Social comparison theory , originally proposed by social psychologist Leon Festinger in 1954, centered on the belief that there is an incentive within the individual to obtain an accurate self-evaluation. This theory explains how individuals evaluate their own opinions and abilities by comparing themselves with others to reduce uncertainty in this domain, and learn how to define themselves.
Following the initial theory, research began to focus on social comparisons as a way of self-improvement, introducing the concept of downward and upward comparisons and expanding social comparative motivation.
Video Social comparison theory
Initial template
In the original theory, Festinger provided nine main hypotheses. First, it states that humans have a basic impetus to evaluate their opinions and abilities and that people evaluate themselves through objectives, non-social means (Hypothesis I). Second, Festinger states that if objectively, non-social means are not available, that people evaluate their opinions and abilities compared to others (Hypothesis II). Furthermore, he hypothesizes that the tendency to compare himself with others diminishes because the differences between their opinions and abilities become more distinct. In other words, if someone is so different from you, you tend to compare yourself to that person (Hypothesis III). He then hypothesizes that there is an upward movement in terms of ability, which is largely absent in opinion. This encouragement refers to the value placed to do better and better. (Hypothesis IV). Furthermore, Festinger hypothesizes that there are non-social restraints that make it difficult or even impossible to alter a person's abilities and this restriction is largely non-existent for opinion. In other words, people can change their opinions when they want but no matter how motivated individuals may be to improve their abilities, there may be other elements that make this impossible (Hypothesis V). Festinger goes on to hypothesize that the cessation of comparisons with others is accompanied by hostility or derogation to the extent that the ongoing comparison with those individuals implies unpleasant consequences (Hypothesis VI). Furthermore, any factor that increases the importance of a particular group as a comparison group of certain opinions or abilities will increase the pressure on uniformity of such abilities or opinions within the group. If differences arise between the evaluator and the comparison group there is a tendency to reduce the difference by trying to persuade others, or change their personal views to achieve uniformity. However, the importance, relevance and attractiveness for comparison groups that influence the original motivation for comparison, mediate pressure on uniformity (Hypothesis VII). The next hypothesis states that if people who are very different from their own opinions or abilities are considered different from oneself in attributes consistent with divergences, the tendency to narrow the comparability range becomes stronger (Hypothesis VIII). Finally, Festinger hypothesizes that when there are various opinions or abilities within a group, the relative strengths of the three manifestations of pressure on uniformity will differ for those close to the group mode rather than those far from fashion. Those close to this mode will have a stronger tendency to change the position of others, a weaker tendency to narrow the range of comparison, and even weaker tendencies to change their own opinions (Hypothesis IX).
Maps Social comparison theory
Theoretical advancement
From the beginning, the initial framework has made some progress. Key among these are developments in understanding the motivations underlying social comparisons, and the types of specific social comparisons made. Motives relevant to social comparisons include self-improvement, maintenance of positive self-evaluation, attribution and validation components, and avoidance of closure. Despite changes in the original Festinger concept, many fundamental aspects remain, including the prevalence of trends in social comparisons and general processes that are social comparisons.
Self-evaluation
According to Thorton and Arrowood, self-evaluation is one of the social comparison functions. This is one of the underlying processes of how an individual engages in social comparison. The specific goals of each individual will affect how they engage in social comparisons. For self-evaluation, people tend to choose a comparison target similar to themselves. In particular, they are most interested in choosing targets that have some distinctive characteristics with themselves. Research shows that most people believe that choosing the same targets helps ensure the accuracy of self-evaluation. However, individuals do not always act as unbiased evaluators, and accurate self-evaluation may not be the ultimate goal of social comparison.
Self-improvement
Individuals can also seek self-improvement, or to increase their self-esteem. They can interpret, alter, or ignore the information obtained by social comparison to see themselves more positively and further their self-improvement goals. They will either choose to make up (compare themselves with someone better) or down (compare themselves with a worse person) comparison, depending on which strategy will improve their self-improvement goals. They can also avoid making comparative periods, or avoid making certain types of comparisons. Specifically, when a person believes that their abilities in a particular area are low, they will avoid making upward social comparisons in the area. Unlike for self-evaluation purposes, people involved in social comparison with self-improvement goals may not seek targets that are similar to themselves. In fact, if the target resemblance is seen as a threat, since the target outperforms the individual on multiple dimensions, the individual can minimize the target similarity for themselves. This notion is closely related to phenomena in psychology introduced by Leon Festinger itself, which is associated with reduced cognitive dissonance. One does not want to see oneself in a way that would undermine the original beliefs of a person on the basis of one's self esteem and therefore to reduce cognitive dissonance, one is willing to alter the cognitive representation of another person in which one compares himself to, in such a way that one's beliefs about yourself remains intact. This effectively leads to the comparison of apples with oranges or psychological rejection.
Further progress in theory led to self-improvement being one of four self-evaluation motives :, along with self-assessment, self-verification and self-improvement .
Wills introduced the concept of downward comparisons in 1981. The social comparison down is a defensive tendency used as a means of self-evaluation. When people look for other individuals or groups that they think are worse than themselves to feel better about themselves or their personal situation, they make social comparisons down. Research has shown that social comparisons with others who are better or superior, or upward comparisons, can lower self-esteem, while downward comparisons can increase self-esteem. The downward comparison theory emphasizes the positive effect of comparison in improving one's subjective well-being. For example, it has been found that breast cancer patients make most of the comparison with disadvantaged patients compared with their own.
Although comparative social studies have suggested that upward comparisons may lower self-esteem, Collins suggests that this is not always the case. Individuals make upward comparisons, consciously or unconsciously, when they compare themselves with individual groups or comparisons that they perceive as superior or better than themselves to enhance their view of themselves or to create a more positive perception of their personal reality. Upward social comparisons are made to self-evaluate and improve themselves in the hope that self-improvement will also occur. In upward social comparisons, people want to believe in being part of the elite or superiors, and make comparisons that highlight the similarities between them and the comparison group, unlike social comparisons down, in which the similarities between individuals or groups are separated.
It has also been suggested that upward comparisons can provide inspiration for improving, and in one study it was found that while breast cancer patients made more downward comparisons, they showed preference for information about others who were more fortunate.
Another study shows that people who are on a diet often use upward social comparisons by posting pictures of thinner people in their fridges. These photos are presented not only as a person's current heavy reminder, but also as an inspiration of the goals to be achieved. In simple terms, downward social comparisons are more likely to make us feel better about ourselves, while upward social comparisons are more likely to motivate us to achieve more or achieve higher.
Aspinwall and Taylor see moods, self-esteem, and threats as moderators that encourage individuals to choose to make social comparisons up or down. A downward comparison in cases where individuals experience a threat to their self-esteem results in a more favorable self-evaluation.
Aspinwall and Taylor found that upward social comparisons were good in circumstances in which individuals who made comparisons had high self-esteem, because this type of comparison gave them greater motivation and hope than social comparison down. However, if these people experience a recent threat or setback to their self-esteem, they report that upward comparisons produce more negative effects than downward comparisons.
However, people with low self-esteem or people who experience some kind of threat in their lives (such as poor in school, or suffering from illness) tend to like a downward comparison of upward comparisons. People with low self-esteem and negative influences improve their mood by making downward comparisons. Their moods do not improve that much if they have high self-esteem. Even for people with low self-esteem, these decreased social comparisons increase their negative mood and enable them to feel hope and motivation for their future.
Individuals who have negative moods improve their mood by making upward social comparisons, regardless of their level of self-esteem. In addition, both individuals with high self-esteem and low self-esteem who are in a positive mood improve their mood even further by making upward comparisons. However, for those who have recently experienced threats to their self-esteem or setbacks in their lives, making upward social comparisons rather than social comparisons leads to more negative effects. Self esteem and the presence of threats or setbacks in individual lives are two moderators of their response to upward or downward comparisons.
Competitiveness
Because individuals are pushed up in terms of ability, social comparison can encourage competition among peers. In this case, the psychological significance of a comparison depends on the social status of an individual, and the context in which their ability is evaluated.
Social status
The competitiveness resulting from social comparison may be greater in relation to higher social status because more individuals with more status will lose more. In one study, students in the class were presented with a bonus point program in which, by coincidence, the value for some students would increase and the value for the others would remain the same. Despite the fact that students can not lose by the program, higher status individuals are more likely to reject the program, and are more likely to report perceived perceived distributions. It is suggested that this is a cognitive manifestation of aversion to downward mobility, which has more psychological significance when a person has more status.
Distance to standard
When individuals are evaluated where there are meaningful standards, such as in an academic classroom where students are ranked, competitiveness increases due to proximity to performance improvement standards. When the only meaningful standard is the top one, then the high-ranking individuals are most competitive with their peers, and the individuals in the lower and middle ranks are equally competitive. However, when high and low ranks holds significance, then individuals on high and low rank are equally competitive, and both are more competitive than individuals in the middle rank.
Several models have been introduced into social comparisons, including self-evaluation maintenance models (SEMs), proxy models, triadic models and three-self models.
Model maintenance self-evaluation
The SEM model proposes that we make comparisons to maintain or improve our self-evaluation, focusing on the process of comparison and antagonistic reflection. Abraham Tesser has done research on the dynamics of self-evaluation that has taken some form. The social behavioral self-evaluation model (SEM) focuses on the consequences of the extraordinary performance of others towards self-evaluation. It sketches several conditions in which other good performance supports self-evaluation, that is, "sunning in glorious reflection", and the conditions in which it threatens self-evaluation through a comparative process.
Proxy model
The proxy model anticipates the success of something unknown. This model proposes that if someone is successful or familiar with the task, then he will also succeed on a new similar task. Proxies are evaluated by ability and related to the question "Can I do X?" Proxy comparison is based on previous attribute. The opinion of the comparison and whether the proxy exerts the maximum effort on the initial task is the variable that influences his opinion.
Triadic model
The Triadic model builds on elements of social comparison attribution, suggesting that the best social comparison opinions are considered in 3 different evaluative questions: a preference assessment (ie, "Do I like X?"), Assessment of confidence (ie, "Is X correct?" ), And prediction preference (ie, "Do I like X?"). In the Triadic Model, the most significant comparison is with someone who has experienced proxy and shows consistency in related attributes or previous preferences.
Three-self model
The three-self model proposes that social comparison theory is a combination of two different theories. One theory is developed around the motivations and factors that influence the kind of social comparison information people are looking for from their environment and the second is about self-evaluation and the factors that influence the effect of social comparison on self-assessment. Although there are many studies in the field of comparison motives, there is only a small area of ​​comparative evaluation. Explaining that self is understood as an interconnected conception that is accessible depends on the context of the current assessment and takes cues from the Social Cognitive Theory, this model examines the effects of Assimilation and distinguishes three classes of self-concept concepts that work: the individual self, the possibility of self and collective self.
Influence of media
The media has proven to play a big role in social comparison. Researchers who examined the effects of social media have used social comparison theory have found that in many cases women tend to engage in upward social comparisons with other targets, resulting in more negative feelings about self. The majority of women have the opportunity every day to make upward comparisons by measuring themselves against some form of social ideal. Social comparison has become a relevant mechanism for learning about social expectations related to appearance among peers and for self-evaluation in terms of those standards "(Jones, 2001, P. 647).
Although men do make upward comparisons, research finds that more women make comparisons and compare themselves to unrealistically high standards presented in the media. When women are shown more mainstream media images of strong, successful, and emaciated women, they consider "ideal" to be the norm for attractive community views. In recent years, social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram have made this widespread, as social media makes it easier for you to compare yourself to "ideal". Some women have reported making upward comparisons in a positive way for self-motivated purposes, but most upward comparisons are made when the individual feels lower and therefore evokes a negative connotation.
The self-perceived similarity to role models in social media can also affect self-esteem for men and women. Having more self-perceived similarities with role models can help improve self-esteem, while having less can lower self-esteem. Social comparison with peers in social media can also lead to feelings of self-pity or satisfaction. The desire for social comparisons can lead to FoMO and the compulsive examination of social media sites.
Criticism
Many criticisms arise regarding the hypothesis of Festinger's likeness. Deutsch and Krauss argue that people actually seek out different people in their comparison by maintaining that it is important to provide valuable self-knowledge, as shown in the study. Ambiguity also circulates about an important dimension to commonality. Goethals and Darley clarify the role of commonality that shows that people prefer to compare those who are similar in related attributes such as opinions, characteristics or the ability to increase confidence for value judgment, but those who are different in related attributes are preferred when validating one's beliefs.
See also
- Effect of frog pond
References
Further reading
- Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspective, process, and context. New York: McGraw Hill.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments