Ladd Wheeler

Social Comparison: Why, With Whom, and With What Effect?

Social comparison consists of comparing oneself with others in order to evaluate or to enhance some aspects of the self. Evaluation of ability is concerned with the question “Can I do X?” and relies on the existence of a proxy performer. A proxys relative standing on attributes vis‐à‐vis the comparer and whether the proxy exerted maximum effort on a preliminary task are variables influencing his or her informational utility. Evaluation of opinions is concerned with the questions “Do I like X?”“Is X correct?” and “Will I like X?” Important variables that affect an individuals use of social comparison to evaluate his or her opinions are the other persons expertise, similarity with the individual, and previous agreement with the individual. Whether social comparison serves a self-enhancement function depends on whether the comparer assimilates or contrasts his or her self relative to superior or inferior others. The kinds of self‐knowledge made cognitively accessible and variables such as mutability of self-views and distinctiveness of the comparison target may be important determinants of assimilation versus contrast.

Loneliness, social interaction, and sex roles

Forty-three male and 53 female college seniors maintained the Rochester Interaction Record for 2 weeks, providing information about every social interaction of 10 minutes or more. Subjects then completed the revised UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Loneliness Scale and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire, measuring sex-role orientation. For both sexes, loneliness was negatively related to the amount of time spent with females and to the meaningfulness of interaction with males and females. However, meaningfulness with males was more important than meaningfulness with females. Femininity was negatively related to loneliness for both sexes and partially mediated the above relationships. There were sex differences, however, in the extent to which variables overlapped in predicting loneliness. For example, a large group of nonlonely males was characterized both by having meaningful relationships with males and by spending time with females, whereas a second group of nonlonely males was characterized simply by having meaningful relationships with males. The largest group of nonlonely females was characterized simply by having meaningful relationships with males, but another sizable group was characterized simply by spending time with females. Females doing both accounted for very little of the variance.

Motivation as a determinant of upward comparison

Abstract Score on a personality test was to be used for selection to a desirable seminar (Hi Mot) or an undesirable seminar (Lo Mot). Subject chose to compare his own score with the score of someone 1, 2, or 3 ranks above or below him in a group of 7 . It was found that (a) subject chose the score of someone adjacent to him in the rank order, (b) subject chose the score of someone above him in the rank order, (c) choice of someone high in the rank order was greater in the Hi Mot condition than in the Lo Mot condition, and (d) choice of someone high in the rank order was positively correlated with assumed similarity with someone high in the rank order. These results were interpreted in terms of motivation leading to assumed similarity, the latter leading in turn to comparison choices expected to confirm the assumption of similarity.

Sex Differences in Social Participation

Twenty female and 38 male first-year college students maintained a daily record of their social interactions for 2 weeks early in the fall semester and for 2 weeks late in the spring semester. Over all interactions, females decreased time per day in interaction more than males did, primarily by reducing the length of interactions, and reported decreased satisfaction with these interactions. In interactions with three best same-sex friends, females also decreased length more than males did but maintained a higher level of satisfaction Number of interactions with same-sex best friend decreased markedly for females but not for males. The results were interpreted as showing that females socialize more intensely in the new environment than males and make use of the same-sex best friend to deal with the social stimulation. Differences between the sexes on interaction measures in the spring were minimal. Social psychology is often denned as the study of social interaction, and social psychologists do indeed study social interaction in a variety of ways. Strangely enough, however, social scientists in general are hard pressed to answer some of the most basic questions about social interaction: questions such as how much time during a day do people spend in social interaction? With how many different people do they interact? How long is the average interaction? How many people are involved in the typical social encounter, and what is its sexual composition? What differences exist among people in their reactions to their social lives? For each of these questions and the many others that could be asked, a second question immediately follows: In what ways, if any, do males and females differ in their social behavior? Using sex-based characteristics is a nearly universal way of describing

Studying Social Interaction with the Rochester Interaction Record

Publisher Summary This chapter gives an overview of the Rochester Interaction Record (RIR), with its rationale, usages, and limitations. The reader and potential researcher is oriented to the technique, and is furnished with an overview of the various procedural and psychometric concerns that have guided the work. Theoretically useful conclusions are the “sine qua non” of methodological innovation in behavioral sciences. The chapter also describes some of the findings that have emerged from studies using the RIR and related instruments. It explains the rationale for the RIR, including comparison with traditional methods in interaction research, the technique in terms of its essential procedural and data analytic details, a discussion of reliability and validity issues, and the application of the RIR and related methods to other problems in social psychology. The chapter provides an overview on the self-reported questionnaires, behavioral observation, and comparison of the RIR with global questionnaires.

On Being Rejected A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Research on Rejection

This article presents the first meta-analysis of experimental research on rejection, sampling 88 studies. The results are consistent with a needs account, which states that rejection frustrates basic psychological needs, but not with a numbness account, which states that rejection causes physical and emotional numbness. Rejection moderately lowers mood (d = −0.50) and self-esteem (d = −0.70), but does not decrease arousal or flatten affect. Both belonging (d = 0.69) and control (d = 1.16) are frustrated by rejection. Aggressive responses to rejection, considered paradoxical by some, appear to be due to attempts to gain control; measures that contrast belonging and control (d = −1.17) cause antisocial responding, whereas measures that do not allow for control to be restored cause prosocial responding (d = 1.21). These findings suggest that rejection makes individuals feel bad—ready to act to restore control or belonging—and that they will prioritize restoring control even if it requires being antisocial.

Factors determining choice of a comparison other

Abstract Subjects were tested in groups of nine for the presence of the positively valued trait of intellectual flexibility (Pos conditions) or the negatively valued trait of intellectual rigidity (Neg conditions). The subjects were told the approximate range of the groups test scores (R conditions) or they were not told the range (NR conditions). After the tests were scored, all subjects were told that they ranked fifth in the group of nine and were given their own scores. In the first variation of the experiment, the subjects were then asked to indicate which other score in the group (according to rank) they would most like to see. The subjects were then asked to indicate a second choice. It was predicted that: (1) NR subjects would attempt to determine the range by first choosing the highest numerical score, and (2) among R subjects, those in the Pos condition would choose a higher score for their first choice, while those in the Neg condition would choose a lower score, both groups thus comparing in the positively valued direction, and (3) among R subjects, the most frequent choice in the positively valued direction would be of the most similar other. All predictions were supported. In the second variation, the subjects were asked to indicate which other person in the group they would like as an interaction partner later in the hour. As in the first experiment, a second choice was also obtained. The strongest tendency was for subjects to choose the two most extreme others in the positively valued direction, although there was also a significant tendency to choose the two most similar others, as well as the best and worst others. When choosing a referent person for comparison, an individuals first need is to determine the boundaries of the scale. Given the scale boundaries, he attempts to confirm similarity with those better off and then to confirm dissimilarity with those worse off. The necessity of interacting publicly with the referent person increases choice of the most “attractive” others.

A Selective History of Classic and Neo-Social Comparison Theory

In his brief history of the field from 1950 to the early 1980s, Wheeler (1991) observed that Social comparison theory has a most peculiar history. Pictorially, the history is like the tracks of a squirrel in my snow-covered backyard. The tracks zig and zag unpredictably and then disappear near an elm, to be next seen near a maple, or the tracks may be obscured by those of other squirrels, or rabbits. (p. 3) In this chapter, we provide a historical context for the chapters in this handbook. Although we will cover some of the same ground as the previous brief history, we also provide an update of developments during the 1980s and 1990s. Perhaps with almost 20 additional years of research and theory, we will find that the tracks in the backyard no longer appear to be quite as haphazard. On the other hand, they may appear to be even more so, as a fundamental phenomenon— comparison with others—refuses to be contained by its previous constructions.

The Proxy Model of Social Comparison for Self-Assessment of Ability

One purpose of the social comparison of abilities is to determine action possibilities— “Can I do X?” By comparing ourselves with a proxy who has attempted X, we can determine our likelihood of success. A good proxy is one who has performed the same as us on an initial task requiring the ability. In addition, however, a good proxy must be similar on related attributes so that we can be confident that the proxys performance on the initial task was maximal. In the case of a task requiring multiple abilities, more than one proxy may be used.

Three Kinds of Opinion Comparison: The Triadic Model

This article introduces the triadic model, which proposes that the social comparison of opinion is best considered in terms of 3 different evaluative questions: preference assessment (i.e., “Do I like X?”), belief assessment (i.e., “Is X correct?”), and preference prediction (i.e., “Will I like X?”). Each evaluative question is associated with a different comparison dynamic. The triadic model proposes that comparisons with persons similar in related attributes have special importance for preference assessment. For belief assessment, comparisons with persons of more advantaged status (or “expert”) are most meaningful, although comparison targets also should hold certain basic values in common (the “similar expert”). Finally, in preference prediction, the most meaningful comparisons are with a person who has already experienced X (a proxy) and who exhibits either consistency (but not necessarily similarity) in related attributes or past preferences. Prior research and 4 new studies are described that support the theory.