Social comparison and Group-based emotions

informational: people like to know where they stand in terms of what they think, feel, or do. Are they simply normal or do they happen to be outrageously below orabove widely popularstandards?Often,people alsorely on social comparison to motivate themselves. If getting a kick out of the comparison is the main goal of the comparison then the comparison target is likely to be some person or some group that fares slightly better. Finally, there could also be an explicit attempt at self-enhancement. By finding comparison others who are sufficiently similar yet also somewhat less knowledgeable, strong or likeable than themselves, people make sure that they will come out of the comparison with a feeling of psychological comfort. In short, people’s self-knowledge, motivation, and self-esteem crucially hang on the outcome of dozens of daily comparison operations. Although initially used in interpersonal theory contexts, the social comparison process also comes across as a major player in an impressive series of social psychology theories that focus on intergroup relations. Prominent contributions are for instance relative deprivation theory (Crosby, 1976, 1982; Guimond and Dube´-Simard, 1983; Gurr, 1970; Runciman,1966;VannemanandPettigrew,1972;WalkerandPettigrew, 1984; for a collection, see Walker and Smith, 2002), social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Turner, 1975), and selfcategorization theory (Hogg and Abrams, 1988; Oakes, Haslam and Turner, 1994; Turner et al., 1987). In all these theoretical perspectives, the selection of a particular social comparison target has been shown to exertamajorinfluenceonpeople’sbeliefs,feelings,and,indeed,behaviors. This analysis holds particularly in the case of self-categorization theory (SCT). SCT is often presented as the direct offspring of social identity