scholarly journals Call for papers: Special issue on the social comparison process

2004 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. iii-iv
Keyword(s):  
Social Comparison ◽  
Comparison Process ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Comparison Process

scholarly journals The looking glass

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Gattino ◽  
Anna Miglietta
Keyword(s):  
Social Representation ◽  
Social Recognition ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Theoretical Point ◽  
Comparison Process ◽  
Everyday Language ◽  
The Social ◽  
Plural Society ◽  
Looking Glass ◽  
Social Comparison Process

The paper discusses the concept of citizenship both from a critical-theoretical point of view and in the light of the findings of a research conducted in Italy on the social representation of citizens and migrants. The research aims to analyze how the thêma of social recognition is objectified in everyday language and to explore the characteristics attributed to the other in a plural society. We show how the contemporary foreigner figure that we have come to know as ‘the migrant’ is a political and legal figure, but is also the result of a symbolic construction which is shaped through a social comparison process between citizens and non-citizens.

Social Influence in the Housing Market

2015 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 757-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrie H. Pan ◽  
Christo A. Pirinsky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Influence ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
The United States ◽  
Social Effects ◽  
Lower Income ◽  
Comparison Process ◽  
Housing Consumption ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Comparison Process

AbstractWe utilize the decennial U.S. Census to study social effects in housing consumption across 4 million households from 126 ethnic groups and 2,071 geographic locations in the United States. We find that the homeownership decisions within ethnic groups are locally correlated, after controlling for the homeownership rates within the group and the region. Social influence is stronger for younger, less educated, and lower-income individuals; immigrants; and Americans with ancestors from more unequal, uncertainty-avoiding, and collectivistic cultures. Our results suggest that both status and information considerations play an important role in the social comparison process in capital markets.

How Do Auditors Weight Informal Contrary Advice? The Joint Influence of Advisor Social Bond and Advice Justifiability

2013 ◽  
Vol 88 (6) ◽  
pp. 2061-2087 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Kadous ◽  
Justin Leiby ◽  
Mark E. Peecher
Keyword(s):  
Social Comparison ◽  
Social Bond ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Comparison Process ◽  
Auditor Judgment ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Joint Influence ◽  
Advice Quality ◽  
Social Comparison Process

ABSTRACT: Auditors frequently seek informal advice from peers to improve judgment quality, but the conditions under which advice improves auditor judgment are poorly understood. We predict and find evidence of a trust heuristic among auditors receiving advice from advisors with whom they share a social bond. This heuristic is evident among non-specialists, who weight advice according to its justifiability when it is received from a weaker social bond advisor, but fail to objectively assess the quality of advice received and weight it heavily when it comes from a stronger social bond advisor, regardless of its justifiability. Specialists, while less prone to the trust heuristic in advice weighting, show inconsistencies in advice weighting and their assessments of advice quality. In particular, specialists discount better justified advice from stronger social bond advisors, despite rating this advice as being of relatively high quality. This defensiveness likely arises from an aversive social comparison process attributable to the high ego-relevance of a task within one's specialization. Future research is warranted to corroborate or refute this possibility.

It’s All Relative: A Team-Based Social Comparison Model for Self-Evaluations of Effectiveness

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 361-395
Author(s):  
Jaclyn A. Margolis ◽  
Scott B. Dust
Keyword(s):  
Social Comparison ◽  
Organizational Context ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Target Selection ◽  
Social Comparisons ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Comparison Process ◽  
Comparison Theory ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Social Comparison Process

We apply social comparison theory (SCT) to the organizational context and develop a model explicating the social comparison process that occurs within organizational teams. In doing so, we highlight how individual, team, and managerial factors influence this process. First, we discuss how task-related (e.g., functional background and experience) and demographic-related (e.g., age, gender, and race) team characteristics affect social comparison target selection (i.e., the team as a whole, a subgroup, or a specific individual) and further explain the impact of metacognitive capacities on this referent selection process. Next, we explore how team norms of collaboration versus competition affect whether employees assimilate or contrast, respectively, during social comparisons. Subsequently, we highlight how managers influence the proposed social comparison process. Finally, we discuss how social comparisons can be productive or unproductive for team members’ organization-based self-esteem (OBSE). We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of our model and offering avenues for future research.

Epistemic and relational conflicts in sharing identical vs. complementary information during cooperative learning

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 139-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Céline Darnon ◽  
Céline Buchs ◽  
Fabrizio Butera
Keyword(s):  
Cooperative Learning ◽  
Social Comparison ◽  
Positive Relationship ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Complementary Information ◽  
Relational Conflict ◽  
The Social ◽  
The University

When interacting on a learning task, which is typical of several academic situations, individuals may experience two different motives: Understanding the problem, or showing their competences. When a conflict (confrontation of divergent propositions) emerges from this interaction, it can be solved either in an epistemic way (focused on the task) or in a relational way (focused on the social comparison of competences). The latter is believed to be detrimental for learning. Moreover, research on cooperative learning shows that when they share identical information, partners are led to compare to each other, and are less encouraged to cooperate than when they share complementary information. An epistemic vs. relational conflict vs. no conflict was provoked in dyads composed by a participant and a confederate, working either on identical or on complementary information (N = 122). Results showed that, if relational and epistemic conflicts both entailed more perceived interactions and divergence than the control group, only relational conflict entailed more perceived comparison activities and a less positive relationship than the control group. Epistemic conflict resulted in a more positive perceived relationship than the control group. As far as performance is concerned, relational conflict led to a worse learning than epistemic conflict, and - after a delay - than the control group. An interaction between the two variables on delayed performance showed that epistemic and relational conflicts were different only when working with complementary information. This study shows the importance of the quality of relationship when sharing information during cooperative learning, a crucial factor to be taken into account when planning educational settings at the university.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document