Accuracy of estimates in the social comparison of abilities

An experiment was conducted to test the proposition that comparison with others similar to oneself in performance affords more accurate self-evaluations than comparison with dissimilar others. A previous study presumably demonstrating this effect (R. Radloff, 1966, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Suplement, 1, 6–26) was reinterpreted. It was suggested that in that particular experiment, performance dissimilarity of comparison others may have been confounded with subjects' disconfirmed expectancies concerning own performance. In the present experiment, similarity of comparison others (manipulated via performance extremity relative to others in the group) was orthogonally manipulated to consistency (versus inconsistency) with an expectancy. As predicted, inconsistency with expectancy exerted adverse effects on the accuracy of self-evaluations whereas dissimilarity from comparison others did not. Significance of the findings for social comparison processes was discussed.     

Positive and negative opinion modeling: the influence of another's similarity and dissimilarity

Modeling research that has focused on the effects of observing similar others appears to have underestimated the influence of observing dissimilar others. Two experiments demonstrated that observing a model express liking for a piece of music induced more favorable opinions of the music (positive modeling) when the model was similar to the participant observer in relevant opinions, and more negative opinions (negative modeling) when the model was dissimilar to the participant in relevant opinions. Of note, this pattern was more pronounced when participants also believed their general backgrounds were dissimilar rather than similar to that of the model. Underlying social comparison processes and the mediational role of participants' liking of the model are considered.     

I, we, and the effects of others on me: how self-construal level moderates social comparison effects

In 5 studies, the authors investigate the impact of self-activation on the occurrence and direction of social comparison effects. They show that self-evaluative comparison effects are more likely to occur when self-related cognitions are made cognitively accessible. Contrast occurs when personal self-construals ("I") are accessible, whereas assimilation occurs when social self-construals ("we") are activated. These effects of self-construal activation are similar to the impact of self-unrelated information processing styles that are often associated with personal and social self-accessibility (i.e., differentiation and integration mind-sets). However, whereas self-construal activation elicits self-serving social comparisons, activation of self-unrelated processing styles results in non-self-serving social comparison effects. Implications of these results for understanding the cognitive processes underlying social comparison effects are discussed.     

Wage comparisons with similar and dissimilar others

Considerable research has been completed on the link between social comparisons and employee satisfaction. Surprisingly, however, few of those studies contrast the effects of various comparisons with others on pay satisfaction. Based on social comparison theory, we expected that comparisons with similar others would be more important predictors of pay satisfaction than comparisons with dissimilar others. Across four studies, the degree of similarity of the comparison other was varied. In Studies 1 and 2, respondents made pay comparisons inside or outside the organization. In Studies 3 and 4, respondents made pay comparisons with referents in the same and different occupations. In all four studies we found that while similar others did provide employees with important information that affected their satisfaction, so did information about dissimilar others. We suggest that the importance of a job in our self‐definitions, with pay level being among the most overt markers, may account for our findings. Using pay as a yardstick may lead us all to widen our search for information about others, including ordinarily discrepant others. Alternative explanations and directions for research are discussed.     

Brand Congruity and Comparative Advertising: When and Why Comparative Advertisements Lead to Greater Elaboration

Two experiments are conducted to examine when and why comparative advertisements lead to elaboration. Comparative advertisements in which the sponsor brand and the comparison brand are perceived to be dissimilar lead to greater elaboration, as evidenced by differences in argument quality, than comparative advertisements in which the sponsor and comparison brands are perceived to be similar. This pattern is particularly strong for those individuals not chronically predisposed to elaborate (low need for cognition), whereas those individuals chronically predisposed to elaborate (high need for cognition) elaborate the ads regardless of comparison composition. Results are consistent with our proposed brand congruity explanation.     

How self-evaluations relate to being liked by others: integrating sociometer and attachment perspectives

What is the relation between self-evaluation and being liked by others? Does being liked by others lead to more positive self-evaluations (as in sociometer theory), or do positive self-evaluations lead to being liked more (self-broadcasting)? Furthermore, what might affect the extent to which self-evaluations are influenced by likability (and vice versa)? The purpose of the present study was twofold. First, it used a naturalistic design to test the direction of the effect between social self-evaluations and others' judgments of likability in real relationships. Second, it examined how individual differences in attachment avoidance and anxiety relate to self-evaluations and likability and whether attachment differences moderate the relation between the two. Social self-evaluations, actual interpersonal liking, and attachment were assessed in participants taking part in a longitudinal group study. The findings supported the sociometer theory: Being liked by others led to more positive self-evaluations. Both anxious and avoidant attachment predicted lower self-evaluations, and anxious attachment predicted stronger reactions to others' liking (i.e., potentiated the sociometer). These findings have several implications for research on self-evaluation, adult attachment theory, and the importance of integrating interpersonal processes and individual differences.     

The influence of individual versus aggregate social comparison and the presence of others on self-evaluations

In 5 studies, the authors investigated the effects of comparison with an individual versus comparison with the statistical average on self-evaluations of performance and ability. In Studies 1 and 2, participants took a test of lie detection ability and were provided with the average score and the score of an individual coactor. Both types of feedback significantly affected self-evaluations of performance, but only comparison with the coactor significantly affected self-evaluations of ability. Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated that the presence of a coactor moderated the effect of aggregate social comparison on self-evaluations of ability. The results provide preliminary support for the contention that minimizing the impact of comparison with the average is a self-serving strategy that is facilitated by the presence of others.     

The order effect in self–other predictions: considering target as a moderator

Two factors known to affect the use of self in social prediction, target similarity and order of predictions, are considered in concert to understand how the use of self varies across the prediction of different targets. Replicating earlier studies, we predicted and found that people use the self more when predicting similar others than when predicting dissimilar others. Extending existing studies, we predicted and found order effects for similar others. As predicted no order effects emerged for predictions for dissimilar targets. Because the self is more accessible during the prediction of similar others, it matters whether self‐predictions precede or follow other‐predictions. Feature‐matching theory is proposed as a possible explanation for the emergence of order effects in predictions of similar targets. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Accuracy and assumed similarity in first impressions of personality: Differing associations at different levels of analysis

How are accuracy and assumed similarity associated in first impressions of personality? In a large-scale video perception study, accuracy and assumed similarity were strongly negatively associated across traits, consistent with past research (e.g., Beer & Watson, 2008). However, across perceivers and perceiver-target dyads, the ability to perceive others accurately was independent of the tendency to assume similarity with others. Thus, viewing others in general or specific others as overly similar to the self does not imply viewing them inaccurately. In sum, accuracy and assumed similarity are inversely related when examined across traits but are independent across perceivers and dyads.     

Motivational Similarity and Interpersonal Evaluations: The Role of Ambiguity, Self-Derogation, and Emotion

ABSTRACT The present study tests two hypotheses which are based on a motivational threat model of interpersonal evaluation: ( a ) Dominance- and dependency-oriented perceivers evaluate motivationally similar others less favorably only when evaluation pertains to an ambiguous attribute and perceivers score high on self-derogation; and ( b ) the relatively unfavorable evaluation of the similar target person is mediated by an arousal process. Males observed a working dyad in which one man was dominant and the other dependent, but both were ambiguous on sociability. Throughout the observation, subjects' emotion-related skin conductance responses were monitored. Subjects then evaluated the target person they expected to meet and recalled information. Results supported the first hypothesis, but were only partially consistent with the second hypothesis. In addition, dominance-oriented perceivers produced more assertiveness constructs than dependency-oriented perceivers in free recall. The findings suggest that the threat model should be revised to include the moderating factors of attribute ambiguity and attitude toward the self, and perhaps also an additional mediating process: generalization of attitude toward the self to motivationally similar others.     

The cold glow of success: Responses to social rejection as affected by attitude similarity between the rejected and chosen individuals

Studied the effects of attitudinal similarity between two males on reactions to social rejection by a female. Sixty-five male undergraduate students had met an attitudinally similar or dissimilar male confederate. Later a female confederate either chose or did not choose the male confederate as a work partner. Following that, measures designed to tap subjects affective state and self evaluations were administered. Two way interactions for affect and self evaluations (p < 0.01 and p 7lt; 0.05 respectively) indicate that, relative to a control group, only subjects whose similar male partner was chosen expressed unfavorable affect and self-evaluations. The relevance of these findings for the affective consequences of social comparison processes is discussed.     

异性交友决策任务上为不同心理距离他人决策的风险偏好

使用中国文化背景下修订的Beisswanger等人的异性交友决策问卷, 采用2种方法操纵自我-他人心理距离, 考察了男女大学生在后果严重性不同的异性交友决策任务上为不同心理距离他人决策风险偏好的差异。实验1发现, 被试为具体和笼统他人决策时的风险偏好无显著差异, 在后果不严重任务上比后果严重任务上更冒险, 男性比女性更冒险。心理距离与决策者性别的交互作用显著：男性为具体他人决策更冒险, 而女性为笼统他人决策更冒险。实验2发现, 被试为不相似他人比为相似他人决策更冒险, 在后果不严重任务上比在后果严重任务上更冒险, 男性比女性更冒险。后果严重性与决策者性别交互作用显著：男性在后果严重和不严重任务上的风险偏好无显著差异, 而女性在后果不严重任务上比后果严重任务上更冒险。综合两个实验的结果, 可以得出以下结论：相对于具体和笼统他人的区分而言, 相似和不相似他人的区分是一种更加稳定和有效的区分自我-他人心理距离的方法。结合相关研究及理论对结果进行了讨论。     

The recall of stereotypes: the effects of incidentally activated directed forgetting instructions

Based on the automotive model (J. A. Bargh, 1990) and the directed forgetting paradigm, the present study investigated whether incidentally activated forget and remember cues can lead to similar effects as explicitly given instructions. To this end, the present paper attempted to replicate the findings of Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, and Ford (1997) employing their category primes (child abuser, neutral), study lists (List 1, List 2), and procedure. Using explicit directed forgetting instructions, Experiment 1 showed that the recall of the stereotypically relevant words (List 1) was higher when participants were given a remember than a forget instruction. This effect was found regardless of the prime conditions. Similarly, Experiment 2 showed that participants in the child abuser and neutral prime conditions recalled more stereotypically relevant words (List 1) when they were implicitly cued to remember than to forget these words. Experiment 3 showed that cognitively busy participants in the child-abuser, but not in the neutral prime condition, recalled more to-be-forgotten stereotypical words than nonbusy participants. These results are consistent with Macrae et al. s findings, and show that the effects of directed forgetting instructions are similar regardless of whether they were given explicitly or were activated incidentally. Results are discussed in relation to stereotype maintenance.     

No pain, no gain: the conditions under which upward comparisons lead to better performance

In 3 studies, the authors explored the relation between threatening upward social comparisons and performance. In an initial study, participants were exposed to comparison targets who either threatened or boosted self-evaluations and then completed a performance task. Participants exposed to the threatening target performed better than those in a control group, whereas those exposed to the nonthreatening target performed worse. In Study 2, self-affirmation prior to comparison with threatening targets eliminated performance improvements. In Study 3, performance improvements were found only when the performance domain was different from the domain of success of the comparison target. These boundary conditions suggest that increases in performance following social comparison arise from individuals' motivations to maintain and repair self-evaluations. Implications for the study of the behavioral consequences of social comparison are discussed.     

The role of performance-related similarity in social comparison of abilities: A test of the related attributes hypothesis

The hypothesis that individuals evaluate their abilities by comparison with others who are similar on nonability attributes that are related to performance has been supported in recent experiments. However, since these experiments did not include conditions in which attributes were unrelated to performance, they provide no evidence that it was the relationship of attributes to performance that explains why subjects compared with similar others. In the present experiment, 66 female undergraduates could choose to compare their test performance to the performance of women who were similar or dissimilar to themselves in physical attractiveness and the college they attended. In a 2 × 2 design these attributes were either related or unrelated to test performance. Results showed that only the performance relevance of college attended influenced comparison choices. Subjects compared with similarly attractive women even when attractiveness was unrelated to performance. These results indicate that identification of the conditions in which people do and do not consider the relevance of attributes to performance in selecting comparison others warrants attention.     

Attributions of intergroup bias and outgroup homogeneity to ingroup and outgroup others

The research in this article explores the structure and content of attributed intergroup beliefs: to what extent do perceivers think others of their ingroup and their outgroup display intergroup evaluative bias and outgroup homogeneity? We report studies that address this question in ethnicity, gender, and nationality intergroup contexts. In all of these, we show that perceivers attribute to others more biased intergroup beliefs than they themselves espouse. Even when perceivers themselves do not show intergroup bias or outgroup homogeneity, they attribute such biases to others, both others from their ingroup and others from their outgroup. We argue that such attributed intergroup beliefs are fundamentally important to expectations concerning intergroup interaction. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Romantic jealousy as a social comparison outcome: When similarity stings

Two studies examined the role of perceived self-rival similarity in the experience of romantic jealousy, which is assumed to reflect threats to self-evaluation. Self-other similarity is one factor that determines whether social comparison yields assimilation or contrast. Based on the premise that people want their romantic partners to see themselves positively, it is predicted that people experience greater jealousy when comparing with an attractive rival in terms of similarities because similarity challenges one’s positive distinctiveness. People should also experience greater jealousy, however, when they compare themselves with an unattractive rival in a manner that renders their own weaknesses salient during the comparison process. The results support the ‘distinctiveness hypothesis,’ but are inconsistent with cognitive models of social comparison, which posit that people see themselves more positively either when their self-evaluations are assimilated to superior others or contrasted away from inferior others.     

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.     

Doing good buffers against feeling bad: Prosocial impact compensates for negative task and self-evaluations

Although evidence suggests that negative task and self-evaluations are associated with emotional exhaustion, little research has examined factors that buffer against these effects. We propose that perceived prosocial impact, the experience of helping others, compensates for negative task and self-evaluations by focusing attention on positive outcomes for others. In Study 1, perceived prosocial impact attenuated the associations of low intrinsic motivation and core self-evaluations with emotional exhaustion among professional fundraisers. Study 2 replicated these results among public sanitation employees and extended them to supervisor performance ratings. Mediated moderation analyses indicated that by protecting against emotional exhaustion, perceived prosocial impact compensated for low intrinsic motivation and core self-evaluations to predict higher performance ratings. Our studies extend theory and research on burnout, helping, and citizenship.     

What friends are for! The use of routine standards in social comparison

Social comparisons are frequently used for self-evaluation. As a consequence, judges have to be efficient in each comparison step. Standard selection, however, is traditionally seen as an elaborate process in which judges deliberately select similar standards. We propose that often judges do not engage in such deliberate selection processes. Instead, they use routine standards--standards that have frequently been used for self-evaluation. Consistent with this assumption, Studies 1-3 demonstrate that student participants activate knowledge about their best friend--a likely routine standard--during self-evaluation. In Study 1, lexical decisions for the best friend's name are facilitated after self-evaluation. In Study 2, participants judge their best friend faster after evaluating themselves on the same dimension. In Study 3, this is even the case if the best friend is dissimilar and consequently undiagnostic. Finally, in Study 4, self-evaluations are primarily influenced by comparison information about an experimentally created routine standard.