1. The Effect of Social Comparison & Personality Grace White, B.S. & Jerry Suls, Ph. D.

2.  Why Study Relationships?  Have a larger impact overall life satisfaction than job, income, community, or even physical health (Harvey & Weber, 2002).  A growing decline in marriage and an increase in cohabitating relationships (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004).  Understanding the strategies employed in evaluating, maintaining, and coping in relationships is very important

3.  What is social comparison?  Involves comparing one’s own opinions and abilities in a certain domain to another person’s (Festinger, 1954).  Comparisons can provide a way of understanding one’s position or performance in a domain in relation to that of others.  Are all comparisons equal? Do we need to examine different types to better understand associations?

4.  Referential Comparisons  Comparisons of one’s own relationship to that of others’ relationships (e.g. family, friends, strangers).  Relational Comparisons  Comparison of oneself to one’s partner.  Temporal Comparisons  Comparison of current relationship status to its status at some time in the past, or future status.  Can also be comparison of past relationship to current relationship.

5.  Exchange Orientation  Partners’ subjective evaluation of equity  Predictive of lower levels of marital satisfaction (Murstein, Cerreto, & MacDonald, 1977).  Correlated with referential comparisons  Neuroticism  Tendency to experience negative emotions  Predictive of lower levels of marital satisfaction & divorce (Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Rogge et. al.,2006)

6.  Hypotheses:  1. Referential, relational, and temporal comparisons should be positively associated  2. Comparisons should be positively associated with relationship satisfaction ; Incremental validity of using relational comparisons.  3. Exchange orientation and neuroticism should be negatively associated with satisfaction; exchange orientation should be associated with comparisons.

7.  Method  110 female participants recruited from an Elementary Psychology course  Was approximately 18.76 (SD=.80) years of age, with 84.5% were freshman and 93.6% of the reported race/ethnicity as Caucasian.  participants received informed consent documents, questionnaires of the variables of interest and a debriefing statement; earned research credit hours as compensation.

8.  Measures  Hatfield Global Measure (α =.85)- 7-point Likert response format. (Hatfield, Traupmann, Sprecher, Utne, & Hay, 1985)  Exchange Orientation Scale (α =.75)- 5-point Likert response format. “I feel resentment if I believe I have spent more on a friend’s present than (s)he has spent on mine.” (Murstein et al., 1977).  Big Five Inventory (BFI) neuroticism subscale (α =.85) 5-point Likert response format. Indicate how much listed characteristics described you:“is depressed, blue,” “worries a lot,” or “can be moody.” (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991)

9.  Measures  Adapted form Quality of Marriage Index (QMI) (a =.90) contains 6 items with 7-point scale. Wording in the item “Our marriage is strong” was changed to “Our relationship is strong.” Frequency:3 items on 7-point Likert scale 1 (never) to 7 (always) asked how often individuals thought of: current partner (relational); others relationships (referential); past partners (temporal)

11.  All comparisons independently, significantly predict relationship satisfaction (p <.0001)  After controlling for referential and temporal comparisons, relational comparison still significantly predict satisfaction (p <.05).  Neuroticism marginally predicted satisfaction ( p =.06)

12.  Comparisons: coping or maintenance?  All comparisons are not equal (e.g. temporal)  Frequency and relationship satisfaction  Limitations

13.  Undergraduate RAs of HEARTS lab: Bryan Koestner & Danielle Theirault  Dr. Jerry Suls