Lecture 4 Social Comparison & Relative Deprivation PDF

Social Comparison & Relative Deprivation PSYC 2011 Selected Theories in Social Psychology Instructor: Mala Ramesar Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory  Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory i. There exists in the human organism, a drive to evaluate his opinions and abilities ii. To...

Social Comparison & Relative Deprivation PSYC 2011 Selected Theories in Social Psychology Instructor: Mala Ramesar Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory  Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory i. There exists in the human organism, a drive to evaluate his opinions and abilities ii. To the extent that objective, non-social means are not available, people evaluate their opinions and abilities by comparison respectively with the opinions and abilities of others iii. The tendency to compare oneself with some other specific person decreases as the difference between his opinion or ability and one’s own increases iv. There is a unidirectional drive upward in the case of abilities which is largely based on opinions v. There are non-social restraints which make it difficult or even impossible to change one’s ability. vi. The cessation of comparison with others is accompanied by hostility or derogation to the extent that continued comparison with those people implies unpleasant consequences vii. Any factor which increases the importance of some particular group as a comparison group for some particular opinion or ability will increase the pressure toward uniformity concerning that ability or opinion within that group viii. If persons who are very divergent from one’s own opinion or ability are perceived as different from oneself on attributes consistent with the divergence, the tendency to narrow the range of comparability becomes stronger ix. When there is a range of opinion or ability in a group, the relative strength of the 3 manifestations of pressure toward uniformity will be different for those who are close to the mode of the group than those who are distant from the mode Why do we Engage in Social Comparison To know, and maintain a stable and accurate view of the self [self-evaluation] This requires feedback on our abilities and characteristics. We can use objective standards, however we tend to lean toward social comparisons To establish a positive view of the self [self- enhancement] We do this through downward social comparison where we know we will outperform the comparative other To improve the self [self-improvement] We do this through upward social comparison to get hints on how we can improve and advance the self  Social comparisons can be done in a more spontaneous manner because of logical and conversational considerations Why do we When we receive information about another, we need to understand it in relative terms since this Engage in Social is the way attributes are defined Comparison Effective communication means that we compare the target with relevant standards so we can interpret information we receive and in turn be able to communicate outgoing information effectively  The social cognitive perspective proposes that we engage in social comparison on the principle of cognitive efficiency Why do we The more efficient we are with the comparison process, the more we engage Engage in Social in social comparisons Social comparison requires that people Comparison attend to a subset of all the information available, so when we use social comparison to form a self-evaluation, we form conclusions about the self much faster To Whom do we Compare Ourselves? Festinger proposed that we engage in social comparison to form an accurate assessment of the self For this reason, we tend to compare ourselves to a similar other Comparing the self to someone who is not similar can lead to ambiguous information Later research argues it is not similarity on the critical dimension, but similarity on related attributes  Human beings have a need to maintain a positive self- view which can be done in two ways: Downward social comparison – such a comparison will lead to a favourable evaluation of the self To Whom do we Temporal comparisons – comparing the present self with the self in the past Compare Humans also have the need for self-improvement Ourselves? Upward social comparison – can provide hints into how to improve. People must be mutable, and the standard of comparison must be attainable Upward social comparison can have a negative effect. In such an instance, a person can undermine the relevance of the standard, or they can derogate the superior standard To Whom do we Compare Ourselves? The motive underlying social comparisons are the needs for self- enhancement, self-evaluation, and self-improvement It follows that the standard used should be carefully selected with consideration given to the different dimensions, different potential standards, and different criteria This is a tedious process and often time, after having found the standard, a person may lack the processing capacity needed for the comparison process Human beings therefore need to be more efficient in selecting the comparison standard The development of a routine can eliminate this tedious process  How do Social Comparisons Influence the Self? Social comparisons can shape our self-evaluations, but there is some dispute about the direction of this influence on social comparison Research shows that a person can evaluate their abilities to be lower than that of the comparative other [contrast effects] yet other research shows that people can be motivated and show better performance when they engage in this type of upward social comparison [assimilation] One proposed reason is the way people view the self, prior to the social comparison There is also evidence of motivational causes of these effects, e.g., when the reason for social comparison was self-enhancement, an individual would engage in downward social comparison How do Social Comparisons Influence the Self? Research also shows that if a person sees intelligence as malleable, they will assimilate to a highly intelligent person The possible self also affects the social comparison outcomes where the individual would assimilate the characteristics of the target of the upward social comparison How do Social Comparisons Influence the Self? Selective accessibility model proposes that the converse consequences of the social comparison process is explained by the accessible self-knowledge Post comparison self-evaluations are based on the implications of the judgement- relevant knowledge that is accessible at the time the judgement is made Specific judgement-relevant information about the self and the standard must be available Determining the relevant information is done through hypothesis testing where the individual focusses on one single hypothesis Knowing which of the two types of hypotheses to select from requires a brief assessment of the self and the standard using a small number of features to determine similarity or dissimilarity This brief assessment guides whether similarity testing, or dissimilarity testing is done How do Social Comparisons Influence the Self? The brief assessment relies on salient and easy to process information which typically are membership category of the standard and extremity of the standard If the standard is of the same category, and is moderate, the individual can engage in similarity testing If the standard is not in the same category and may be of a lower standard, then the individual can engage in dissimilarity testing Once the hypothesis is selected, the person can focus on hypothesis- consistent information to test it Applications of Research into the role of social comparison have been done in several areas: Social Development of academic self-concept and academic performance Comparison Pay-level satisfaction Decision making in organisations Theory Virtual work environment Romantic relationships/marital functioning Gossip The use of deception in consumer behaviour Sports judgements Health psychology Idealised media images on self-evaluation  Health is very important, and when a person is diagnosed with a disease, their future seems unclear, and there are no objective standards of coping Applications of Social comparison can offer self- Social Comparison enhancement through downward social comparison Theory The converse does not hold true; upward social comparison satisfies the need for self-improvement where patients who are better off serve as role models for hope  The impact of idealised images on the perceiver’s self-evaluation Persons portrayed on mass media are very attractive and serve as an extreme comparison standard Applications of Researchers tested the assumption that these Social Comparison comparison standards will lead to people being less satisfied with their appearance Theory There is also research which have found beneficial outcomes of such comparisons which suggests that the relation between attractive comparisons and self-evaluation is more complex One study found that women who previously held a negative view of the self, had more adverse psychological outcomes Relative deprivation Relative Deprivation Theory Relative deprivation explains how a person’s subjective comparison influences their outlook when faced with a situation of inequity For deprivation to be experienced, there must be some comparison against a standard “a house may be small or large; as long as the surrounding houses are equally small it satisfies all social demands for a dwelling. But let a palace arise beside the little house, and it shrinks from a little house to a hut” Relative deprivation has received considerable research attention: Urban violence Why affluent persons more likely to be leaders of social protest movement Why does personal happiness seem to arise during economic downturns Why people try to match the consumption of others who are more economically prosperous Why those who are not well off seem quiescent  Frustration-aggression theory: there is a positive relation between anger and an individual’s desire for, thoughts on the feasibility of attaining, and difficulty in attaining a desired object Frustration occurs when there is an expectation to receive something desired, and this was not forthcoming The difference between this theory and relative deprivation theory is that the latter requires comparisons to be made, as Early well as feelings of deservingness or self-blame Conceptualisations Justice theory: people need to believe the world is a just place, and to do so, people use various cognitive and behavioural strategies to convince themselves the world is fair Similar to relative deprivation theory, this theory is interested in how people make mental adjustments to their subjective realities It differs from relative deprivation because the latter assumes that these judgements are always in comparison to a standard  Hedonic relativism: low expectations leads to satisfaction. A person’s happiness is based on the person’s experiences and expectations and on comparisons between other situations and their own Early Distributive justice theory: explains an individual’s Conceptualisations outlook when faced with a situation of inequity. The person who profits less based on their proportion of investments, compared to another person will experience relative deprivation. It is essential that the comparative other is someone of equal status Early Conceptualisations Early Conceptualisations People hold pre-existing expectations of the relation between the inputs we give, and the outputs received When this relationship is not equal, people feel injustice in the exchange These expectations are formed based on comparisons with others or with a memory of the self in a similar earlier exchange transaction The concept of proportionality is central to this theory; people who are over-rewarded feel distressed since human beings seek proportionality rather than taking all possible rewards available  When an exchange is judged as being unfair, Adams, explained that we experience tension Human beings seek to reduce this tension, and the strength of the motivation to remove the tension will be proportional to the strength of the tension we feel Early Adams proposed 4 ways to indirectly reduce this tension: Conceptualisations i. Cognitive alterations – assigning a different value to their inputs and outcomes ii. Leave the exchange iii. Change the other person’s ratio – can be used in extreme situations of inequity iv. Change the comparison other – a last resort Models of Relative Deprivation Davis (1959) Runciman (1966) Gurr (1970) Williams (1975) Crosby’s Model  Models of Relative Deprivation - Davis (1959) Three antecedents to relative deprivation: Awareness that a similar other possesses X The desire for X Comparison of the self to a Feeling deserving of X member of the in-group i. Relative deprivation Awareness of ii. Relatively gratified fairness Four psychological outcomes when comparisons are unequal: Comparison of the self to a Social distance member of the out-group iii. Relatively superior iv. Relatively subordinate  Models of Relative Deprivation Runciman (1966) Why do disadvantaged people continue to support a Davis (1959) system that oppresses them? Where an individual has aspirations that moves them Awareness that a similar beyond the group, that individual is susceptible to other possesses X egotistic deprivation The desire for X Where an individual strongly identifies with a group, Feeling deserving of X that individual is susceptible to fraternal deprivation Runciman added a 4th component to Davis (1959) Runicman (1966) model – feasibility Awareness that a similar Relative deprivation occurs if a person has hopes for other possesses X something that is then disappointed The desire for X People do not feel deprived when a desired outcome seems to be imminent Feeling deserving of X Feasibility of getting X Models of Relative Deprivation Gurr (1970) Value expectations: the desired objects and opportunities to which a person feels entitled Value capabilities: what people think they can achieve Three possible patterns of relative deprivation: 1. Decremental deprivation – value expectations remains the same, but value capabilities decreases 2. Aspiration deprivation – value expectations increases, but value capabilities remain the same 3. Progressive deprivation – value expectations increases while value capabilities decrease Runciman proposed that deprivation occurs when achieving the desired outcome is feasible but not inevitable while Gurr proposed that relative deprivation occurs when the desired outcome is impossible to achieve Models of Relative Deprivation Williams (1975) People experience deprivation when they compare what they want against what they have A pre-condition to this deprivation is an initial comparison to a referent other Crosby’s Model (1976) Five pre-conditions that must be fulfilled for a person to experience relative deprivation: Outcomes if these preconditions are not met: i. See that other possess X ii. Want X Righteous indignation iii. Feel that one deserves X Disappointment iv. Think it is feasible to obtain X Jealousy v. Lack a sense of responsibility for failure to Dissatisfaction with the self possess X  Crosby tested her model using employed men, employed women, and housewives The basis for the study was the finding that women who earned less than men seemed to express the same level of satisfaction, and were also unaware of their objective deprivation Crosby’s Participants were between the ages of 25 and 40, and were separated between high prestige and low prestige Model jobs Results showed that women were paid less, and this was not due to educational differences or differing levels of commitment to the job This study highlighted the role of human emotion Felt deprivation is not a matter of objective reality People are more likely to feel deprived about their group membership status than their personal situations Objective versus Subjective Status Subjective status has no relation to an observer’s assessment of a person’s objective status Income is not a strong predictor of well-being since people tend to adjust to their circumstances/change their expectations There is a lack of correspondence between objective and subjective status Understanding the reason for this lack of correspondence calls for an understanding of the factors that lead to relative deprivation Objective versus Subjective Status Group level deprivation and personal level deprivation were assessed among Latino American and African American university students Group level deprivation was assessed through comparisons between the in-group and White Americans and then between the in-group and another minority group Personal level deprivation was assessed through comparisons between the self and a member of the White American group and then between the self and a member of a minority group Strong minority group identification was related to greater levels of personal and group deprivation Referent choice was also a significant factor; higher group level deprivation was reported by Latino and African American participants when the referent were White Americans  Other researchers explored minority’s preference for a referent other Using immigrants of Asian ancestry in the UK, and immigrants of Turkish and Aussiedler ancestry in Antecedents Germany, it was found that ethnic minority groups preferred to in-group comparisons and of Relative temporal comparisons Deprivation Deprivation varied as a function of choice of referent Research suggests that we are less likely to actively make group level comparisons in our daily activities  Other researchers explored the relation between feelings of deprivation and factors Antecedents thought to be correlates of relative deprivation of Relative Using relative deprivation, relative gratification, and prejudice, studies found that Deprivation in economic and general comparisons, prejudice was associated with both relative deprivation and relative gratification  Research into the distinction between Personal- personal and fraternal deprivation found that people tend to overestimate the extent of fraternal deprivation, and in so doing, Group deny that they experience personal deprivation Discrepancy Individuals can experience both personal deprivation and fraternal deprivation which is called double deprivation Double deprivation explains collective action Another factor to consider in the distinction between personal- group distinction is the personal – group discrepancy End of Lecture 4