1. Less is not more Vera Hoorens & Eddy Van Avermaet Paper presented at the 3rd International Social Psychology and Communication Congress (June 22-24, 2009, Tarbes)

2. Non-equivalence of logically equivalent comparisons Similarities (e.g. Tversky, 1977; Holyoak & Gordon, 1983) -(How similar is A to B) ≠ (How similar is B to A) Self-other difference (e.g. Codol, 1987; Hoorens, 1995) -(Self to others) ≠ mirror of (Others to self) Typicality comparison (Hodges & Hollenstein, 2001) -Order affects how typical items seem for category Detection of change = past - present comparison (Agostinelli et al., 1986) -Focus on present : additions > deletions -Focus on past : deletions > additions Preference (e.g. Houston et al., 1989) -(A to B preference) ≠ mirror of (B to A preference)

3. (X > Y) = (Y < X)? YES: within (un-)marked category (e.g. Clark, 1974) (X >[a] Y) NOT synonymous to (Y >[-a] X) (X > Y) synonymous to (Y not as… X) NO: different presuppositions -Flores d’Arcais (1970): about different targets (X > Y): presuppositions about subject (Y < X): presuppositions about referent -Huttenlocher & Higgins (1971): differential strength (X > Y) presupposes less than (Y not as … X)

4. Previous research Linguistic acceptability (“Does it sound right?”) -Higgins (1977): (X > Y) more than (Y not as… X) -Segui & Fourment (1979): (X > Y) more than (Y < X) Limitations -(X > Y) vs (Y not as … X) confounds Comparison: (X > Y) vs (Y < X) Type of statement: Affirmation vs. negation -Acceptability ratings purely linguistic Higgins (1977): not about whether it is true Segui & Fourment (1979): assume that it is true

5. Study 1: Evaluation Participants: 59 women, 45 men, aged 18 to 24 Task: Respond to a comparative statement -‘Taken from a discussion on relationships’ -Comparing men and women as friends Independent variables -(X > Y) vs (Y < X) -Men superior vs. women superior Dependent variables -Ratings of comparison (12 bipolar 7-pointsscales) + poles: believable, usual, agreeable, thoughtful, desirable, intelligent, friendly, normal, praiseworthy, tactful, true, suitable -Ratings of comparer (8 bipolar 7-pointsscales) + poles: respectful, agreeable, friendly, intelligent, altruistic, peaceful, attractive, modest

6. Sample statement Women are better friends than men “You know, I feel that women are better to be friends with than men are … They are more often ready to have a ball and they also do more for the people around them. Women support their friends more when times get rough, they more often help them seeking solutions to their problems and they encourage the people around them more to achieve their goals, even if these goals are different from their own. I feel that women accept other people more than men do. Yes, if I compare them to men, I feel that women are more devoted, loyal, and open-minded and that you can have more fun with them.”

7. Study 1 - Results

8. Study 2: Agreement Participants: 234 women, 86 men, aged 17 to 24 Task: questionnaire ‘on views of men and women’ -104 comparative statements Independent variables (within subjects) -Comparison: (X > Y) vs (Y < X) -Characteristic: positive vs. negative -Stereotype-consistency: consistent vs. inconsistent Dependent variable: -Agreement with statements -Scale from 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree)

9. Study 2 – Results [Note: No interactions involving comparison]

10. Why? Different presuppositions? Flores d’Arcais (1970): about different targets -(X > Y): presuppositions about subject -(Y < X): presuppositions about referent Huttenlocher & Higgins (1971) & Segui & Fourment (1979): differential strength -(X > Y) presupposes less than (Y not as … X) Additional data Study 1: inferred views -‘superior’ gender: no difference -‘inferior’ gender: (Y Y)

11. Conclusion Less is not more… (X > Y) & (Y < X) psychologically not equivalent -More favorable response to (X > Y) -More agreement with (X > Y) NOT due to -Markedness comparison adjective -Negation PERHAPS due to -Differential presupposition about ‘inferior’ element Implications for -Questionnaire design -Impression management

12. References Agostinelli, G., Sherman, S.J., Fazio, R.H., & Hearst, E.S. (1986). Detecting and identifying change: Additions versus deletions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 445-454. Clark, H.H. (1974). Semantics and comprehension. In: T.A. Sebeok (Ed.). Current trends in linguistics. Vol. 12: Linguistics and adjacent arts and sciences. The Hague: Mouton. Codol, J.P. (1987). Comparability and incomparability between oneself and others: Means of differentiation and comparison reference points. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 7, 87- 105. Flores d’Arcais, G.B. (1970). Linguistic structure and focus of comparison in processing of comparative sentences. In: G.B. Flores D’Arcais & W.J.M. Levelt (Eds.). Advances in psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Higgins, E. (1977). The varying presuppositional nature of comparatives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 6, 203-222. Hodges, S.D., & Hollenstein, T. (2001). Direction of comparison in typicality judgments. Social Cognition, 19, 601-623. Holoyoak, K.J. & Gordon, P.C. (1983). Social reference points. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 881-887. Hoorens, V. (1995). Self-favoring biases, self-presentation and the self-other asymmetry in social comparison. Journal of Personality, 63, 793-817 Houston, D.A., Sherman, S.J., & Baker, S.M. (1989). The influence of unique features and direction of comparison on preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 121-141. Huttenlocher, J., & Higgins, E.T. (1971). Adjectives, comparatives, and syllogisms. Psychological Review, 78, 487-504. Segui, J., & Fourment, M.-C. (1979). Présupposition et inférence: Une étude des structures comparatives. L’Année Psychologique, 79, 105-122. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.