Social Comparison Part 1

8/2/2019 Social Comparison Part 1

1/21

1

How do we know who we are?

An update on social

comparison theory


2/21

2

Sources of Self-

Knowledge Global self-esteem

Direct feedback from others

Indirect feedback from others

Reflected appraisals

Self-perception Social comparison


3/21

3

Self-Perception

Bems SP theory: when internal cues are

difficult to interpret, people gain self-insight

by observing their own behavior.

Emotions---facial feedback

Motivation---reward study


4/21

4

Self-Perception Theory

No external rewardSelf-perception: I dothis because I like it.

Enjoyableactivities

Externalreward (e.g., $)

Self-perception:I do thisbecause Im

paid to.

ExtrinsicMotivation

IntrinsicMotivation


5/21

5

Festinger (1954). A theory of

social comparison processes.

1. People are driven to evaluate theiropinions and abilities.

Emphasis on Accuracy:

The holding of incorrect opinions and/or

inaccurate appraisals of ones abilities canbe punishing or even fatal in manysituations.


6/21

6

Festinger (1954). A theory of social

comparison processes.

2. In the absence of objective information,

people compare to others.

3. People prefer to compare to others who

have similar abilities.


7/21

7

Two types of social comparison

research

Reactions to comparison- what happens to

self-evaluations when people encounter

social comparisons?

Comparison choice- when do people choose

to compare to others? With whom do people

compare?


8/21

Social Comparison Direction

Upward social

comparison- compare to

someone who is better

than you.

Downward socialcomparison- compare to

someone who is worse

than you.


9/21

9

Testing the Similarity Hypothesis: Rank Order

Paradigm

1. 19

2. ??

3. ??

4. 12 You

5. ??

6. ??

7. 7

Which score would

you like to see?


10/21

10

Testing the Similarity Hypothesis: Related Attributes

Suls et al. (1979)

Participant

Gender

Chose

Male

Norm

Chose

Female

Norm

Chose

Combined

Norm

Male 44.1% 0 55.9%

Female 0 61.1% 38.9%


11/21

11

Support for the Similarity

Hypothesis

Rank order paradigmcompare to others

with similar scores.

Related attributes paradigmcompare to

others with similar characteristics (e.g.,

gender).


12/21

12

Social Comparison and Objective

Information

Festinger: In the absence of objective

information, people compare to others.


13/21

13

Klein (1997)

Social comparison and objective information

Ps received feedback on a test of esthetic ability.

Upward SC Downward SC

High

score

You: 60

Avg: 80

You: 60

Avg: 40

Lowscore

You: 40

Avg: 60

You: 40

Avg: 20

DVs: Self-evaluations and Task Choice


14/21

14

Klein (1997): Results

Self-evaluations were sig. affected by social

comparison info, but not objective info.

Choice of task was sig. affected by both.

Interpretation: People use SC even when

they have (more useful) objective info.


15/21

15

Comparison Choice

Buckingham (2001). Does objective information reduce

the drive to compare to others?

Accuracy perspective:

The more information people have about an

ability, the less interest they should have in

comparing to other individuals.


16/21

16

Buckingham (2001).

Procedure

59 female students participated in a driving

safety study.

Ps completed the Driving Appraisal

Inventory.

Experimenter provided feedback.

You have a 20% chance of causing an

automobile accident.


17/21

17

Buckingham (2001).

Variables

Manipulation:

Control group: no further information.

Safer than average group: the average risk for

a woman your age is 30%.

Riskier than average group: the average risk

for a woman your age is 10%. Dependent variable:

Would you like to see how others scored?


18/21

18

Buckingham (2001)

Results

Control

(no average)

Riskier than

average

Safer than

average

Percentage

requesting

comparison

information

52% 65% 20%


19/21

19

Accuracy perspective:

The more information people have about an ability,the less interest they should have in comparing toother individuals.

Revision:

Additional information (e.g., the average) reducesthe drive to compare when it puts the person in afavorable light.

When do people compare with others?


20/21

20

How Frequently do People

Compare With Others?

Wheeler & Miyake (1992)

Diary study using the Rochester Social

Comparison Record.

On average, participants recorded 23.5

comparisons over 13.1 days.


21/21

21

Social Comparison Motives:

Wood, 1989

Why do people compare with others?:

Self-evaluation (accuracy)- people want

valid info about themselves.

Self-enhancement- people want to feel good

about themselves.

Self-improvement- people want to get

better.

Documents

Social Comparison Part 1