Ability Comparison and Its Effects on Affiliation Preferences

Abstract

The present paper reports the results of two experiments which examined how subjects choose partners for work interactions. In both experiments subjects were given feedback ("very good, " "good, " "average," "poor") about their previous level of performance and about the performance of others who could be chosen as partners for an evaluated or nonevaluated work interaction. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that there was an overall tendency for subjects to choose "very good" or "good" partners scoring in the upper quartiles. Further, "very good" and "good" subjects tended to select similar ability partners whether the interaction was expected to be evaluated or not. "Average"subjects tended to pick "good" partners for the evaluated interaction and "very good" partners for the nonevaluated interaction. "Poor" subjects showed the opposite trend. In Experiment 2 subjects received performance feedback and indicated their partner choicesfor evaluated or nonevaluated interactions consisting of either two or 10 members. The same trends were shown as in Experiment 1. It was also found that when expecting to work in a J0-person group subjects of all performance categories tended to choose "very good" partners. The results suggest that ability feedback, evaluation, and group size are important factors in partner selection for work interactions. The effects of these factors are presumed to reflect the conflict between the desire for a superior partner who may improve the work effort and serve as a model vs. the threat to self-esteem that may result from ability comparison.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

BYRNE, D. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press , 1971.

FESTINGER, L. A theory of social comparison processes . Human Relations, 1954, 7, 117-140 .

FRIEND, R. M. , & GILBERT, J. Threat and fear of negative evaluation as determinants of locus of social comparison . Journal of Personality, 1973, 41, 328-339 .

GRUSH, J. E. , CLORE, G. L. , & COSTIN, F. Dissimilarity and attraction: When difference makes a difference . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 783-789 .

HAKMILLER, K. L. Threat as a determinant of downward comparison . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, Suppl., 1, 49-54 .

HOMANS, G. C. Social behavior: -Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace , 1961.

JENNINGS, H. H. Leadership and isolation. New York: Longmans Green , 1950.

NEWCOMB, T. The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston , 1961.

SENN, D. J. Attraction as a function of similarity-dissimilarity in task performance . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 18, 120-123 .

10.

SIEGEL, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill , 1956.

11.

SULS, J. M. , & MILLER, R. L. (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empiricalperspectives. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere/Halsted , 1977.

12.

THORNTON, D. A. , & ARROWOOD, A. J. Self-evaluation, self-enhancement, and the locus of social comparison . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, Suppl., 1, 40-48 .

13.

WHEELER, L. , SHAVER, K. G. , JONES, R. A. , GOETHALS, G. , COOPER, J. , ROBINSON, J. E. , GRUDER, C. L. , & BUTZINE, K. W. Factors determining choice of a comparison other . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969, 5, 219-232 .

14.

WINER, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill , 1962.