1. How other people influence who we are and what we want
Social Comparisons
How other people influence who we are and what we want

2. What are social comparisons?

3. 3 Questions Why do we compare? With whom do we compare?
What are the processes and consequences?

4. Self-evaluation Why do we compare?
Objective information is not available or risky to obtain(Festinger, 1954)
Uncertainty (Jones & Regan, 1974)
Social information predominates (Klein, 1997)
Influence of social information is underestimated (Wood & Wilson, 2003)
Conducted 2 experiments to clarify and extend social comparison theory for abilities. Exp I with 42 male undergraduates supported the hypothesis that people want information about their ability level more when they anticipate making a decision about an action based on the ability than when the decision has already been made. The evaluative need is thus primarily a predecision phenomenon. Exp II with 60 male and female undergraduates and advanced-placement high school students showed that the preference for comparison with similar others predicted by social comparison theory is strongest when those others have had experience utilizing the ability in situations relevant to Ss' decisions.

5. Why do we compare? Self-improvement Skills and capabilities
Unidirectional drive upwards (Festinger, 1954)
Role models (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997)
Self-enhancement
Basic need to feel good about oneself
Overestimation of your positive attributes (Alicke, 1985)
Underestimation of risks (Weinstein, 1980)
but, comparisons are not always conscious and strategic

6. Automatic comparisons
Participants thought about their own aggressiveness and evaluated it.
Subliminal presentation of standards
aggressiveness + -
asjdfaklsd
3000ms
Schimanski
15ms
10x
asjdfaklsd
3000ms

7. Self-evaluation
Imagine your are in a fight with a friend. How likely will you show the following behavior (in %)?
insult
affront
scuffle
Standard
downward
upward
Aggressiveness
Mussweiler, Rüter & Epstude (2004)

8. 3 Questions Why do we compare? With whom do we compare?
Self-evaluation
Self-improvement
Self-enhancement
Automatic and efficient
With whom do we compare?
What are the processes and consequences?

9. lateral With whom do we compare? for self-evaluation
similar comparison standards (Festinger, 1954; Wheeler, 1966)
similarity on related-attributes (age, sex, etc.) (Goethals & Darley, 1977; Miller 1984)

10. upward downward With whom do we compare? for self-improvement
only slightly better (Wheeler, 1966)
attainable role-models (Lockwood & Kunde, 1997)
downward
for self-enhancement
especially if the positive self is threatened (Wood, Taylor & Lichtman, 1985)

11. 3 Questions Why do we compare? With whom do we compare?
Lateral with similar standards (self-evaluation)
Upward (self-improvement)
Downward (self-enhancement)
What are the processes and consequences?

12. Social and other types of comparisons
Dr. Gayanée Kedia

13. Magnitude comparisons
Magnitude comparisons activate the frontoparietal network.
Distance effect
Pinel et al. (2004)

14. Mental line hypothesis
Large distance
Small distance
Dehaene (2011) ?

15. Social versus physical comparison
fMRI study
Decision
Who is more attractive?
Who is taller?

16. Social versus physical comparison
Same activation independent of type of comparison
Kedia et al. (2013)

17. Self-other vs. other-other comparison
Who is more attractive?
Self-Other comparisons
Other-Other comparisons vs
Low distance vs high distance
Upward comparison vs downward comparison

18. Neuroimaging results Kedia et al., submitted
AI cut feeling, self relevance,
Kedia et al., submitted

19. Neural correlates of social comparisons
Self-Other comparisons engage the frontal regions of the frontoparietal magnitude network
Specific recruitment of the Anterior Insula for comparisons with similar others and upward standards

20. Consequences of comparisons
Self-evaluation
Motivation
Goals
Feelings
Behavior
comparison
comparison

21. Selective Accessibility Model
Searching for hypothesis conforming information
Assimilation
Activating standard consistent self-knowledge
Testing for similarity hypothesis
Focus on similarities
Initial similarity judgment
Testing for dissimilarity hypothesis
Focus on dissimilarities
Contrast
Activating standard inconsistent self-knowledge
Mussweiler (2003)

22. Process and consequences
Comparison with standard on athletic abilities
athletic abilities + -
dissimilar
similar
Evaluation of your own athletic abilities (Sit-ups, 100m)

23. Assimilation und contrast
Standard
moderate
extreme
downward standard
upward standard
Athletic abilities
Assimilation
Contrast
Mussweiler, Rüter & Epstude (2004)

24. Assessment of comparison focus
Comparison of two pictures.
How similar are the two pictures?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
not at all
yery much

25. Comparison focus Standard How similar are the two pictures?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
not at all
very much
Standard
Mussweiler, Rüter & Epstude (2004)

26. Priming of comparison focus
Procedural priming of focus
Look at the pictures and indicate similarities.
Look at the pictures and indicate dissimilarities.

27. Standard and self-evaluation
Description of a first year student
poorly adjusted  downward standard
well adjusted  upward standard
Self-evaluation
How often do you go out for a drink per month?
How many friends do you have in your university town?

28. Assimilation and contrast
Comparison focus
similarities
dissimilarities
downward standard
upward standard
Adjustment
Assimilation
Contrast
Mussweiler (2001)

29. 3 Questions Why do we compare? With whom do we compare?
What are the processes and consequences?
Frontoparietal magnitude network
Mental line
Selective Accessibility Model
Focus on similarities  Assimilation
Focus on dissimilarities  Contrast

30. Consequences of comparisons
Self-evaluation
Motivation
Goals
Feelings
Behavior
comparison
comparison

31. Thank you