Contexts of System Justification and System Evaluation: Exploring the Social Comparison Strategies of the (Not Yet) Contented Female Worker

2001 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 126-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hart Blanton ◽  
Greg George ◽  
Jennifer Crocker
Keyword(s):  
Social Comparison ◽  
System Justification ◽  
System Evaluation ◽  
Female Worker ◽  
The Social

scholarly journals Do Superordinate Identification and Temporal/Social Comparisons Independently Predict Citizens’ System Trust? Evidence From a 40-Nation Survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Caricati ◽  
Chuma Kevin Owuamalam ◽  
Chiara Bonetti
Keyword(s):  
Social Comparison ◽  
Social Comparisons ◽  
Positive Function ◽  
System Justification ◽  
World Value Survey ◽  
Temporal Comparison ◽  
Time Points ◽  
National Identification ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Identity Approach

Do superordinate in-group bias as well as temporal and social comparisons offer standalone explanations for system justification? We addressed this question using the latest World Value Survey (7th Wave), combining the responses of 55,721 participants from 40 different nations. Results from a random slope multilevel model showed that superordinate (national) identification, temporal comparison (i.e., the outcomes of an individual relative to those of his/her parents at different time points), and social comparison (based on income levels) were independent and positive predictors of system justification. Specifically, system justification increased when national identification was high, when income increased (i.e., the socioeconomic comparison was positive), and when the outcomes of citizens improved relative to the outcomes of their parents at relevant time points (i.e., the temporal comparison was positive). Incidentally, we also observed an interaction between national identification and temporal comparison (but not with social comparison), indicating that positive temporal comparison seemed to have a reduced effect (but still significant) for highly identified citizens. These results are supportive of the social identity approach to system justification and suggest that support for societal systems is a positive function of people’s personal and group interests.

Myopia of the Masses

2019 ◽  
pp. 598-622
Author(s):  
Ruthie Pliskin ◽  
Daniel Yudkin ◽  
John T. Jost ◽  
Yaacov Trope
Keyword(s):  
Social Comparison ◽  
Relative Deprivation ◽  
System Justification ◽  
Social Protest ◽  
System Level ◽  
Construal Level ◽  
Comparison System ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Masses ◽  
High Level

Despite pervasive income inequality, protests demanding social change are relatively rare. This chapter proposes that comparative scope—the range of social comparison targets that an individual deems relevant—partially explains why people do or do not engage in social protest. Based on research on relative deprivation, social comparison, system justification, and construal level, the authors argue that the known tendency to draw myopic social comparisons may help explain why social protest is uncommon. When individuals engage in low construal-level comparisons with proximal others, they are likely to focus on concrete secondary features of their situation, promoting system justification. For inequality to produce system-level protest, disadvantaged individuals must expand their comparative scope through processes of critical awareness and consciousness-raising that promote high-level construals of the situation to consider abstract central features of the social system. Interventions designed to expand comparative scope may therefore assist practitioners in efforts to increase protest against inequality.

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.

Envy and Social Comparison

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels van de Ven ◽  
Marcel Zeelenberg
Keyword(s):  
Social Comparison ◽  
Social Comparisons ◽  
Past Work ◽  
Good Fortune ◽  
Malicious Envy ◽  
The Social ◽  
Upward Social Comparison

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.

Low system justification drives ideological differences in joke perception: A critical commentary and re-analysis of Baltiansky et al. (2020)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry Robert McSweeney Purser ◽  
Craig A. Harper
Keyword(s):  
Data File ◽  
System Justification ◽  
Poor People ◽  
Women Poor ◽  
Critical Commentary ◽  
Original Analysis ◽  
The Social ◽  
Ideological Differences ◽  
High System ◽  
Racial Ethnic

A recent study by Baltiansky, Craig, & Jost (2020) tested two hypotheses related to system justification and the perception of stereotypical humor. They reported to have found evidence for a cross-over interaction, with judgments of jokes being contingent on a combination of the social status of the targets of jokes and raters’ system justification motivations. Here, we discuss the original analysis, presentation, and interpretation of the data in Baltiansky et al. (2020), before presenting a re-analysis of the authors’ shared data file. We show that the framing of claims such as “high system-justifiers found jokes targeting low-status groups (e.g., women, poor people, racial/ethnic minorities) to be funnier than low system-justifiers did” (p. 1) are misleading in their framing. Instead, our re-analyses suggest that ideological differences in joke perception are driven primarily by those scoring low on the system justification motivation rating jokes about ostensibly low-status groups as less funny than jokes about other social groups.

Social comparison orientation and mental health: The mediating role of psychological capital

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoliang Yang ◽  
Zhihua Wang ◽  
Weijiong Wu
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Social Comparison ◽  
Psychological Capital ◽  
Mediating Effect ◽  
Mediating Role ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Comparison Orientation ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

Little is known about the relationship between social comparison orientation and mental health, especially in the psychological capital context. We proposed a theoretical model to examine the impact of ability- and opinion-based social comparison orientation on mental health using data from 304 undergraduates. We also examined the mediating effect of the four psychological capital components of hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism in the relationship between social comparison orientation and mental health. Results show that an ability (vs. opinion) social comparison orientation was negatively (vs. positively) related to the psychological capital components. Further, the resilience and optimism components of psychological capital fully mediated the social comparison orientation–mental health relationship. Our findings indicate that psychological capital should be considered in the promotion of mental health, and that the two social comparison orientation types have opposite effects on psychological capital.

Using Social Comparison Procedures in Educating Behaviorally Disordered Pupils

1982 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 219-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael H. Epstein ◽  
Douglas Cullinan
Keyword(s):  
Social Comparison ◽  
Behavior Analysis ◽  
Applied Behavior Analysis ◽  
Reading Program ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Behaviorally Disordered ◽  
The Social ◽  
Practical Implications

Social comparison is an applied behavior analysis evaluation procedure that may help educators evaluate whether or not an improvement in classroom functioning has practical value to the treated pupil. This paper describes how to use the social comparison procedure. As an illustration, a case is presented in which the effects of a reading program on the performance of a behaviorally disordered pupil was evaluated through social comparison. Practical implications are offered pertaining to the use of social comparison in education programs for such pupils.

scholarly journals Getting Moving Together; a field experiment on workplace physical activity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Sanders ◽  
Karen Tindall ◽  
Alex Gyani ◽  
Susannah Hume ◽  
Min-Taec Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Social Comparison ◽  
Comparison Group ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Wearable Devices ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Activity Levels ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Baseline Activity ◽  
The Social

Importance: Wearable devices are widely used in an effort to increase physical activity and consequently to improve health. The evidence for this is patchy, and it does not appear that wearables alone are sufficient to achieve this end.Objective: To determine whether social comparisons in a workplace setting can increase the effectiveness of wearables at promoting physical activity.Design: A four week randomized controlled trial conducted in November 2015 with employees of a large firm. Participants were randomised to one of two treatment conditions (control vs social comparison) at team level, and teams are formed into ‘leagues’ based on their activity levels before the study. Impact is measured through wearable devices issued to all participants throughout the study duration.Setting: Offices of a large Australian employer.Participants: 646 employees of an Australian employer, issued with wearable activity trackers prior to the beginning of the study. Intervention(s) (for clinical trials) or Exposure(s) (for observational studies). Participants used a wearable device to track steps. Participants had been wearing these for at least four weeks at the outset of the trial, establishing a baseline level of activity. Teams (n=646, k=49), were randomly assigned to either control (k=24), or a social comparison (k=25) treatment. All participants took part in a step-count competition between their team and others at their employer, in which their team’s ranking within a mini-league of five teams, as well as their own activity was communicated each week. The control group had access to the usual features of the wearable, while the social comparison group received additional information about the performance of the other teams in their league, including how far behind and ahead their nearest rival teams were.Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Number of steps taken per day on average, measured by the wearable devices issued to all participants. Results: A total of 646 participants were included in the study. Compared to the control, participants in the social comparison group took significantly more steps per day during the trial period (an additional 620 steps, 8.2%, p<0.001). These effects are largest in both relative and absolute terms for people whose prior steps were in the bottom quartile of steps (an additional 948 steps, 40%, p<0.001), while the effect on people with highest levels of activity was a precisely estimated null (an additional 6 steps, 0.01%, p=0.98).Conclusions and Relevance: Social comparison increased the effectiveness of wearables at improving physical activity, particularly for those with the lowest baseline activity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document