Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:47:03.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - The why, who, and how of social comparison: a social-cognition perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

By
Thomas Mussweiler ,
Katja Rüter  and
Kai Epstude
Edited by
Serge Guimond
Thomas Mussweiler
Affiliation:
Psychologie II Universitaet Wuerzburg Wuerzburg Germany
Katja Rüter
Affiliation:
Psychologie II Universitaet Wuerzburg Wuerzburg Germany
Kai Epstude
Affiliation:
Psychologie II Universitaet Wuerzburg Wuerzburg Germany
Serge Guimond
Affiliation:
Université de Clermont-Ferrand II (Université Blaise Pascal), France
Get access

Summary

People frequently engage in social comparisons. Whenever they are confronted with information about how others are, what others can and cannot do, or what others have achieved and have failed to achieve, they relate this information to themselves. And, whenever they try to determine how they themselves are or what they themselves can and cannot do, they do so by comparing their own characteristics, fortunes, and weaknesses to those of others. In fact, such social comparisons are so deeply engraved into our psyche that they are even engaged with others who are unlikely to yield relevant information concerning the self (Gilbert, Giesler, and Morris, 1995). Social comparisons are also engaged with others who – phenomenologically – are not even there, because they were perceived outside of conscious awareness (Mussweiler, Rüter, and Epstude, 2004a). In this respect, comparisons with others appear to be one of the most fundamental, ubiquitous, and robust human proclivities.

The proclivity to compare, however, goes much further. People not only compare themselves to others, they pretty much compare any target to a pertinent standard. This is apparent in psychophysical as well as social judgments. To evaluate how heavy a target weight is, for example, judges compare it to a given standard weight (Brown, 1953; Coren and Enns, 1993). Similarly, to evaluate how aggressive a target person is, judges compare him or her to an accessible standard (Herr, 1986). This essential relativity of human judgment has played a particularly prominent role in the domain of social cognition research.

Type
Chapter
Information
Social Comparison and Social Psychology
Understanding Cognition, Intergroup Relations, and Culture
 , pp. 33 - 54
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, H. and Dijksterhuis, A. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: Automaticity in goal directed behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aspinwall, L. G. and Taylor, S. E. (1993). Effects of social comparison direction, threat, and self-esteem on affect, self-evaluation, and expected success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 708–722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bargh, J. A. (1990). Auto-motives – Preconscious determinants of social interaction. In Higgins, E. T. and Sorrentino, R. M. (eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (pp. 93–130). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. A.(1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In Wyer, R. S. (ed.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. x). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. A., Bond, R. N., Lombardi, W. J., and Tota, M. E. (1986). The additive nature of chronic and temporary sources of construct accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 869–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., and Lindzey, G. (eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. i, pp. 680–740). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Betsch, T., Fiedler, K., and Brinkmann, J. (1998). Behavioral routines in decision making: The effects of novelty in task presentation and time pressure on routine maintenance and deviation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 861–878.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betsch, T., Haberstroh, S., Glöckner, A., Haar, T., and Fiedler, K. (2001). The effects of routine strength on adaptation and information search in recurrent decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 23–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Betsch, T., Haberstroh, S., and Höhle, C. (2002). Explaining routinized decision making – A review of theories and models. Theory and Psychology, 12, 453–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biernat, M. (2003). Toward a broader view of social stereotyping. American-Psychologist, 58, 1019–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biernat, M. and Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanton, H. (2001). Evaluating the self in the context of another: The three-selves model of social comparison assimilation and contrast. In Moskowitz, G. B. (ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 75–87). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Blanton, H., Crocker, J., and Miller, D. T. (2000). The effects of in-group versus out-group social comparison on self-esteem in the Context of a negative stereotype. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 519–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. R. (1953). Stimulus-similarity and the anchoring of subjective scales. American Journal of Psychology, 66, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buunk, B. P., Collins, R. L., Taylor, S. E., VanYperen, N. W., and Dakof, G. A. (1990). The affective consequences of social comparison: Either direction has its ups and downs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1238–1249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, G. B. and Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coren, S. and Enns, J. T. (1993). Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers. Perception and Psychophysics, 54, 579–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Figurski, T. J. (1982). Self-awareness and aversive experience in everyday life. Journal of Personality, 50, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A., Spears, R., Postmes, T., Stapel, D. A., Koomen, W., Knippenberg, A., and Scheepers, D. (1998). Seeing one thing and doing another: Contrast effects in automatic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 862–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, D. and Hayes, A. F. (1996). Evidence of egocentric comparison in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. and Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5, 152–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. and Todd, P. M. (1999). Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox. In Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., and the ABC Research Group (eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 3–36). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. T., Giesler, R. B., and Morris, K. A. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goethals, G. R. and Darley, J. M. (1977). Social comparison theory: An attributional approach. In Suls, J. M. and Miller, R. L. (eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 259–278). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
Gruder, C. L. (1971). Determinants of social comparison choices. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herr, P. M. (1986). Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1106–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, E. T.(1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In Higgins, E. T. and Kruglanski, A. W. (eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, E. T., King, G. A., and Mavin, G. H. (1982). Individual construct accessibility and subjective impressions and recall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, E. T. and Lurie, L. (1983). Context, categorization and recall: The “change-of-standard” effect. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 525–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., and Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klayman, J. and Ha, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypotheses testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, G. (2001). The fiction of optimization. In Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R. (eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox (pp. 103–122). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W. and Mayseless, O. (1990). Classic and current social comparison research: Expanding the perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, P. and Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., and Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masters, J. C. and Keil, L. J. (1987). Generic comparison processes in human judgment and behavior. In Masters, J. C. and Smith, W. P. (eds.), Social comparison, social justice, and relative deprivation. Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspective (pp. 11–54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Miller, D. T. and Prentice, D. A. (1996). The construction of social norms and standards. In Higgins, E. T. and Kruglanski, A. W. (eds.), Social psychology: handbook of basic principles (pp. 799–829). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Morse, S. and Gergen, K. J. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(1), 148–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mussweiler, T. (2001). “Seek and Ye shall find”: Antecedents of assimilation and contrast in social comparison. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mussweiler, T.(2003a). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110, 472–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mussweiler, T.(2003b). ‘Everything is relative’: Comparison processes in social judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 719–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mussweiler, T.(2003c). When egocentrism breeds distinctness: Comparison processes in social prediction. Psychological Review, 110, 581–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mussweiler, T. and Bodenhausen, G. (2002). I know you are but what am I? Self-evaluative consequences of judging ingroup and outgroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mussweiler, T. and Epstude, K. (2005). Relatively fast! Efficiency advantages of comparative information processing. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Mussweiler, T., Gabriel, S., and Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Shifting social identities as a strategy for deflecting threatening social comparisons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 398–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mussweiler, T. and Rüter, K. (2003). What friends are for! The use of routine standards in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 467–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mussweiler, T., Rüter, K., and Epstude, K. (2004a). The man who wasn't there: Subliminal social comparison standards influence self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 689–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mussweiler, T., Rüter, K., and Epstude, K.(2004b). The ups and downs of social comparison: Mechanisms of assimilation and contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 832–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mussweiler, T. and Strack, F. (2000a). The “relative self”: Informational and judgmental consequences of comparative self-evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mussweiler, T. and Strack, F.(2000b). Consequences of social comparison: Selective accessibility, assimilation, and contrast. In Suls, J. and Wheeler, L. (eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 253–270). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R. E. and Ross, L. (1980). Human inferences: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Pelham, B. W. and Wachsmuth, J. O. (1995). The waxing and waning of the social self: Assimilation and contrast in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 825–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rüter, K. and Mussweiler, T. (2005). The efficiency of routine standards in social comparison. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R., and Mantel, S. P. (1998). Selective hypothesis testing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, R. (2001). What is bounded rationality? In Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R. (eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox (pp. 13–36). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sherif, M. and Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, E. R. (1989). Procedural efficiency: General and specific components and effects on social judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 500–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. R.(1994). Procedural knowledge and processing strategies in social cognition. In Wyer, R. S. and Srull, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 99–152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smith, E. R., Branscombe, N. R., and Bormann, C. (1988). Generality of the effects of practice on social judgment tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. R. and Lerner, M. (1986). Development of automatism of social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., and Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81, 214–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, M. and Swann, W. B. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srull, T. K. and Wyer, R. S. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1660–1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suls, J., Gastorf, J. W., and Lawhon, J. (1978). Social comparison choices for evaluating a sex- and age-related ability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 102–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suls, J., Martin, R., and Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: why, with whom, and with what effect?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 159–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suls, J. and Wheeler, L. (2000). A selective history of classic and neo-social comparison theory. In Suls, J. and Wheeler, L. (eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. New York: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, S. E. (1981). The interface of cognitive and social psychology. In Harvey, J. (ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment (pp. 182–211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E., Wayment, H. A., and Carrillo, M. (1996). Social comparison, self-regulation, and motivation. In Sorrentino, R. M. and Higgins, E. T. (eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition. (pp. 3–27). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Tesser, A., Miller, M., and Moore, J. (1988). Some affective consequences of social comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of being close. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trope, Y. and Bassok, M. (1982). Confirmatory and diagnostic strategies in social information gathering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trope, Y. and Liberman, A. (1996). Social hypothesis testing: Cognitive and motivational factors. In Higgins, E. T. and Kruglanski, A. W. (eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 239–270). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1973). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (Vol. XIII). Oxford: Oregon Research Institute.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.(1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., Knippenberg, A., and Knippenberg, C. (1994). Attitude versus general habit: Antecedents of travel mode choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, L. (1966). Motivation as a determinant of upward comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 (Suppl. 1), 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. V. and Taylor, K. L. (1991). Serving self-relevant goals through social comparison. In Suls, J. and Wills, T. A. (eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 23–49). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wyer, R. S. and Srull, T. K. (1989). Memory and cognition in its social context. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zanna, M. P., Goethals, G. R., and Hill, J. F. (1975). Evaluating a sex-related ability: Social comparison with similar others and standard setters. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×