In 5 studies, the authors investigate the impact of self-activation on the occurrence and direction of social comparison effects. They show that self-evaluative comparison effects are more likely to occur when self-related cognitions are made cognitively accessible. Contrast occurs when personal self-construals ("I") are accessible, whereas assimilation occurs when social self-construals ("we") are activated. These effects of self-construal activation are similar to the impact of self-unrelated information processing styles that are often associated with personal and social self-accessibility (i.e., differentiation and integration mind-sets). However, whereas self-construal activation elicits self-serving social comparisons, activation of self-unrelated processing styles results in non-self-serving social comparison effects. Implications of these results for understanding the cognitive processes underlying social comparison effects are discussed.

Research on automatic behavior demonstrates the ability of stereotypes to elicit stereotype-consistent behavior. Social judgment research proposes that whereas traits and stereotypes elicit assimilation, priming of exemplars can elicit judgmental contrast by evoking social comparisons. This research extends these findings by showing that priming exemplars can elicit behavioral contrast by evoking a social comparison. In Study 1, priming professor or supermodel stereotypes led, respectively, to more and fewer correct answers on a knowledge test (behavioral assimilation), but priming exemplars of these categories led to the reverse pattern (behavioral contrast). In Study 2, participants walked away faster after being primed with an elderly exemplar. In Study 3, the proposition that contrast effects reflect comparisons of the self with the exemplar was supported.

No abstract

The authors postulate that the outcome of social comparison processes is determined by the role social comparison information serves during the self-evaluation process. Assimilation is more likely in situations that instigate the inclusion of social comparison information in self-representations. Contrast is the more probable outcome when information about another person is used as a reference point for self-judgments. Whether comparison information instigates interpretation or comparison effects depends on the distinctness of this information as well as the perceived mutability of the self. The authors found support for their perspective using different types of manipulations of the distinctness construct, treating self-mutability as a contextual as well as an individual-difference variable, and measuring the effects of social comparisons on measures likely to reveal both assimilation and contrast effects (self-evaluative judgments and behavioral predictions), assimilation effects only (mood measures), and motivational self-repair effects (importance ratings of the focal comparison dimension).

In a series of suboptimal priming studies, it was shown that both affective and nonaffective reactions to a stimulus may occur without awareness. Moreover, it was demonstrated that affective information is detected earlier than nonaffective information. Therefore, early reactions to an affect-laden stimulus (e.g., a smiling man) are cognitively unappraised and thus diffuse (e.g., "positive"), whereas later affective reactions can be more specific and distinct (e.g., "a smiling man"). Through variations of prime exposure (extremely short, moderately short) the impact of early diffuse and late distinct affect on judgment was investigated. Findings show that distinctness (and prime-target similarity) is an essential determinant of whether the effect of affect is null, assimilation, or contrast. Furthermore, whether affect priming activates diffuse or distinct reactions is a matter of a fraction of seconds.

No abstract

Four studies were conducted to test the notion that whether one competes against or cooperates with a comparison target can serve as an important determinant of the direction (contrast or assimilation) of self-evaluative social comparison effects. In Study 1, cooperative-competitive orientation was treated as an individual difference variable, and it was shown that social comparison led to contrast for individuals with a more competitive orientation, whereas assimilation occurred for individuals with a more cooperative orientation. Study 2 replicated this result, treating cooperative-competitive orientation as a contextual variable. In Study 3, it was demonstrated that to obtain this pattern of results it is not necessary for perceivers to believe that they will be either competing or cooperating with the comparison target. Simply activating the relevant concepts is sufficient. The final studies demonstrated that competition activates a "difference" focus and cooperation activates a "similarity" focus.

In a series of 4 studies, the inferential scope of assimilative knowledge accessibility effects was investigated. Evidence was found for the hypothesis that both the breadth and evaluative extremity of activated knowledge affect the range of evaluative inferences made during the interpretation of ambiguous targets. The scope of knowledge accessibility effects was larger when broad and extreme traits were primed than when narrow and moderate traits were primed. The contribution of the extremity component to this effect was stronger than the impact of the breadth component. Furthermore, the authors demonstrated that descriptive overlap between priming and target stimuli is not a necessary precondition for such interpretation effects to occur. Descriptive inapplicability may be compensated for when priming stimuli are sufficiently broad or extreme. Imagine that during lunch an acquaintance of yours, Olivia, tells you about her new lover, John: "John spends a great amount of his time in search of what he likes to call excitement. He has climbed Mt. McKinley, shot the Colorado rapids in a kayak, and driven in a demolition derby. Now John is in search for new excitement and is thinking perhaps he will do some skydiving or maybe cross the Atlantic in a solo-sailboat" (cf. Higgins, Rholes, & Jones, 1977). Will you think that John is an adventurous person who has a great sense of fun, or is he better portrayed as being reckless and acting without thinking of the consequences? Moreover, which other characteristics would you infer? Would you be able to say whether John is more likely to be an intelligent than a stupid person? Do you like or dislike John? Scope of Knowledge Accessibility Effects In this article, we try to answer these questions concerning the impact of knowledge accessibility on interpretation and inference processes. Research on knowledge accessibility effects has demonstrated that the unobtrusive activation of abstract constructs, such as "careless" in the John example given above, may direct the disambiguation of target behaviors and thus lead to assimilative target interpretations (e.g., John is reckless; see Higgins, 1996). Furthermore, Wyer and his colleagues (see Wyer & Srull, 1989