- Email: [email protected]
Social comparison orientation as related to two types of closeness
Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 279–285
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Research in Personality journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp
Social comparison orientation as related to two types of closeness Abraham P. Buunk a, Pieternel Dijkstra b,⇑, Zwenneke A. Bosch b, Arie Dijkstra b, Dick P.H. Barelds b a b
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 25 February 2012 Keywords: Social comparison Social comparison orientation Dimensional closeness Psychological closeness Physical attractiveness
a b s t r a c t Two studies examined the relationship between social comparison orientation (SCO) and two types of closeness (dimensional closeness and psychological closeness) in the context of appearance-related comparisons among women. A pilot study showed that these two types were relatively independent constructs, and provided evidence for the differential validity of the constructs. Consistent with our expectations, women high in SCO perceived more dimensional closeness with other women in terms of appearance (Study 1, n = 94) and perceived more psychological closeness with other women (Study 2; n = 126) than women low in SCO. Overall, women, but especially women high in SCO, reported most dimensional closeness in response to the most attractive women and most psychological closeness in response to women of medium levels of attractiveness. Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Theorizing and research on social comparison can be traced to some of the classic contributions to Western philosophy and to pivotal work in social psychology and sociology, including work on the self, adaptation level, reference groups, and social influence (Suls & Wheeler, 2000). However, the term social comparison was first proposed by Festinger (1954) and is currently assumed to refer to any process in which individuals relate their own characteristics to those of others (Buunk & Gibbons, 2006). Although people in general tend to assume that comparing oneself with others is something one should avoid (Wood, 2000), social comparison is an important, if not central, characteristic of human social life. From an evolutionary perspective, Gilbert, Price, and Allan (1995) suggested that the need to compare one-self with others is phylogenetically very old, biologically very powerful, and recognizable in many species, because of the adaptive value of adequately sizing up one’s competitors. Although the tendency to engage in social comparison would appear to be a universal human characteristic, several researchers have theorized that people may differ in their disposition to compare themselves with others. For instance, Diener and Fujita (1997) suggested, ‘‘... making any comparisons at all, may often be a function of one’s personality’’. (p. 349; see also Hemphill & Lehman, 1991). Indeed, it has become increasingly clear that there are important individual differences in the extent to which people compare themselves with others and in the way social comparison ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, Grote Kruisstraat 2/ 1, 9712TS Groningen, The Netherlands. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Dijkstra). 0092-6566/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.02.008
information is interpreted. According to Gibbons and Buunk (1999), the extent to which, and the frequency with which people compare themselves with others varies considerably between individuals. Gibbons and Buunk coined the term social comparison orientation (SCO) to refer to such individual differences. There is substantial evidence that those high in SCO seek out more comparisons, spend more time engaging in comparisons, and experience more emotional reactions from comparing themselves with others. SCO has been shown to affect a wide variety of outcomes, including for example one’s personal risk perceptions, the perception of one’s relational future, the development of occupational burnout and the quality of life of cancer patients (for a review, see Buunk & Gibbons, 2006). 1.1. The ‘typical’ person high in SCO Many personality characteristics have been shown to correlate with SCO. On the basis of these findings, the ‘‘typical’’ social comparer (defined here as a person high in SCO) may be characterized by at least three features. First, those high in SCO seem to have a high chronic activation of the self. They tend to be conscious of their own thoughts and of the way they are perceived by others. Evidence of this is the fact that SCO is quite strongly related to public and private self-consciousness (Buunk & Gibbons, 2006; Gibbons & Buunk, 1999; Neff & Vonk, 2009). A second main feature of SCO is its relation with negative affectivity and uncertainty of the self, including low self-esteem, neuroticism and a relatively unstable self-esteem (e.g. Buunk, Nauta, & Molleman, 2005; Neff & Vonk, 2009). In general, neuroticism is associated with a higher social comparison orientation, with correlations between SCO and neuroticism mostly reaching around .30 (e.g. Buunk, Van der
280
A.P. Buunk et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 279–285
Zee, & Van Yperen, 2001; Buunk et al., 2005). A third, and for the present research particularly relevant feature is that individuals high in SCO tend to be characterized by a strong interest in what others feel, a strong empathy for others, and a general sensitivity to the needs of others. This may at first sight seem odd, because, as suggested by Gardner, Gabriel and Hochschild (2002), social comparison would seem to be associated with a sense of independence that is oriented toward differentiating oneself in a competitive way from others. Several studies have indeed shown that SCO is moderately positively related to competitiveness (Buunk & Fisher, 2009; Darnon, Dompnier, Gilliéron, & Butera, 2010). For instance, the N-effect, that is, the phenomenon that competition increases as the number of competitors decreases, has been found to be especially strong among individuals high in SCO and especially weak among individuals low in SCO (Garcia & Tor, 2009). There is, however, also evidence that SCO is different from competition, and refers more to a pro-social orientation and to an interdependent self. Indeed, in the pioneering studies by Gibbons and Buunk (1999) one of the strongest correlates of SCO was interpersonal orientation, a construct that includes an interest in what makes people tick, as well as a tendency to be influenced by the moods and criticism of others, and an interest in mutual self-disclosure – all aspects that are characteristic of individuals with a high interdependent self (Swap & Rubin, 1983). In a similar vein, individuals high in SCO have been found to show more empathy with others in need (Wehrens, Buunk, Lubbers, Dijkstra, Kuyper, & Van der Werf, 2010), and to score higher on the Communal Orientation Scale of Clark, Ouellette, Powell, and Milberg (1987); see Gibbons & Buunk, 1999), which measures sensitivity to the needs of others, and a willingness to help others in need. In sum, those high in SCO are characterized by a combination of a high awareness of the self, some degree of negative affectivity and self-uncertainty, and an interest in, and empathy with, what others feel and think. 1.2. The role of similarity Since Festinger (1954) pioneering article, similarity has been assumed to be a basic condition for social comparison to occur (see Suls & Miller, 1977). Mussweiler (2003) has argued and demonstrated that, when socially comparing themselves, individuals primarily look for similarity between themselves and the comparison target (see also Bosch, Buunk, Siero, & Park, 2010). According to Mussweiler (2001, 2003) perceptions of similarity determine both how a comparison is carried out as well as what consequences it is likely to produce, with increased perceptions of similarity leading to more assimilation in self-evaluation and judgments. We would therefore like to propose that the high chronic tendency to compare themselves with others implies that, overall, individuals high in SCO will notice more similarities between themselves and others than individuals low in SCO. Indirect evidence for this expectation can be derived from studies that show that individuals high in SCO tend to assimilate in their responses to comparison targets more than individuals low in SCO. This seems to apply to upward as well as downward comparison targets. For instance, individuals high in SCO have been found to experience more negative affect in response to a description of a burned out individual (a downward target) than individuals low in SCO (Buunk, Ybema, Gibbons, & Ipenburg, 2001). More recently, Bosch et al. (2010; Studies 2 and 3) found that women high in SCO assimilated the self-evaluations of their attractiveness more to both attractive (i.e. upward comparison) targets and unattractive (i.e. downward comparison) comparison targets than women low in SCO. That is, following exposure to attractive targets, SCO was related positively to women’s self-evaluation, whereas, following exposure to a not attractive targets, SCO was related
negatively to women’s self-evaluation. However, although these studies suggest that individuals high in SCO tend to perceive more similarities between themselves and others than those low in SCO, the relationship between SCO and perceptions of similarity has merely been assumed (e.g. Bosch et al., 2010). The present study therefore explicitly examined the extent to which individuals high in SCO perceive more similarities between themselves and others who vary in their standing than those low in SCO do. We focused on social comparisons in the physical attractiveness domain among women. Physical attractiveness is a highly valued attribute among women, one that often evokes spontaneous social comparisons (e.g. Dijkstra & Buunk, 2002). Due to attractiveness related social comparisons, women, more than men, experience ups and downs in their self-evaluations of attractiveness and body satisfaction (e.g. for an overview see Dijkstra, Gibbons, & Buunk, 2010). 1.3. Two types of closeness We would like to suggest that what usually is referred to as ‘similarity’ in the social comparison literature may better be defined as closeness, and that there are two distinct types of closeness. The first type of closeness we refer to as dimensional closeness, that is, the extent to which individuals perceive the self as close to the comparison target on a specific dimension, such as, intelligence, academic competence or physical attractiveness (see for instance Huguet & Kuyper, 2008). This type of closeness has been the focus of many studies, especially in the early years of social comparison research (Suls & Miler, 1977). Recent research also suggests that individuals tend to compare themselves in terms of athleticism and likeability with others who are close to them on these dimensions (e.g. Kuyper, Dijkstra, Buunk, & Van der Werf, 2011), and that when evaluating their performance, individuals often prefer comparing their performances in school or work with those who, in general, perform about equally well (e.g. Smith & Sacks, 1997; Vrugt, Oort, & Zeeberg, 2002). The second type of closeness that has often been the focus in social comparison research is psychological closeness (see for instance Tesser, Millar, & Moore, 1988). This concept refers to a feeling of interpersonal connectedness with others. Characteristic of a high level of psychological closeness is a strong identification with someone else as a person and a lack of differentiation between the self and the other (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). As is the case with dimensional closeness, research has shown that, in general, individuals prefer to compare themselves with psychologically close others (e.g. Lubbers, Kuyper, & Van der Werf, 2009). We expected women high in SCO to perceive more psychological and dimensional closeness with other women than women low in SCO. There are several, rather indirect, indications that indeed individuals high in SCO may feel more psychologically and dimensionally close to others than individuals low in SCO. For example, Buunk et al. (2005) found that those high in SCO showed a higher level of identification with happily married couples than those low in SCO. In addition, Wehrens et al. (2010) found that individuals high in SCO are more likely to respond with empathy to others in need. Empathy reflects a strong orientation towards others, especially those in need (e.g. Batson, 1991), suggesting that individuals high in SCO may be more inclined than individuals low in SCO to see the self connected to others. Michinov and Michinov (2001) found that individuals high in SCO felt attracted both to individuals who are and who are not dimensionally close in their attitudes and opinions, whereas individuals low in SCO felt attracted only to others who are dimensionally close in their attitudes and opinions. Also from a theoretical point of view one may expect perceptions of dimensional closeness to be positively related to SCO. If indeed individuals, when comparing themselves, primarily look for similarities between themselves and the
A.P. Buunk et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 279–285
comparison target, as Mussweiler (2001, 2003) assumes, one can predict that individuals, as they are higher in SCO, will detect more similarities between themselves and others, and thus perceive more dimensional closeness. Again, however, although these studies may suggest that individuals high in SCO feel dimensionally and psychologically more close to others than those low in SCO, the relationships between SCO and perceptions of psychological and dimensional closeness have not been explicitly examined. It must be noted that often these two types of closeness are considered as interchangeable. For instance, Brown, Novick, Lord, and Richards (1992) manipulated psychological closeness by varying the degree to which participants and the comparison target shared attitudes and values on specific dimensions. Although we certainly do not deny that these two types of closeness are related, we would like to argue that these are different phenomena. A pilot study (see Appendix) showed indeed that there is just a small to moderate correlation between dimensional and psychological closeness as we measured it (see Method sections and Aron et al. (1992), and that psychological closeness has a moderately high correlation with intimacy, whereas dimensional closeness had not. Together these results support not only the notion the both types of closeness are different constructs, but also the validity of the measures for assessing dimensional and psychological closeness. In line with the previous, people may not necessarily feel psychologically close to those individuals they feel dimensionally close to. According to White (2008), finding similarities between oneself and a comparison target is stimulated when individuals compare themselves with others to whom they want to be dimensionally close, as is the case when a target possesses positive characteristics. In addition, most people are motivated to think highly about themselves and to perceive themselves as ‘better than average’ in most domains, a tendency that has been labeled ‘the better than average effect’ (BTAE; e.g. Alicke & Govorun, 2005) and ‘illusory superiority’ (e.g. Hoorens, 1995). Both of these tendencies – the motivation to find similarities and the BTAE or illusory superiority – may foster feelings of dimensional closeness to others who possess desirable characteristics. However, these same well-performing or socially desirable others may also pose a threat to self-esteem and evoke envy (e.g. Tesser et al., 1988), causing individuals to feel more psychologically close to individuals who score more averagely on that particular dimension or characteristic. In addition, people generally prefer to make social connections with others who are similar to them (e.g. Mackinson, Jordan, & Wilson, 2011). As a result, although people may feel dimensionally closest to others with very desirable characteristics, they may feel psychologically closest to others who posses these desirable characteristics to a somewhat lesser extent. The discrepancy between psychological and dimensional closeness is highly likely to appear among women in the domain of physical attractiveness. On the one hand, in line with White (2008) suggestion, overall, individuals aim to look as attractive as possible and, as a result, will feel dimensionally most close to attractive targets. On the other hand, individuals may also easily experience envy when a same-sex individuals is perceived to be attractive (e.g. Dijkstra & Buunk, 1998; Joseph, 1985), causing feelings of psychological closeness to attractive targets to diminish and women to feel more close to averagely attractive women. Therefore, it may be that women in general, but especially those high in SCO – who engage more frequently and more intensely in social comparisons – will feel dimensionally more close to highly attractive others, but psychologically more close to moderately attractive others. In Study 1, we examined the degree of dimensional closeness in response to targets of varying levels of attractiveness, and in Study 2 we did the same for psychological closeness. In addition, in Study 1 we assessed to what extent SCO affected the degree of comparison with the target.
281
2. Study 1 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants and procedure In Study 1 female participants were, in a random order, exposed to seven photographs of females varying in their degree of attractiveness. For each photograph the degree of dimensional closeness was assessed. Hundred and twenty-six female students volunteered to participate in this study. They were recruited in the cafeterias of several departments of the University of Groningen and the Hanze College for Higher Education. Mean age was 20.6 year (SD = 2.12). Participants were told that the experiment consisted of two parts: a part on the effects of self-views on word formation, and a part on impression formation. In reality, both parts formed part of the same study. 2.1.2. Measures First, the SCO-scale was completed to detect individual differences in social comparison orientation (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). Examples of items are: ‘I often compare myself with others with respect to what I have accomplished in life’, and: ‘I always like to know what others in a similar situation would do’. Answers were assessed on a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .86. Next a filler task – a word scrambling task – was introduced to separate the assessment of SCO from the experimental procedure. After this task, participants were presented with seven portrait photographs of women between eighteen and twenty-five years, varying in their level of attractiveness. In a pilot-study (n = 90) with, in total, 20 portrait photographs of young women, the attractiveness of each of the depicted women was assessed on a sevenpoint scale (‘How attractive is this woman in your opinion?’; 1 = not at all attractive, 7 = very attractive). The mean of the twenty attractiveness ratings varied from 2.2 to 5.8. For the present experiment, those seven photographs were chosen that represented all levels of the attractiveness dimension, from low to high, with about the same difference in attractiveness between each depicted woman. Each photograph was printed on the left page of the questionnaire, whereas two questions – one assessing dimensional closeness and one assessing the extent of social comparison – were placed on the right page, so participants could see the photograph while answering the questions. Perceptions of dimensional closeness were assessed by means of the item: ‘‘To what extent do you think you look like the person in the photograph?’’ (see also Appendix). To check whether women high in SCO indeed compared themselves more often with the women in the photographs than women low in SCO, participants also answered the item: ‘‘To what extent did you compare yourself with the woman in the photograph?’’ and was scored on a seven-points scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). 2.2. Results A repeated measure analysis was conducted using Level of Attractiveness as a within-subject factor, and SCO as an independent continuous variable. For this purpose, the eleven items of the SCO were summed and divided by 11 (the number of items), and standardized (a = .86, M = 3.35, SD = .60). Dependent variables were the dimensional closeness item and the social comparison item. 2.2.1. Social comparison The analysis revealed a significant main effect of SCO, F(1, 124) = 18.12, p < .001, g2 = .13, indicating that, overall, women
282
A.P. Buunk et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 279–285
Fig. 1. Perceptions of dimensional closeness as a function of SCO (Study 1).
high in SCO compared themselves more extensively with all seven targets than women low in SCO, thus, regardless of the level of attractiveness of the target. In addition, the analysis revealed a significant main effect of Level of Attractiveness, F(6, 119) = 48.71, p < .001, g2 = .28. The more attractive the target, the more extensively women compared themselves with the target. Finally, also the interaction between Level of Attractiveness and SCO was significant, F(6, 119) = 2.35, p = .035, g2 = .11. Within-subject contrasts showed a significant linear trend, F(1, 124) = 6.82, p < .01, g2 = .05: although women both low and high in SCO showed an increase in comparison with increasing attractiveness of the targets, women high in SCO showed a stronger increase than women low in SCO. 2.2.2. Dimensional closeness As expected, a significant main effect of SCO was found, F(1, 124) = 14.32, p < .001, g2 = .10. That is, women high in SCO perceived more dimensional closeness in appearance with other women than women low in SCO, regardless of the level attractiveness of the target (see Fig. 1; all figures are based on the parameter estimates for high SCO (Msco+1SD), mean SCO, and low SCO (Msco 1SD) in the repeated measures analysis). The analysis revealed a significant main effect of Level of Attractiveness, F(6, 119) = 20.16, p < .001, g2 = .50: regardless of their SCO, women perceived more dimensional closeness to the target as the targets were more attractive. Finally, also a significant interaction between Level of Attractiveness and SCO was found, F(6, 119) = 2.90, p = .017, g2 = .12. Within-subject contrasts showed a significant linear trend, F (1, 124) = 11.64, p = .01, g2 = .052. That is, especially women high in SCO showed an increase in perceived dimensional closeness with increasing attractiveness of the targets. 3. Study 2 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants and procedure In Study 2 female participants were, in a random order, exposed to the same seven photographs used in Study 1. For each photograph the degree of psychological closeness was assessed. Ninety-four female students at the University of Groningen and the Hanze College for Higher Education volunteered to participate
Fig. 2. Perceptions of psychological closeness as a function of SCO (Study 2).
in this study (mean age = 20.32, SD = 2.43). Participants filled out a digital questionnaire in separate computer cubicles. 3.1.2. Measures In contrast to Study 1, that made use of paper and pencil questionnaires, Study 2 was conducted by means of the computer. Except for this difference, Study 2 followed the same design as Study 1: first participants filled out the SCO-scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .84; see also Study 1), followed by a word scrambling filler task after which they were presented with the same seven photographs as in Study 1. Each photograph was presented on a new screen, and, for each new photograph, participants were asked to fill out the Inclusion in Other Scale (IOS; Aron et al., 1992), as an assessment of psychological closeness, that in our pilot study was correlated with feelings of intimacy with an important other (see Appendix A). The IOS is a single-item, pictorial measure of interpersonal interconnectedness that consists of seven pictures of two circles each that overlap to different degrees, from no overlap (picture 1) to an almost complete overlap (picture 7). For each photograph, participants were asked to choose the circles that best described the relationship between themselves and the woman in the photograph (more information on the validity of the dimensional and psychological closeness items is presented in Appendix A). 3.2. Results 3.2.1. Psychological closeness As expected, a significant main effect of SCO was found, F(1, 90) = 10.66, p = .002, g2 = .11. As expected, overall, women high in SCO felt more psychologically close to the seven targets than women low in SCO (see Fig. 2). In addition, the main effect of Level of Attractiveness was significant, F(6, 85) = 25.82, p < .001, g2 = .65: the more attractive the target, the more women felt psychologically close to the target. Within-subject contrast showed a significant linear trend, F(1, 90) = 56.40, p < .001, g2 = .56, and a significant quadratic trend, F(1, 90) = 35.91, p < .001, g2 = .29, indicating that the linear trend was reversed for the highest attractiveness levels. Women (regardless of their SCO) reported most psychological closeness to the moderately attractive target (see Fig. 2). Finally, also the interaction between Level of Attractiveness and SCO was significant, F(6, 85) = 2.41, p = .034, g2 = .15. Within-subject
A.P. Buunk et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 279–285
contrasts showed a marginally significant linear trend, F(1, 90) = 2.82, p = .096, g2 = .03. That is, especially women high in SCO reported most psychological closeness to the moderately attractive targets. 3.3. General discussion In general, the present research offered considerable support for our expectation that women high in SCO would perceive more dimensional and psychological closeness than women low in SCO, indicating that women high in SCO generally feel both more similar in terms of appearance and more emotionally connected to other women than women low in SCO. In addition, our study also supported the distinction between two types of closeness, that is, psychological and dimensional closeness. In our pilot study we demonstrated that both constructs are only moderately related to each other, and that psychological closeness does have a strong correlation with intimacy with an important other, whereas dimensional closeness does not. Underlining the conceptual difference between both types of closeness, participants responded with different reports of psychological and dimensional closeness to other women of different levels of attractiveness, and these effects were particularly pronounced among women high in SCO. Whereas women overall, and especially women high in SCO, felt more dimensionally close to the target as the target was more attractive, they felt most psychologically close to the target that was just above average in attractiveness (photograph number 5, with 1 being least attractive and 7 being most attractive). Thus, although women in general, and especially those high in SCO, perceived themselves to be dimensionally closest to the most attractive target (Study 1), they felt psychologically closest to a target of average attractiveness (Study 2). As we argued before, it seems that experiences of dimensional and psychological closeness are affected by different psychological processes, at least when it concerns attractiveness-related comparisons. Whereas dimensional closeness to attractive women may be fostered by the BTAE/illusory superiority (e.g. Hoorens, 1995), and the motivation to find similarities between the self and attractive others (White, 2008), attractive women may also evoke feelings of threat or envy that reduce the experience of psychological closeness, making women feel most psychologically close to other women of medium attractiveness. Because for women high in SCO social comparisons are more salient, these processes are enhanced, making women high in SCO feel particularly similar in attractiveness to very attractive others, and psychologically close to moderately attractive others. 3.3.1. Implications for theory and practice In our introduction section we gave a description of the ‘typical comparer’. We described the person high in SCO as someone who is characterized by a combination of a high accessibility and awareness of the self, an interest in what others feel and think, and some degree of negative affectivity and self-uncertainty. What do the results of the present research add to the image of the ‘typical comparer’? First, our finding that individuals high in SCO tend to perceive themselves more dimensionally and psychologically close to others in terms of physical attractiveness than individuals low in SCO supports and expands the notion that individuals high in SCO have a relatively strong interpersonal orientation and interdependent self (e.g. Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). While many studies have shown that SCO may moderate the effects of social comparison information, the present research is one of the first to provide insight into the processes that may underlie such effects. That is, by perceiving themselves as generally closer to others on the dimension of comparison, and as psychologically closer to such others, those high in SCO may more easily assimilate themselves to comparison targets.
283
Second, our research showed that those high in SCO tend to have specific biases in their comparisons. They consider themselves relatively more dimensionally close to attractive others and feel more psychologically close to moderately attractive others than those low in SCO. Our findings also help to better understand results from previous studies, such as those of Bosch et al. (2010). These authors found that, more than women low in SCO, women high in SCO, following exposure to an highly attractive target, evaluated their attractiveness relatively more positively and experienced a relatively more positive mood, a finding that contradicts the often reported result that, in general, exposure to attractive targets lowers self-evaluations of attractiveness and mood (for an overview see Dijkstra et al., 2010). Our study suggests that, following exposure to attractive targets, women high in SCO feel better about themselves because they experience particularly more dimensional closeness to these targets than women low in SCO. In addition, our finding that experiences of dimensional and psychological closeness are distinct constructs has implications for social comparison research. Future studies should be aware of this subtlety when studying social comparison responses: it is likely that, as is the case for attractiveness related comparisons, comparisons on dimensions that are highly desirable or are seen as important to self-definition, may evoke different perceptions in terms of psychological and dimensional closeness. In contrast, in response to comparisons in other, less crucial domains with regard to self-esteem and desirability, dimensional and psychological closeness may be more tightly related. Future studies may examine why and under what conditions reports of psychological closeness will deviate from perceptions of dimensional closeness and to what extent this discrepancy indeed depends on the desirability of the dimension under comparison. Our finding that, with regard to perceptions of dimensional closeness, women, especially those high in SCO, assimilated in their responses to the most attractive targets may also have practical implications. It is often believed that, in response to highly attractive targets, women tend to contrast themselves and suffer a loss in body esteem as a consequence (for a review see Dijkstra et al., 2010). The present research finds no evidence for such a contrast-effect: as the target was perceived to be more attractive, women, and especially women high in SCO, perceived themselves to be more dimensionally close, that is, more similar in attractiveness to the target. This finding suggests that viewing highly attractive targets is not necessarily as distressing as it is often assumed to be, especially for women who are high in SCO. On the contrary, by showing assimilative effects, our research suggests that comparisons with highly attractive targets may even lead to enhanced body satisfaction, at least (or especially) among women high in SCO. Indeed, Bosch et al. (2010) found that individuals high in SCO (but not those low in SCO!) showed better mood and higher self-rated attractiveness after exposure to an attractive target than after exposure to an unattractive target. The present research suggests that a high SCO may facilitate positive comparison outcomes in response to highly attractive targets by generating a relatively strong focus on dimensional closeness. In this sense, despite the fact that social comparisons are often considered as maladaptive, the present research suggests that the potential adaptive value of engaging in social comparisons may not, or not only, as Gilbert et al. (1995) suggested, lie in the importance of adequately sizing up one´s competitor, but also in subjectively confirming and enhancing one´s mate value. Women in general, and particularly women high in SCO, seem to attain this by feeling similar in attractiveness to very attractive others, which may foster their confidence in the mating market, while at the same time avoiding the feelings of envy by feeling psychologically more close to moderately attractive others.
284
A.P. Buunk et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 279–285
Further studies may want to explicitly examine the relationship between perceptions of dimensional closeness and body esteem in response to appearance-related comparisons. If indeed women high in SCO experience high body esteem in response to images of attractive targets due to heightened perceptions of dimensional closeness, this may open up an avenue for interventions aimed at improving body esteem among women who suffer from a lack of it. By educating women who are dissatisfied with their bodies to see similarities rather than contrasts between themselves and highly attractive targets, they may be able to gradually raise their level of body satisfaction. 3.3.2. Limitations and conclusion The present research has a number of potential limitations. First, our measures of dimensional and psychological closeness consisted of one item only. In general, including multiple items to assess a variable, contributes to the reliability of the measurement. However, we would like to note that the item we used for assessing psychological closeness, the IOS, has been thoroughly examined and validated (Aron et al., 1992). A second limitation is that our findings are confined to appearance-related comparisons, which may differ from comparisons in other domains, for instance, in terms of importance to self-definition. Finally, we did not assess participants’ own standing in the attractiveness domain, whereas one´s self-rated attractiveness may serve as a confounding variable or provide an alternative explanation for the effects of SCO. For instance, it is possible that the women in our samples that were high in SCO, coincidentally, thought they themselves were more attractive than the women low in SCO, making it possible that not SCO but high self-rated attractiveness caused them to experience relatively more dimensional closeness to attractive targets than women low in SCO. Finally, our findings may have limited generalizability in terms of gender and age and apply to young women only. Relevant in this context is that physical attractiveness is a more important aspect of women’s than of men’s self-concept (e.g. Campbell & Wilbur, 2009), making it possible that, for instance, men show more psychological closeness to attractive targets because they pose less of a threat to their self-esteem. Nevertheless, given the importance of social comparisons, we feel that our research makes a relevant contribution by refining and expanding our knowledge on the role of individual differences in SCO for social comparison processes in the attractiveness domain. Appendix A. Validity of the dimensional and psychological closeness items The validity of the items assessing dimensional and psychological closeness used in Studies 1 and 2 was examined in an additional study conducted among 40 women (mean age = 21.6 years, SD = 7.4). These women answered the questions regarding both dimensional and psychological closeness for the same seven photographs that were used in Studies 1 and 2. In addition, they answered the same two questions while thinking of a woman with whom they had a good relationship (‘important other’). The participants also completed the Intimacy subscale of the Triangular Love Scale (Sternberg, 1988) for this important other (15 items, a = .97), and provided self-ratings of physical attractiveness (1 = not at all attractive, 7 = very attractive). The questionnaire was administered online (using Qualtrics), and the photographs (plus accompanying questions) were displayed in a random order. The dimensional and psychological closeness questions were presented on separate screens (each screen displayed a photograph). Physical attractiveness ratings of the seven photographs were collected as a manipulation check (1 = not at all attractive, 7 = very attractive). The mean attractiveness ratings of the women in the photographs ranged
from 1.95 (SD = .93) to 6.08 (SD = .76), and were highly comparable to the other studies’ results. The validity of the two closeness items was first examined by correlating the dimensional and psychological closeness items for each of the seven photographs. Correlations ranged from r = .25 to r = .60 (ps < .01), with a mean correlation (calculated after Fisher’s z-transformation of the correlations) of r = .46 (p < .001). The correlation between dimensional and psychological closeness with the important other as the target was r = .27 (p < .01). Validity was further examined by comparing the mean dimensional and psychological closeness scores for the important other to the corresponding scores for the photograph that was rated as most similar to the self with regard to physical attractiveness (i.e. based on comparisons between photo attractiveness ratings and self-ratings of attractiveness). If participants rated two or more photographs as equally similar in attractiveness to the self, the mean scores across these photographs were computed. For dimensional closeness the means for the important other and the most similar photograph(s) did not differ significantly (Mphoto = 3.14, SDphoto = 1.34, Mother = 3.58, SDother = 1.63, t = 1.58, p = ns). For psychological closeness, however, substantial and significant differences were found, as was expected (Mphoto = 1.89, SDphoto = .97, Mother = 5.00, SDother = 1.81, t = 9.35, p < .001). Whereas women did not report more dimensional closeness towards other women that matched them with regard to physical attractiveness, compared to the important other, they reported clearly more psychological closeness towards the important other than towards the women in the photographs. Finally, correlations were computed between the Intimacy scale and dimensional and psychological closeness (rated for the important other): rdimensional = .07, p = ns, and rpsychological = .66, p < .001. Together, these results show that (1) there is just a small to moderate overlap between dimensional and psychological closeness in terms of correlations, (2) dimensional closeness is not, but psychological closeness is, rated differently depending on the target person (photographs similar in attractiveness or important other), and (3) psychological closeness has a moderately high correlation with intimacy, whereas dimensional closeness has not. Together these results support the validity of the items for assessing dimensional and psychological closeness. References Alicke, M. D., Govorun, O. (2005). The better-than-average-effect. In: M. D. Alicke, D. A. Dunning, and J. I. Krueger (Eds.), The self in social judgments (pp. 85–106). New York: Psychology Press. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social–psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bosch, A. Z., Buunk, A. P., Siero, F. W., & Park, J. H. (2010). Why some women can feel more, and others less, attractive after exposure to attractive targets: The role of social comparison orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 847–855. Brown, J. D., Novick, N. J., Lord, K. A., & Richards, J. M. (1992). When gulliver travels: Social context, psychological closeness, and self-appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 717–727. Buunk, A. P., & Fisher, M. (2009). Individual differences in intrasexual competition. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7(1), 37–48. Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2006). Social comparison orientation: A new perspective on those who do and those who do not compare with others. In S. Guimond (Ed.), Social comparison and social psychology: Understanding cognition, intergroup, relationship, and culture (pp. 15–32). New York: Cambridge University Press. Buunk, B. P., Nauta, A., & Molleman, E. (2005). In search of the true group animal: The effects of affiliation orientation and social comparison orientation upon group satisfaction. European Journal of Personality, 18, 1–13. Buunk, A. P., Van der Zee, K., & VanYperen, N. W. (2001). Neuroticism and social comparison orientation as moderators of affective responses to social comparison at work. Journal of Personality, 69, 745–763. Buunk, B. P., Ybema, J. F., Gibbons, F. X., & Ipenburg, M. (2001). The affective consequences of social comparison as related to professional burnout and social comparison orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 337–351.
A.P. Buunk et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 279–285 Campbell, L., & Wilbur, C. J. (2009). Are the traits we prefer in potential mates the traits they value in themselves? An analysis of sex differences in the selfconcept. Self and Identity, 8, 418–446. Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C., & Milberg, S. (1987). Recipient’s mood, relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 94–103. Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., Gilliéron, O., & Butera, F. (2010). The interplay of mastery and performance goals in social comparison: A multiple-goal perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 212–222. Diener, E., Fujita, F. (1997). Social comparison and subjective well-being. In: B. P. Buunk, F. X. Gibbons (Eds.), Health, coping, and well-being: Perspectives from social comparison theory. (pp. 329–358). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Jealousy as a function of rival characteristics: An evolutionary perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1158–1166. Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, A. P. (2002). Sex differences in the jealousy evoking effect of 56 rival characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 829–852. Dijkstra, P., Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, A. P. (2010). Social Comparison Theory. In J. Maddux & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Social Psychological Foundations of Clinical Psychology (pp. 195–211). New York: Guilford Press. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. Garcia, S. M., & Tor, A. (2009). The N-Effect: More competitors, less competition. Psychological Science, 20(7), 871–877. Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I are ’we,’ you are not threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 239–251. Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 129–142. Gilbert, P., Price, J. & Allan, S. (1995). Social comparison, social attractiveness and evolution: How might they be related? New Ideas in Psychology, 13, 149–165. Hemphill, K. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1991). Social comparisons and their affective consequences: The importance of comparison dimension and individual difference variables. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 372–394. Hoorens, V. (1995). Self-favoring biases, self-presentation, and the self-other asymmetry in social comparison. Journal of Personality, 63, 793–817. Huguet, P., Kuyper, H. (2008). Applying social psychology to the classroom. In: L. Steg, A. P. Buunk, T. Rothengatter (Eds.), Applied Social Psychology: understanding and managing social problems (pp. 162–183). New York: Cambridge University Press. Joseph, R. (1985). Competition between women. Psychology, 22(1–11), 1985. Kuyper, H., Dijkstra, P., Buunk, A. P., & Van der Werf, M. P. C. (2011). Social comparisons in the classroom: An investigation of the better than average effect among secondary school children. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 25–53.
285
Lubbers, M. J., Kuyper, H., & Van der werf, MP. C. (2009). Social comparison with friends vs. non-friends. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 52–68. Mackinson, S. P., Jordan, C. H., & Wilson, A. E. (2011). Birds of a feather sit together: Physical similarity predicts seating choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 879–892. Michinov, E., & Michinov, N. (2001). The similarity hypothesis: A test of the moderating role of social comparison orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 549–555. Mussweiler, T. (2001). Focus of comparison as a determinant of assimilation versus contrast in social comparison. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 38–47. Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110, 472–489. Neff, K. D., & Vonk, R. (2009). Self-compassion versus global self-esteem: Two different ways of relating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 23–50. Smith, W. P., & Sacks, P. R. (1997). Social comparison and task prediction: Ability similarity and the use of a proxy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 587–602. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triangle of love: intimacy, passion, commitment. New York: Basic Books. Suls, J. M., & Miller, R. L. (1977). Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Oxford, England: Hemisphere. Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. Dordrecht Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Swap, W. C., & Rubin, J. Z. (1983). Measurement of interpersonal orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 208–219. Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective consequences of social comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of being close. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 49–61. Vrugt, A., Oort, F. J., & Zeeberg, C. (2002). Goal orientations, perceived self-efficacy and study results amongst beginners and advanced students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 385–397. Wehrens, M. J. P. W., Buunk, A. P., Lubbers, M. J., Dijkstra, P., Kuyper, H., & Van der Werf, G. P. C. (2010). The relationship between affective response to social comparison and academic performance in high school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 203–214. White, J. B. (2008). Self-other similarity judgment asymmetries reverse for people to whom you want to be similar. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 127–131. Wood, J. V. (2000). Examining social comparisons with the test selection measure: Opportunities for the researcher and the research participant. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 201–222). Dordrecht Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Research in Personality journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp
Social comparison orientation as related to two types of closeness Abraham P. Buunk a, Pieternel Dijkstra b,⇑, Zwenneke A. Bosch b, Arie Dijkstra b, Dick P.H. Barelds b a b
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 25 February 2012 Keywords: Social comparison Social comparison orientation Dimensional closeness Psychological closeness Physical attractiveness
a b s t r a c t Two studies examined the relationship between social comparison orientation (SCO) and two types of closeness (dimensional closeness and psychological closeness) in the context of appearance-related comparisons among women. A pilot study showed that these two types were relatively independent constructs, and provided evidence for the differential validity of the constructs. Consistent with our expectations, women high in SCO perceived more dimensional closeness with other women in terms of appearance (Study 1, n = 94) and perceived more psychological closeness with other women (Study 2; n = 126) than women low in SCO. Overall, women, but especially women high in SCO, reported most dimensional closeness in response to the most attractive women and most psychological closeness in response to women of medium levels of attractiveness. Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Theorizing and research on social comparison can be traced to some of the classic contributions to Western philosophy and to pivotal work in social psychology and sociology, including work on the self, adaptation level, reference groups, and social influence (Suls & Wheeler, 2000). However, the term social comparison was first proposed by Festinger (1954) and is currently assumed to refer to any process in which individuals relate their own characteristics to those of others (Buunk & Gibbons, 2006). Although people in general tend to assume that comparing oneself with others is something one should avoid (Wood, 2000), social comparison is an important, if not central, characteristic of human social life. From an evolutionary perspective, Gilbert, Price, and Allan (1995) suggested that the need to compare one-self with others is phylogenetically very old, biologically very powerful, and recognizable in many species, because of the adaptive value of adequately sizing up one’s competitors. Although the tendency to engage in social comparison would appear to be a universal human characteristic, several researchers have theorized that people may differ in their disposition to compare themselves with others. For instance, Diener and Fujita (1997) suggested, ‘‘... making any comparisons at all, may often be a function of one’s personality’’. (p. 349; see also Hemphill & Lehman, 1991). Indeed, it has become increasingly clear that there are important individual differences in the extent to which people compare themselves with others and in the way social comparison ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, Grote Kruisstraat 2/ 1, 9712TS Groningen, The Netherlands. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Dijkstra). 0092-6566/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.02.008
information is interpreted. According to Gibbons and Buunk (1999), the extent to which, and the frequency with which people compare themselves with others varies considerably between individuals. Gibbons and Buunk coined the term social comparison orientation (SCO) to refer to such individual differences. There is substantial evidence that those high in SCO seek out more comparisons, spend more time engaging in comparisons, and experience more emotional reactions from comparing themselves with others. SCO has been shown to affect a wide variety of outcomes, including for example one’s personal risk perceptions, the perception of one’s relational future, the development of occupational burnout and the quality of life of cancer patients (for a review, see Buunk & Gibbons, 2006). 1.1. The ‘typical’ person high in SCO Many personality characteristics have been shown to correlate with SCO. On the basis of these findings, the ‘‘typical’’ social comparer (defined here as a person high in SCO) may be characterized by at least three features. First, those high in SCO seem to have a high chronic activation of the self. They tend to be conscious of their own thoughts and of the way they are perceived by others. Evidence of this is the fact that SCO is quite strongly related to public and private self-consciousness (Buunk & Gibbons, 2006; Gibbons & Buunk, 1999; Neff & Vonk, 2009). A second main feature of SCO is its relation with negative affectivity and uncertainty of the self, including low self-esteem, neuroticism and a relatively unstable self-esteem (e.g. Buunk, Nauta, & Molleman, 2005; Neff & Vonk, 2009). In general, neuroticism is associated with a higher social comparison orientation, with correlations between SCO and neuroticism mostly reaching around .30 (e.g. Buunk, Van der
280
A.P. Buunk et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 279–285
Zee, & Van Yperen, 2001; Buunk et al., 2005). A third, and for the present research particularly relevant feature is that individuals high in SCO tend to be characterized by a strong interest in what others feel, a strong empathy for others, and a general sensitivity to the needs of others. This may at first sight seem odd, because, as suggested by Gardner, Gabriel and Hochschild (2002), social comparison would seem to be associated with a sense of independence that is oriented toward differentiating oneself in a competitive way from others. Several studies have indeed shown that SCO is moderately positively related to competitiveness (Buunk & Fisher, 2009; Darnon, Dompnier, Gilliéron, & Butera, 2010). For instance, the N-effect, that is, the phenomenon that competition increases as the number of competitors decreases, has been found to be especially strong among individuals high in SCO and especially weak among individuals low in SCO (Garcia & Tor, 2009). There is, however, also evidence that SCO is different from competition, and refers more to a pro-social orientation and to an interdependent self. Indeed, in the pioneering studies by Gibbons and Buunk (1999) one of the strongest correlates of SCO was interpersonal orientation, a construct that includes an interest in what makes people tick, as well as a tendency to be influenced by the moods and criticism of others, and an interest in mutual self-disclosure – all aspects that are characteristic of individuals with a high interdependent self (Swap & Rubin, 1983). In a similar vein, individuals high in SCO have been found to show more empathy with others in need (Wehrens, Buunk, Lubbers, Dijkstra, Kuyper, & Van der Werf, 2010), and to score higher on the Communal Orientation Scale of Clark, Ouellette, Powell, and Milberg (1987); see Gibbons & Buunk, 1999), which measures sensitivity to the needs of others, and a willingness to help others in need. In sum, those high in SCO are characterized by a combination of a high awareness of the self, some degree of negative affectivity and self-uncertainty, and an interest in, and empathy with, what others feel and think. 1.2. The role of similarity Since Festinger (1954) pioneering article, similarity has been assumed to be a basic condition for social comparison to occur (see Suls & Miller, 1977). Mussweiler (2003) has argued and demonstrated that, when socially comparing themselves, individuals primarily look for similarity between themselves and the comparison target (see also Bosch, Buunk, Siero, & Park, 2010). According to Mussweiler (2001, 2003) perceptions of similarity determine both how a comparison is carried out as well as what consequences it is likely to produce, with increased perceptions of similarity leading to more assimilation in self-evaluation and judgments. We would therefore like to propose that the high chronic tendency to compare themselves with others implies that, overall, individuals high in SCO will notice more similarities between themselves and others than individuals low in SCO. Indirect evidence for this expectation can be derived from studies that show that individuals high in SCO tend to assimilate in their responses to comparison targets more than individuals low in SCO. This seems to apply to upward as well as downward comparison targets. For instance, individuals high in SCO have been found to experience more negative affect in response to a description of a burned out individual (a downward target) than individuals low in SCO (Buunk, Ybema, Gibbons, & Ipenburg, 2001). More recently, Bosch et al. (2010; Studies 2 and 3) found that women high in SCO assimilated the self-evaluations of their attractiveness more to both attractive (i.e. upward comparison) targets and unattractive (i.e. downward comparison) comparison targets than women low in SCO. That is, following exposure to attractive targets, SCO was related positively to women’s self-evaluation, whereas, following exposure to a not attractive targets, SCO was related
negatively to women’s self-evaluation. However, although these studies suggest that individuals high in SCO tend to perceive more similarities between themselves and others than those low in SCO, the relationship between SCO and perceptions of similarity has merely been assumed (e.g. Bosch et al., 2010). The present study therefore explicitly examined the extent to which individuals high in SCO perceive more similarities between themselves and others who vary in their standing than those low in SCO do. We focused on social comparisons in the physical attractiveness domain among women. Physical attractiveness is a highly valued attribute among women, one that often evokes spontaneous social comparisons (e.g. Dijkstra & Buunk, 2002). Due to attractiveness related social comparisons, women, more than men, experience ups and downs in their self-evaluations of attractiveness and body satisfaction (e.g. for an overview see Dijkstra, Gibbons, & Buunk, 2010). 1.3. Two types of closeness We would like to suggest that what usually is referred to as ‘similarity’ in the social comparison literature may better be defined as closeness, and that there are two distinct types of closeness. The first type of closeness we refer to as dimensional closeness, that is, the extent to which individuals perceive the self as close to the comparison target on a specific dimension, such as, intelligence, academic competence or physical attractiveness (see for instance Huguet & Kuyper, 2008). This type of closeness has been the focus of many studies, especially in the early years of social comparison research (Suls & Miler, 1977). Recent research also suggests that individuals tend to compare themselves in terms of athleticism and likeability with others who are close to them on these dimensions (e.g. Kuyper, Dijkstra, Buunk, & Van der Werf, 2011), and that when evaluating their performance, individuals often prefer comparing their performances in school or work with those who, in general, perform about equally well (e.g. Smith & Sacks, 1997; Vrugt, Oort, & Zeeberg, 2002). The second type of closeness that has often been the focus in social comparison research is psychological closeness (see for instance Tesser, Millar, & Moore, 1988). This concept refers to a feeling of interpersonal connectedness with others. Characteristic of a high level of psychological closeness is a strong identification with someone else as a person and a lack of differentiation between the self and the other (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). As is the case with dimensional closeness, research has shown that, in general, individuals prefer to compare themselves with psychologically close others (e.g. Lubbers, Kuyper, & Van der Werf, 2009). We expected women high in SCO to perceive more psychological and dimensional closeness with other women than women low in SCO. There are several, rather indirect, indications that indeed individuals high in SCO may feel more psychologically and dimensionally close to others than individuals low in SCO. For example, Buunk et al. (2005) found that those high in SCO showed a higher level of identification with happily married couples than those low in SCO. In addition, Wehrens et al. (2010) found that individuals high in SCO are more likely to respond with empathy to others in need. Empathy reflects a strong orientation towards others, especially those in need (e.g. Batson, 1991), suggesting that individuals high in SCO may be more inclined than individuals low in SCO to see the self connected to others. Michinov and Michinov (2001) found that individuals high in SCO felt attracted both to individuals who are and who are not dimensionally close in their attitudes and opinions, whereas individuals low in SCO felt attracted only to others who are dimensionally close in their attitudes and opinions. Also from a theoretical point of view one may expect perceptions of dimensional closeness to be positively related to SCO. If indeed individuals, when comparing themselves, primarily look for similarities between themselves and the
A.P. Buunk et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 279–285
comparison target, as Mussweiler (2001, 2003) assumes, one can predict that individuals, as they are higher in SCO, will detect more similarities between themselves and others, and thus perceive more dimensional closeness. Again, however, although these studies may suggest that individuals high in SCO feel dimensionally and psychologically more close to others than those low in SCO, the relationships between SCO and perceptions of psychological and dimensional closeness have not been explicitly examined. It must be noted that often these two types of closeness are considered as interchangeable. For instance, Brown, Novick, Lord, and Richards (1992) manipulated psychological closeness by varying the degree to which participants and the comparison target shared attitudes and values on specific dimensions. Although we certainly do not deny that these two types of closeness are related, we would like to argue that these are different phenomena. A pilot study (see Appendix) showed indeed that there is just a small to moderate correlation between dimensional and psychological closeness as we measured it (see Method sections and Aron et al. (1992), and that psychological closeness has a moderately high correlation with intimacy, whereas dimensional closeness had not. Together these results support not only the notion the both types of closeness are different constructs, but also the validity of the measures for assessing dimensional and psychological closeness. In line with the previous, people may not necessarily feel psychologically close to those individuals they feel dimensionally close to. According to White (2008), finding similarities between oneself and a comparison target is stimulated when individuals compare themselves with others to whom they want to be dimensionally close, as is the case when a target possesses positive characteristics. In addition, most people are motivated to think highly about themselves and to perceive themselves as ‘better than average’ in most domains, a tendency that has been labeled ‘the better than average effect’ (BTAE; e.g. Alicke & Govorun, 2005) and ‘illusory superiority’ (e.g. Hoorens, 1995). Both of these tendencies – the motivation to find similarities and the BTAE or illusory superiority – may foster feelings of dimensional closeness to others who possess desirable characteristics. However, these same well-performing or socially desirable others may also pose a threat to self-esteem and evoke envy (e.g. Tesser et al., 1988), causing individuals to feel more psychologically close to individuals who score more averagely on that particular dimension or characteristic. In addition, people generally prefer to make social connections with others who are similar to them (e.g. Mackinson, Jordan, & Wilson, 2011). As a result, although people may feel dimensionally closest to others with very desirable characteristics, they may feel psychologically closest to others who posses these desirable characteristics to a somewhat lesser extent. The discrepancy between psychological and dimensional closeness is highly likely to appear among women in the domain of physical attractiveness. On the one hand, in line with White (2008) suggestion, overall, individuals aim to look as attractive as possible and, as a result, will feel dimensionally most close to attractive targets. On the other hand, individuals may also easily experience envy when a same-sex individuals is perceived to be attractive (e.g. Dijkstra & Buunk, 1998; Joseph, 1985), causing feelings of psychological closeness to attractive targets to diminish and women to feel more close to averagely attractive women. Therefore, it may be that women in general, but especially those high in SCO – who engage more frequently and more intensely in social comparisons – will feel dimensionally more close to highly attractive others, but psychologically more close to moderately attractive others. In Study 1, we examined the degree of dimensional closeness in response to targets of varying levels of attractiveness, and in Study 2 we did the same for psychological closeness. In addition, in Study 1 we assessed to what extent SCO affected the degree of comparison with the target.
281
2. Study 1 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants and procedure In Study 1 female participants were, in a random order, exposed to seven photographs of females varying in their degree of attractiveness. For each photograph the degree of dimensional closeness was assessed. Hundred and twenty-six female students volunteered to participate in this study. They were recruited in the cafeterias of several departments of the University of Groningen and the Hanze College for Higher Education. Mean age was 20.6 year (SD = 2.12). Participants were told that the experiment consisted of two parts: a part on the effects of self-views on word formation, and a part on impression formation. In reality, both parts formed part of the same study. 2.1.2. Measures First, the SCO-scale was completed to detect individual differences in social comparison orientation (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). Examples of items are: ‘I often compare myself with others with respect to what I have accomplished in life’, and: ‘I always like to know what others in a similar situation would do’. Answers were assessed on a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .86. Next a filler task – a word scrambling task – was introduced to separate the assessment of SCO from the experimental procedure. After this task, participants were presented with seven portrait photographs of women between eighteen and twenty-five years, varying in their level of attractiveness. In a pilot-study (n = 90) with, in total, 20 portrait photographs of young women, the attractiveness of each of the depicted women was assessed on a sevenpoint scale (‘How attractive is this woman in your opinion?’; 1 = not at all attractive, 7 = very attractive). The mean of the twenty attractiveness ratings varied from 2.2 to 5.8. For the present experiment, those seven photographs were chosen that represented all levels of the attractiveness dimension, from low to high, with about the same difference in attractiveness between each depicted woman. Each photograph was printed on the left page of the questionnaire, whereas two questions – one assessing dimensional closeness and one assessing the extent of social comparison – were placed on the right page, so participants could see the photograph while answering the questions. Perceptions of dimensional closeness were assessed by means of the item: ‘‘To what extent do you think you look like the person in the photograph?’’ (see also Appendix). To check whether women high in SCO indeed compared themselves more often with the women in the photographs than women low in SCO, participants also answered the item: ‘‘To what extent did you compare yourself with the woman in the photograph?’’ and was scored on a seven-points scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). 2.2. Results A repeated measure analysis was conducted using Level of Attractiveness as a within-subject factor, and SCO as an independent continuous variable. For this purpose, the eleven items of the SCO were summed and divided by 11 (the number of items), and standardized (a = .86, M = 3.35, SD = .60). Dependent variables were the dimensional closeness item and the social comparison item. 2.2.1. Social comparison The analysis revealed a significant main effect of SCO, F(1, 124) = 18.12, p < .001, g2 = .13, indicating that, overall, women
282
A.P. Buunk et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 279–285
Fig. 1. Perceptions of dimensional closeness as a function of SCO (Study 1).
high in SCO compared themselves more extensively with all seven targets than women low in SCO, thus, regardless of the level of attractiveness of the target. In addition, the analysis revealed a significant main effect of Level of Attractiveness, F(6, 119) = 48.71, p < .001, g2 = .28. The more attractive the target, the more extensively women compared themselves with the target. Finally, also the interaction between Level of Attractiveness and SCO was significant, F(6, 119) = 2.35, p = .035, g2 = .11. Within-subject contrasts showed a significant linear trend, F(1, 124) = 6.82, p < .01, g2 = .05: although women both low and high in SCO showed an increase in comparison with increasing attractiveness of the targets, women high in SCO showed a stronger increase than women low in SCO. 2.2.2. Dimensional closeness As expected, a significant main effect of SCO was found, F(1, 124) = 14.32, p < .001, g2 = .10. That is, women high in SCO perceived more dimensional closeness in appearance with other women than women low in SCO, regardless of the level attractiveness of the target (see Fig. 1; all figures are based on the parameter estimates for high SCO (Msco+1SD), mean SCO, and low SCO (Msco 1SD) in the repeated measures analysis). The analysis revealed a significant main effect of Level of Attractiveness, F(6, 119) = 20.16, p < .001, g2 = .50: regardless of their SCO, women perceived more dimensional closeness to the target as the targets were more attractive. Finally, also a significant interaction between Level of Attractiveness and SCO was found, F(6, 119) = 2.90, p = .017, g2 = .12. Within-subject contrasts showed a significant linear trend, F (1, 124) = 11.64, p = .01, g2 = .052. That is, especially women high in SCO showed an increase in perceived dimensional closeness with increasing attractiveness of the targets. 3. Study 2 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants and procedure In Study 2 female participants were, in a random order, exposed to the same seven photographs used in Study 1. For each photograph the degree of psychological closeness was assessed. Ninety-four female students at the University of Groningen and the Hanze College for Higher Education volunteered to participate
Fig. 2. Perceptions of psychological closeness as a function of SCO (Study 2).
in this study (mean age = 20.32, SD = 2.43). Participants filled out a digital questionnaire in separate computer cubicles. 3.1.2. Measures In contrast to Study 1, that made use of paper and pencil questionnaires, Study 2 was conducted by means of the computer. Except for this difference, Study 2 followed the same design as Study 1: first participants filled out the SCO-scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .84; see also Study 1), followed by a word scrambling filler task after which they were presented with the same seven photographs as in Study 1. Each photograph was presented on a new screen, and, for each new photograph, participants were asked to fill out the Inclusion in Other Scale (IOS; Aron et al., 1992), as an assessment of psychological closeness, that in our pilot study was correlated with feelings of intimacy with an important other (see Appendix A). The IOS is a single-item, pictorial measure of interpersonal interconnectedness that consists of seven pictures of two circles each that overlap to different degrees, from no overlap (picture 1) to an almost complete overlap (picture 7). For each photograph, participants were asked to choose the circles that best described the relationship between themselves and the woman in the photograph (more information on the validity of the dimensional and psychological closeness items is presented in Appendix A). 3.2. Results 3.2.1. Psychological closeness As expected, a significant main effect of SCO was found, F(1, 90) = 10.66, p = .002, g2 = .11. As expected, overall, women high in SCO felt more psychologically close to the seven targets than women low in SCO (see Fig. 2). In addition, the main effect of Level of Attractiveness was significant, F(6, 85) = 25.82, p < .001, g2 = .65: the more attractive the target, the more women felt psychologically close to the target. Within-subject contrast showed a significant linear trend, F(1, 90) = 56.40, p < .001, g2 = .56, and a significant quadratic trend, F(1, 90) = 35.91, p < .001, g2 = .29, indicating that the linear trend was reversed for the highest attractiveness levels. Women (regardless of their SCO) reported most psychological closeness to the moderately attractive target (see Fig. 2). Finally, also the interaction between Level of Attractiveness and SCO was significant, F(6, 85) = 2.41, p = .034, g2 = .15. Within-subject
A.P. Buunk et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 279–285
contrasts showed a marginally significant linear trend, F(1, 90) = 2.82, p = .096, g2 = .03. That is, especially women high in SCO reported most psychological closeness to the moderately attractive targets. 3.3. General discussion In general, the present research offered considerable support for our expectation that women high in SCO would perceive more dimensional and psychological closeness than women low in SCO, indicating that women high in SCO generally feel both more similar in terms of appearance and more emotionally connected to other women than women low in SCO. In addition, our study also supported the distinction between two types of closeness, that is, psychological and dimensional closeness. In our pilot study we demonstrated that both constructs are only moderately related to each other, and that psychological closeness does have a strong correlation with intimacy with an important other, whereas dimensional closeness does not. Underlining the conceptual difference between both types of closeness, participants responded with different reports of psychological and dimensional closeness to other women of different levels of attractiveness, and these effects were particularly pronounced among women high in SCO. Whereas women overall, and especially women high in SCO, felt more dimensionally close to the target as the target was more attractive, they felt most psychologically close to the target that was just above average in attractiveness (photograph number 5, with 1 being least attractive and 7 being most attractive). Thus, although women in general, and especially those high in SCO, perceived themselves to be dimensionally closest to the most attractive target (Study 1), they felt psychologically closest to a target of average attractiveness (Study 2). As we argued before, it seems that experiences of dimensional and psychological closeness are affected by different psychological processes, at least when it concerns attractiveness-related comparisons. Whereas dimensional closeness to attractive women may be fostered by the BTAE/illusory superiority (e.g. Hoorens, 1995), and the motivation to find similarities between the self and attractive others (White, 2008), attractive women may also evoke feelings of threat or envy that reduce the experience of psychological closeness, making women feel most psychologically close to other women of medium attractiveness. Because for women high in SCO social comparisons are more salient, these processes are enhanced, making women high in SCO feel particularly similar in attractiveness to very attractive others, and psychologically close to moderately attractive others. 3.3.1. Implications for theory and practice In our introduction section we gave a description of the ‘typical comparer’. We described the person high in SCO as someone who is characterized by a combination of a high accessibility and awareness of the self, an interest in what others feel and think, and some degree of negative affectivity and self-uncertainty. What do the results of the present research add to the image of the ‘typical comparer’? First, our finding that individuals high in SCO tend to perceive themselves more dimensionally and psychologically close to others in terms of physical attractiveness than individuals low in SCO supports and expands the notion that individuals high in SCO have a relatively strong interpersonal orientation and interdependent self (e.g. Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). While many studies have shown that SCO may moderate the effects of social comparison information, the present research is one of the first to provide insight into the processes that may underlie such effects. That is, by perceiving themselves as generally closer to others on the dimension of comparison, and as psychologically closer to such others, those high in SCO may more easily assimilate themselves to comparison targets.
283
Second, our research showed that those high in SCO tend to have specific biases in their comparisons. They consider themselves relatively more dimensionally close to attractive others and feel more psychologically close to moderately attractive others than those low in SCO. Our findings also help to better understand results from previous studies, such as those of Bosch et al. (2010). These authors found that, more than women low in SCO, women high in SCO, following exposure to an highly attractive target, evaluated their attractiveness relatively more positively and experienced a relatively more positive mood, a finding that contradicts the often reported result that, in general, exposure to attractive targets lowers self-evaluations of attractiveness and mood (for an overview see Dijkstra et al., 2010). Our study suggests that, following exposure to attractive targets, women high in SCO feel better about themselves because they experience particularly more dimensional closeness to these targets than women low in SCO. In addition, our finding that experiences of dimensional and psychological closeness are distinct constructs has implications for social comparison research. Future studies should be aware of this subtlety when studying social comparison responses: it is likely that, as is the case for attractiveness related comparisons, comparisons on dimensions that are highly desirable or are seen as important to self-definition, may evoke different perceptions in terms of psychological and dimensional closeness. In contrast, in response to comparisons in other, less crucial domains with regard to self-esteem and desirability, dimensional and psychological closeness may be more tightly related. Future studies may examine why and under what conditions reports of psychological closeness will deviate from perceptions of dimensional closeness and to what extent this discrepancy indeed depends on the desirability of the dimension under comparison. Our finding that, with regard to perceptions of dimensional closeness, women, especially those high in SCO, assimilated in their responses to the most attractive targets may also have practical implications. It is often believed that, in response to highly attractive targets, women tend to contrast themselves and suffer a loss in body esteem as a consequence (for a review see Dijkstra et al., 2010). The present research finds no evidence for such a contrast-effect: as the target was perceived to be more attractive, women, and especially women high in SCO, perceived themselves to be more dimensionally close, that is, more similar in attractiveness to the target. This finding suggests that viewing highly attractive targets is not necessarily as distressing as it is often assumed to be, especially for women who are high in SCO. On the contrary, by showing assimilative effects, our research suggests that comparisons with highly attractive targets may even lead to enhanced body satisfaction, at least (or especially) among women high in SCO. Indeed, Bosch et al. (2010) found that individuals high in SCO (but not those low in SCO!) showed better mood and higher self-rated attractiveness after exposure to an attractive target than after exposure to an unattractive target. The present research suggests that a high SCO may facilitate positive comparison outcomes in response to highly attractive targets by generating a relatively strong focus on dimensional closeness. In this sense, despite the fact that social comparisons are often considered as maladaptive, the present research suggests that the potential adaptive value of engaging in social comparisons may not, or not only, as Gilbert et al. (1995) suggested, lie in the importance of adequately sizing up one´s competitor, but also in subjectively confirming and enhancing one´s mate value. Women in general, and particularly women high in SCO, seem to attain this by feeling similar in attractiveness to very attractive others, which may foster their confidence in the mating market, while at the same time avoiding the feelings of envy by feeling psychologically more close to moderately attractive others.
284
A.P. Buunk et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 279–285
Further studies may want to explicitly examine the relationship between perceptions of dimensional closeness and body esteem in response to appearance-related comparisons. If indeed women high in SCO experience high body esteem in response to images of attractive targets due to heightened perceptions of dimensional closeness, this may open up an avenue for interventions aimed at improving body esteem among women who suffer from a lack of it. By educating women who are dissatisfied with their bodies to see similarities rather than contrasts between themselves and highly attractive targets, they may be able to gradually raise their level of body satisfaction. 3.3.2. Limitations and conclusion The present research has a number of potential limitations. First, our measures of dimensional and psychological closeness consisted of one item only. In general, including multiple items to assess a variable, contributes to the reliability of the measurement. However, we would like to note that the item we used for assessing psychological closeness, the IOS, has been thoroughly examined and validated (Aron et al., 1992). A second limitation is that our findings are confined to appearance-related comparisons, which may differ from comparisons in other domains, for instance, in terms of importance to self-definition. Finally, we did not assess participants’ own standing in the attractiveness domain, whereas one´s self-rated attractiveness may serve as a confounding variable or provide an alternative explanation for the effects of SCO. For instance, it is possible that the women in our samples that were high in SCO, coincidentally, thought they themselves were more attractive than the women low in SCO, making it possible that not SCO but high self-rated attractiveness caused them to experience relatively more dimensional closeness to attractive targets than women low in SCO. Finally, our findings may have limited generalizability in terms of gender and age and apply to young women only. Relevant in this context is that physical attractiveness is a more important aspect of women’s than of men’s self-concept (e.g. Campbell & Wilbur, 2009), making it possible that, for instance, men show more psychological closeness to attractive targets because they pose less of a threat to their self-esteem. Nevertheless, given the importance of social comparisons, we feel that our research makes a relevant contribution by refining and expanding our knowledge on the role of individual differences in SCO for social comparison processes in the attractiveness domain. Appendix A. Validity of the dimensional and psychological closeness items The validity of the items assessing dimensional and psychological closeness used in Studies 1 and 2 was examined in an additional study conducted among 40 women (mean age = 21.6 years, SD = 7.4). These women answered the questions regarding both dimensional and psychological closeness for the same seven photographs that were used in Studies 1 and 2. In addition, they answered the same two questions while thinking of a woman with whom they had a good relationship (‘important other’). The participants also completed the Intimacy subscale of the Triangular Love Scale (Sternberg, 1988) for this important other (15 items, a = .97), and provided self-ratings of physical attractiveness (1 = not at all attractive, 7 = very attractive). The questionnaire was administered online (using Qualtrics), and the photographs (plus accompanying questions) were displayed in a random order. The dimensional and psychological closeness questions were presented on separate screens (each screen displayed a photograph). Physical attractiveness ratings of the seven photographs were collected as a manipulation check (1 = not at all attractive, 7 = very attractive). The mean attractiveness ratings of the women in the photographs ranged
from 1.95 (SD = .93) to 6.08 (SD = .76), and were highly comparable to the other studies’ results. The validity of the two closeness items was first examined by correlating the dimensional and psychological closeness items for each of the seven photographs. Correlations ranged from r = .25 to r = .60 (ps < .01), with a mean correlation (calculated after Fisher’s z-transformation of the correlations) of r = .46 (p < .001). The correlation between dimensional and psychological closeness with the important other as the target was r = .27 (p < .01). Validity was further examined by comparing the mean dimensional and psychological closeness scores for the important other to the corresponding scores for the photograph that was rated as most similar to the self with regard to physical attractiveness (i.e. based on comparisons between photo attractiveness ratings and self-ratings of attractiveness). If participants rated two or more photographs as equally similar in attractiveness to the self, the mean scores across these photographs were computed. For dimensional closeness the means for the important other and the most similar photograph(s) did not differ significantly (Mphoto = 3.14, SDphoto = 1.34, Mother = 3.58, SDother = 1.63, t = 1.58, p = ns). For psychological closeness, however, substantial and significant differences were found, as was expected (Mphoto = 1.89, SDphoto = .97, Mother = 5.00, SDother = 1.81, t = 9.35, p < .001). Whereas women did not report more dimensional closeness towards other women that matched them with regard to physical attractiveness, compared to the important other, they reported clearly more psychological closeness towards the important other than towards the women in the photographs. Finally, correlations were computed between the Intimacy scale and dimensional and psychological closeness (rated for the important other): rdimensional = .07, p = ns, and rpsychological = .66, p < .001. Together, these results show that (1) there is just a small to moderate overlap between dimensional and psychological closeness in terms of correlations, (2) dimensional closeness is not, but psychological closeness is, rated differently depending on the target person (photographs similar in attractiveness or important other), and (3) psychological closeness has a moderately high correlation with intimacy, whereas dimensional closeness has not. Together these results support the validity of the items for assessing dimensional and psychological closeness. References Alicke, M. D., Govorun, O. (2005). The better-than-average-effect. In: M. D. Alicke, D. A. Dunning, and J. I. Krueger (Eds.), The self in social judgments (pp. 85–106). New York: Psychology Press. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social–psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bosch, A. Z., Buunk, A. P., Siero, F. W., & Park, J. H. (2010). Why some women can feel more, and others less, attractive after exposure to attractive targets: The role of social comparison orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 847–855. Brown, J. D., Novick, N. J., Lord, K. A., & Richards, J. M. (1992). When gulliver travels: Social context, psychological closeness, and self-appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 717–727. Buunk, A. P., & Fisher, M. (2009). Individual differences in intrasexual competition. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7(1), 37–48. Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2006). Social comparison orientation: A new perspective on those who do and those who do not compare with others. In S. Guimond (Ed.), Social comparison and social psychology: Understanding cognition, intergroup, relationship, and culture (pp. 15–32). New York: Cambridge University Press. Buunk, B. P., Nauta, A., & Molleman, E. (2005). In search of the true group animal: The effects of affiliation orientation and social comparison orientation upon group satisfaction. European Journal of Personality, 18, 1–13. Buunk, A. P., Van der Zee, K., & VanYperen, N. W. (2001). Neuroticism and social comparison orientation as moderators of affective responses to social comparison at work. Journal of Personality, 69, 745–763. Buunk, B. P., Ybema, J. F., Gibbons, F. X., & Ipenburg, M. (2001). The affective consequences of social comparison as related to professional burnout and social comparison orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 337–351.
A.P. Buunk et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 279–285 Campbell, L., & Wilbur, C. J. (2009). Are the traits we prefer in potential mates the traits they value in themselves? An analysis of sex differences in the selfconcept. Self and Identity, 8, 418–446. Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C., & Milberg, S. (1987). Recipient’s mood, relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 94–103. Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., Gilliéron, O., & Butera, F. (2010). The interplay of mastery and performance goals in social comparison: A multiple-goal perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 212–222. Diener, E., Fujita, F. (1997). Social comparison and subjective well-being. In: B. P. Buunk, F. X. Gibbons (Eds.), Health, coping, and well-being: Perspectives from social comparison theory. (pp. 329–358). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Jealousy as a function of rival characteristics: An evolutionary perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1158–1166. Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, A. P. (2002). Sex differences in the jealousy evoking effect of 56 rival characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 829–852. Dijkstra, P., Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, A. P. (2010). Social Comparison Theory. In J. Maddux & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Social Psychological Foundations of Clinical Psychology (pp. 195–211). New York: Guilford Press. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. Garcia, S. M., & Tor, A. (2009). The N-Effect: More competitors, less competition. Psychological Science, 20(7), 871–877. Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I are ’we,’ you are not threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 239–251. Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 129–142. Gilbert, P., Price, J. & Allan, S. (1995). Social comparison, social attractiveness and evolution: How might they be related? New Ideas in Psychology, 13, 149–165. Hemphill, K. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1991). Social comparisons and their affective consequences: The importance of comparison dimension and individual difference variables. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 372–394. Hoorens, V. (1995). Self-favoring biases, self-presentation, and the self-other asymmetry in social comparison. Journal of Personality, 63, 793–817. Huguet, P., Kuyper, H. (2008). Applying social psychology to the classroom. In: L. Steg, A. P. Buunk, T. Rothengatter (Eds.), Applied Social Psychology: understanding and managing social problems (pp. 162–183). New York: Cambridge University Press. Joseph, R. (1985). Competition between women. Psychology, 22(1–11), 1985. Kuyper, H., Dijkstra, P., Buunk, A. P., & Van der Werf, M. P. C. (2011). Social comparisons in the classroom: An investigation of the better than average effect among secondary school children. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 25–53.
285
Lubbers, M. J., Kuyper, H., & Van der werf, MP. C. (2009). Social comparison with friends vs. non-friends. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 52–68. Mackinson, S. P., Jordan, C. H., & Wilson, A. E. (2011). Birds of a feather sit together: Physical similarity predicts seating choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 879–892. Michinov, E., & Michinov, N. (2001). The similarity hypothesis: A test of the moderating role of social comparison orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 549–555. Mussweiler, T. (2001). Focus of comparison as a determinant of assimilation versus contrast in social comparison. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 38–47. Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110, 472–489. Neff, K. D., & Vonk, R. (2009). Self-compassion versus global self-esteem: Two different ways of relating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 23–50. Smith, W. P., & Sacks, P. R. (1997). Social comparison and task prediction: Ability similarity and the use of a proxy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 587–602. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triangle of love: intimacy, passion, commitment. New York: Basic Books. Suls, J. M., & Miller, R. L. (1977). Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Oxford, England: Hemisphere. Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. Dordrecht Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Swap, W. C., & Rubin, J. Z. (1983). Measurement of interpersonal orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 208–219. Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective consequences of social comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of being close. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 49–61. Vrugt, A., Oort, F. J., & Zeeberg, C. (2002). Goal orientations, perceived self-efficacy and study results amongst beginners and advanced students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 385–397. Wehrens, M. J. P. W., Buunk, A. P., Lubbers, M. J., Dijkstra, P., Kuyper, H., & Van der Werf, G. P. C. (2010). The relationship between affective response to social comparison and academic performance in high school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 203–214. White, J. B. (2008). Self-other similarity judgment asymmetries reverse for people to whom you want to be similar. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 127–131. Wood, J. V. (2000). Examining social comparisons with the test selection measure: Opportunities for the researcher and the research participant. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 201–222). Dordrecht Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.