No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The Impact of Comparison Processes on Coactors’ Task Performance
Abstract
Conducted 2 experiments with 135 female undergraduates to investigate the operation of social comparison processes within coaction. Perceived discrepancies between coactors' performance levels were induced by altering their feedback schedules. An S was paired with a coactor who seemed to be performing either at a superior, inferior, or similar level. The pattern of results suggests that comparison processes are active components within coaction. An expectation/criterion level interpretation is discussed within a social comparison analysis. (20 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
... For instance, humans were found to improve their performance in a discrimination task when they were faced with a slightly (as opposed to extremely) better co-actor (Seta 1982). Typically, humans tend to assimilate towards moderate standards and towards in-group members, whereas they contrast away from extreme standards and from outgroup members (Brewer and Weber 1994;Dijksterhuis et al. 1998;Mussweiler and Bodenhausen 2002;Mussweiler et al. 2004). ...
... Recent experiments on long-tailed macaques, Macaca fascicularis (Schmitt et al. 2016) and baboons, Papio papio (Dumas et al. 2017) tested predictions from social comparison theory, using a co-action set-up in a discrimination task similar to the one Seta (1982) used with human participants. While the focal subjects performed a discrimination task on a touch screen (TC) computer, they could hear a series of computer beeps indicating the positive and negative choices of a putative co-actor, the comparison standard, in an adjacent compartment. ...
... We here focused on carrion crows, as these birds can easily be trained on TC computers (Braun 2013), allowing us to use a set-up similar to that of Seta (1982) and almost identical to that of Schmitt et al. (2016). In fact, the second experiment of the current study was designed in line with the study of Schmitt et al. (2016) as part of a joint program. ...
Comparing oneself to others is a key process in humans that allows individuals to gauge their performances and abilities and thus develop and calibrate their self-image. Little is known about its evolutionary foundations. A key feature of social comparison is the sensitivity to other individuals’ performance. Recent studies on primates produced equivocal results, leading us to distinguish between a ‘strong’ variant of the social comparison hypothesis formulated for humans and a ‘weak’ variant found in non-human primates that would comprise some elements of human social comparison. Here, we focus on corvids that are distantly related to primates and renowned for their socio-cognitive skills. We were interested in whether crows’ task performances were influenced (i) by the presence of a conspecific co-actor performing the same discrimination task and (ii) by the simulated acoustic cues of a putative co-actor performing better or worse than themselves. Crows reached a learning criterion quicker when tested simultaneously as compared to when tested alone, indicating a facilitating effect of social context. The performance of a putative co-actor influenced their performance: crows were better at discriminating familiar images when their co-actor was better than they were. Standard extremity (how pronounced the difference was between the performance of the subject and that of the co-actor), and category membership (affiliation status and sex), of the putative co-actors had no effect on their performance. Our findings are in line with the ‘weak’ variant of social comparison and indicate that elements of human social comparison can be found outside of primates.
... In particular, self-evaluations may either be assimilated towards a given standard, i.e., another person, or contrasted away from it, whereby its direction is determined by factors such as standard extremity or category membership ('selective accessibility model', Mussweiler 2003). For instance, humans were found to improve their performance in a discrimination task when they were faced with a slightly (as opposed to extremely) better participant (Seta 1982). Typically, humans tend to assimilate towards moderate standards and towards in-group members, whereas they contrast away from extreme standards and from out-group members (Brewer and Weber 1994;Dijksterhuis et al. 1998; Mussweiler and Bodenhausen 2002;Mussweiler et al. 2004). ...
... Recent experiments on long-tailed macaques, Macaca fascicularis (Schmitt et al. 2016) and baboons, Papio papio (Dumas et al. 2017) tested predictions from social comparison theory, using a co-action setup in a discrimination task similar to the one Seta (1982) used with human participants. While the focal subjects performed a discrimination task on a touch screen (TC) computer, they could hear a series of computer beeps indicating the positive and negative choices of a putative co-actor, the comparison standard, in an adjacent compartment. ...
... We here focused on carrion crows, as these birds can easily be trained on TC computers (Braun 2013), allowing us to use a set-up similar to that of Seta (1982) and almost identical to that of Schmitt et al. (2016). In fact, the second experiment of the current study was designed in line with the study of Schmitt et al. (2016) as part of a joint program. ...
Comparing oneself to others is a key process in humans that allows individuals to gauge their performances and abilities and thus develop and calibrate their self-image. Very little is known about its evolutionary foundations. A key feature of social comparison is the sensitivity to other individuals’ performance. Recent studies on primates produced equivocal results, leading us to distinguish a ‘strong’ variant of the social comparison hypothesis formulated for humans from a ‘weak’ variant found in non-human primates. Here, we focus on animals that are distantly related to primates but renowned for their socio-cognitive skills, birds from the family Corvidae. We were interested in whether crows’ task performances were influenced i) by the presence of a conspecific co-actor performing the same discrimination task and ii) by the simulated acoustic cues of a putative co-actor performing better or worse than themselves. Crows reached a learning criterion quicker when tested simultaneously as compared to when tested alone, indicating a facilitating effect of social context. The performance of a putative co-actor influenced their performance: crows were better at discriminating familiar images when their co-actor was better than they were. Standard extremity, i.e., how pronounced the difference was between the performance of the subject and that of the co-actor, and category membership (i.e., affiliation status and sex), of the putative co-actors had no effect on their performance. Our findings are in line with the ‘weak’ variant of social comparison and indicate that elements of human social comparison can be found outside of primates.
... De plus, Festinger (1954) La littérature visant la comparaison sociale n'a porté que peu d'intérêt à la nature des tâches. L'interprétation et les explications apportées aux effets des différentes comparaisons sociale sont principalement de nature motivationnelle (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2012 ;Rijsman, 1974 ;Seta, 1982) : les contextes et situations menant à une baisse des performances seraient liés à une baisse de la motivation alors que ceux ayant permis des améliorations de performances seraient plutôt liés à une augmentation ou un maintien de la motivation. ...
... Cette augmentation des capacités en comparaison ascendante (i.e., contrairement à une comparaison descendante) a été démontrée à de multiples reprises et expliquée principalement par des facteurs motivationnels (e.g., Blanton et al., 1999 ;Dumas et al., 2005 ;Huguet et al., 1999 ;Huguet et al., 2001 ;Marsh et al., 2010 ;Rijsman, 1974 ;Seta, 1982 ;Seta, et al., 1991 ;Vrugt & Koenis, 2002). Les normes et objectifs personnels étant plus élevées, ils vont en effet mener à une augmentation de la motivation, des efforts fournis, et ainsi, à une amélioration des performances à diverses tâches, notamment des tâches d'inhibition (i.e., réduction de l'effet stroop, Huguet et al., 1999). ...
... Ce feedback sera soit supérieur à la production moyenne réellement observée (i.e., condition de comparaison ascendante) soit inférieur (i.e., condition de comparaison descendante). Au vu de la littérature portant sur le phénomène de comparaison sociale (e.g., Festinger, 1954 ;Huguet et al., 1999 ;Huguet et al., 2001 ;Marsh et al., 2010 ;Seta, 1982), nous avons formulé deux hypothèses : ...
Les recherches s'intéressant au développement de la créativité ont démontré que la capacité à générer des idées créatives pouvait être entravée par des blocages cognitifs (e.g., effet de fixation) et sociaux (e.g., inhibition sociale de l'attente d'évaluation). Ces deux types de blocages ont essentiellement été étudiés de façon isolée et peu d'étude ont examiné leurs interactions dans une perspective développementale. Ainsi, l'objectif de cette thèse était d'étudier l'impact de différents contextes sociaux sur la créativité et le biais de fixation, et de dégager et comprendre les processus impliqués. Pour ce faire, quatre études ont été mises en place, chacune reposant sur des contextes sociaux différents et permettant un ensemble de mesures systématiques. La première étude a permis de montrer dans un premier temps que même si l'effet de fixation est renforcé au cours de l'adolescence, leur capacité à proposer des idées originales se développe également. Ce changement s'accompagne d'une évolution de leur capacité à détecter que leurs idées appartenant à la fixation ne sont que peu créatives. L'attente d'une évaluation manipulée n'a cependant pas été suffisamment saillante, ce qui explique que nous n'ayons pas observé d'effet du contexte sur la créativité et ce, quel que soit l'âge. De ce fait, nous avons, par la suite, décidé de nous concentrer sur la période de fin d'adolescence et d'améliorer la saillance des contextes sociaux étudiés. Ainsi, dans notre deuxième étude, nos participants étaient en compétition soit avec des coacteurs présents (i.e., compétition in-group), soit avec des individus fictifs (i.e., étudiants d'une autre université ; Compétition out-group). Les résultats ont montré que générer des idées à un problème créatif pouvait être facilité par la compétition out-group, sans que l'effet de fixation ne soit pour autant minimisé. Afin de comprendre l'absence d'effet de la compétition in-group, nous avons mené deux autres études en portant une attention toute particulière au processus de comparaison sociale, celui-ci pouvant être de différents types. Nos données ont révélé que se comparer à moins bon que soi (i.e., comparaison descendante) diminuait l'effort, la productivité, et ainsi le nombre d'idées créatives proposées. Les individus en comparaison ascendante (i.e., se comparer à meilleur que soi), quant à eux, semblent avoir proposé un maximum d'idées sans prêter une attention particulière à leur créativité. Dans cette condition, on a en effet constaté une diminution de l'expansivité mais un renforcement de l'effet de fixation. Nous avons également pu montrer que ces effets n'étaient retrouvés que s'il était question de contexte de coaction. Enfin, nous avons mené une dernière étude portant sur les effets d'un travail collaboratif (i.e., en binôme). Alors que les participants devant générer à deux se sont sentis plus en confiance, plus à l'aise et moins en compétition, leurs productions se sont révélées moins bonnes que ceux qui généraient individuellement, en simple coaction. L'ensemble de ces résultats a un impact pour la recherche fondamentale et a permis la proposition de diverses pistes de recherches ultérieures.
... Social comparisons can also influence 51 task performance. For example, Seta (1982) presented almost identical tasks to pairs of 52 participants who sat across from one another and who could infer how their co-acting partner 53 was performing from the number and frequency of success tones. Crucially, the researchers 54 manipulated after how many button presses a success tone would appear which resulted in 55 differing perceptions of how well the other participant was performing. ...
... If social comparison processes in long-tailed macaques mirror those of humans (Festinger, 156 1954;Mussweiler, 2003;Seta, 1982;Tesser, 1988), the monkeys should adapt their behaviour 157 in response to a co-actors' performance if the setting is sufficiently transparent and relevant to 158 elicit social comparisons. In Experiment 1, this would result in increased accuracy and faster 159 response latencies in the picture discrimination task when the co-actor is performing better 160 compared to when she is performing worse. ...
... These results are in accordance with previous findings showing an increase in task performance 798 when participants were paired with a slightly better performing co-actor (Seta, 1982). It is less 799 clear whether our results also replicate Seta's finding that participants' performance did not 800 decrease when they were paired with a worse performing co-actor. ...
Social comparisons are a fundamental feature of human thinking and affect self-evaluations and task performance. Little is known about the evolutionary origins of social comparison processes, however. Previous studies that investigated performance-based social comparisons in nonhuman primates yielded mixed results. We report three experiments that aimed (a) to explore how the task type may contribute to performance in monkeys, and (b) how a competitive set-up affects monkeys compared to humans. In a co-action touchscreen task, monkeys were neither influenced by nor interested in the performance of the partner. This may indicate that the experimental set-up was not sufficiently relevant to trigger social comparisons. In a novel co-action foraging task, monkeys increased their feeding speed in competitive and co-active conditions, but not in relation to the degree of competition. In an analogue of the foraging task, human participants were affected by partner performance and experimental context, indicating that the task is suitable to elicit social comparisons in humans. Our studies indicate that specifics of task and experimental setting are relevant to draw the monkeys’ attention to a co-actor and that, in line with previous research, a competitive element was crucial. We highlight the need to explore what constitutes “relevant” social comparison situations for monkeys as well as nonhuman animals in general, and point out factors that we think are crucial in this respect (e.g. task type, physical closeness, and the species’ ecology). We discuss that early forms of social comparisons evolved in purely competitive environments with increasing social tolerance and cooperative motivations allowing for more fine-grained processing of social information. Competition driven effects on task performance might constitute the foundation for the more elaborate social comparison processes found in humans, which may involve context-dependent information processing and metacognitive monitoring.
... 사회적 비교이론에 따르면, 하향비교가 자기고양(selfenhancement) 동기에서 비롯됨에 반해, 상향비 교는 자기개선(self-improvement)의 동기에 의해 발생한다. 즉, 자신이 좀 더 잘 하고 싶은 것 에 관심이 있을 때 상향비교가 발생하게 된다 는 것이다 (Buunk & Gibbons 2007;Helgeson & Michelson, 1995 (Seta, 1982). 선행연구들 에서도 선망을 느끼는 구성원들이 선망의 대 상에게 영향을 받아 새롭고 도전적인 목표 를 설정하는 경향이 있음을 밝혔다 (Seta, 1982;Lockwood & Kunda, 1997). ...
... 즉, 자신이 좀 더 잘 하고 싶은 것 에 관심이 있을 때 상향비교가 발생하게 된다 는 것이다 (Buunk & Gibbons 2007;Helgeson & Michelson, 1995 (Seta, 1982). 선행연구들 에서도 선망을 느끼는 구성원들이 선망의 대 상에게 영향을 받아 새롭고 도전적인 목표 를 설정하는 경향이 있음을 밝혔다 (Seta, 1982;Lockwood & Kunda, 1997). 셋째, 자신 보다 나 은 동료로부터 자신이 어떻게 행동해야 할 지에 대한 유용한 정보를 획득할 수 있다 (Blanton, Buunk, Gibbons, & Kupper, 1999 (Smith et al., 1999;Tai et al., 2012;Van de Van et al., 2012 (Bandura, 1977;Judge & Bono, 2001). ...
... 이 중에서도 절차공정성은 동 료가 이룬 성취의 공정성 여부나 개인의 상황 변화 가능성에 대한 지각과 직접적으로 관련 되어 있다 (Leventhal, 1976 (Leventhal, 1980). 조직구성원들이 절 차공정성을 높게 지각하면, 동료들의 우월한 성취를 정당한 결과라고 인식하게 되고, 이에 따라 자신의 성과에 대한 평가기준을 높이고, 도전적인 목표를 설정하는 우호적 선망으로 연결될 수 있다 (Seta, 1982;Lockwood & Kunda, 1997 (Bolino, 1999;Grant & Mayer, 2009 (Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012 (Ashford, 1986;Zhou, 2003 (Ashford & Cummings, 1983;Chen, Lam & Zhong, 2007;Morrison 1993;Renn & Fedor, 2001 (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). 또한, 현 상황에 대한 정보가 없거나 자신이 가진 정보 가 현실과 불일치 할 때, 상황의 불확실성을 줄이고 자신의 행동을 통제하기 위해 피드백 을 더 추구하게 될 수도 있다 (Ashford, 1986 (Duffy et al., 2012;Smith et al., 1994;Vecchio, 2000 (Sterling et al., 2014). ...
The purpose of this study is to investigate two concepts of workplace envy - malicious envy and benign envy- and explore the factors influencing the types of envy. In addition, the study examined how malicious envy and benign envy, respectively, is related to behavioral consequences such as voice behavior, feedback seeking behavior, and social undermining. Using the data of 141 employees in 31 teams from 5 organizations in Korea, we found that three antecedents of workplace envy such as self-efficacy, affect-based trust, and cognition-based trust have positive relationship with benign envy and negative relationship with malicious envy. In addition, benign envy appears to increase voice behavior while malicious envy is related to social undermining behavior. The results imply that these two concepts exist in work settings, and have different behavioral outcomes.
... The current study was inspired by an experiment by Seta [13] in which human participants performed a simple manual task-pressing a sequence of buttons with four fingers. The task was carried out in the presence of a co-actor independently engaged in the same task. ...
... In this study, we tested whether monkeys compare themselves with others based on human-like social comparison processes. Assimilation of own performance to the performance of a similar comparison standard would be an indication of such social comparisons [3,13,16,17]. We tested for the role of partner performance and competition on monkeys' behaviour in a co-active food extraction task. ...
... Importantly, the field of comparative social comparison research is still in its infancy and it is important to explore scope and limits of different approaches. For example, longer exposure to the comparison standard might be necessary for social comparisons to manifest [13]. ...
Humans modulate their self-evaluations and behaviour as a function of conspecific presence and performance. In this study, we tested for the presence of human-like social comparison effects in long-tailed macaques ( Macaca fascicularis). The monkeys' task was to extract food from an apparatus by pulling drawers within reach and we measured latency between drawer pulls. Subjects either worked on the task with a partner who could access the apparatus from an adjacent cage, worked in the absence of a conspecific but with food moving towards the partner's side or worked next to a partner who was denied apparatus access. We further manipulated partner performance and competitiveness of the set-up. We found no indication that long-tailed macaques compare their performance to the performance of conspecifics. They were not affected by the mere presence of the partner but they paid close attention to the partner's actions when they were consequential for food availability. If social comparison processes are present in long-tailed macaques, the present study suggests they may only manifest in situations involving direct competition and would thus be different from social comparisons in humans, which manifest also in the absence of direct competition, for example in evaluative contexts.
... The first considered source of effort gains in teams is based on Festinger's seminal work, conceptualizing social comparison as motivating but also sense-making process in social interactions (e.g., Festinger, 1954). This basic mechanism can be found in various theoretical approaches of social motivation, such as upward comparison (e.g., Major et al., 1991), performance matching (e.g., Jackson and Harkins, 1985), or goal comparison (Stroebe et al., 1996; see also Bandura and Cervone, 1983), and is also the core concept of social competition in teams (e.g., Seta, 1982). Social competition is often based on agentic values ("getting ahead"), striving for mastery and social dominance as compared to communal values ("getting along") related to cooperation and the fulfillment of social bonds (e.g., Trapnell and Paulhus, 2012). ...
... For instance, when individual members perceive other team members to be more successful in a valued task, they should increase their personal performance goals in order to match or even exceed the performance of the other team members (e.g., Stroebe et al., 1996). Indeed, laboratory studies have documented that social competition can lead to significant effort gains in teams as compared to working alone (e.g., Seta, 1982;Stroebe et al., 1996; for meta-analytic data, see Weber and Hertel, 2007). The basic mechanism should not be limited to teamwork in laboratory settings, but might also lead to effort gains in enduring occupational teams with meaningful tasks and outcomes. ...
... In contrast, no evidence was observed for event-specific social competition as a source of effort gains in occupational teams. This result suggests that motivating effects of social competition observed in laboratory teamwork (e.g., Seta, 1982;Stroebe et al., 1996) might not easily generalize to enduring occupational teams working for meaningful outcomes. However, the results are in line with our assumption that social competition is a less effective source of effort gains in occupational teams than social indispensability. ...
Laboratory research has demonstrated social competition and social indispensability as potential triggers of effort gains in teams as compared to working alone. However, it is unclear whether such effects are also relevant for existing occupational teams, collaborating for longer time intervals and achieving meaningful outcomes. We assumed that social indispensability effects are prevalent and stable in occupational teams, whereas social competition effects should mainly be effective in the beginning of teamwork and fade out over time. Hypotheses were confirmed in two studies using within-subjects designs with employees recruited via an online panel (Study 1, N = 137) and in software development companies (Study 2, N = 70). By means of the Event Reconstruction Method, participants re-experienced specific events from past working days (three events working alone, three teamwork events), and rated their effort separately for these events. In both studies, multilevel analyses revealed significant effort gains in teams when event-specific social indispensability was high. These effects were mediated by positive mood and perceived task meaningfulness, and additionally qualified by employees’ preference for teamwork. In contrast, motivating effects due to event-specific social competition were only observed for teams with short as compared to long team tenure in Study 2.
... Social comparison theory (Festinger 1954) suggests that performance and self-evaluation are impacted by comparison with others. In particular, the presence of coactors influences performance through two forces: a unidirectional drive upward (Huguet et al. 1999;Seta 1982;Seta et al. 1991) and a pressure towards uniformity (e.g. Festinger 1954, Huguet et al. 2001. ...
... downward social comparison [DSC]) classically result in steady performance. Mirroring these principles, a series of studies (Seta 1982) showed that the performance of the participants in a pressing button task was better when placed in comparison with a slightly superior coactor. Moreover, participant's performance was not impacted by a coactor whose performance was inferior, identical or strongly superior to that of the participant. ...
Gamification can be seen as the intentional use of game design elements in non-game tasks, in order to produce psychological outcomes likely to influence behaviour and/or performance. In this respect, we hypothesize that gamification would produce measurable effects on user performance, that this positive impact would be mediated by specific motivational and attentional processes such as flow and that gamification would moderate the social comparison process. In three experimental studies, we examine the effects of gamified electronic brainstorming interfaces on fluency, uniqueness and flow. The first study mainly focuses on time pressure, the second on performance standard and the third one introduces social comparison. The results highlight some effects of the gamified conditions on brainstorming performance, but no or negative effects on flow. All three studies are congruent in that gamification did not occur as a psychological process, which questions popular design trends observed in a number of sectors.
... Social comparison theory predicts that when there is a significant discrepancy in ability levels, individuals will not use that person as a basis of comparison (Festinger, 1954). Several studies have supported this prediction (e.g., Seta, 1982). ...
... When group members believe they are similar in their creative abilities, they tend to use each other more as reference points and thus have more mutual impact. If the abilities are perceived to be too discrepant (either higher or lower), there may be little comparison and mutual impact (Seta, 1982). The social comparison process will tend to increase similarity in the performance of groups over time (Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993). ...
The creative process typically involves a series of phases including the divergent process of generating many ideas and the convergent process of idea evaluation and selection for further development. Only limited research has examined the convergent process and the relationship between the divergent and convergent processes. This research suggests that often the most novel ideas tend not to be selected for further development. We examine this research literature and present a model of the various factors that influence the links between the divergent and convergent phases. We describe the development and potential implementation of computer-based feedback system that may enhance the linkage between the quality of the divergent and convergent processes.
... Open Sci. 8: 202171 the intervention game would be the highest in the competitive context since social comparisons are assumed to be more salient in competitive than in cooperative and solitary contexts [58,59]. ...
... In other words, a competition promoted children's physical engagement not immediately, but only after a specific duration of play (i.e. in the second gaming phase). This finding agrees with previous work suggesting a promoted performance during competitive encounters [58,59,117]. With the null results for children's sharing and social inclusion in mind, this finding suggests that cooperation and competition reliably influence children's behaviour when being in such contexts but not in subsequent unrelated situations. ...
Past research suggests that children favour their in-group members over out-group members as indicated by selective prosociality such as sharing or social inclusion. This preregistered study examined how playing a cooperative, competitive or solitary game influences German 4- to 6-year-olds’ in-group bias and their general willingness to act prosocially, independent of the recipient's group membership ( N = 144). After playing the game, experimenters introduced minimal groups and assessed children's sharing with an in-group and an out-group member as well as their social inclusion of an out-group member into an in-group interaction. Furthermore, we assessed children's physical engagement and parents' social dominance orientation (SDO)—a scale indicating the preference for inequality among social groups—to learn more about inter-individual differences in children's prosocial behaviours. Results suggest that children showed a stronger physical engagement while playing competitively as compared with cooperatively or alone. The different gaming contexts did not impact children's subsequent in-group bias or general willingness to act prosocially. Parental SDO was not linked to children's prosocial behaviours. These results indicate that competition can immediately affect children's behaviour while playing but raise doubt on the importance of cooperative and competitive play for children's subsequent intergroup and prosocial behaviour.
... The social comparison effect is used to measure the direction of social comparison, which may be followed by an identification effect, which is the convergence of self-evaluation toward the goal, or a contrast effect, which is the divergence of self-evaluation from the goal ( Van der Zee et al., 2000). Seta et al. assigned an operator to work with a collaborator whose performance level was higher than, lower than, or equal to him and made the operator aware of the performance comparison with the collaborator by giving feedback, then revealing that individuals did not compare performance with collaborator when the difference in ability was too significant (Seta, 1982). Besides, the study of performance differences in operator behavior in the scenario containing two collaborators showed that moderate performance differences were better, regardless of whether individuals were upward or downward comparison (Dan et al., 2009). ...
These days, some work groups use the publication of employees’ performance information as feedback on their work, such as sales champions in car sales or real estate sales, to improve group performance by using well-performing employees to motivate poor-performing employees to promote their individual work effort. Social comparison theory helps people to evaluate their abilities when lacking an absolute objective standard. This study explored the effects of individual ability level, the combination of ability levels, and personality traits on social comparison among co-operators. Method: A three-way mixed design of 2 (work condition: individual work; group work) X 3 (individual ability level: high ability; medium ability; low ability) X 3 (combination of ability levels: the combination of two high-ability, one medium-ability and one low-ability; the combination of one high-ability, two medium-ability and one low-ability; the combination of one high-ability, one medium-ability and two low-ability) was used, with 180 subjects completing the illusion ensemble task and completing the personality trait questionnaires (including Rosenberg self-esteem scale, Eysenck Personality Inventory(EPQ), Social Comparison Orientation Scale(INCOM) and social comparative effect scale) under different experimental conditions. Results: The results indicated that work condition significantly influenced individual performance. Besides, individual ability level had a significant effect on social comparison. The impact of work condition on individual performance was different for subjects with varying levels of ability: the performance of high-ability subjects significantly decreased, while both medium-ability and low-ability subjects significantly increased, and low-ability subjects had significantly higher performance improvement than medium-ability subjects. Moreover, different combinations of ability levels significantly impacted subjects' individual behavior. Low-ability subjects in the combination of one high-ability, one medium-ability, and two low-ability subjects had the most significant improvement, which was the combined result of the upward identification and parallel comparison. Furthermore, personality traits play a crucial role in social comparison. Self-esteem had a significant effect on participation in social comparison. Subjects with low self-esteem were more inclined to participate in social comparisons and changed sharply in individual performance relative to those with high self-esteem. In addition, neuroticism was associated with adverse effects caused by social comparison (e.g., upward-contrast effect and downward-identification effect), whereas extraversion was associated with positive effects induced by social comparison (e.g., upward-identification). Apart from this, social comparison propensity was found to be positively associated with changes in individual performance and negatively related to self-esteem scores. Additionally, performance change in medium-ability subjects may primarily come from the effect of the downward-contrast effect from the result of the social comparison effect scale. Conclusions: This study illustrates the impact of individual ability and personality traits on social comparison, and provides feasible suggestions for the work organization to improve group performance. Based on the performance changes across groups, an increment in the number of high-ability subjects caused a decrease in team performance, whereas an increment in the number of low-ability subjects positively affected overall team performance. Therefore, group work organizations can improve team performance by increasing the number of low-ability members and reducing the number of high-ability members in future management.
... Ideally, group members would emulate the top performers and try to move their performance in that direction. Social comparison theory does suggest such an upward process but only when there are moderate differences in performance, giving the lower level performer some hope of success (e.g., Seta, 1982). Ironically in organizations, top performers receive relatively mixed receptions (Kim & Glomb, 2014) and as a result may not be a strong reference point in a group context. ...
... The lack of corresponding effects between effort and performance is not uncommon (e.g., Framorando & Gendolla, 2019a, 2019bLasauskaite et al., 2014) -performance has been shown to depend on more than just effort, as a large number of strategies can be employed to complete a task (Framorando, 2019;Glickman et al., 2005). However, the lack of significant results on task performance seems to contradict previous findings showing that social comparisons influence performance (Rijsman, 1974;Seta, 1982;Seta et al., 1991;Munkes & Diehl., 2003). This may be explained by the nature of the task used in the present study. ...
... Tương tự, những người khác sẽ xây dựng mục tiêu giống với mục tiêu của người đã thành công hay "hình mẫu" của họ và rồi noi gương ngay cả những hành động của "hình mẫu" để đạt được mục tiêu thành công (Schunk, 1987). Cuối cùng, nhìn nhận thành công của người khác có thể khiến mọi người đặt tiêu chuẩn cá nhân cao hơn khi đánh giá thành công của chính họ và có thể thúc đẩy nỗ lực tới những mục tiêu mới và thách thức hơn (Seta, 1982). ...
Bài viết này tổng hợp, điểm luận và phân tích một số hướng tiếp cận, một số lýthuyết cơ bản trong nghiên cứu động cơ học tập của người học (học sinh và sinh viên)thuộc lĩnh vực Tâm lý học. Các hướng nghiên cứu và lý thuyết được đề cập cụ thể như:(1) Thuyết hành vi, (2) Thuyết nhận thức, (3) Thuyết kỳ vọng - giá trị, (4) Thuyết niềmtin vào năng lực bản thân, (5) Thuyết tư duy, (6) Thuyết định hướng mục tiêu, (7) Thuyếttự xác định, (8) Thuyết so sánh xã hội và (9) Thuyết nhân văn. Một số hướng tiếp cậnnghiên cứu động cơ học tập của học sinh, sinh viên tại Việt Nam và những ý kiến đề xuất cũng được đề cập trong bài viết.
... By doing so it follows studies on interdependence from educational and social psychology (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 2002;Weber & Hertel, 2007), thus drawing the comparison between individual work and group work. However, it cannot be ruled out that the mere presence of other group members had an effect on the dependent variables regardless of the aspect of interdependence (e.g., by social comparison; Seta, 1982). Future research could seek to delineate the findings of the present study. ...
Research on procrastination covers a variety of individual factors (e.g., conscien-tiousness) and this focus is reflected in interventions against procrastination. Less emphasis is put on situational and social factors that may help students reduce procrastination , such as social interdependence. Therefore, this study investigates the relationship between interdependence with academic procrastination and affective variables. Two vignette studies with student samples (N 1 = 320, N 2 = 193) were conducted and data was analyzed with regression analyses and analyses of covariance. Results of both studies show lower state procrastination in group work with interdependence compared to individual work, especially in participants with high trait procrastination. This difference is more pronounced when interdependence is accompanied by an active commitment to finish the task on time. Further, interdependent group work is related to increased positive affect and decreased negative affect. The results demonstrate the relevance of situational and social factors for academic procrastination , and point toward new approaches for intervention.
... Another way of looking at intergroup comparisons is through a social comparison theory perspective (Festinger, 1954;Seta, 1982). From this view, such comparisons may induce a sense of competition, noted above, which can in turn lead to enhanced performance and creativity (Paulus & Dzindolet, 2008). ...
Collaborative creativity in organizations often requires exchange of ideas among different groups or teams. However, factors such as in-group identity and faultlines can limit the motivation to tap ideas from other groups. We discuss the factors that can facilitate intergroup exchange and the role of network characteristics and brokers or boundary spanners. The results of a research project on intergroup creativity are presented, and we outline a new model for intergroup creativity.
... From a practical perspective, these results imply that students could be motivated to reduce the discrepancy with the upward comparison even without experiencing negative feelings (Boldero & Francis, 2002). This reasoning is in line with a recent article examining the motivational power of social comparison that concludes that moderate upward comparisons are the best comparison targets to facilitate goal pursuit (Diel & Hofmann, 2019; see also Rijsman, 1974;Seta, 1982). Future research should examine whether making pupils experience approach versus avoidance could be a handy tool for short interventions leading pupils to compare positively with framed upward targets. ...
Background:
Social comparisons between pupils are especially relevant at school. Such comparisons influence self-perception and performance. When pupils evaluate themselves more negatively and perform worse after an upward comparison (with a better off pupil) than a downward comparison (with a worse-off pupil), this is a contrast effect. On the other hand, when they evaluate themselves more positively and are better after an upward than downward comparison, this is an assimilation effect.
Aims:
We examine assimilation and contrast effects of comparison in the classroom on pupils' self-evaluation and performance. Previous work by Fayant, Muller, Nurra, Alexopoulos, and Palluel-Germain (2011) lead us to hypothesize that approach vs. avoidance moderates the impact of upward vs. downward comparison: approach should lead to an assimilation effect on self-evaluation and performance, while avoidance should lead to contrast on self-evaluation and performance.
Methods:
To test this hypothesis, we primed pupils with either approach or avoidance before reading upward or downward comparison information about another pupil. We then measured self-evaluation (Experiment 1) and performance (Experiments 1 and 2).
Results:
Results confirmed our predictions and revealed the predicted interaction on self-evaluation (Experiment 1) and performance (Experiment 2): approach leads to an assimilation effect (in both experiments) whereas avoidance leads to a contrast effect (in Experiment 2).
Conclusions:
These experiments replicate previous studies on self-evaluation and also extend previous work on performance and in a classroom setting. Priming approach before upward comparison seems especially beneficial to pupils.
... Social comparison shapes self-evaluations, affect, motivation, and behavior in multiple and highly variable ways (for reviews, see Collins, 1996;Mussweiler, 2003;Mussweiler & Strack, 2000;Taylor et al., 1996;Wood, 1989). As Festinger (1954) suggested in his theorizing, comparisons can cause people to assimilate their self-evaluation toward upward and downward comparison standards (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997;Mussweiler et al., 2004b;Pelham & Wachsmuth, 1995;Seta, 1982). However, much research has also documented that c07.indd 8 27-07-2021 07:15:40 social comparisons can cause people to contrast their self-evaluation, affect, motivation and behavior away from comparison standards. ...
Social comparisons—comparisons between the self and others—are a fundamental mechanism influencing people’s judgments, experiences, and behavior. Psychological research supports the notion that people constantly engage in social comparisons. Arguably, whenever they receive information about how others are, what others can and cannot do, or what others have achieved and have failed to achieve, they are inclined to relate this information to themselves (Dunning & Hayes, 1996). Likewise, whenever they want to know how they themselves are or what they themselves can and cannot do, they are likely to do so by comparing their own characteristics, fortunes, and weaknesses to those of others. One indicator for this robustness of social comparison is that people may sometimes even engage in comparisons with others who do not yield relevant information concerning the self (Gilbert et al., 1995). Another sign of the importance of social comparisons is their power in eliciting universal human emotions. We may feel pride when we succeed in outperforming competitors, marvel in admiration about the excellence of other but may also feel the pain of envying them (Crusius & Lange, 2017; Smith, 2000; Steckler & Tracy, 2014).
Because comparisons with others are such an essential human proclivity, it may not be
surprising that social comparison is a highly studied topic within social psychology. Three
broad questions have guided this research: Why do people engage in social comparisons?
To whom do they compare themselves? How do social comparisons influence the self ?
... We expected that effort gains would emerge in those teamwork events where members perceived their individual contribution to the team performance as highly indispensable and, thus, felt responsible for the outcomes of the whole team . Moreover, we also expected effort gains in team events in which participants strongly compared their performance to their fellow members (Festinger, 1954;Seta, 1982;Stroebe et al., 1996). We further expected that perceived social indispensability would emerge as a more enduring and thus prevalent driver of effort gains than social comparison. ...
Although group work has the potential to both reduce and increase the effort expenditure of its members, effort losses (i.e., reduced effort in group-versus individual work) have long been perceived as (nearly) inevitable in Social Psychology. This notion was elicited, accompanied, and bolstered by (i) pessimistic theorizing on group productivity, and (ii) the primary use of laboratory experiments to study effort expenditure in groups. In this contribution, we adopt a more optimistic theoretical perspective. We review a series of consecutive field and vignette studies showing that individuals often work harder in groups than alone (i.e., effort gains in groups). We show that effort gains in groups are robust and can be reliably observed under various theoretically derived conditions. We also illustrate that effort gains in groups cannot be explained by various alternative explanations, and illuminate underlying mechanisms and moderators of effort gains in groups in field settings. We conclude our review by elaborating on the relevance of our findings for current theorizing, the motivating design of group work, and new directions in the study of effort expenditure during group work.
... Regarding performance, the main effect of Side Partition (Figure 6e) indicates that the sheltering of co-actors was helpful for the participants, as they felt more satisfied with their task performance. As argued by Seta (1982), when there are co-actors, and the tasks are identical, individuals tend to attribute any differences in performance levels to differences in abilities. Such a tendency could increase the level of anxiety and decrease the confidence level of a performer. ...
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of possible physical design features of self-service kiosks (SSK), side and back partitions and chairs, on workload and task performance of older users during a typical SSK task. The study comparatively evaluated eight physical SSK design alternatives, and younger and older participants performed a menu ordering task using each physical design alternative. Older participants showed a large variation in task performance across the design alternatives indicating stronger impacts of the physical design features. In particular, sitting significantly reduced task completion time and workload in multiple dimensions, including time pressure and frustration. In addition, the use of either side or back partitions reduced mean ratings of mental demand and effort. The study suggests placing chairs and either side or back partitions to enhance older adults' user experience. The use of the proposed physical design recommendations would greatly help them use SSK more effectively.
... Huguet et al. (1999, Experiment 2) also explored this social-attentional phenomenon in coactive situations (participants were faced with the presence of peers working independently and simultaneously at the same task). Several studies have shown that coaction affects performance only when it makes sense for the participants to compare themselves with the coactor (Sanders, Baron, & Moore, 1978) or when the coactive situation makes social comparison unavoidable and relatively self-threatening (Rijsman, 1974;Seta, 1982;Seta, Seta, & Donaldson, 1991). In line with this, participants who were forced to engage in upward social comparison (i.e., who engaged in comparison with a coactor working faster than themselves on the Stroop task) were much faster at identifying the letter color cues of the incongruent color words, compared with those in three other conditions (i.e., those working alone, or those working either in presence of a similar coactor or in presence of a coactor slower than themselves). ...
... Envy is a painful, social, self-conscious "emotion of wanting an advantage that another person has and/or wishing the other did not have it" (Veiga et al., 2014(Veiga et al., , p. 2364. Envy arises from invidious social comparisons (Hoffman et al., 1954;Seta, 1982;Tesser et al., 1988;van de Ven et al., 2009) and is characterized by feelings of inferiority, hostility and resentment that can be expressed through destructive behavioral tendencies (Smith and Kim, 2007;Vecchio, 2005). Envy motivates an individual to close the comparison gap, and, in its more malicious form, may lead to sabotage or social undermining (Cohen-Charash and Mueller, 2007;Crossley, 2009;Duffy et al., 2012;Dunn and Schweitzer, 2006). ...
Purpose
Although studies have demonstrated that knowledge hiding is an important inhibitor of organizational innovation, current research does not clearly address how intragroup relationship conflict influences knowledge hiding. This study aims to identify the underlying mechanism between intra-group relationship conflict and knowledge hiding.
Design/methodology/approach
Drawing on affective events theory (AET), the authors propose a theoretical model and empirically test it by applying hierarchical regression analysis and a bootstrapping approach to data from a multi-wave survey of 224 employees in China.
Findings
Consistent with AET, the empirical results show that envy mediates perceived intragroup relationship conflict and knowledge hiding. As predicted, trait competitiveness moderates the indirect effect of perceived intragroup relationship conflict on knowledge hiding via envy.
Originality/value
The results support an AET perspective whereby knowledge hiding is shaped by relationship conflict, envy and trait competitiveness. This study introduces the novel proposition that relationship conflict and competitiveness influence envy, and consequently knowledge hiding.
... Ensemble representation may help to explain why maximums are such salient and memorable comparison standards -the wealthiest, the luckiest, the most successful, the most traveled (Davidai & Deri, 2019;Morewedge & Todorov, 2012;Perez-Truglia, 2019), and can be so deleterious for satisfaction and performance (Medvec, Madey, & Gilovich, 1995;Morewedge, Zhu, & Buechel, 2019;Rogers & Feller, 2016), even when position in a distribution is inferred from minimal signals (Kraus, Park, & Tan, 2017). While motivation may direct attention to downward comparisons to enhance satisfaction with rewards (Taylor & Lobel, 1989;Wills, 1981), or toward upward comparison standards to motivate progress (Huguet, Galvaing, Monteil, & Dumas, 1999;Seta, 1982), extreme exemplars appear to be salient due to the statistical properties of the group that they represent. Beyond the influence of extremes on comparative evaluations of rewards received, exploratory analyses reveal that distribution extremes also bias perceptions of the affluence of a group. ...
We examine which social comparisons most affect happiness with pay that is unequally distributed (e.g., salaries and bonuses). We find that ensemble representation–attention to statistical properties of distributions such as their range and mean––makes the proximal extreme (i.e., the maximum or minimum) and distribution mean salient social comparison standards. Happiness with a salary or bonus is more affected by how it compares to the distribution mean and proximal extreme than by exemplar-based properties of the payment, like its comparison to the nearest payment or its distribution rank. This holds for randomly assigned and performance-based payments. Process studies demonstrate that ensemble representations lead people to spontaneously select these statistical properties of pay distributions as comparison standards. Exogenously increasing the salience of less extreme exemplars moderates the influence of the maximum on happiness with pay, but exogenously increasing the salience of the distribution maximum does not. As with other social comparison standards, top-down information moderates their selection. Happiness with a bonus payment is influenced by the largest payment made to others who solve the same math problems, for instance, but not by the largest payment made to others who solve different verbal problems. Our findings yield theoretical and practical insights about which members of groups are selected as social comparison standards, effects of relative income on happiness, and the attentional processes involved in ensemble representation.
... Thus, we propose that WTA beliefs are particularly likely to trigger socially oriented affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes. That is, we propose that WTA beliefs are likely to lead to psychological and behavioral outcomes that rely on seeking out relevant social models or social feedback (Seta, 1982). We also propose that the feeling of not performing as well as one's peers -as opposed to simply feeling dissatisfied with one's performance or abilities -is uniquely motivating (Shore and Tashchian, 2002). ...
Our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are shaped in critical ways by our beliefs about how we compare to other people. Prior research has predominately focused on the consequences of believing oneself to be better than average (BTA). Research on the consequences of worse-than-average (WTA) beliefs has been far more limited, focusing mostly on the downsides of WTA beliefs. In this paper, we argue for the systematic investigation of the possible long-term benefits of WTA beliefs in domains including motivation, task performance, and subjective well-being. We develop a conceptual framework for examining these possible benefits, we explore the usefulness of this framework to generate novel insights in an important psychological domain (skill learning), and we conclude with broader recommendations for research in other domains such as friendship formation, moral, and political decision making.
... Effort gains in teams are driven by individualistic motives when team members try to maximize their direct individual benefits. For example, consider the implications of social comparison within a team for one's self-esteem (Seta, 1982;Stroebe et al., 1996). Matching or even exceeding the performance level of others in a team can lead to individual status and reputation, as well as positive feelings of success and self-affirmation. ...
... From a practical perspective, these results imply that students could be motivated to reduce the discrepancy with the upward comparison even without experiencing negative feelings (Boldero & Francis, 2002). This reasoning is in line with a recent article examining the motivational power of social comparison that concludes that moderate upward comparisons are the best comparison targets to facilitate goal pursuit (Diel & Hofmann, 2019; see also Rijsman, 1974;Seta, 1982). Future research should examine whether making pupils experience approach versus avoidance could be a handy tool for short interventions leading pupils to compare positively with framed upward targets. ...
To evaluate their schoolwork, children often engage in comparison with classmates. But what is the effect of these comparisons on self-evaluation and performance? Previous work by Fayant et al. (2011) leads us to hypothesize that the impact of upward vs. downward comparison is moderated by the approach vs. avoidance mindset: an approach mindset should lead to an assimilation of self-evaluation and performance, while an avoidance mindset should lead to a contrast of self-evaluation and performance. To test this hypothesis, in two studies, children were either primed with approach or avoidance before reading upward or downward comparison information. Results confirmed our predictions and revealed the predicted interaction on self-evaluation (Study 1) and performance (Study 2): the approach mindset leads to an assimilation effect whereas the avoidance mindset leads to a contrast effect. These studies replicate (on self-evaluation) and extend (on performance and in a classroom setting) previous work.
... Students who compared their performance to a slightly superior classmate performed better on a later test than students who compared to a slightly inferior classmate (Blanton, Buunk, Gibbons, & Kuyper, 1999;Huguet, Dumas, Monteil, & Genestoux, 2001;Marsh et al., 2010). Additionally, an experiment showed that participants performed best when they thought their partner was performing slightly better than them, rather than much better (Seta, 1982). This social comparison work further supports the idea that comparisons can have effects on later performance. ...
Research on dimensional comparison lacks a general mechanism that can predict the direction of the effect. The only mechanism previously suggested is limited to academic domains. In this review, I expand on this academic mechanism and propose a general mechanism for dimensional comparison that can predict assimilation or contrast between any domains. Dimensional comparison occurs when people compare their performance in one domain to their performance in another domain (e.g., math and verbal). The comparison may result in a contrast effect in which self-evaluations of the superior domain are inflated and self-evaluations of the inferior domain are deflated. Alternatively, the comparison may result in an assimilation effect in which self-evaluations of the superior domain are deflated and self-evaluations of the inferior domain are inflated. I propose that dimensional comparison assimilation or contrast is determined by whether a person believes the domains being compared are positively or negatively interdependent, their Domain Interdependence Belief (DIB). A negative DIB leads to contrast, while a positive DIB leads to assimilation. Dimensional comparison contrast has detrimental effects on the inferior domain, but if DIBs are a general mechanism for dimensional comparison, then it may be possible to manipulate DIBs to avoid these undesirable outcomes.
... Katja (.Iorcoran und Jan Crusius (Morse & Gergen, 1970), Emotionen (Crusius & Mussweiler, 20l2c;Smith, 2000), die Motivation (Crusius & Mussweiler, 2012b;Lockwood et al., 2002) und die Leistung (Sera, 1982) (Herr, Sherman & Fazio, 1983;Herr, 1986;Mussweiler et al., 2004b), die Ambiguität des Selbstwissens (Herr et al., 1983), die Gruppenzugehörigkeit des Standards (Blanton, Crocker & Miller, 2000;Mussweiler & Bodenhausen, 2002) und die psychologische Nähe zu dem Standard (Pelham & Wachsmuth, 1995 Mussweiler (2003) Wenn man beispielsweise bei einem Vergleich zur Einschätzung der eigenen Sportlichkeit die Hypothese testet, dass man einer sportlichen Person ähnlich ist, so wird eher Wissen über eigene sportliche Leistungen aktiviert und man wird sich ebenfalls als relativ sportlich einschätzen. Die Wahl der Ähnlichkeitshypothese führt somit zu einer Annäherung an den Vergleichsstandard (Assimilation). ...
Der soziale Vergleich ist fester Bestandteil der menschlichen Informationsverarbeitung. Menschen neigen dazu, Informationen relativ, also in Bezug zum Kontext, zu Standards und zu Normen, zu verarbeiten (Biernat & Eidelman, 2007; Miller & Prentice, 1996). Dieses Prinzip trifft auch auf die Verarbeitung sozialer Informationen und insbesondere auf die Verarbeitung von selbstbezogenen Informationen zu (Biernat, 2005). Das heißt, wenn wir uns selbst, andere Personen oder Gruppen einschätzen, dann neigen wir dazu, dies im Vergleich zu anderen Personen und Gruppen zu tun. Der soziale Vergleich kann somit als der Prozess verstanden werden, bei der Informationen über soziale Entitäten in Relation
zueinander gesetzt werden.
... Despite having a great deal of knowledge about when consumers engage in comparisons and the effect of these comparisons on self-views and emotions (Lertwannawit & Mandhachitara, 2012), much less is known about behavioral responses (Johnson, 2012). Furthermore, the few exceptions (e.g., Marx, Ko, & Friedman, 2009;Seta, 1982) only investigate the behavioral outcomes within the comparison domain (i.e. how comparisons to an outstanding colleague affect subsequent job performance). ...
While previous research has shown that consumers strive to keep up their consumption with those who own superior possessions by purchasing conspicuously displayed products (i.e., "keeping-up-with-the-Joneses" effect), little attention has been paid to how nonmaterial comparisons might affect their subsequent preferences and spending propensities. This research examines whether and when social comparisons that occur in prior, consumption unrelated domains will influence consumers' conspicuous consumption behaviors. Building upon social comparison theory and the compensatory consumption literature, the authors propose that inferiority experienced in threatening nonmaterial social comparison situations motivates consumers to restore their sense of superiority in the material domain by engaging in conspicuous consumption. However, this depends on whether the comparison target is in a competitive or cooperative relationship with the self and whether consumers have a clear and well-articulated self-concept. Results across four studies confirm these hypotheses. Theoretical contributions and marketing implications are discussed.
... People looking at superior others generate feelings of relative depravation that one has fewer possessions or abilities than those people (Smith & Pettigrew, 2011). In another study they were more motivated and showed a better performance after an upward than after a downward comparison (Seta, 1982). Research indicates that upward comparison with attractive body images increases depressive mood and anxiety about weight (Lee et al., 2014). ...
... The self-reliance strategy refers to actively taking measures to improve one's own performance in the direction of the envied target. For example, Seta (1982) demonstrated that participants exert more effort on experimental tasks and perform better when paired with a counterpart who seems to be performing at a superior level than they are as opposed to when paired with a counterpart performing at an inferior or a similar level. In the workplace, Schaubroeck and Lam (2004) found that employees who were not promoted exhibited better job performance after experiencing envy toward the person who was promoted. ...
Purpose
This paper aims to examine whether social comparison in a prior, nonconsumption circumstance (e.g. in an academic setting) affects consumers’ materialism and subsequent spending propensity, and explores the incidental feeling of envy as the underlying mechanism.
Design/methodology/approach
Four experiments have been conducted to test these hypotheses. Study 1 manipulated social comparison in an academic domain, and measured undergraduate students’ materialism after they compared themselves to a superior student or to an inferior student. Study 2 used a recall task to manipulate social comparison and examine the mediating role of envy. Study 3 examined which of the two types of envy (benign or malicious) affected materialism. Study 4 examined the downstream consequences on spending propensity in both public and private consumption contexts.
Findings
The results suggest that consumers place greater importance on material goods and are more likely to spend money on publicly visible products after making upward social comparisons than after making downward social comparisons or no comparisons. Furthermore, envy acts as the mediator for the observed effect of incidental social comparison on materialism.
Originality/value
First, this study improves our understanding of the consequences of social comparison and envy by demonstrating that incidental envy (both benign and malicious) experienced in a prior, unrelated social comparison can motivate materialistic pursuits. Second, the present research contributes to the compensatory consumption literature by revealing that, in a social comparison context, envy is the affective underpinning that gives rise to the motivation to engage in compensatory consumer behavior. Third, the findings also enrich materialism research by exploring an important situational antecedent in driving materialistic orientation.
... In non-twins or singletons, the reasons for choosing to compare upward and that might result in improved performance are numerous. As noted by Blanton et al. (1999), individuals may come to identify with successful targets (leading to imitation of the targets' actions; Bandura, 1986), and/or set higher personal standards for evaluating their own success, which can motivate efforts toward these more challenging goals (e.g., Huguet et al., 1999Huguet et al., , 2000Seta, 1982). Observing others doing well can also endow individuals with a sense of their own potential (e.g., Buunk et al., 1990;Lockwood & Kunda, 1997;Major et al., 1991), which may raise self-confidence and feelings of self-efficacy, with positive consequences on performance (see Multon et al., 1991;Schunk, 1989). ...
Twin research has offered evidence that monozygotic (MZ) twins are more socially close than dizygotic (DZ) twins, but has not paid much attention to the way twins compare themselves with their co-twin. The few studies in this area suggest that ‘horizontal comparisons’ (social comparison motivated by solidarity or communion with others) matter more for MZ twins than for DZ twins, at least when the co-twin is the social comparison standard. Consistent with this view, we predicted higher interest in MZ twins relative to DZ twins to select their co-twin rather than other people in general as the social comparison standard. The Social Comparison Orientation (SCO) scale, which measures the inclination to compare with others in a horizontal rather than vertical mode (comparing either upward or downward), was administered in 90 MZ pairs and 57 same-sex DZ pairs (63% female; average age 18.06 years) from the Netherlands Twin Register. MZ twin pairs showed significantly higher SCO scores than DZ twin pairs (with a large effect size) on the co-twin SCO, whereas the two groups did not differ from each other on the general SCO excluding the co-twin as social comparison standard. In MZ twin pairs, anxiety was associated with social comparison with others in general, not with their co-twin. For both scales, twin resemblance was explained by additive genetic variance. The present findings provide direct evidence that horizontal comparisons with the co-twin are of particular importance for MZ twins.
... Moreover, laboratory and field studies indicate that when people make upward social comparisons, they tend to choose comparison targets who are doing slightly better than themselves (Hakmiller, 1966;Ybema & Buunk, 1993). These comparison targets can increase people's confidence in their own potential (Buunk, Collins, Taylor, VanYperen, & Dakof, 1990;Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, & Major, 1991;Lockwood & Kunda, 1997), motivate people to set higher personal standards, and work towards more challenging goals (Seta, 1982). Research has also shown that professional sports teams who are slightly behind at half-time are more likely to win than teams that are slightly ahead, perhaps because envisioning one's performance as a loss promotes additional effort (Berger & Pope, 2011). ...
Two studies document the existence and correlates of a widespread social belief, wherein individuals who have recently moved to a new social environment see their peers as more socially connected than they themselves are. In Study 1, the prevalence of this belief was documented in a large sample of first-year students (N = 1,099). In Study 2, the prevalence of this social belief was replicated in a targeted sample of university students (N = 389). Study 2 also documented both positive and negative implications of this belief. Specifically, at any given time, students who believed that their peers were more socially connected than they themselves were reported lower well-being and belonging. Over time, however, the belief that one’s peers are moderately more socially connected than oneself was associated with more friendship formation.
... Although theorists have long proposed that social comparison processes, such as the big-fish-little-pond effect (Marsh, 1987), should have important behavioral effects, relatively few studies have systematically examined whether social comparisons actually influence subsequent performance and persistence. Relevant longitudinal (Blanton, Buunk, Gibbons, & Kuyper, 1999;Wehrens, Kuyper, Dijkstra, Buunk, & Van Der Werf, 2010) and experimental (Seta, 1982) studies suggest that comparing to a slightly superior other can enhance performance. Further, more dramatic feedback indicating that participants are performing much better than others enhances later performance versus control conditions or feedback indicating that participants are performing much worse than others (Ávila, Chiviacowsky, Wulf, & Lewthwaite, 2012;Lewthwaite & Wulf, 2010). ...
Previous research indicates that local comparisons with one or a few people in the immediate environment have a stronger influence on self-evaluations than general comparisons with larger samples. Two studies examined whether this local dominance effect extends to intrinsic motivation. Study 1 suggests that local comparisons have a stronger effect on both self-evaluations and task enjoyment than general comparisons. Study 2 suggests that local comparisons have a stronger effect on intrinsic motivation than general comparisons and that local comparisons have a significant indirect effect on persistence via intrinsic motivation. Altogether, the present findings are among the first to demonstrate the contribution of local social comparisons to intrinsic motivation. We highlight the implications of these findings for social comparison theories.
... In non-twins or singletons, the reasons for choosing to compare upward and that might result in improved performance are numerous. As noted by Blanton et al. (1999), individuals may come to identify with successful targets (leading to imitation of the targets' actions; Bandura, 1986), and/or set higher personal standards for evaluating their own success, which can motivate efforts toward these more challenging goals (e.g., Huguet et al., 1999Huguet et al., , 2000Seta, 1982). Observing others doing well can also endow individuals with a sense of their own potential (e.g., Buunk et al., 1990;Lockwood & Kunda, 1997;Major et al., 1991), which may raise self-confidence and feelings of self-efficacy, with positive consequences on performance (see Multon et al., 1991;Schunk, 1989). ...
43rd Annual Meeting of the Behavior-Genetics-Association, Marseille, FRANCE, JUN 28-JUL 02, 2013
... Exactly why should upward comparison alter Stroop interference in the lack of these inferences? One may think that seeing, or at least thinking about others doing better than themselves conducted participants to set higher personal standards (Seta, 1982), or to identify themselves with the more successful others (Blanton, Buunk, Gibbons, & Kuyper, 1999;Collins, 1996;Huguet et al., 2001;Rijsman, 1983), which, in turn, motivated task-specific efforts. Again, however, there is ample evidence that the Stroop effect remains unchanged under heightened motivation but decreases under heightened stress (Chajut & Algom, 2003;Huguet et al., 2004). ...
This paper expands on prior research demonstrating the power of social comparison in Stroop’s paradigm. In two experiments, it is shown that the Stroop effect is reduced whenever the subject is threatened by social comparison, even in the lack of competitive instructions and comparison others during the Stroop session. These new findings show that self-related information arising from the social world can influence cognitive phenomena which are yet typically examined outside social psychology.
... ). Table 1Table 1Table 1Major et al., 1991; Seta, 1982). Gibbons & Gerrard, 1989; Gibbons & Gerrard, 1991; Wood 1989Frisby & Weigold, 1994; Frisby, 1998; Wheeler & Reis, 1991; Wheeler & Miyake, 1992Table 2Table 3 ...
One hundred and ten people were asked to participate in a two-part study on the effects of watching reality television. Each participant was asked to complete a uses and gratifications survey and then return in ten days to watch a popular reality TV program. The focus of the study is to test two hypotheses about the effects of viewing reality television: (a) reality show viewing will be positively related to social comparison gratifications and the viewers need to make comparisons with the guests and situations, (b) regular viewers will report greater affect and enhanced mood after watching a show than non-viewers. Results provided support for both hypotheses. Viewers watch reality shows because watching them allows viewers to imagine what they would do in an extreme situation and this comparison results in enhanced mood.
Social comparison theory states that comparison with others should influence an individual's behavior (Festinger, 1954; Munkes & Diehl, 2003). This is primarily due to an upward pressure: the pressure to be better than others, which according to some theories should motivate individuals to increase their level of performance (Munkes & Diehl, 2003; Rijsman, 1974). The effect of upward pressure on individual performance has been tested, but never on effort. To address this gap, we conducted a within-subject design study with N = 40 participants engaged in five-minute video games while presented with scores of a similar, slightly better, or weaker peer, with a control condition omitting the peer's score. Effort-related cardiovascular responses were recorded with initial systolic time interval (ISTI) during the game and baseline conditions. The effect of social comparison on effort was tested with a 4 (social comparison) x 5 (minutes of the tasks) repeated-measures ANOVA on ISTI reactivity. Results showed higher ISTI reactivity, interpreted as increased effort, when participants competed with similar and slightly better peers compared to a weaker peer and the control condition in the last minute of the task, confirming our expectations (Pegna et al., 2019). These results illustrate that social comparison - through its effect on upward pressure - is sufficient to elicit changes in effort-related cardiovascular response.
Online and face-to-face coactions are widely used work organization modes. This study aims to investigate the effect of social comparison direction on task performance when people coact online. A total of 40 individuals were recruited to participate in a 2 (coaction type: online and face to face) × 3 (social comparison direction: upward, downward, and no comparison) × 2 (phase: pre-comparison and post-comparison) within-subject experiment. The participants performed visual search tasks while their response time and search accuracy rates were measured. Results showed that the participants were reported to perform faster when they coacted online than face to face. The upward comparison led to a stronger social facilitation effect than the downward and no comparison directions, either in online or face-to-face coaction. These findings provide practical implications in the design of coaction modes for groups and teams working remotely.
L’objectif de cette étude était d’observer l’influence de l’intensité d’un feedback de comparaison sociale ascendante sur l’évaluation de soi et la performance motrice d’élèves français lors d’une tâche d’équilibre. L’étude s’est déroulée en deux phases. La première était consacrée à la sélection des cibles de comparaison. Les participants, 76 élèves, 31 filles et 45 garçons ( M âge = 12,7 ans), devaient mentionner le nom des élèves avec lesquels ils avaient l’habitude de se comparer en éducation physique et sportive. Trois semaines plus tard, 35 élèves garçons ( M âge = 12,8 ans) ont participé à la phase 2. Au temps 1, ils réalisaient une première performance puis remplissaient une mesure d’évaluation de soi. La semaine suivante, au temps 2, ils étaient exposés à un feedback de comparaison ascendante (modérée, CAM, performance 1 de la cible de comparaison légèrement supérieure, 30 %, versus forte, CAF, 120 %). Il leur était alors demandé une seconde évaluation de soi, une mesure de leurs attentes de réussite ainsi qu’une seconde performance sur cette même tâche. Les résultats révèlent une diminution de l’évaluation de soi suite au feedback de CAF, ce qui n’est pas le cas dans la condition CAM.
Consumers frequently compare themselves with others and find themselves to be inferior or superior to the comparison targets. This article examines the effect of social comparisons on the relative focus of self-efficacy and relationship needs and the subsequent impact on consumers’ preference for competence- versus warmth-oriented products. Across six studies, we show that upward comparisons (i.e., comparisons with superior targets) result in feelings of self-threat, which heighten the need for self-efficacy and increase the preference for products that convey competence. In contrast, downward comparisons (i.e., comparisons with inferior targets) elicit feelings of social distress, which heighten the need for social relationships and increase the preference for products that convey warmth. These effects are mitigated when the comparison is made in a social skill-related domain and when the comparison target is an out-group member.
Elite swimmers are individual athletes competing mostly on their own. However, when competing in a relay team, they are exposed to social influences possibly leading to effort gains compared to their individual performance. This study investigated effort gains in relay team members during 4 x 100 m freestyle races of Olympic Games and World Championships across the past 20 years. We assumed increasing effort gains in swimmers competing on later serial positions within their relay team since weaknesses in their performances can increasingly less be compensated by their teammates (social indispensability). Furthermore, we assumed a stronger gain in female athletes since females have been shown to be more affected by social indispensability then males. Using linear mixed modelling analyses, we additionally examined the moderating impact of the relay team outcome (i.e. medal-winning chance) on effort gains and indispensability effects while accounting for current team rankings at change-over. Except for the first swimmer, overall effort gains in relay performances were found as compared to performances in individual races during the same championship. Furthermore, these gains were close to equally distributed among both laps of the 100 m distance. However, even though effort gains are tending to be most pronounced for the last relay team swimmer we failed to detect any significant indispensability effect in our data set. Noteworthy, female swimmers showed larger effort gains when winning a medal (based on the current team rankings) was likely. In contrast, males showed effort gains irrespective of the serial order within the relay team and medal chance. Consequently, tentative recommendations are derived on how to line up a relay team.
The second edition of this popular textbook encapsulates the excitement of the fascinating and fast-moving field of social psychology. A comprehensive and lively guide, it covers general principles, classic studies and cutting-edge research. Innovative features such as 'student projects' and 'exploring further' exercises place the student experience at the heart of this book.
This blend of approaches, from critical appraisal of important studies to real-world examples, will help students to develop a solid understanding of social psychology and the confidence to apply their knowledge in assignments and exams.
Throughout 2020, our lives and communities have been turned upside down due to the challenges and disruptions surrounding COVID-19, global protests around racism and racial inequality and political polarization. All pose a direct threat to local community well-being, our wider society, and to the collective, democratic processes by which we achieve local development.
Inspired by the words of humanitarian Fred Rogers, our group of empathy researchers examine how simple and deep interactions between individuals can intentionally benefit individuals and form the foundations that build stronger communities. In this article we will: (1) Explore the importance of applied empathy to individual and community well-being; (2) explore the critical interrelationship between interaction, empathy, and positive social development/change; and (3) provide a framework for maximizing empathy and interaction in both responses to the immediate crises and in the longer-term process of community building.
A criatividade vem se destacando cada vez mais como uma característica imprescindível para equipes e indivíduos nos atuais ambientes de trabalho das empresas. Este artigo discute as principais dificuldades e obstáculos ao desenvolvimento da criatividade nas equipes de trabalho. Ao mesmo tempo, propõe diversas estratégias para superar tais obstáculos e desenvolver as condições para que as equipes, em vez de dificultarem a criatividade individual, a estimulem.
Many firms are now using referral reward programs (RRPs) to harness the power of word of mouth and to increase referrals to acquire new customers. However, a persistent problem is that rewards are not always effective. By applying Regulatory Fit theory, to understand how to sustain goal orientation (promotion or prevention) and stimulate word-of-mouth through a match with the message frame, this study demonstrates that the presentation style marketers adopt influences consumers' perceptions of reward value. One laboratory study demonstrates that fit effects result from the interaction between presentation format of reward (i.e., Gain vs. Loss) and regulatory focus and affect referral likelihood. In turn, the findings demonstrate that RRP efficacy can be enhanced by stimulating regulatory orientations that match the presentation formats of the reward.
We propose a novel approach to the analysis of organizations by developing a computerized platform that reproduces relevant features of existing organizations such as real-effort tasks and real-leisure alternative activities (Internet). In this environment, we find strong incentives effects as organizations using individual incentives significantly outperform those relying on team incentives. Combining real-time peer monitoring with team incentives, we report striking evidence of positive peer effects as production increases by 50% and Internet usage decreases by 54% compared with organizations using team incentives alone. Peer monitoring allows virtual organizations using team incentives to perform as well as those using individual incentives. However, the positive effect of peer monitoring does not apply to low performers.
Hypotheses about the preference for opponents in competitive situations, about performance under various win-loss ratios, and about task and opponent satisfaction under various win-loss ratios were tested. A 5 × 5 latin square with four replications and a repeated measure factor of trials was the design used with 20 female college students as subjects. The five different win percents were W10, W30, W50, W70, and W90. A manipulative maze task was used with subjects receiving 20 trials against each of five confederate opponents. Results indicated that (a) when a person knows little or nothing about her ability level she initially prefers to compete with opponents of low ability but with each subsequent contest opponents of higher ability levels are preferred; (b) subjects performed better in the W50 condition; (c) task satisfaction is higher when the percent of wins is equal to or greater than the percent of losses; and (d) opponent satisfaction is greater for opponents who perform equal to or better than the subject.
An account of an experiment in competitive consciousness in seventeen individuals. Work was done under noncompetitive and competitive conditions with introspective accounts obtained in various ways. Certain conclusions were established. "Competition on a task begins with an adjustment period and in most cases the competitive spirit rises during the period of adjustment. Competition with the group at large is less frequent than competition with a particular individual, and autocompetition plays a large part in the competitive efforts of all subjects. The consciousness of competitive effort is rather in the nature of a recognized attitude than an immediate awareness. Elements of the competitive attitude sometimes carry over into noncompetitive periods of work, but there are no objective indications of a rise in productivity corresponding to this persistence. The subject-matter of consciousness during competition includes irrelevant ideas, awareness of autocompetitive effort, and sociocompetitive references. The proportion of irrelevant ideas is higher in competition than in noncompetition. A social situation relieves the boredom of a simple task oft repeated, and in competition the 'game' element is responsible for some of this relief. About as many subjects indicate a preference for noncompetitive as for competitive work. There is some evidence that most subjects undergo physiological changes leading to a rise in blood pressure, probably attributable to an emotional element of excitement, during period of competition." From Psych Bulletin 23:08:00330. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
The movement, now developing, to subject the theories of social psychology to the searching analysis of experimental procedure has its practical as well as its purely methodological importance. The problem of the effect of competition on the productivity and peace of mind of the worker is one that has heretofore provoked wide discussion but little empirical investigation. The present study seeks to discover by experimental means the influence of rivalry on the performance of a simple task resembling a factory operation and involving both menial and motor capacities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)