Performance Evaluation Via Social Comparison: Performance Similarity Versus Related-Attribute Similarity

Gastorf, John W.; Suls, Jerry

doi:10.2307/3033582

Cited by 65 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although objective standards may provide unbiased information, people often seek and are influenced by information obtained from social sources (Wood 1989;Wood and Wilson 2003). Moreover, information from social sources is often more consequential for the self than objective information (Gastorf and Suls 1978;Klein 1997;Marsh and Parker 1984). In our context, social information refers to pricing information specific to the performance of another consumer, whereas objective information involves pricing information not reflective of another's performance.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Comparison Theory and Deception in the Interpersonal Exchange of Consumption Information

Argo¹,

White²,

Dahl³

2006

J CONSUM RES

175

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments demonstrate that self-threatening social comparison information motivates consumers to lie. Factors related to self-threat, including relevance of the social comparison target (i.e., the importance of the comparison person), comparison discrepancy (i.e., the magnitude of the performance difference), comparison direction (i.e., whether one performs better or worse), nature of the information (i.e., whether the comparison is social or objective), and perceived attainability (i.e., the possibility of achieving the compared performance), influenced consumers' willingness to engage in deception. Results extend social comparison theory by demonstrating that comparisons that threaten public and private selves have implications for lying behaviors. (c) 2006 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

show abstract

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Comparison Theory and Deception in the Interpersonal Exchange of Consumption Information

Argo¹,

White²,

Dahl³

2006

J CONSUM RES

175

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, studies relying on self‐report showed that upward comparison leads to less pleasure and more dissatisfaction than downward comparison (Gastorf & Suls, 1978; Pleban & Tesser, 1981; Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & LaPrelle, 1985). More generally, studies relying on self‐report found that upward comparison induces more negative affects than downward comparison (e.g., Kulik & Gump, 1997; Major, Sciacchitano, & Crocker, 1993; Testa & Major, 1990; Tyler & Feldman, 2005) as well as more negative affects than lateral comparison (i.e., the target has the same performance; Kulik & Gump, 1997).…”

Section: Effects Of Self‐threatening Social Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Being Exposed to Superior Others: Consequences of Self-Threatening Upward Social Comparisons

Michelet

Fayant

2010

Social and Personality Psychology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Being inferior to someone else can be hurtful. But what exactly happens when we found ourselves in such situations? We first address why and when upward comparison can be self‐threatening and later review the effects of such threatening social comparison. We argue that two main kinds of disturbances can ensue: affective disturbances and attentional disturbances. Second, three ways to deal with self‐threatening social comparison are reviewed: proactive regulation, defensive regulation, and regulation by avoidance. For each of these disturbances and regulation modes, we review empirical findings and later discuss the impact of upward comparison on performance. We conclude by going back to the very need behind the need for a positive evaluation.

show abstract

“…Moreover, research has shown that both the likelihood of comparisons being made and their impact on the self depend on the perceived similarity between a person and a comparison other. Social comparisons that involve someone similar are both more likely and have more impact than social comparisons that involve someone less similar (Gastorf & Suls, 1978;Goethals & Darley, 1977;Lockwood & Kunda, 1997; misfortune. Moreover, a cover story masked the true purpose of these studies.…”

Section: Targets Of Schadenfreudementioning

confidence: 99%

When people fall from grace: Reconsidering the role of envy in schadenfreude.

Dijk

Ouwerkerk

Goslinga

et al. 2006

Emotion

180

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research yielded conflicting results concerning the role of envy in predicting Schadenfreude (pleasure at another's misfortune). Some studies showed that envy predicts Schadenfreude, whereas others did not. Results of the present research reconcile these opposing findings, by showing that envy is a predictor of Schadenfreude when the target is similar to the observer in terms of gender. These results suggest that envy predicts Schadenfreude when people are confronted with the misfortune of a relevant social comparison other.

show abstract

Performance Evaluation Via Social Comparison: Performance Similarity Versus Related-Attribute Similarity

Cited by 65 publications

References 10 publications

Social Comparison Theory and Deception in the Interpersonal Exchange of Consumption Information

Social Comparison Theory and Deception in the Interpersonal Exchange of Consumption Information

On Being Exposed to Superior Others: Consequences of Self-Threatening Upward Social Comparisons

When people fall from grace: Reconsidering the role of envy in schadenfreude.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About