Social Comparison & Relative Deprivation

Social Comparison & Relative Deprivation

• Social comparison is a drive to evaluate opinions and abilities by comparing them to others
• When objective measures aren't available, individuals turn to social comparison
• The tendency to compare oneself diminishes as the difference between the individual's opinion/ability and the comparison person's opinion/ability increases
• A unidirectional drive exists for abilities
• Non-social restraints can impact ability changes
• Hostility or negative opinions can occur if social comparison leads to unpleasant consequences
• Increasing the importance of a group as a comparison group increases pressure for uniformity
• Greater divergence in opinions/abilities creates greater pressure for uniformity
• In groups with a wide range of opinions/abilities, the strength of pressures toward uniformity varies between those close to the mode and those far from the mode
• Social comparison can be spontaneous or conversational.
• When receiving information about others, we interpret it in relative terms.
• Effective communication involves using relevant standards for comparison to aid interpretation and subsequent communication.
• Cognitive efficiency is a principle driving social comparison
• The more efficient the comparison process, the more social comparisons are engaged in.
• Social comparison uses a subset of available information for self-evaluations
• Conclusions about the self are reached faster using social comparison

Why do we engage in Social Comparison?

• To understand and maintain a stable and accurate view of the self (self-evaluation)
• To establish a positive view of the self (self-enhancement)
• To improve the self (self-improvement)

To Whom do we Compare Ourselves?

• Festinger proposed that social comparison is used to form an accurate self-assessment
• Similar others are preferred comparison targets, but similarity on critical dimensions
• Later research suggested that similarity on related attributes is also important.

To Whom do we Compare Ourselves? (continued)

• Individuals have a need to maintain a positive self-view.
• This can be achieved through downward social comparisons (favorable self-evaluation) or temporal comparisons (comparing current self to past self).
• Individuals also have a need for self-improvement, achieved by upward social comparisons (comparison to an individual better off)
• Upward comparison can have negative consequences:
• Unrealistic expectations
• Undermining the relevance of the standard
• Derogating the superior standard

To Whom do We Compare Ourselves (continued)

• The motive behind social comparison is self-enhancement, self-evaluation and self-improvement
• Standards should be carefully selected to consider relevant dimensions/criterias
• Comparison processes can be tedious, therefore efficiency in comparison standard selection and routines are needed

How do Social Comparisons Influence the Self?

• Social comparisons shape self-evaluations, despite disputes about the direction.
• Research suggests that individuals may underestimate their abilities compared to others (contrast effects).
• Other research shows individuals perform better when engaging in upward comparisons (assimilation).
• The way people view themselves beforehand influences how social comparisons affect self-evaluation.
• If people view intelligence as malleable, they are more likely to assimilate to a more intelligent comparison target
• Selective accessibility model proposes that the converse consequence of social comparison is explained by accessible self-knowledge
• Post-comparison self-evaluations are based on accessible judgment-relevant knowledge (at the time of evaluation).
• Relevant self and standard information is determined through hypothesis testing, leading to similarity or dissimilarity testing
• Salient information—memberships and standard extremity—guides assessment

Applications of Social Comparison Theory

• Social comparison theory has applications in various fields including:
  • Academic performance
  • Pay level satisfaction
  • Organizational decision-making
  • Virtual work environments
  • Romantic relationships
  • Gossip
  • Consumer behavior
  • Sports judgments
  • Health psychology
  • Idealized media influences

Applications of Social Comparison Theory (continued)

• Health is important, and when a person faces a disease, their future may appear uncertain, however social comparison can assist with self-enhancement
• Social comparison can be used to establish a more positive self-view through comparisons with those worse off (downward comparison).
• The converse of this does not hold true.
• Use of idealized images on mass media influences the perceiver's self-evaluation.

Relative Deprivation

• Relative deprivation explains how a person's subjective comparison influences how they view a situation
• A comparison must be used as a standard for relative deprivation to be experienced.
• Social context impacts relative deprivation experiences, like the experience of a "little house" (small home) shrinking to a "hut" when compared to a "palace" (large home).
• Relative deprivation can be associated with: urban violence, social protest movements, economic downturns, and economic variations in happiness.

Early Conceptualisation

• Frustration aggression theory - a positive relation between anger / desire for an object and the difficulty attaining that object.
• Justice theory suggests that the belief in a just world guides the cognitive and behavioral coping mechanisms of people facing inequitable situations.

Early Conceptualisation (continued)

• Hedonic relativism - happiness is based on experiences, expectations, and comparing situations relative to others
• Distributive justice theory explains an individual's response to inequity.
• Relative deprivation occurs when the proportion of an individual's investment compared to others results in lesser outcomes.

Early Conceptualisation (continued)

• Equity theory - explains the perceived unfairness of exchanges between individuals and the desire to restore equity, leading to feelings of anger or guilt.
• Expectations influence the view of exchanges and lead to felt injustice when outcomes do not align with the relationship between input and output.
• Individuals hold pre-existing expectations of the relationship between inputs and outputs from exchanges
• Injustice occurs when inputs and outputs are not in equilibrium.
• People experience tension when exchanges are considered unfair and seek to restore equity

Early Conceptualisation (continued)

• To reduce tension surrounding perceived injustice, people may adjust their values of inputs or outcomes.
• They may also modify their relationship with the other person or with other comparison others

Models of Relative Deprivation

• Davis (1959):
  • Antecedents: awareness, desire, feeling deserving of something
  • Four psychological outcomes:
    • Social distance between the self and the comparison group
    • Superior and subordinates to the comparison groups.
• Runciman (1966):
  • Added a fourth antecedent for relative deprivation: the feasibility of obtaining the desired outcome
  • Deprivation occurs only if attainment is possible and frustrated.
• Gurr (1970):
  • Distinguished three deprivation patterns
    • Decremental: expectations constant, capabilities decrease
    • Aspiration: expectations increase, capabilities stay the same
    • Progressive: Expectations and capabilities increase but expectations exceed capabilities.
• Williams (1975):
  • Experimented on preconditions for experiencing relative deprivation
• Crosby (1976):
  • Identified 5 preconditions for relative deprivation:
    • Seeing others have something
    • Wanting the item
    • Believing they deserve the item
    • Thinking attainment is possible
    • Lack of responsibility for the failure to have the item.
  • Outcomes if preconditions aren't met: righteousness, disappointment, jealousy, and dissatisfaction with the self.
• Findings from Crosby included whether people would engage in comparison of their own situation

Personal-Group Discrepancy

• Research into distinction between personal deprivation and fraternal deprivation.
• Individuals tend to overestimate fraternal deprivation and underestimate personal deprivation
• Double deprivation explains collective behavior.

This quiz explores the concepts of social comparison and relative deprivation, focusing on how individuals evaluate their opinions and abilities compared to others. It covers the psychological pressures that arise from these comparisons and discusses the factors influencing uniformity within groups. Test your understanding of these important social dynamics.