Social comparison direction l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 13

Social Comparison Direction PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 83 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Upward social comparison- compare to someone who is better than you. Downward social comparison- compare to someone who is worse than you. Social Comparison Direction. Contrast.

Download Presentation

Social Comparison Direction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Social comparison direction l.jpg

Upward social comparison- compare to someone who is better than you.

Downward social comparison- compare to someone who is worse than you.

Social Comparison Direction


Contrast l.jpg

Contrast

  • Contrast effect – self is contrasted to the target of comparison and thus self-evaluations move away from the target.


Contrast effect results l.jpg

Upward social comparison- compare to someone who is better than you.

Downward social comparison- compare to someone who is worse than you.

Contrast Effect Results

Feel worse

Feel better


Assimilation effects l.jpg

Assimilation effects

  • Assimilation effect- Self-evaluations move towards the target of comparison.


Assimilation effect results l.jpg

Upward social comparison- compare to someone who is better than you.

Downward social comparison- compare to someone who is worse than you.

Assimilation Effect Results

Feel better

Feel worse


Predicting contrast vs assimilation l.jpg

Predicting Contrast vs. Assimilation

Tesser’s Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model

Results depend on:

  • Psychological closeness

  • Relevance of the dimension


Self evaluation maintenance l.jpg

Self-Evaluation Maintenance

Ratings of Positivity in Perception


Predicting assimilation vs contrast l.jpg

Predicting Assimilation vs. Contrast

Lockwood & Kunda (1997)

Results depend on:

  • Relevance

  • Attainability


Lockwood kunda 1997 l.jpg

Lockwood & Kunda (1997)


Automaticity l.jpg

Automaticity

Automatic processes are well learned and require little or no conscious attention.

Is social comparison an automatic process?

If so, people should be able to compare even under cognitive load.


Gilbert et al 1995 l.jpg

Gilbert et al. (1995)

  • Schizophrenia detection task

  • First watched confederate perform well (16/18) or poorly (4/18)

  • But confederate was deliberately trained or misinformed, so the comparison is non-diagnostic.

  • Half of the participants are under cognitive load.

  • All participants took test and got 10/18


Gilbert s theory l.jpg

Gilbert’s theory

No Cognitive load:

Correction:

Comparison is

non-diagnostic

Compare to

confederate

No effect

On self-evaluation

Cognitive load:

Unable to

correct

Effect on

Self-evaluation

Compare to

confederate


Gilbert et al 199513 l.jpg

Gilbert et al. (1995)

Results (self-evaluations of performance)

Not busy: No significant effect of comparison direction.

Busy: Significant contrast effect.


  • Login