PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Mussweiler / FOCUS OF SOCIAL COMPARISON Focus of Comparison as a Determinant of Assimilation Versus Contrast in Social Comparison

Previous research on self-other similarity judgments has demonstrated that perceived similarity between self and other depends on the focus of comparison. Based on the Selective Accessibility model, which assumes that comparisons with similar others yield assimilation, whereas comparisons with dissimilar others yield contrast, the author hypothesized that the focus of a social comparison would influence its consequences. Specifically, comparing the standard to the self (focus of comparison other → self) should increase perceived similarity so that self-evaluations are assimilated to the standard. Comparing the self to the standard (focus of comparison self → other), however, should reduce perceived similarity so that contrast ensues. This pattern was obtained in two studies. Moreover, Study 2 demonstrates that the occurrence of assimilation versus contrast as a consequence of manipulating the focus of comparison is mediated by the perceived similarity to the standard.

[1]  Z. Kunda,et al.  Superstars and me : Predicting the impact of role models on the self , 1997 .

[2]  R. Collins For Better or Worse: The Impact of Upward Social Comparison on Self-Evaluations , 1996 .

[3]  Amos Tversky,et al.  Studies of similarity , 1978 .

[4]  M. Sobel Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models , 1982 .

[5]  Jerry Suls,et al.  Handbook of social comparison : theory and research , 2000 .

[6]  Michael A. Becker Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles , 1998 .

[7]  E. Higgins Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. , 1996 .

[8]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Theory and Research Concerning Social Comparisons of Personal Attributes , 2001 .

[9]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Consequences of Social Comparison , 2000 .

[10]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  E. Higgins,et al.  Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. , 1996 .

[12]  E. Rosch,et al.  Cognition and Categorization , 1980 .

[13]  B. Pelham,et al.  The waxing and waning of the social self: Assimilation and contrast in social comparison. , 1995 .

[14]  Frederick X. Gibbons,et al.  Effects of upward and downward social comparison on mood states. , 1989 .

[15]  Ronald G. Stansfield,et al.  Sociological Methodology 1982 , 1983 .

[16]  T. Wills Downward Comparison Principles in Social Psychology , 1981 .

[17]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Social comparison, self-regulation, and motivation. , 1996 .

[18]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. , 1999 .

[19]  F. Gibbons,et al.  Social Comparison and the Pill: Reactions to Upward and Downward Comparison of Contraceptive Behavior , 1993 .

[20]  Jerry Suls,et al.  Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives , 1977 .

[21]  F. Heider The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .

[22]  K. Gergen,et al.  Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of self. , 1970, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  The affective consequences of social comparison: either direction has its ups and downs. , 1990, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[24]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Comparing Is Believing: A Selective Accessibility Model of Judgmental Anchoring , 1999 .

[25]  A. Tversky Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[26]  A. Tesser Reproductions Supplied by Edrs Are the Best That Can Be Made * * from the Original Document. toward a Self-evaluation Maintenance Model of Social Behavior* , 2007 .

[27]  F. Strack,et al.  Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility , 1997 .

[28]  J. Karylowski Social reference points and accessibility of trait-related information in self-other similarity judgments , 1990 .

[29]  S. E. Taylor,et al.  Effects of social comparison direction, threat, and self-esteem on affect, self-evaluation, and expected success. , 1993, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[30]  M. Brewer,et al.  Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  F. Strack,et al.  The "relative self": informational and judgmental consequences of comparative self-evaluation. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  A. Tesser,et al.  Some affective consequences of social comparison and reflection processes: the pain and pleasure of being close. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[33]  L. Festinger A Theory of Social Comparison Processes , 1954 .

[34]  J. J. Seta,et al.  The impact of comparison processes on coactors' task performance. , 1982 .

[35]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Social reference points , 1983 .

[36]  Thomas E. Nelson,et al.  Stereotypes and Standards of Judgment , 1991 .

[37]  J. Richards,et al.  When Gulliver travels : social context, psychological closeness, and self-appraisals , 1992 .

[38]  J. Suls,et al.  Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research. , 1991 .

[39]  T. K. Srull,et al.  General Principles and Individual Differences in the Self as a Habitual Reference Point: An Examination of Self-Other Judgments of Similarity , 1983 .

[40]  F. Strack,et al.  The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.