Social Comparison Direction - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Social Comparison Direction PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: ec5db-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Social Comparison Direction

Description:

Contrast effect self is contrasted to the target of comparison and thus self ... Ratings of Positivity in Perception. 8. Predicting Assimilation vs. Contrast ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:160
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 14
Provided by: pagesT
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Social Comparison Direction


1
Social Comparison Direction
  • Upward social comparison- compare to someone who
    is better than you.
  • Downward social comparison- compare to someone
    who is worse than you.

2
Contrast
  • Contrast effect self is contrasted to the
    target of comparison and thus self-evaluations
    move away from the target.

3
Contrast Effect Results
  • Upward social comparison- compare to someone who
    is better than you.
  • Downward social comparison- compare to someone
    who is worse than you.

Feel worse
Feel better
4
Assimilation effects
  • Assimilation effect- Self-evaluations move
    towards the target of comparison.

5
Assimilation Effect Results
  • Upward social comparison- compare to someone who
    is better than you.
  • Downward social comparison- compare to someone
    who is worse than you.

Feel better
Feel worse
6
Predicting Contrast vs. Assimilation
  • Tessers Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model
  • Results depend on
  • Psychological closeness
  • Relevance of the dimension

7
Self-Evaluation Maintenance
Ratings of Positivity in Perception
8
Predicting Assimilation vs. Contrast
  • Lockwood Kunda (1997)
  • Results depend on
  • Relevance
  • Attainability

9
Lockwood Kunda (1997)
10
Automaticity
  • Automatic processes are well learned and require
    little or no conscious attention.
  • Is social comparison an automatic process?
  • If so, people should be able to compare even
    under cognitive load.

11
Gilbert et al. (1995)
  • Schizophrenia detection task
  • First watched confederate perform well (16/18) or
    poorly (4/18)
  • But confederate was deliberately trained or
    misinformed, so the comparison is non-diagnostic.
  • Half of the participants are under cognitive
    load.
  • All participants took test and got 10/18

12
Gilberts theory
No Cognitive load
Correction Comparison is non-diagnostic
Compare to confederate
No effect On self-evaluation
Cognitive load
Unable to correct
Effect on Self-evaluation
Compare to confederate
13
Gilbert et al. (1995)
  • Results (self-evaluations of performance)
  • Not busy No significant effect of comparison
    direction.
  • Busy Significant contrast effect.
About PowerShow.com