1. The impact of relationship social comparison interpretations on dating relationship quality over time Marian M. Morry, Tamara A. Sucharyna, Mason Legge Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB CANADA Poster Presented at the 2015 SPSP Conference, Long Beach, CA. Questions or Comments? Contact Marian Morry at marian_morry@umanitoba.ca Social Comparisons: Compare to others when uncertain (Festinger, 1954).  In a given 3 months, make 9.64 relationship comparisons to 3.76 other couples (Morry, 2011).  Relationship social comparison interpretations (RSCI) have implications for relationship outcomes (Morry & Sucharyna, R & R).  3 RSCI factors reflect relationship evaluation, enhancement, and improvement; inspiration, attainability, perceptions of control, etc.  Upward Positive: e.g., hope for the future  Downward Positive: e.g., we’re doing better than them  Negative: e.g., my relationship feels inferior, things can get worse Self-esteem (SE): Upward comparisons:  can threaten self-evaluations and lead to negative moods (Tesser, 1988; Lockwood et al., 2004).  are associated with lowered SE (e.g., Morse & Gergen, 1970), feelings of jealousy, frustration, envy, and devaluation of the comparison domain (Festinger, 1954; Tesser & Collins, 1988; White et al., 2006).  However, high, relative to low, SE individuals can derive positive affect from an upward social comparison (Buunk et al., 1990).  We tested the effects of interpretations on satisfaction and commitment 4 months.  RSCI reflects enduring patterns of social cognition which have long-term implications for relationship quality  H1: Social comparison direction and SE would predict Time 1 relationship quality mediated by the RSCI.  H2: The RSCI would predict Time 2 relationship quality mediated by Time 1 relationship quality. Hypothesis 2: Time 2 Data  Bootstrapping – RSCI on T2 Satisfaction:  Direct effects for the Negative interpretations (b = -.45, p =.000)  Indirect effects through T1 Satisfaction for Downward Positive interpretations  Bootstrapping – RSCI on T2 Commitment:  Direct and indirect effects through T1 Commitment for Negative Interpretations Introduction Method Results Discussion Future Directions  The effects of comparison direction or self-esteem on one’s evaluation of his or her romantic relationship are not always straightforward.  Social cognitions such as the relationship social comparison interpretations have both immediate and long-term consequences.  Reflect enduring patterns of thought  These thoughts predict immediate relationship quality and which then predict long-term relationship quality.  Surprisingly self-esteem did not interact with comparison direction. However, the interpretations mediated both main effects on relationship quality.  Our results add to the literature indicating that cognitions are important additions when predicting relationship outcomes after a social comparison. Participants  182 undergraduates in a dating relationship (61 males); M Rel. length 29.30 months (SD = 28.53); Age: M = 20.02 years (SD = 3.35) Procedure  Randomly assigned to an upward or downward comparison to a friend’s dating relationship  Completed measures of SE, interpretations, and relationship quality  4 months later reassessed relationship quality Materials  Self-esteem (10 items, 4 point scale; Rosenberg, 1967)  Social Comparison Manipulation (write about a friend’s relationship which is doing better/worse than your own relationship; Morry & Sucharyna, R & R)  RSCI (45 items, 8 point scale; Morry & Sucharyna, Revise & resubmit)  Commitment (2 items, 9 point scale; Murray et al., 2001)  Satisfaction (4 items, 9 point scale; Murray et al., 2002) Research Hypotheses  Does the RSCI predict relationship outcomes after real world social comparisons such as on Facebook?  We examined controlled responses (e.g., relationship quality). Does the RSCI predict less controllable outcomes such as reaction times?  How are the interpretations (information, hope, etc.) different from attributions (causes of success failure)? Hypothesis 1: Time 1 Data   Hierarchical regressions - Satisfaction:   Main effect for comparison direction (CD) R 2 =.025, b = -.157, p =.035; upward comparisons associated with lower satisfaction   Main effect for SE ΔR 2 =.132, b = -.365, p =.000; higher SE lower relationship satisfaction   Bootstrapping – SE on Satisfaction (controlling for CD):   Direct effect SE, indirect effects through Negative interpretations   Bootstrapping – CD on Satisfaction (controlling for SE):   Direct effect CD, Indirect effects through all 3 interpretations   Hierarchical regressions – Commitment:   No main effects or interaction   Bootstrapping – SE on Commitment (controlling for CD):   Direct effect SE, indirect effects through Negative and Upward Positive interpretations   Bootstrapping – CD on Commitment (controlling for SE):   Indirect effects through Negative and Positive Upward interpretations SE Negative Downward Positive Upward Positive Satisfaction.44***-.68*** -.31 a.24***.07.10* -.72*** (-.35**) BCA 95% Negative -.515 to -.141 Note: BCA 95% = Bias Corrected and Adjusted 95% Confidence Interval SE Downward Positive Upward Positive Commitment BCA 95% Negative -.427 to -.111.44*** -.31 a. 07 -.22 a (.02) -.52***.08.16** a p =.09, * p <.05, ** p <.005, *** p <.001 a p =.10, ** p <.005, *** p <.001 Downward Positive Interpretations T2 Satisfaction T1 Satisfaction Negative Interpretations T1 Commitment T2 Commitment BCA 95%.026 to.230 ** p <.005, *** p <.001.35***.29**.11 (.01) -.24** BCA 95% -.23 to -.01 a p =.06, b p =.08, * p =.05, ** p <.005, *** p <.001.20 a -.25* (-.20 b ) CD Negative Downward Positive Upward Positive Satisfaction BCA 95% Negative -.516 to -.108; Downward Positive -.620 to -.240; Upward Positive.007 to.277.39** -1.67*** 1.11***.24*** -.68***.10* a p =.06 * p <.05, ** p <.005, *** p <.001 -.30 a (.25) CD Upward Positive Negative Downward Positive Commitment BCA 95% Negative -.390 to -.066; Upward Positive.083 to.369.39** -1.67*** 1.11*** -.52***.08.16**.005 (.16) ** p <.005, *** p <.001