When people want what others have: the impulsive side of envious desire

Envy is the unpleasant emotion that can arise when people are exposed to others with superior possessions. Common wisdom and scholarly opinion suggest that when people experience envy they may be motivated to obtain the others' superior possession. Despite the vast interpersonal, societal, and economical consequences attributed to this potential aspect of envious responding, experimental demonstrations of the affective and behavioral consequences of envy-inducing situations are scarce. We propose that social comparisons with better-off others trigger an impulsive envious response that entails a behavioral tendency to strive for their superior good. However, given that the experience of envy is painful, self-threatening, and met with social disapproval, people typically attempt to control their envious reactions. Doing so requires self-control capacities, so that envious reactions may only become apparent if self-control is taxed. In line with these predictions, four experiments show that only when self-control resources are taxed, upward comparisons elicit envy paired with an increased willingness to pay for, to spontaneously purchase and to impulsively approach the superior good.     

Breaking the ice: How physical warmth shapes social comparison consequences

Social judgments take place in a concrete physical context. Recent research has explored how incidental physical experiences such as warmth influence social perception and behavior. However, we do not yet know if warmth affects self-evaluation. The present research seeks to examine this possibility by focusing on a central self-evaluative mechanism, namely social comparison. We hypothesized that physical warmth induces a general similarity focus that in turn fosters assimilative social comparison consequences and tested this in three studies. Study 1 established that warmth increases the perceived similarity of object pairs. In Study 2, participants compared themselves to a physically strong or weak standard. On warmer but not on colder days, they assimilated self-evaluations towards the target. Study 3 showed a similar pattern in a controlled laboratory setting. Together, these findings demonstrate that physical warmth shapes social comparison processes and as a consequence influences self-evaluation.     

Comparing upward and speeding up. Motivational consequences of nonsocial comparison for speed-accuracy trade-offs

Comparison is one of the most ubiquitous and versatile components in human information processing. Social comparisons in particular have multifaceted judgmental, affective, behavioral, and motivational consequences. Initially, the consequences of nonsocial comparisons may appear to be less complex than the consequences of social comparisons. Comparing a smaller circle with a larger circle, for example, has little motivational relevance. Across two studies, however, we demonstrated that different types of nonsocial comparisons influence the motivational underpinnings of participants' subsequent performance. Participants who were perceptually or numerically induced to compare upward (e.g., to compare a smaller stimulus with a larger stimulus) in a first task traded accuracy for speed in a subsequent unrelated performance task. Conversely, participants who had compared downward traded speed for accuracy. These trade-offs are indicative of promotion- and prevention-focused motivational orientations, respectively. Comparing a geometric circle with a "superior" (e.g., larger) circle seems to yield promotion-focused strategic orientations similar to those produced by comparing oneself to a person one perceives as superior. These findings demonstrate the surprising motivational power of nonsocial comparisons.     

'Everything is relative': Comparison processes in social judgment The 2002 Jaspars Lecture

Any judgment involves a comparison of the evaluated target to a pertinent norm or standard, so that comparison processes lie at the core of human judgment. Despite this prominent role, however, little is known about the psychological mechanisms that underlie comparisons and produce their variable consequences. To understand these consequences, one has to examine what target knowledge is sought and activated during the comparison process. Two alternative comparison mechanisms are distinguished. Similarity testing involves a selective search for evidence indicating that the target is similar to the standard and leads to assimilation. Dissimilarity testing involves a selective search for evidence indicating that the target is dissimilar from the standard and leads to contrast. Distinguishing between these alternative mechanisms provides an integrative perspective on comparison consequences in the realm of social comparison and beyond. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Playing dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making

Judicial sentencing decisions should be guided by facts, not by chance. The present research however demonstrates that the sentencing decisions of experienced legal professionals are influenced by irrelevant sentencing demands even if they are blatantly determined at random. Participating legal experts anchored their sentencing decisions on a given sentencing demand and assimilated toward it even if this demand came from an irrelevant source (Study 1), they were informed that this demand was randomly determined (Study 2), or they randomly determined this demand themselves by throwing dice (Study 3). Expertise and experience did not reduce this effect. This sentencing bias appears to be produced by a selective increase in the accessibility of arguments that are consistent with the random sentencing demand: The accessibility of incriminating arguments was higher if participants were confronted with a high rather than a low anchor (Study 4). Practical and theoretical implications of this research are discussed.     

Relatively certain! Comparative thinking reduces uncertainty

Comparison is one of the most ubiquitous and versatile mechanisms in human information processing. Previous research demonstrates that one consequence of comparative thinking is increased judgmental efficiency: comparison allows for quicker judgments without a loss in accuracy. We hypothesised that a second potential consequence of comparative thinking is reduced judgmental uncertainty. We examined this possibility in three experiments using three different domains of judgment and three different measures of uncertainty. Results consistently demonstrate that procedurally priming participants to rely more heavily on comparative thinking during judgment induces them to feel more certain about their judgment.     

How sex puts you in gendered shoes: sexuality-priming leads to gender-based self-perception and behavior

Scripts for sexual behavior dictate that women be submissive and tender and that men be assertive and dominant, reflecting the stereotypical view of women as communal and of men as agentic. Six experiments tested the hypothesis that exposure to sexuality cues causes men's and women's momentary self-perceptions and concomitant behavior to become more gender-typical. Using both pictorial and verbal prime materials that were presented both supraliminally and subliminally, we found that sex-priming strengthened gender-based self-perceptions (i.e., faster self-categorization as a woman or man; Study 1), heightened identification with one's own gender (Study 2), increased gender self-stereotyping (Study 3), and elicited greater submissiveness in women's behavior and greater assertiveness in men's behavior (Studies 4 and 5). These findings indicate that sex-priming causes self-perception and social behavior to become "attuned" to gender stereotypes. Study 6 demonstrated that these sex-priming effects can be eliminated by modern gender role primes. The potentially detrimental effects of sex-priming and possible countermeasures are discussed.     

When I and me are different: assimilation and contrast in temporal self‐comparisons

In two studies, we show that comparisons with past or possible future selves shape current self‐evaluation and that the direction of this influence is determined by one's current comparison focus. In Study 1, participants primed to focus on similarities versus dissimilarities were asked to remember an introverted or extraverted past self and then to evaluate their current level of extraversion. Participants who focused on similarities assimilated current self‐evaluations to the past self, whereas those who focused on dissimilarities contrasted current self‐evaluations away from the past self. In Study 2, participants imagined a possible future self that differed from their current self in terms of body weight. Participants who imagined a moderate weight change exhibited assimilation to the possible self, whereas those who imagined an extreme weight change exhibited contrast. These studies highlight the important role cognitive factors such as comparison focus play in shaping the consequences of temporal self‐comparisons. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The cognitive miser's perspective: Social comparison as a heuristic in self-judgements

The metaphor of the cognitive miser is a milestone in the development of social cognitive research. It highlights the limited cognitive resources of the social thinker and the demand for fast and efficient processing of information. In marked contrast to the impact of this metaphor on social cognition research in general, it has so far been mostly overlooked in research on social comparison. In this article we want to lay out the potential of social comparison research if one takes on the perspective of a cognitive miser. Specifically, we consider social comparison as a heuristic for evaluating the self. First, we look for evidence for the ease of comparative self-evaluations. Second, we analyse the standard selection process and identify routine standards that facilitate the comparison process. Third, we investigate the cognitive mechanisms in social comparisons and suggest that comparison mechanisms leading to assimilation are more efficient than mechanisms leading to contrast effects.