How do we know who we are: other people
when do we engage in social comparison?
automaticity of social comparisons (who?)
gilbert, giesler, morris)
who do we choose to compare ourselves to?
festinger
- we compare ourselves to people who are similar to ourselves
- because we’re motivated to see ourselves accurately
meta analysis of 55 studies
- ps preferred comparison targets who were better than they were on a particular dimension (average)= we try to understand the best we can be
if you wanna know top level to which you can aspire, you engage in…
(if you wanna challenge yourself)
upward social comparison
= compare yourself to people who are BETTER than you are on a specific ability
if you wanna feel better about yourself, you engage in…
downward social comparison
= compare yourself to people who are WORSE than you on specific ability
what is a self-motive?
tendency that is aimed towards establishing specific state of self-awareness, self-representation, or self-evaluation
what are the types of self motives?
motivated to have accurate info about yourself
motivated to confirm what we already know about yourself
motivated to maintain positivity of self, desire to protect, enhance your self-image
demonstration of self-enhancement (5)
self-enhancing social comparisons: better than average effect
self-enhancing comparisons: temporal self-comparisons
biased attributions (who?)
Lau + Russell
- newspaper quotes from winners + losers
- coded player’s and manager’s explanations for outcome
results:
- % making internal attributions
- 80% of winners
- 53% of losers
self-serving category definitions + trait definitions (who?)
Dunning
- self-enhancement motive can influence…how we define concepts
- we define categories + traits in self-serving ways
- if you’re always on time (your trait)= you tend to say: being dependable means being on time
- whatever we are: dependable, dutiful, obedient vs. thoughtful, loving, caring
= can fit to what YOU are= “what does it mean to be good son”
self-handicapping
experiment on proving automaticity of social comparison
Gilbert et al
- ps watched vid of model doing test
- model either performed poorly or well
- ps were told that model’s performance was staged= so not meaningful
- ps were made cognitively busy or not
- all ps did test= were given ambiguous feedback: 10/18
- ps rated their own competence at task
- when you’re cognitively busy= context of model’s performance not considered= so you tend to make automatic comparisons
- when you’re not busy= context taken into account= self-ratings are not sig influenced by model
= social comparison is automatic, but only when you’re under cognitive load– TAKES EFFORT to undo them– you can undo it when you’re not busy
what decides when we are comparing ourselves to other people?
motive– depends on our motive
self-handicapping experiment
Berglas + Jones