Other factors determining the choice of a comparison other

Arrowood, A. John; Friend, Ronald

doi:10.1016/0022-1031(69)90049-3

Cited by 33 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The closeness and identi®cation ®ndings provide further evidence that participants did not nominate their comparison targets at random. All these observations are consistent with previous ®ndings indicating that people often prefer comparisons with people who are performing slightly better than themselves (Arrowood & Friend, 1969;Gruder, 1971;Nosanchuk & Erickson, 1985;Suls & Tesch, 1978;Wheeler, 1966;Wilson & Benner, 1971;Ybema & Buunk, 1993) and with whom they share a meaningful identity or a close emotional bond (e.g. Miller, 1984;Miller, Turnbull, & McFarland, 1988).…”

supporting

confidence: 89%

Social comparison choices in the classroom: further evidence for students' upward comparison tendency and its beneficial impact on performance

Huguet

Dumas

Monteil

et al. 2001

Euro J Social Psych

178

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Blanton and colleagues (1999) found that children who nominated a comparison-target in several courses chose same-sex students who slightly outperformed them in class. This had a bene®cial effect on children's course grades, which were also independently predicted by comparative evaluation (i.e. how the children evaluated their relative standing in class). These phenomena were examined at two time periods with a more detailed record of comparison choices while including several psychological moderators (i.e. closeness to and identi®cation with the comparison targets, perceived academic control, importance of academic domains). The present ®ndings (1) replicate those found earlier by Blanton and colleagues, (2) offer evidence that children compare upward with close friends with whom they identify as a means of self-improvement, (3) show that this identi®cation is more likely to occur when children perceive control over their standing relative to the comparison target, and (4) suggest that the effects of comparison-level choice (i.e. the level typical of the persons with whom one chooses to compare) diminish over time.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 89%

Social comparison choices in the classroom: further evidence for students' upward comparison tendency and its beneficial impact on performance

Huguet

Dumas

Monteil

et al. 2001

Euro J Social Psych

178

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, individuals may misperceive the opportunity structure because it is in their best interests to do so. Such positive illusions are consistent with individuals' tendency to make upward social comparisons with highachieving others (Arrowood & Friend, 1969;Festinger, 1954;Gruder, 1971). In the Chinoy (1955), Goldner (1970), and Rosenbaum (1984) studies cited above, employees perceived more favorable opportunities than actually existed.…”

Section: Perceptions Of the Opportunity Structuresupporting

confidence: 55%

Organizational Demography and Individual Careers: Structure, Norms, and Outcomes

Lawrence¹,

Tolbert²

2007

Handbook of Career Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As was noted earlier, many rankorder studies demonstrate that people tend to compare themselves with others whose scores are better than their own (Arrowood & Friend, 1969;Friend & Gilbert, 1973;Gruder, 1971;Samuel, 1973;Suls & Tesch, 1978;Thornton & Arrowood, 1966;Wheeler et al, 1969;Wheeler & Koestner, 1984). When comparing themselves with the extremes of the dimension, their first choice is the most positive extreme rather than the most negative (e.g.,, Arrowood & Friend, 1969), and even when they compare themselves with similar others, they compare themselves with those who are close but "above" them in the rank order rather than "below" them (e.g., Wheeler et al, 1969). Apparently, individuals are more interested in assessing how they stand in relation to superior others rather than to inferior others (Nosanchuk & Erickson, 1985;Seta, 1982).…”

Section: Target Selections Along the Dimension Under Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Extremely different others may exemplify the characteristic under evaluation, which may be particularly useful when one is unfamiliar with the dimension under evaluation (Arrowood & Friend, 1969;Thornton & Arrowood, 1966). For example, a young girl seeking to understand what extroversion is may look to an extremely outgoing friend and to an extremely timid friend.…”

Section: Target Selections Along the Dimension Under Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes.

Wood

1989

Psychological Bulletin

1,612

1,292

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social comparison theory has evolved considerably since Festinger (1954) originally proposed it. This article integrates these changes with insights offered by recent social comparison studies and by research on social cognition and the self. Contrary to the original theory or subsequent research, (a) the individual is not always an unbiased self-evaluator but may seek many goals through social comparison; (b) the social environment may not be inactive but may impose unwanted comparisons; and (c) the comparison process involves more than selecting a comparison target: It is bidirectional, rather than unidirectional, and it may adopt a variety of forms to meet the individual's goals. Research involving comparisons of personal attributes illustrates these principles.The author is grateful to several people who provided very helpful critiques of previous drafts of this article:

show abstract

Other factors determining the choice of a comparison other

Cited by 33 publications

References 4 publications

Social comparison choices in the classroom: further evidence for students' upward comparison tendency and its beneficial impact on performance

Social comparison choices in the classroom: further evidence for students' upward comparison tendency and its beneficial impact on performance

Organizational Demography and Individual Careers: Structure, Norms, and Outcomes

Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About