Festingers Social Comparison Theory Psychology Essay

Festingers Social Comparison Theory Psychology EssayIn this essay we ar asked to look at Festingers favorable comparison system and its findings, applications, methodologies and theoretical approaches since its birth. We are asked to illustrate our understandings with acknowledgment to literature.Social comparison possibleness assumes that great deal tend to evaluate their triumphes, failures and opinions in congeneric to early(a)s (Festinger, 1954). This whitethorn occur with reference to a physical reality what is happening at a particular moment in time relative to ones perceptions of anothers abilities. Take for example if someone weed run a 6 minute mile he or she pilenot know this is good or bad without comparing this time with other runners. It may also urinate place with reference to an objective evaluation, for example a comparison between two assignments with similar grades. Festinger (1954) postulates that there is an innate drive inwardly human beings to eq ual themselves with outside images and mensurate their abilities in line with their assessments of others who are similar on the similar tasks. Following on from Festingers (1954) pilot burner theory check to Kruglanski Mayseless (1990) deal prefer to compare themselves with stack who are similar to themselves as it tends to result in a more accurate evaluation. For example the runner would take into account age and sex of other runners and excite comparisons based on this knowledge.Social comparisons are defined as comparative judgements made about a stimulus from the environment. They are context capable (Kruglanski Mayseless, 1990). There are three levels of analysis to Social Comparative Theory. Firstly a judgemental process must hold out before comparisons can be made. Social comparisons are made up of categorisations and comparative judgements about the self. The third level is the most specific of the three and is make up of the content of the comparison whether it is in the domain of comparison for example in sporting competition levels of achievement with reference to age and gender may be taken into consideration, as outlined by the runner example(Kruglanski et al., 1990).There are two main kinds of tender comparison upwards and downwards social comparisons. up comparisons occur when an individual compares itself to someone who they believe to be better off than themselves. Downwards social comparisons occur when people compare themselves to people they believe to be worse off than themselves. Festinger (1954) proposes that people who engage in downwards social comparisons do so in order to maintain their self esteem and pilot burner their self evaluations. Upwards social comparisons supposedly shew more negative forces such as abaseed levels of self-esteem. These processes will be discussed later. There direct been many components to Festingers original theory that still remain intact but the scope of social comparison theory has been extended to a vast soldiery of psychological domains and its implications get hold of been applied to a variety of settings.How SCT findings, methodologies and theorising has evolved since Festingers 1954 publicationFestingers original theory has undergone a routine of changes over the years particularly in tattle to its extension towards cognitive psychology. Since its stranding the theory has been accepted to be more complex than origin eachy thought. For example new attributes of the theory have been suggested. Revisions include en empirical emphasis on motivations and drives, self enhancement, perceptions of self esteem, self esteem buffering, perceived target closeness, components of closure to name but a few (Kruglanski et al., 1987 Corning, 2002, Gerrard, Gibbibs, pass Stock, 2005).According to Suls, Martin Wheeler (2002) social comparisons serve as a defence mechanism to protect ones self evaluation. Self enhancement depends on a number of variables such as whe ther the person compares upwardly or downwardly. If a person compares his or her own abilities in relation to people perceived to be lower than the individual this may act as a buffer to maintain the person sense of self worth and esteem. In the educational domain, people that are less academically driven prefer downwards social comparisons to prevent them from felling bad about bad results (Blankton et al., 1999). inquiry suggests that people have varying responses to social comparisons and these depend upon the perceived closeness of the target and the perceiver, and the importance of the particular domain of categorisation or expertise owned by the perceiver (Tesser, 1988 Suls et al., 2002).Several other models have been introduced to extend Festingers (1954) original theory. Social comparisons proxy model as proposed by Wheeler, Martin Suls (1997) refers to a situation in which people use social comparisons to assess their abilities in relation to an unfamiliar task. To illustr ate, Wheeler et al., (1997) offers the example of a person considering pursuing a university degree. Social comparisons are made between the person and others who are currently in university. If the proxy (experienced other) is similar to how they perceive themselves on average they are more likely to betroth the goal. Amount of effort needed to pursue goal is an important indicator of the outcome and often other related attributes are perceived irrelevant (Suls et al., 2002). There seems to be sufficient evidence to project this theory.A model that has been derived from SCT is the Relative Deprivation Theory as proposed by Davis (1959). This model provides a conceptual framework for personal perceptions of discrimination and deprivation. Davis (1959) postulates that this process helps people cope with social deprivation, people tend to assess their levels of deprivation by comparing their situation with those around them. In India because of the inflexibility of the Caste system people often compared themselves downwardly in order to deal with their present state of poverty, for example those living in the slums would compare themselves to the sewage dwellers or pavement people. This acts as a buffer for people to cope better with their unchangeable circumstances.The applications of Festingers (1954) theory are vast. The implications have many important effects particularly for health psychology. Research suggests that when a threat is involved downward social comparisons help people cope better. For breast cancer patients it was found that patients who preferred downwards social comparisons dealt with their affection much better (Taylor, Wood Lichman, 1983). Likewise, according to Meta analysis, comparisons of the self to others in relation to appearance can lead to body dissatisfaction which correlates strongly with eating disorders (Myers Crowther, 2009). In confederation with Meta Analysis Corning, Kruum Smithans (2006) study looking at social comp arisons and eating disorder symptoms found that women who engage in everyday social comparisons were more likely to exhibit eating disorder symptoms, and also found that self esteem was also a predictor of disorders. Research reveals that social comparisons can also predict success in cessation of smoking demeanors (Gerrard, Gibbons, Lane Stock, 2005). People that dissociate themselves from other smokers or the target behaviour are more likely to give up smoking in comparison to those who do not. When a decrease in downwards comparisons to smoking exists, smokers are more likely to quit.Social comparison theory has also been applied to an academic setting. Research suggests that upwards social comparisons can predict success in an academic environment. Gibbons, Benbow Gerrard (1994) found that gifted students preferred to compare themselves with those who did the best in the class on receiving a high grade. Conversely, if students received a poor mark they preferred downwards com parisons. This inconsistency is considered by the researchers to epitomize a form of buffering of the self concept and esteem. Research conducted by Blankton, Buunk, Gibbons Kuyper (1999) found that overall those who preferred upwards social comparisons did better in end of bourne grades.Interaction between affect and social comparisonComparisons may involve affective and cognitive components. The Wheeler Miyake (1992) study that incorporated the Rochester Social Comparison go in (RSCS) scale found several important findings conveying the importance of the cognitive and affective component. Firstly the comparison direction, either upwards or downwards depended on the perceivers relationship with the target. It also found evidence for a cognitive component to the theory, that is to say, priming mood effects the directional movement of social comparisons. Schacter (1959) proposes that people make comparisons by evaluating emotions. In a number of experiments he found that fear ev oked participants to want to be in a situation where someone else was experiencing the same feelings. This has been explained as a self evaluative component similar to what Festinger outlines in his original theory (Schacter, 1959). Conversely, Goethals Darley (1977) suggest that values are a component people make social comparisons based upon. Priming of a negative mood led to more upward social comparisons. Wills (1981) found that inducing threat leads to more downwards social comparisons this is explained as downwards comparisons serve to increase positive affect, mood, boost esteem and may reduce anxiety. Another study found that comparisons can lead to an induction of a positive or negative feeling (Buunk, Collins, Taylor, VanYperen Dakof, 1990). Downwards social comparisons increased peoples subjective well-being and an opposite effect was found for the upwards comparison (Wheeler et al., 1992). Being primed with either a threatening ego or self-esteem booster condition has a significant effect on individual social comparisons. When an ego boost is induced people tend to prefer upwards social comparisons and can this can predict behaviour i.e. individuals exhibited increased ability on a task. The opposite effect was found for an induced threat, similarly to Buunk et als. (1990) findings. Thus it has been concluded that motivations to maintain a positive self evaluation reflects performance on tasks (Johnson Stapel, 2007). Lastly people who exhibited high self esteem tended to engage in more self-enhancement comparisons (Wheeler et al., 1992).There seems to be a ubiquitous consensus that SCT exists but the exact dimensions of the theory are contested. The methodologies used tended to be mostly qualitative and really not applicable to the natural world. According to Wheeler Myiake (1992) vivacious methodologies for studying social comparisons have focused primarily on retrospective accounts and specify that an experience sampling measure should be ad apted to account for social comparisons as they occur in naturalistic settings. In their 1992 study they describe a qualitative method of measuring SCT called the Rochester Social Comparison Record (RSCR) (Wheeler et al., 1992). raillery ConclusionIt has been assumed that social comparison theory is a pervasive and ubiquitous phenomenon in everyday life. However, there still needs to be a lot of work conducted in this area particulary in relation to directional comparisons and their implications (Buunk et al., 1990). Albeit, despite revisions on social comparison theory the fundamental building blocks of Festingers (1954) original theoretical framework remains the same. The self evaluative component is important for this theory (Suls et al., 2002). As proposed by Festinger (1954) people make evaluations of their own behaviours in relation to others that they perceive are similar, this aspect has remained untainted. There seems to be evidence for this drive like ambition for humans to compare themselves in relation to others (Festinger, 1954).There seems to be a distinct cognitive component to social comparison theory. Suls et al. (2002) propose that comparisons are made uniformly across all domains and are not exponentially context driven. Priming can effect comparative judgements (Wills, 1992 Schacter, 1959). Current research in this domain outline that comparative knowledge depends on the motivations of the comparator and are dependent upon a number of situational, cultural and personality facets. Kruglanski et al., (1990) posit that motivational factors, perceived relevance, and availability heuristics all have an important role in whether the evaluative dimension relates to similar or different others. The work on social comparison theory has been extended to practical applications to health, counselling psychology and educational psychology. Over all social comparison theory has had a major impact in Psychology. Its implications and applications have bee n extended to many branches of psychology and undoubtedly the full extent of its pervasiveness have yet to be uncovered.