jbryson@anselm.edu
Social Comparison & Self- Esteem
Jessica Bryson
Experimental Psychology II
St. Anselm College
Key Words:
Social Comparison, Self- Esteem, Leon Festinger, Task Importance, Downward
Comparisons, Exaggerating Another's Ability, & Distancing Oneself.
| Abstract | Results | References |
| Introduction | Discussion | Relevant Links |
| Method |
Abstract
The purpose
of this study is to see if engaging in social comparison affects one’s
self- esteem. Four different dependent variables are of focus for
the purpose of this study. The dependent variables being measured
are task importance, exaggerating another’s ability on a certain task,
engaging in downward comparisons, and looking to see if one distances himself
or herself with the compared person. There were approximately forty-
five college students who participated in this study. Each participant
was randomly assigned to a condition. Condition one was the participant
had high value to the person and the situation. In condition two
the participants had high value to person and low importance to the situation.
Additionally, in condition three participants had low value towards the
person and high importance of the situation. Finally, in condition
four, participants experienced no value towards the person or the situation.
For each condition, there was a scenario that the participant had to imagine
him or herself in, and then answer ten questions related to the scenario.
After that every participant took the Rosenberg Self- Esteem Test.
Once all of the data was gathered, an Analysis of Variance was conducted.
There was a significant main effect found for condition and self- esteem
in all but one dependent variable. For the dependent variable of
distancing oneself from another, there were no significant main effects
found. This was unexpected and not consistent with the hypothesis.
On the contrary, the significant main effects found for task importance,
exaggerating another’s ability, and downward comparisons all were expected
and consistent with the hypothesis. Furthermore, a Pearson Moment Correlation
was conducted for each dependent variable and self- esteem. As expected
there was a significant correlation between self- esteem and task importance
in condition three and exaggerating another’s ability in condition one.
Although, not expected there was no significant correlation between anything
in conditions two and four.
Back To Menu
Social comparison
theory is a theory that says people evaluate their thoughts and actions
by comparing themselves to other people. Furthermore, when people
evaluate their accomplishments with people close to themselves, and they
are outperformed, that person’s self- esteem suffers (Giordano, Wood, Michela,
2000). Self- esteem is an evaluation of one’s self- concept (Franzoi,
2000). So when one engages in social comparison, which means they
are evaluating their own self- concept, it is reasonable to say it may
have an affect on one’s self- esteem. Furthermore, the self- concept
is all of a person’s thoughts and feelings that defines the self as an
object (Franzoi, 2000). People compare themselves on many different
aspects of their life. A few examples are, appearance, talents/ abilities,
academic ability, and even athletic ability.
For the
purpose of this study, the focus will be on how social comparisons affect
one’s self- esteem. The specific areas of interest are in the ways
that the self- esteem is affected and how the person will react to the
engagement of the comparisons. The designated reactions that will
be of focus are if the person exaggerates the ability of the person they
are comparing with (seeing that person as truly outstanding and themselves
as average) (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1993), comparing with those people
who are less capable than themselves (referred to as a downward comparison)(Aspinwall
& Taylor, 1993, also after a person compares themselves with someone
else who has outperformed them they may tend to distance themselves from
that person, or group (Testa & Major, 1990), and/or will they change
their beliefs so that the task is no longer important to the self- concept(Buunk,
Collins, Taylor, VanYperen & Dakof, 1990). The purpose of this research
is to prove the reactions to these various comparisons. The research
hopes to demonstrate that one will exaggerate the abilities of others,
look at downward comparisons, discover if one really will distance themselves
from the person he/ she compared his/ herself to, or if the task is no
longer relevant to the self- concept. The first reaction is to see
if the person exaggerated the ability of another person to whom they are
comparing themselves. Which, in turn, means will the comparer see themselves
as average to the person they are comparing themselves to, or will they
think that the other person’s abilities are truly outstanding. This
is what the boyfriend, from the earlier example, did with his girlfriend.
If one used an upward comparison technique than it may be uplifting, because
they provide the comparer with the information, that such achievements
are within reach for him/ her (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1993). In
research conducted by Aspinwall & Taylor, 1993, studies suggest that
comparisons are more meaningful when the comparer is similar to the target
on dimensions related to that under evaluation. Consistent with the
previous research, Gibbons & Gerrard, 1994, conducted a study and found
that people will cease comparing with an individual whose performance level
is clearly superior to their own. The primary reason that they give
is because such comparisons are not very useful in terms of satisfying
what he/ she saw as the main goal of the social comparison process (Gibbons
& Gerrard, 1994).
The next
reaction is comparing with those people who are less capable than themselves
(which is referred to as a downward comparison) (Aspinwall & Taylor,
1993). Many people have a natural and strong tendency to compare
themselves unfavorably with others (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1993).
Furthermore, a study done by Wheeler & Miyake, 1992, found that favorable
thoughts about the self are more likely to be numerous, as well as more
accessible for people with high self- esteem than for people with low self-
esteem. Likewise, unfavorable thoughts about the self are likely
to be especially numerous and accessible for people with low self- esteem
(Wheeler & Miyake, 1992). Hence, when making comparisons, the
natural tendency of people with high self- esteem may be to focus on their
own superiority and to make downward comparisons (Wheeler & Miyake,
1992). Moreover, the natural tendency for people with low self- esteem
may be to focus on others’ superiority, which is to make an upward comparison
(Wheeler & Miyake, 1992). On the contrary, Dodgson & Wood,
1998, found that people who are depressed or low in self- esteem are especially
likely to make downward comparisons because they are the most in need of
self- enhancement. Self- enhancement is the process of seeking out
and interpreting situations as to attain a positive view of oneself (Dodgson
& Wood, 1998). Additionally, people who are happy or high in
self- esteem are especially likely to seek downward comparisons (Dodgson
& Wood, 1998). Empirical evidence concerning whether high or
low self- esteem people are more likely to make downward comparisons has
yielded a very mixed, confusing picture (Wood & Lockwood, 1999).
For the purpose of this study, the prediction is that people with high
and low self- esteem will engage in downward comparisons.
The next
reaction that will be explored for purpose of this research is that after
a person compares themselves with someone else who has outperformed them,
they may tend to distance themselves from that person (Testa & Major,
1990). In research conducted by Doosje, Ellemers & Spears, 1995,
they demonstrated that responses to group identity threat differed depending
on the person’s prior level of in- group identification. Additionally,
low identifiers are more disposed to individual- level responses, dissociating
themselves from the in- group, whereas high identifiers are more likely
to display a group- level reaction, or sticking together, when their group
is threatened (Doosje, Ellemers & Spears, 1995).
The final reaction
is that one will they change their beliefs so that the task is no longer
important to the self- concept (Buunk, Collins, Taylor, VanYperen &
Dakof, 1990). Moreover, especially if the task requires hard work,
is very challenging, or if it was forced the task will no longer hold value
towards one’s self- concept (Buunk, Collins, Taylor, VanYperen & Dakof,
1990). In a more recent study done by, Banaji & Prentice, 1994,
found that people feel ostracized or rejected experience negative reactions
and may no longer hold the specific task in importance. Furthermore,
people with high self- esteem apparently do experience a reduction in feelings
when ostracized or rejected, but their self- esteem does not suffer to
a point that they feel that rejection (Banaji & Prentice, 1994).
In other words, one could infer that someone with high self- esteem might
still hold the task as important. The opposite effect happens for
people with low self- esteem. Someone with low self- esteem, who
feels rejection or feels ostracized, may experience an even lower drop
in his or her self- esteem (Banaji & Prentice, 1994).
Leon Festinger’s Research
One of
the first people to look at this social comparison theory was Leon Festinger
(1954). He proposed that the theory apply to the appraisal and evaluation
of abilities as well as opinions. He thought that a person’s opinions
and beliefs about the situation in which that person exists and that person’s
appraisals of what he/she is capable of doing (his/her evaluation of their
abilities) will together have an effect on his/ her behaviors. He also
commented on that if there were no social means available, people would
evaluate their opinions and abilities by the opinions and abilities of
others. Another finding of Festinger was that a person does not tend
to evaluate his/her opinions or his/her abilities by comparison with others
who are too divergent from him/ herself. Festinger also states that
the stronger a person has an attraction to a certain group the stronger
there will be a pressure toward uniformity concerning abilities and opinions
within that group (Festinger, 1954). More recent research, states
that people use social comparisons not only to evaluate their opinions
and abilities, but also to manage emotions and to maintain self- esteem
(Aspinwall & Taylor, 1993). Research has shown that the ideal
and preferred comparison target for a stable, accurate self- evaluation
is a similar other doing slightly better than the self (Aspinwall &
Taylor, 1993).
Revisions To Festinger’s Theory
Over the
years, Festinger’s theory has undergone a number of revisions and extensions.
In particular, new domains of comparison have been proposed (e.g., emotions
and values) (Wood, 1989). Moreover, despite these revisions, fundamental
aspects of Festinger’s original conception have remained intact.
These include that another person’s similarity to oneself (however defined)
is a crucial parameter of social comparison.
Social Comparison & Self-Esteem
People with
low self-esteem may use more esteem bolstering strategies, because they
need them more. Whereas, people with high self-esteem may do so,
and that may be precisely why they are high in self-esteem. Research
supports each position, although the weight of evidence presently favors
the view that high-self-esteem people are more likely to engage in self-enhancement
(DeCremer, 2001). Specifically, people with high self-esteem seek self-enhancement.
They seek ways of drawing attention to their skills and talents.
Furthermore, they are bold people, willing to take risks to achieve gains
for their self-esteem (Josephs, Larrick, Steele, & Nisbett, 1992).
In contrast, people with low self-esteem aim for self-protection, and they
“focus not on their good points but on trying to minimize their weakness”
(Schlenker, Weigold, & Hallam, 1990). Since, their main goal
is to avoid exposing their unfavorable characteristics, they steer clear
of challenges that may bring rewards, but that also carry the risk of revealing
their flaws. This view of the cautious, self-protective, low-self-esteem
person is growing, as is supportive evidence (Tice, 1991).
Back To Menu
Methods
Participants
The participants from this study
are from one population. They are freshman, sophomore, junior and
senior students from a small Liberal Arts college in the Northeast.
The students ages range from 18- 20, which means that no parental consent
will be needed, because they are all of legal age. Most of the students
are enrolled in an introductory psychology course. They are participating
in this experiment as a requirement for course credit in the psychology
course. The other students that participated were just interested
in this study and volunteered to be in the experiment. The participants
are predominately white and are from middle to upper class families.
Approximately twenty-two females participated and approximately twenty-three
males participated in this experiment.
Materials
Each participant was given
a social comparison situation, and asked to answer questions pertaining
to the certain situation. There were four conditions and participants
were randomly assigned to a different condition. Each situation asked
the participant to imagine themselves on a basketball team, and then imagine
themselves in the circumstances that were present in their particular condition.
Condition 1 was a person had high connection to the person in the situation
and high connection to the situation itself. Condition 2 was that
a person held high value of to the person in the situation, but low connection
to the situation. Condition 3 was that the person held low value
towards the person and high value in the situation. Finally, condition
four presented the person had low value for the person and the situation.
Furthermore, there were ten questions that each participant had to answer
pertaining to their specific situation, and it was based on a five point
likert scale. The range was from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
The next measurement was
a self- esteem scale. Dr.Rosenberg created the scale used in the
1960s. The scale generally has high reliability; test- retest correlations
are typically in the range of .82 to .88. Furthermore, the Cronbach’s
alpha for various samples are in the range of .77 to .88. Studies
have demonstrated both a unidimensional and a two- factor (self- confidence
and self- deprecation) structure to the scale. It is a ten item questionnaire,
and are answered on a four point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. To score the items for questions 1,2,4,6, and 7, it is
strongly agree= three, agree two, disagree= one, and strongly disagree
zero. To score items 3,5,8,9,and 10, it is strongly agree zero, agree
one, disagree two, and strongly disagree three.
Procedure
Each participant was handed
a brief description of what they study was and what they will be doing
if they choose to participate in the study. Then after reading that
they filled out an informed consent form if they choose to participate
in the study.
Each participant was randomly
assigned to one of the four conditions. They had to read the brief
background information and then imagine themselves in the situation that
was presented for the condition they were assigned.
The participants
answered ten questions about those situations from strongly agree to strongly
disagree.
After they finished the condition
questionnaire, they were asked to fill out the self- esteem scale. When
the participant was done with this part of the experiment, they were asked
to raise their hand and the researcher handed out the feedback to them.
Back To Menu
Results
Social comparison
and self- esteem scores were computed by adding up the responses for each
measure given by each participant. Each social comparison situation
had ten associated questions. There sets of ten made up the four main dependent
measures asked, with respondents answering these on a five point likert
scale ( From 1= Strongly agree to 5= Strongly disagree). The four
main dependant variables are one’s tendency to exaggerate someone else’s
ability, the tendency to compare with those who are less capable (downward
comparison), to see if the task in the situation remained important, and
to see if the participant would distance themselves from the compared person.
The self- esteem score was based on the ten question Rosenberg Question
Scale answered on a four point likert scale ( From 1= Strongly agree to
4= Strongly disagree). Then items 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 were all scored.
Strongly agree was three points, agree was two points, disagree was one
point and strongly disagree was zero points. Then items 3, 5, 8,
9, and 10 were scored. Strongly agreed was zero points, agree was
one point, disagree was two points, and strongly disagree was three points.
Then all of the points that one earned on each item was added up, and that
was the participant overall self- esteem score. The scale ranges
from 30, with higher numbers indicating greater self- esteem.
After computing
the overall scores on each dependent measure for each participant, a one-
way Analysis of Variance was conducted across the four social comparison
situations on each dependent variable. As expected there was a significant
main effect for condition and a main effect for self- esteem for the dependent
variables of task importance. Furthermore, when looking at the dependant
variable of task importance the significance for condition was F (3, 31)=
9.44, p< .0. While measuring the same dependant variable, self-
esteem was also significant at F(2, 31)= 5.31, p< .001.
The means for this measure show, in condition one (High to person &
High to situation,) the mean was 1.13, and in condition two (High to person
& Low to situation) the mean was 2.5. Additionally, while still
focusing on the same dependent variable, for condition three (Low to person
& High to situation) the mean was 3.88, and for condition four (Low
to person & Low to situation) the mean was 1.8. This is consistent
with the research and with the hypothesis.
When examining
the dependent variable of exaggerating another’s ability, significance
was also found for condition, F(3, 31)= 3.62, p< .001, yet there was
no significance found for self- esteem. The mean for condition one
was 3.63 and for conditions two the mean was 3.0. Further, the means
for condition three were 4.2 and for condition four the means were 2.8.
The significance for condition is consistent with the hypothesis, but the
lack of significance for self- esteem is not consistent with the hypothesis.
For the next
dependent variable, downward comparisons, the ANOVA showed significance
for both condition and self- esteem, F(3, 31)= 6.90, p< .001, and F
(2, 31)= 3.4, p< .05 (See Table 1). The means for condition one
are 1.63 and for condition two the means are 2.27. Continuously,
the means for condition three are 2.5 and for condition four the means
are 3.13. The significance found for condition and self- esteem are
consistent and reinforce the hypothesis.
Finally, the
last dependent variable was distancing from the compared person.
The ANOVA reported no significance for either condition or self- esteem.
The means for condition one are 2.13 and for condition two the means are
1.81. The means for condition three are 2.52 and for condition four
2.5. Not as expected, no significant relationship was found between
the person distancing himself or herself from the other person that they
are comparing themselves to and self- esteem.
To better understand
what is happening in the ANOVA one can do this by looking at the means.
Each mean was done for each of the four different conditions. In
condition one, which is high to person and high to situation, means that
someone is very connected to the person and the situation is important
to the individual. In condition two, which is high to person and
low to situation, means that the person is very connected to the other
and that the situation holds no value to the person. In condition
three, which is low to person and high to situation, this means that the
person is no longer valued and that the situation is of high importance.
Lastly, condition four is low to person and low to situation, and this
simply means that neither is of value to the person.
A Post Hoc test,
Tukey HSD, was conducted to further look at the means. There was
mean difference significance found between condition one and condition
two at the .05 level. There was also mean difference significance
at the .05 level between condition one and condition three. Finally,
there was mean difference significance found between condition three and
condition four at the .05 level.
Pearson product
moment correlation’s (two- tailed) were conducted to look at possible relationships
among the main dependent variables of task importance, exaggerating another’s
ability, downward comparisons, and distancing from person that one is comparing
themselves to and self- esteem within the individual conditions and across
the entire sample. For condition one identifies, significant findings
that were reported between exaggerating another’s ability and high self-
esteem. Those who had higher self- esteem reported higher levels
of exaggerating another’s ability. For condition three identifies,
significant findings between the dependent variable of task importance
and high self- esteem. Those who reported higher levels of self-
esteem also reported high levels of the dependent variable of exaggerating
another’s ability on a task. The correlations between task importance with
high self- esteem and exaggerating another’s ability with high self- esteem
lend some support to the hypothesis. Unfortunately, there were no
significant relationship within conditions two or four between self- esteem
with any dependant variable. In condition one there were significance
findings between self- esteem and the dependent variable of exaggerating
another’s ability. The correlation showed r = .702 at the .05 level
(2- tailed). There was no significant finding to report for condition
2. On the other hand, for condition three identify, significant findings
between self- esteem and the dependent variable of task importance.
The Pearson correlation showed r = .820 significant at the .01 level (2-
tailed). Finally, there was no significance found in condition four.
The correlations within conditions 1 and three depict support toward the
hypothesis, but for conditions, two and four there was no significance
and that was neither expected nor consistent with the hypothesis.
Back To Menu
Discussion
Consistent with
the hypothesis there was a significant main effect for condition and self-
esteem. The designated reactions that were of focus are to see if
someone who outperformed the person that they may tend to distance themselves
from the other person, if the person exaggerated another person’s ability,
meaning that they see that person as truly outstanding and themselves as
average, the next was to see if people compared with those people who are
less capable than themselves, or will they change their beliefs so that
the task is no longer important to the self- concept. For dependent
variable of task importance in condition one (High to Person & High
to Situation), both condition and self- esteem showed a significant main
effect. Buunk, Collins, Taylor, VanYperen & Dakof’s, 1990 results seem
to be consistent with the results found here in this study. The results
were if someone who is highly connected to both the person and the situation,
will hold both the task and person with high value and importance.
It was interesting
to see when looking at the means that condition two’s (High to Person &
Low to Situation) means were lower than condition three’s (Low to Person
& High to Situation). This could be due to the fact that the
self- esteem means are higher in high self- esteem and lower in low self-
esteem. Since there is this difference, it might be because people
feel comfortable enough with themselves and their abilities and do not
really focus on the other people around while they are performing that
certain task. For example, for this study, it could be that one is
so connected to basketball that they are not even bothered by the surrounding
people although they do not like those people. One can see this evidence
by the differences in the means between these two groups. When someone
was high to the person and not interested in the situation more people
seemed to back out of the task. Buunk, Collins, Taylor, VanYperen
& Dakof, 1990, would attribute this to the fact that high self- esteem
individuals have positive self- concepts, in part, because they engage
in self- enhancing strategies. Self- enhancing is the process of
seeking out and interpreting situations so as to attain a positive view
of oneself Buunk, Collins, Taylor, VanYperen & Dakof, 1990.It is also
consistent with the previous literature, that when the task requires work
or is challenging, the task is no longer of importance to that person (Buunk,
Collins, Taylor, VanYperen & Dakof, 1990). This could lend insight
into why when the situation value was low people had a tendency to no longer
find it important. It is also consistent with the research done by
Banaji & Prentice, 1994, that when people experience negative reactions
they no longer hold the task as important. Banaji & Prentice,
1994, also commented on how if one has high self- esteem do not necessarily
experience a drop in their self- esteem due the situation. This is
very clear in this experiment, because having no value to the person or
situation did not effect people who had high self- esteem. In the
fourth condition (Low to person & low to situation), it showed that
neither the task nor the person were held in high value to the individual.
Additionally, those with high self- esteem appeared to value the person
and situation more so than those with low self- esteem.
The next
dependent variable is exaggerating another’s ability on a certain task.
Consistent with the hypothesis there was a main effect for condition, yet
not expected there was no main effect for self- esteem. Upon looking
at condition three and four there was a huge gap between the means.
This could be because people with low self- esteem ceased comparing to
someone else who is superior at that ability. Furthermore, this is
consistent with the research conducted by Gibbons & Gerrard, 1994.
The primary reason that they give is that such comparisons are not very
useful in terms of satisfying what he/ she saw as the main goal of the
social comparison process (Gibbons & Gerrard, 1994). The self-
esteem means throughout all of the conditions on this variable are equal.
This may be because person still sees achievement within reach for him/
herself. Aspinwall & Taylor’s, 1993, study show that this is due to
the fact that the comparer is provided with information that such achievements
are within reach.
The third dependent
variable is downward comparisons. Consistent with the hypothesis
there was a significant main effect for condition and self- esteem.
As stated by Aspinwall & Taylor, 1993, people have a natural and strong
tendency to compare themselves unfavorably with others. This is what
was found in the conditions on this dependent variable. People who
have low and high self- esteem both made downward comparisons. The
reason that they engage in this process may be different for people with
low self- esteem and for people with high self- esteem. Consistent
with the research found by Dodgson & Wood, 1998, people with low self-
esteem engage in the downward comparison process because they are the most
in need of self- enhancement. Furthermore, people who have high self-
esteem engage in the downward comparison process because they have a chance
to boost their self- esteem. Wood & Lockwood, 1999, would attribute
this to the fact of accessibility influences. People with high self-
esteem need to make these certain thoughts about themselves more available
and in turn has a positive affect on their self- concept.
Finally,
the next dependent variable is distancing oneself from another person or
situation. This was not consistent with the hypothesis, because no
significant main effect was found for condition or self- esteem.
This may be due to the fact that people in this condition did not ever
have a prior identification with the group, so it did not matter if they
distanced themselves from the group or situation. As Doosje, Ellemers
& Spears, 1995, demonstrated that responses to group identity depend
on the person prior level of in- group identification. Since, there
was no prior identification, then this could attribute to why the results
were inconsistent with the expected hypothesis.
The research
here shows a significant effect between social comparison and self- esteem.
Furthermore, it shows significant main effects for the dependent variables
of task importance, exaggerating another’s ability, and downward comparisons.
On the other hand, not consistent with the hypothesis there was no significant
main effect for distancing oneself from another person or a situation.
These results
suggest a number of possible avenues for future research. For instance,
it seems important to have a larger population size. It is possible
that more input from participants would allow for a greater level of knowledge
on these dependent variables. Another suggestion would be to examine
the biases of gender differences in these situations and with self- esteem.
It is possible that the conditions that one was in could differ for men
and women. The same hold true for self- esteem, because perhaps the
differential behaviors found within the conditions are due to men’s self-
esteem and women’s self- esteem.
An important
limitation to this study was that it only included college students as
participants. Additional research is necessary to examine whether
these patterns obtained are the same through out different cohorts.
Another limitation to this study was that the technique for assessing the
dependent variables may have been hard for the participant to imagine himself
or herself in. Someone may have never played basketball or even watched
it, so for them to imagine themselves in this type of situation may have
been difficult. When conducting this research again, one may try
to vary the situation with something other than basketball.
Although, the
measurement was a good one, and showed significance, one may want to try
looking at different dependent variables. Other variables that would
be useful to look at are self- protection, self- enhancement, and self-
verification. Additional research should be conducted to examine
more closely the dependent variable of distancing oneself from another.
The situations need to incorporate a previous connection with the individual
and its current situation.
Finally,
this research will benefit anyone interested in the social comparison process
and its affect on one’s self- esteem. It further confirms previous
research that social comparison does affect one’s self- esteem. It
also sheds light onto four dependent variables that are engaged in frequently
during the social comparison process and their affects on self- esteem.
Back To Menu
Aspinwall, L. G., Taylor, S., E. (1993). Effects of social comparison direction, threat, and self- esteem an affect, self- evaluations, and expected success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 708- 722.
Banaji, M.R., & Prentice, D. (1994). The self in social contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 297- 332.
Buunk, B. P., Collins, R. L., Taylor, S. E., VanYperen, N. W., & Dakof, G. A. (1990). The affective consequences of social comparisons: Either direction has its ups and downs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1238- 1249.
DeCremer, D. (2001). Relations of self-esteem concerns, group identification, and self-stereotyping to in-group favoritism. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 389-401.
Dodgson, P. G. & Wood, J. V. (1998). Self- esteem and the cognitive accessibility of strengths and weaknesses after failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 178- 197.
Doosje, B., Ellemers, N. & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social psychology, 31, 410- 436.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117- 140.
Gibbons, F. X. & Gerrard, M. (1994). Social comparison over time. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 293- 312.
Giordano, C., Wood, J. V., & Michela, J. L. (2000). Depressive personality styles, dysphoria, and social comparisons in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 438- 451.
Josephs, R. A., Larrick, R. P., Steele, C. M., & Nisbett, R. E. (1992). Protecting the self from the negative consequences of risky decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 26-37.
Schlenker, B. R., Weigold, M. E., & Hallam, J. R. (1990). Self-serving attributions in social context: Effects of self-esteem and social pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 855-863.
Testa, M., & Major, B. (1990). The impact of social comparisons after failure: The moderating effects of perceived control. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 205- 218.
Tice, D. M. (1991). Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives differ by trait self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 711-725.
Wheeler, L. & Miyake, K. (1992). Social comparison in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 760-773.
Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 231-248.
Wood, J. V. & Lockwood, P. (1999). Social comparisons in dysphoric and low self- esteem people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 713- 731.
Frequency of Social Comparison Scale
Downward Social Comparison In The Minimal Intergroup Situation