Relationship social comparisons in dating and marital relationships: Adding relationship social comparison interpretations

2018 ◽  
Vol 159 (4) ◽  
pp. 398-416
Author(s):  
Marian M. Morry ◽  
Tamara A. Sucharyna
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels van de Ven ◽  
Marcel Zeelenberg

Upward social comparison can give rise to the emotion of envy: the pain caused by the good fortune of others. We explain what envy is, and what the possible function of envy is to an organism experiencing it. We provide an overview of past work on envy, the distinction between two subtypes (benign and malicious envy), possible antecedents of envy, possible consequences of envy, and the responses to being envied by others. In each of these areas there are clear links to research on social comparison, and research on envy has greatly benefitted from insights from the social comparison literature. Given the surge in research on envy in the last decade, we hope that the findings on envy can also inspire those investigating social comparisons.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 325-350
Author(s):  
Stefanie Keupp ◽  
Farhan Abedin ◽  
Lena Jeanson ◽  
Carolin Kade ◽  
Josefine Kalbitz ◽  
...  

Social comparisons are a fundamental feature of human thinking and affect self-evaluations and task performance. Little is known about the evolutionary origins of social comparison processes, however. Previous studies that investigated performance-based social comparisons in nonhuman primates yielded mixed results. We report three experiments that aimed (a) to explore how the task type may contribute to performance in monkeys, and (b) how a competitive set-up affects monkeys compared to humans. In a co-action touchscreen task, monkeys were neither influenced by nor interested in the performance of the partner. This may indicate that the experimental set-up was not sufficiently relevant to trigger social comparisons. In a novel co-action foraging task, monkeys increased their feeding speed in competitive and co-active conditions, but not in relation to the degree of competition. In an analogue of the foraging task, human participants were affected by partner performance and experimental context, indicating that the task is suitable to elicit social comparisons in humans. Our studies indicate that specifics of task and experimental setting are relevant to draw the monkeys’ attention to a co-actor and that, in line with previous research, a competitive element was crucial. We highlight the need to explore what constitutes “relevant” social comparison situations for monkeys as well as nonhuman animals in general, and point out factors that we think are crucial in this respect (e.g., task type, physical closeness, and the species’ ecology). We discuss that early forms of social comparisons evolved in purely competitive environments with increasing social tolerance and cooperative motivations allowing for more fine-grained processing of social information. Competition driven effects on task performance might constitute the foundation for the more elaborate social comparison processes found in humans, which may involve context-dependent information processing and metacognitive monitoring.


Author(s):  
Eleanor Putnam-Farr ◽  
Carey K. Morewedge

Social comparisons are not only ubiquitous and influential but also represent a naturally occurring example of more general evaluative judgment. As such, they can be examined using the general types of mental processes that are used in the judgment and decision-making literature. While the direction of social comparison processes can be easily characterized as upward or downward, for instance, their specific calibration (e.g., sensitivity to absolute differences) is more difficult to determine. Insights gleaned from judgment and decision-making can inform research examining the calibration of social comparisons to different standards. In turn, the specific lessons gleaned from social comparisons, particularly with respect to how comparison targets are chosen, can inform judgment and decision-making. The chapter begins with a successful example of the integration of these literatures, research on anchoring bias. The authors then explain how social comparison research might benefit from judgment and decision-making research examining how calibration and sensitivity to absolute differences depend on the number of standards in the comparison set and their relative position on a continuum. The authors review different prototype, exemplar, and hybrid models explaining how people compare a target to distributions and sets of multiple standards, which could be of use to researchers examining social comparisons to multiple targets and groups. The chapter ends by noting how judgment and decision-making may benefit from the insight that social comparisons provide into the selection of comparison standards and directions for cross-pollination between these fields.


Author(s):  
Niels van de Ven ◽  
Marcel Zeelenberg

Upward social comparison can give rise to the emotion of envy: the pain caused by the good fortune of others. This chapter explains what envy is and what the possible function of envy is to an organism experiencing it. The authors provide an overview of past work on envy, the distinction between two subtypes (benign and malicious envy), possible antecedents of envy, possible consequences of envy, and the responses to being envied by others. In each of these areas, there are clear links to research on social comparison and research on envy has greatly benefited from insights from the social comparison literature. Given the surge in research on envy in the last decade, the authors hope that the findings on envy inspires those investigating social comparisons.


2020 ◽  
pp. 194855062094729
Author(s):  
Alexandra Fleischmann ◽  
Joris Lammers ◽  
Paul Conway ◽  
Adam D. Galinsky

The current work tests whether the dispositional tendency to compare oneself to others—social comparison orientation (SCO)—impacts decisions in moral dilemmas. Past research offers two competing predictions for how SCO impacts moral decision making: (a) SCO increases deontological judgments because people high in SCO care especially about social norms versus (b) SCO decreases deontological judgments because people high in SCO are competitive and thus unconcerned about causing harm to others. Four studies (two preregistered) find consistent support that SCO decreases deontological decisions. This relationship was robust in employing conventional (Study 1) and process dissociation (Studies 2–4) dilemma analytic techniques. Furthermore, we find that psychopathy uniquely mediates decreased deontological decisions among people high in SCO (Study 4). These results indicate that high-SCO people make fewer deontological decisions because they are less concerned with causing harm. Overall, the current research suggests that there is a dark side to making social comparisons.


1974 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 887-894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven P. McNeel ◽  
James D. Sweeney ◽  
Peter C. Bohlin

Ss' choice behavior in two types of mixed-motive games was used to classify them according to their predominant goal orientation. Ss with competitive (Relative Gain) goals and those with individualistic (Own Gain) goals were then presented with 50 decomposed Prisoner's Dilemma games in which they interacted with a conditionally cooperative other. Some Ss saw their own and the other person's outcomes displayed on each trial, while others also saw a bogus Average outcome. The latter outcome was constructed such that comparison with it made the mutually competitive outcomes “look bad” and the mutually cooperative outcomes “look good.” On the basis of social-comparisons, it was predicted that Relative-gain Ss would learn to cooperate in the “Average” condition but not in the Other condition. Own-gain Ss were expected to show high levels of cooperation over-all and to cooperate sooner in the Average condition than in the Other condition. Predictions were significant only for Own-gain Ss, though they were also in the expected direction for Relative-gain Ss. The discussion focused on problems with using social-comparison processes as a basis for training Ss to be cooperative, with special emphasis placed on the issue of the relevance of the available comparisons.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 1069-1097 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marian M. Morry ◽  
Kenny C. Chee ◽  
Trinda L. Penniston ◽  
Tamara A. Sucharyna

How individuals interpret a relationship social comparison is important to their relationship quality. We asked whether relationship social comparison interpretations (RSCIs) differ from relationship attributions. Individuals were randomly assigned to compare their dating relationship to a friend’s relationship that was doing better (upward comparison) or worse (downward comparison) than their own. Individuals then completed measures for the RSCI and attributions for their own relationship success/failure (Study 1) and attributions for their friend’s relationship success/failure (Study 2). Correlations indicated that the RSCI and attributions were not isomorphic. Simultaneous regressions indicated that the RSCI was a more consistent predictor of relationship quality than were attributions. How individuals interpret social comparisons not just the comparison direction should be studied.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document