing outperformers' varied reactions to STTUC and then explains the potential social function of STTUC.     

Upward and downward social comparisons can decrease prosocial behavior

This experiment addressed whether upward or downward social comparisons can affect people's prosocial behavior toward the comparison targets. Undergraduates (N = 123) completed an inkblot test and then were randomly assigned to conditions in which they were told that their performance was either inferior or superior to their peers. A control group was given no performance feedback. Participants' self‐reported prosocial behaviors were measured 2 days later. Results indicated that both the upward and downward comparison groups engaged in significantly less prosocial behavior than did the control group and that empathy toward their peers mediated this effect. Our findings suggest that upward or downward comparison can make people feel less empathic toward the targets and thus less inclined to help them.     

Categorizing at the group‐level in response to intragroup social comparisons: a self‐categorization theory integration of self‐evaluation and social identity motives

Two experiments examined how people respond to upward social comparisons in terms of the extent to which they categorize the self and the source of comparison within the same social group. Self‐evaluation maintenance theory (SEM) suggests that upward ingroup comparisons can lead to the rejection of a shared categorization, because shared categorization makes the comparison more meaningful and threatening. In contrast, social identity theory (SIT) suggests that upward ingroup comparisons can lead to the acceptance of shared categorization because a high‐performing ingroup member enhances the ingroup identity. We attempted to resolve these differing predictions using self‐categorization theory, arguing that SEM applies to contexts that make salient one's personal identity, and SIT applies to contexts that make collective identity salient. Consistent with this perspective, the level of identity activated in context moderated the effect of an upward ingroup comparison on the acceptance of shared social categorization. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effects of health frame and target relevance in appearance social comparisons

Social comparison powerfully influences on appearance self‐evaluations, but previous research has not examined the combined impact of target frame and relevance on appearance comparison outcomes. The present study examined the effect of target relevance and health frame in body‐ideal images on self‐evaluations in a mixed‐gender university‐based sample from the United States (N = 176; 58% female). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in which they viewed a body‐ideal image of a same‐sex target that varied in target relevance (peer or model) and health frame (extreme behaviors described as being healthy or unhealthy). We did not find evidence that comparisons with models or peers are different in their effects. And, consistent with hypotheses, the health frame of a comparison target’s eating and exercise behaviors influenced how participants perceived themselves and their health. Participants were more likely to take health advice from the target described as healthy, and felt better about their own health when comparing to healthy targets. We also found gender differences such that men were more satisfied with their physical health but women were more satisfied with their appearance. Overall, this research supports the importance of addressing peer comparisons and health literacy in body image interventions, which has long‐term implications for the prevention of eating and exercise pathology.     

Self‐construal and social comparison effects

Background. Social comparison research usually demonstrates that students will have higher self‐evaluation in downward comparison but lower self‐evaluation in upward comparison. However, the existence of this contrast effect may depend on people's self‐construal. The contrast effect may exist only for people with independent self‐construal. For people with interdependent self‐construal, the contrast effect may be attenuated. Aim. The study investigated the role of self‐construal as a moderator of the social comparison effects in authentic classrooms. Sample. The participants were 96 Chinese seventh‐grade students (41 male, 51 female and 4 unreported) from a secondary school in Hong Kong. Method. The experiment employed a 2 × 2 between‐subjects design based on 2 levels of self‐construal (independent, interdependent) and 2 levels of comparison standard (upward comparison, downward comparison). The dependent variable was students' self‐evaluation. Results. A two‐way ANOVA indicated a significant interaction between self‐construal and comparison standard on self‐evaluation. When the students' independent self‐construal was activated, they reported higher self‐evaluation in downward comparison but lower self‐evaluation in upward comparison. However, such a contrast effect was attenuated when the students' interdependent self‐construal was activated. They reported high self‐evaluation in both upward and downward comparisons. Conclusions. The outcome of social comparison depends on whether independent or interdependent self‐construal is salient in the classroom.     

Rankings,standards, and competition: Task vs. scale comparisons

Research showing how upward social comparison breeds competitive behavior has so far conflated local comparisons in task performance (e.g. a test score) with comparisons on a more general scale (i.e. an underlying skill). Using a ranking methodology ( Garcia, Tor, & Gonzalez, 2006) to separate task and scale comparisons, Studies 1–2 reveal that an upward comparison on the scale (e.g. being surpassed in rank), rather than in the mere task (e.g., being outperformed), is necessary to generate competition among rivals proximate to a standard (e.g. ranked #3 vs. 4, near “the top”); rivals far from a standard (e.g. ranked #203 vs. 204), on the other hand, still tend to cooperate. Study 3 illustrates this finding with player trades in Major League Baseball. Study 4 further shows how an implicit scale comparison, instead of the commonly assumed explicit task comparison, may account for those classical competition findings in the literature. Study 5 then reveals how scale ranking becomes all important in the proximity of a standard, leading rivals to tolerate even an upward scale comparison to increase their proximity to the standard. Implications for the increasingly popular “forced ranking” management systems (e.g., at General Electric) are also discussed.     

The ups and downs of thinking about a successful other: self‐construals and the consequences of social comparisons

We hypothesized that the consequences of upward social comparisons are mediated by independent versus interdependent content of self‐construals. Independent self‐construals emphasize personal uniqueness; thus comparison to an outstanding other should undermine one's sense of uniqueness and lower current self‐evaluations. Conversely, interdependent self‐construals focus on interpersonal connectedness. Hence, interdependent individuals should be able to bask in the reflected success of a personally relevant other in an upward comparison task, thus increasing self‐evaluations. In a study involving 66 US undergraduates the latter predictions were supported. The psychological dimension of interdependence predicted differential outcomes of upward social comparisons, but this was not the case for the dimension of independence. Also, differential consequences of social comparison were more pronounced for current self‐evaluations than for participants' possible selves. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

What Do People Infer from Social Comparisons? Bridges between Social Comparison and Person Perception

Human judgment is basically comparative, with self‐judgments in particular being based on social comparison. Not surprisingly, much research has focused on how self‐comparisons shape comparers’ self‐views on the specific comparison dimension. We argue that both comparers and observers may, and do, draw various other inferences and that they do so from both self‐comparisons and other‐comparisons. In both cases they may draw inferences from (a) the fact that social comparison has taken place, (b) the allocation of the target and referent roles, and (c) the stated relationship between the target and the referent. In order to show how exploring these inferences may lead social comparison research into new and exciting directions, we point out some unanswered questions about them.     

When Misery Avoids Company: Selective Social Comparisons to Photographic Online Profiles

Social networking site usage may affect subjective well‐being. Two experiments examined how selective exposure to profiles of other users facilitated mood management via self‐enhancing social comparisons. In Study 1, when given detailed impression management cues, such as photographs and status updates, users in a negative mood sought upward rather than downward social comparisons. Study 2 found that relatively low levels of group identification with the social networking site community led to upward social comparisons by users in a negative mood. High group identifiers spent more time viewing upward comparisons, regardless of mood. Regarding exposure effects, upward social comparisons to profiles improved subsequent mood when the comparison involved career success. High group identifiers experienced greater positive mood following upward social comparisons.     

Interpersonal Moderators of the Effects of Upward Comparisons on Ability Judgments

In everyday life, the meaning—and thus the consequences—of social comparisons are shaped by the interpersonal relationship with the comparison target. In two studies, undergraduates described 1,863 naturally occurring upward social comparisons. Participants ascribed higher ability levels to themselves when they had an ongoing competition or close (but not extremely close) relationship with the upward comparison target. Participants ascribed lower ability levels to distant and disliked targets (especially when their standing relative to a disliked target was personally important). Thus, perceived differences between the abilities of the self and the target were minimized when the target was disliked, moderately close, or a rival. These findings extend and qualify findings from laboratory studies of how upward comparisons affect ability judgments.     

Committed to succeed: Commitment determines reactions to upward relationship comparisons

Individuals encounter numerous examples of happy relationships in their social networks and through the media; however, it is unclear how comparisons to superior couples affect one's own relationship. We examined individuals' responses to upward relationship comparisons by exposing dating and married participants to highly successful relationships drawn from their own lives (Study 1) and an exemplar given to them (Studies 2–3). We predicted that moderately committed individuals would evaluate their relationship against the superior relationship, and consequently be less motivated to engage in relationship‐maintenance behaviors. In contrast, highly committed individuals would be inspired by the superior relationship and view their relationship more positively. Across all studies, higher commitment yielded more positive responses to upward relationship comparisons than did lower commitment.     

Social comparison processes in the experience of personal relative deprivation

Drawing on social comparison and equity theories, we investigated the role that perceived similarity of a comparison target plays in how resentful people feel about their relative financial status. In Study 1, participants tended to choose a comparison target who was better off, and they selected a target they perceived to be more similar than dissimilar along dimensions that surrounded their financial outcomes. In Study 1, perceived relative disadvantage was positively associated with resentment regardless of the perceived similarity of the comparison target. The results of Studies 2 to 5b clarified these findings by showing that being both similar and dissimilar to a target can cause resentment depending on the context. Using hypothetical and real social comparisons, we found that people are more dissatisfied with their financial outcomes when their comparative targets have the same background qualifications (i.e., are similar) but are financially better off (Studies 2, 3b, 4, and 5b). However, we also found that when the comparative financial contexts were similar (i.e., equal affluence), participants were more dissatisfied when their target for comparison had lower qualifications (i.e., was dissimilar; Studies 2, 3a, 4, and 5a). In all cases, perceptions of unfairness mediated the effects of social comparison on financial dissatisfaction. Taken together, these studies address some of the ambiguities around what it means to be similar to a target in the context of social comparisons of affluence, and they underscore the importance of perceived unfairness in the link between social comparison and resentment with one's financial status.     

Relationship social comparison interpretations and dating relationship quality,behaviors, and mood

Social comparisons are common in dating relationships. We examined individuals' cognitive interpretations (e.g., hope for the future or one's own relationship is not doing well) after an upward, downward, or lateral social comparison to a friend's dating relationship. Exploratory factor analyses indicated three factors in the Relationship Social Comparison Interpretation scale (RSCI): negative interpretations, positive upward interpretations, and positive downward interpretations (Studies 1 and 2). Hierarchical regressions controlling for comparison direction and individual differences in relationship social comparison orientation indicated that the RSCI was associated with relationship satisfaction, commitment, and positive and negative affect (Studies 1 and 2). There were also direct and indirect effects (through relationship quality) of the RSCI, with attention to alternatives and accommodation behaviors (Study 2).     

Retracted:When different is better: performance following upward comparison

The attainability of upward social comparisons is known to affect self‐evaluative responses. The consequences for performance, however, are less well understood. We suggest that demoralizing upward comparisons with unattainable targets may lead to improved performance when the target and performance domains are mismatched. For example, comparison with a target that has been successful in an analytic domain should lead to better performance in a verbal domain. This improvement in performance occurs because increased performance in alternative domains provides an opportunity for self‐evaluation maintenance. In three studies, we demonstrate that upward comparisons to targets whose successes are perceived as threatening lead to improved performance when the task and performance domain do not match, but no improvements when the domains match. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An ecological momentary assessment of the effects of weight and shape social comparisons on women with eating pathology, high body dissatisfaction, and low body dissatisfaction

This research examined the effects of naturally occurring appearance comparisons on women's affect, body satisfaction, and compensatory cognitions and behaviors. Using ecological momentary assessment, women with high body dissatisfaction and eating pathology (EPHB), high body dissatisfaction (HB), or low body dissatisfaction (LB) recorded their reactions to appearance-focused social comparisons. EPHB and HB women made more upward appearance comparisons than LB women. All women experienced negative emotions and cognitions after upward comparisons, including increased guilt, body dissatisfaction, and thoughts of dieting. EPHB women were most negatively affected by comparisons; they experienced more intense negative emotions, more thoughts of dieting/exercising, and an increase in eating-disordered behavior after upward comparisons. HB women experienced more negative affective consequences and thoughts of dieting than LB women. Results are consistent with social comparison theory and provide important information that may be used to inform eating disorder treatment and prevention efforts.     

Looking up versus looking down: attractiveness‐based organizational biases are moderated by social comparison direction

Organizational decision‐making research demonstrates an abundance of positive biases directed toward attractive individuals. However, recent research suggests that these favorable consequences of attractiveness do not hold when the person being evaluated is of the same sex as the evaluator. In the current study, participants evaluated prospective job candidates and indicated their desire to interact socially with the candidate. Results indicated positive responses toward attractive other‐sex targets but not toward attractive same‐sex targets. This pattern was moderated by participants' social comparison orientation: People who tended to engage in downward (rather than upward) social comparison displayed stronger reactions to attractive comparison targets. They indicated less desire to interact socially with attractive same‐sex job candidates than those who tend to engage in upward social comparison.     

Social Indispensability or Social Comparison: The Why and When of Motivation Gains of Inferior Group Members1

In 2 experimental studies, social indispensability and upward social comparison were contrasted as potential triggers of motivation gains of inferior group members. Using a cognitive task in a computer‐supported environment, individual work was compared with conditions that enabled upward comparison only (coaction), or both upward comparison and social indispensability (conjunctive task). Moreover, working conditions (face‐to‐face vs. anonymous) and partner‐related performance feedback (contemporaneously vs. post‐task) were manipulated as potential moderators. Results revealed motivation gains only when partner feedback was contemporaneously available. In this case, upward‐comparison effects could be demonstrated during coaction. However, when participants' contribution determined a group outcome, their motivation was additionally increased, demonstrating social indispensability effects. Finally, motivation gains were generally higher during face‐to‐face compared to anonymous work.     

Social comparison as a predictor of changes in burnout among nurses

Abstract

This study addressed the question whether the affect evoked by social comparisons and individual differences in social comparison orientation (SCO) may predict the development of burnout over a period of one year. The participants were 93 nurses (25 males and 68 females) who filled out a questionnaire twice, with an interval of about one year. Comparisons with others performing better than oneself (upward comparisons) were reported to occur more often, to evoke more positive affect, and to invoke less negative affect than comparisons with others performing worse than oneself (downward comparisons). Those who responded at Time 1 (T1) with more positive affect to upward comparison and with less negative affect to downward comparisons, showed a decrease in burnout at Time 2 (T2). In addition, those who responded with relatively more negative affect to upward comparisons at T1, showed an increase in burnout at T2, but only when they were high in SCO. It is concluded that in this population upward comparisons were more prevalent than, and evoked more favorable responses than, downward comparisons. The most important conclusion is that the affect evoked by social comparisons may predict future changes in burnout.     

Downward Comparison in Infertile Couples

The tendency of infertile individuals to compare themselves favorably to others with regard to coping efficacy was examined among 61 women and 52 men, including 52 husband-wife pairs. Comparison targets were same-sex infertile others and the spouse. Eighty-three percent of men, but only 45% of women, believed that they were coping better than same-sex others (i.e.,downward comparison). Both men (51%) and women (47%) tended to see no difference between their own and their spouses' coping efficacy. However, comparing themselves to their spouses, men in general compared downward, whereas women compared upward. For both same-sex and spouse comparisons, husbands were significantly more likely to engage in downward comparison than their partners. Analyses testing the correlates of downward comparison revealed that (a) infertile participants who were more likely to engage in downward comparison felt less threatened by infertility, (b) no association emerged between comparison indices and self-esteem, and (c) downward same-sex comparison was more likely for men who had been attempting conception for a longer period.     

Personalized and generalized comparisons: causes and consequences of variations in the focus of social comparisons

When people compare with another person they can focus on how they compare either with just that target (a personalized comparison) or with others more generally (a generalized comparison). Four studies (two event-contingent diary studies, one study of comparisons during a triathlon, and one controlled experiment) showed that personalized comparisons were more likely when the target's attribute was distinctive or there was an interaction or a close or emotional relationship with the target. Perhaps because these conditions that increase interest in the target as a distinct individual were less common during the triathlon than in everyday life, personalized comparisons were relatively uncommon during the triathlon but relatively common in everyday life. Across studies, generalized comparisons magnified the impact of upward comparisons on overall feelings (but not on interpersonal feelings about the self-target relationship), presumably because generalizing broadens the implications of comparisons, whereas personalizing restricts their relevance to the self-target relationship.