One purpose of the social comparison of abilities is to determine action possibilities— “Can I do X?” By comparing ourselves with a proxy who has attempted X, we can determine our likelihood of success. A good proxy is one who has performed the same as us on an initial task requiring the ability. In addition, however, a good proxy must be similar on related attributes so that we can be confident that the proxy's performance on the initial task was maximal. In the case of a task requiring multiple abilities, more than one proxy may be used.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
3.
Buunk, B., Collins, R., Taylor, S., Dakof, G., & Van Y peren, N. (1990). The affective consequences of social comparison: Either direction has its ups and downs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1238-1249.
4.
Cantor, N. (1994). Life task problem solving: Situational affordances and personal needs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 235-243.
5.
Collins, R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward comparisons on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 51-69.
6.
Festinger, L. (1954a). Motivation leading to social behavior. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 191-218). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
7.
Festinger, L. (1954b). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
8.
Gastorf, J. W., & Suls, J. (1978). Performance evaluation via social comparison: Performance similarity versus related-attribute similarity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 41, 328-340.
9.
Goethals, G. R., & Darley, J. M. (1977). Social comparison theory: An attributional approach. In J. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 259-278). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
10.
Goethals, G. R., & Nelson, R. E. (1973). Similarity in the influence process: The belief-value distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 117-122.
11.
Gorenflo, D. W., & Crano, W. D. (1989). Judgmental subjectivity/objectivity and locus of choice in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 605-614.
12.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
13.
Jellison, J., & Arkin, R. (1977). Social comparison of abilities: A self-presentational approach to decision-making in groups. In J. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 235-258). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
14.
Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 200-206.
15.
Jones, S. C., & Regan, D. (1974). Ability evaluation through social comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 133-146.
16.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192-240). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
17.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Mayseless, O. (1990). Class and current social comparison research: Expanding the perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 195-208.
18.
Major, B., Testa, M., & Bylsma, W. (1991). Responses to upward and downward social comparisons: The impact of esteem-relevance and perceived control. In J. Suls & T. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 237-260). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
19.
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.
20.
Miller, C. T. (1982). The role of performance-related similarity in social comparison of abilities: A test of the related attributes hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 513-523.
21.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
22.
Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
23.
Singer, J. E., & Shockley, V. L. (1965). Ability and affiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 95-100.
24.
Smith, W. P. (1984). Judgmental goals in the social comparison of ability. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 14, 36-51.
25.
Smith, W. P., & Sachs, P. R. (1993). Social comparison and task prediction: Ability similarity and the use of proxy. Manuscript submitted for publication.
26.
Suls, J. (1986). Notes on the occasion of social comparison theory's thirtieth birthday. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 289-296.
27.
Suls, J., Gaes, G., & Gastorf, J. W. (1979). Evaluating a sex-related ability: Comparison with same–, opposite–, and combined– sex norms. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 294-304.
28.
Suls, J., Gastorf, J. W., & Lawhon, J. (1978). Social comparison choices for evaluating a sex–and age–related ability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 102-105.
29.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. (1989). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
30.
Taylor, S. E., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1995). Effects of mindset on positive illusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 213-226.
31.
Taylor, S. E., & Lobel, M. (1989). Social comparison activity under threat: Downward evaluation and upward contacts. Psychological Review, 96, 569-575.
32.
Taylor, S. E., Neter, E., & Wayment, H. A. (1995). Self-evaluation processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1278-1287.
33.
Trope, Y. (1986). Self-enhancement and self-assessment in achievement behavior. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 350-378). New York: Guilford.
34.
Wheeler, L. (1966). Motivation as a determinant of upward comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2(Suppl. 1), 27-31.
35.
Wheeler, L., & Koestner, R. (1984). Performance evaluation: On choosing to know the related attributes of others when we know their performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20,263-271.
36.
Wheeler, L., Koestner, R., & Driver, R. E. (1982). Related attributes in choice of comparison others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 489-500.
37.
Wheeler, L., & Zuckerman, M. (1977). Commentary. In J. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 335-358). Washington DC: Hemisphere.
38.
Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social comparison. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245-271.
39.
Zanna, M. P., Goethals, G. R., & Hill, J. F. (1975). Evaluating a sex-related ability: Social comparison with similar others and standard setters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 86-93.
