Evaluating a sex-related ability: Comparison with same-, opposite-, and combined-sex norms

Suls, Jerry; Gaes, Gerald G.; Gastorf, John W.

doi:10.1016/0092-6566(79)90020-5

Cited by 72 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Social comparison, even via media, is far more likely when targets are similar to the self, whether by age, sex, or other dimensions of identity (Festinger, 1954;Knobloch-Westerwick & Hastall, 2006Suls, Gaes, & Gastorf, 1979;Zanna, Goethals, & Hills, 1975). As existing knowledge of friends' qualities and characteristics could facilitate the ease of making the desirable comparisons, social media are well situated for social comparison phenomena (KnoblochWesterwick & Westerwick, 2011).…”

Section: Social Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 98%

Glancing up or down: Mood management and selective social comparisons on social networking sites

Johnson

Knobloch‐Westerwick

2014

Computers in Human Behavior

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Social Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 98%

Glancing up or down: Mood management and selective social comparisons on social networking sites

Johnson

Knobloch‐Westerwick

2014

Computers in Human Behavior

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Researchers emphasizing the similarity approach argue that many comparison level studies, including those cited above, are flawed because they do not make the referents' sex salient (Miller 1984, Suls et al 1979). In studies that include both same-gender and higher-level comparisons, researchers have found support for the similarity approach.…”

Section: Gender Composition and Level Of Career Referentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Women's and Men's Career Referents: How Gender Composition and Comparison Level Shape Career Expectations

Gibson

Lawrence

2010

Organization Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines how women's and men's career referents—the people they see as having similar careers—affect career expectations. We raise two questions. First, what is the relative effect of the gender composition and comparison level of career referents on such expectations? Second, what happens to career expectations when women and men identify career referents at the same comparison level? Current research suggests that women have lower career expectations than men because they compare themselves with women who hold lower-level positions than the career referents identified by men. Thus, if women and men identify with career referents at a similar level, their career expectations should be equal. However, this chain of reasoning has not been tested. Using data collected from a large organization, we identify both the specific individuals that women and men perceive as having similar careers and these referents' career levels, defined as their hierarchical level in the firm. The results show that the level of career referents is more important than their gender composition in explaining individuals' career expectations. In contrast to extant explanations, the results show that even when women identify career referents at the same levels as men do, they still exhibit significantly lower career expectations. Drawing on social comparison theory, we speculate that this occurs because men's expectations are bolstered by extreme upward comparisons, whereas women's expectations are dampened, perhaps because they see high-achieving others as representing a less probable goal.

show abstract

“…Third, Study 2 tested whether self-worth, the most widely studied predictor and moderator of social comparison experiences (Wheeler, 2000), would predict or moderate the effects of personalized comparisons as well. Fourth, people tend to choose targets of the same gender (e.g., Felicio & Miller, 1994;Suls, Gaes, & Gastorf, 1979) and with whom they share uncommon versus common attributes (Miller et al, 1988); Study 2 tested if these predictors of comparison target also would predict comparison focus.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Personalized and Generalized Comparisons: Causes and Consequences of Variations in the Focus of Social Comparisons

Locke

2007

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When people compare with another person they can focus on how they compare either with just that target (a personalized comparison) or with others more generally (a generalized comparison). Four studies (two event-contingent diary studies, one study of comparisons during a triathlon, and one controlled experiment) showed that personalized comparisons were more likely when the target’s attribute was distinctive or there was an interaction or a close or emotional relationship with the target. Perhaps because these conditions that increase interest in the target as a distinct individual were less common during the triathlon than in everyday life, personalized comparisons were relatively uncommon during the triathlon but relatively common in everyday life. Across studies, generalized comparisons magnified the impact of upward comparisons on overall feelings (but not on interpersonal feelings about the self-target relationship), presumably because generalizing broadens the implications of comparisons, whereas personalizing restricts their relevance to the self-target relationship.

show abstract

Evaluating a sex-related ability: Comparison with same-, opposite-, and combined-sex norms

Cited by 72 publications

References 10 publications

Glancing up or down: Mood management and selective social comparisons on social networking sites

Glancing up or down: Mood management and selective social comparisons on social networking sites

Women's and Men's Career Referents: How Gender Composition and Comparison Level Shape Career Expectations

Personalized and Generalized Comparisons: Causes and Consequences of Variations in the Focus of Social Comparisons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About