BESC1528 Lect 3 Soc Comp Slides 2023

Psychology of Social Life
Lecture 3
Social Comparison
Demonstration
An exercise in understanding self
• Who are you? Are you shy or outgoing? Are you agreeable, anxious or
conscientious when it comes to your studies?
• How do you know? Social psychology indicates that it is your interaction
with others that helps you decide this
• This exercise will compare your overall sense of self with some specific
questions
Overall question
• On the follow scale [0 to 8], rate how strongly do you identify with being
a university student?
RMIT University Slide 2

An exercise in understanding self
• Here is a score card

1. Socialization
Definition – process of learning the social norms and values of a new
setting
Score 1 if you basically agree with the following statements

Score 0 if these statements do not apply to you
1. I have known for many years that I would be studying at

university
2. I knew what to expect when I began university
3. I have already completed a tutorial task in this course

Add a one or a zero to your score
2. Reflected appraisal
Definition – how do significant others respond/react to you

1. Do your non-university friends respond positively when you

mention university life?
2. Do important others [family, friends, work colleagues]

understand when university commitments compete for your
time?
Add a one or a zero to your cumulative score

3. Feedback
Definition – verbal statements by others in an attempt to influence your
behaviour

1. Does your family/friends facilitate/help you to succeed [do well]

at university?
2. Does your family/friends congratulate [or show interest] when

you do well at University?

4. Self-perception
Definition – how do you explain your own self or behaviour

1. If you were asked to describe yourself using three adjectives,

would one of them include “university student”?
2. When you meet someone new, do you generally mention that

you are attending university?

5. Labelling arousal states
Definition – how do you explain your daily life at university

1. Are you happy at University, do you enjoy university life?
2. Have you made, or do you have acquaintances or friends at

this university?

6. Distinctiveness
Definition – do you emphasize your university role

1. Do you try to spend more time with people from university?
2. Do you identify with university student issues, such as lower or

no university fees?

7. Social comparison
Definition – comparing own thoughts and actions with similar
others

1. When you compare yourself with non-university friends, do you

feel that you are doing more with your life?
2. Do you mainly compare your behaviours with friends who are

also at university?

8. Social identity
Definition – perceived membership with a desirable group

1. Have your purchased [or considered purchasing] university

branded clothing?
2. Do you select university-type clothing to wear to university

classes?

Findings
Does your cumulative score [over the eight sources of self-

knowledge] match your original score [within one point]
Conclusion
Social psychology assumes individual “know” about themselves by
comparing their thoughts, feelings and behaviours with their family,
friends and wider social network

End of demonstration
Consider
Pause
Reflect – on how important your social network of

people is in determining who you think you are
and who you really are?
Stop and have a short rest break
Play and continue with lecture

Psychology of Social Life
Lecture 3
1.Social comparison theory
2.Social psychology of Self
Learning objectives
1. Using three major theories, explain human social behaviour
2. State the social comparison theory and describe Schachter's (1959)

affiliation experiments
3. Name the three parameters of social comparison research and

explain the three exceptions to this theory
4. Illustrate how social comparison theory explains normal and abnormal

behaviour
5. Explain the following eight sources of self-knowledge: Socialization;

Reflected appraisal; Feedback; Self perception; Labelling arousal
states; Distinctiveness; Social comparison; and, Social identity

Learning objectives



behaviour


Social comparison and “change”
• Answer the following:
On a scale from one to 100 (terrible - brilliant) what is your quality of life?
• Most people rate themselves around 75% and while it may go higher if
they have won the lottery and may go down if they have had a car accident
and are now permanently in a wheel chair. However, within a year most
people return to around this baseline of 75%
• Why?
• Before the car accident, people compare themselves to similar [able]
others [75%]
• Just after the accident, they compare themselves to able people and
their “loss of abilities” is evident and thus their well-being rating declines.
• However, as they adjust to their new status, they begin to compare
themselves with others with a similar disability and thus their well-being
judgment returns to around 75%
Hence, the social environment/context is the determining factor

Remarkable case studies of “change”
• Over a short time, people can permanently change and this does not occur
due to intimidation, threats, coercion, rewards, or brain-washing
• It seems to be associated with “comparison” – that is, individuals

evaluate the accuracy and veracity of their beliefs and behaviours by
comparing themselves to other individuals in their settings
• Case study 1.
Kathi Hudson, pro-choice advocate, infiltrated pro-life group

to spy on procedures and activities, after two years of
pro-life meetings, she abandoned pro-choice and became
a born-again Christian
See story from LA Times

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-03-17-vw-11996-story.html

• Case study 2.
Tobias Schneebaum, US tourist to Peru,

met and then lived with tribe
(Akaramas) for six months, adopted
customs so completely he joined in
attacks on neighbouring tribes and
in their cannibalistic rituals

• Case study 3.
David Moore, joined cult, interested in personal development, religion and

space travel, adopted group belief that a passing comet included a space
ship to collect his “soul”, he and 38 members of the (Heaven’s Gate) cult
committed suicide to liberate their consciousness

This lecture series covers everyday processes of social life that will also explain
these case studies
• Why seek others out?

• Defining self
• Enhancing self through attribution
• Judging others through person perception
• Developing friendships
• Creating groups
• Communicating within groups
• Working as a group
• The key to understanding all of this – social comparison

Why do humans seek out others? 1
Biological explanation
• Evolutionary (herd instinct) theory
• This explanation highlights
o Survival of the human race by an increase in learning capacity
o Reduced instincts at birth, need to learn [longer dependency period]
o Enlarged neo-cortex [brain] to learn [born premature before infant can
look after itself]
• Hence, long dependency period requires the following to be selected for:
 Parent to tend and protect newborn [social]
 Parents need to be protected and provided for [social]
 Newborn needs to learn to social [to be elicit care and be protected]
 As adult, need to cooperate to defend tribe and protect [social]
o Size of social group is limited by Dunbar’s # [see previous lecture]

Developmental explanation
• Dependency [learning] theory

o Humans born with large, but under-developed brains – cannot survive
alone – hence require parenting [social]
o Long dependency period – requires parent to nourish and protect, and
child to seek and out and accept parenting [social for both]
o Parents [via modelling] teach infants/children
 To be agreeable and cooperative [social]
 To be helpful and altruistic [social]
 To form social groups [from play to adult behaviours]

• Social psychology explanation
• This theory focuses on the reality, that in a complex society, humans have to
rely on social networks [see Milgram’s six degrees of separation] to
discover relevant information that they may have missed due to urban
overload [not being able to interact with everyone – Dunbar’s #]
• This need for more information than humans

can get from their own senses and experiences
is by sharing information with their social
network
• This is called the Social Comparison process

and is the focus for the rest of this lecture

Social comparison process 1
• Amount and flow of information
o Milgram small world research and Urban overload
• Quality of information
In general humans process their own information but it is limited, distorted,
biased, and only provides subjective information
o Sensory level – this information is limited to direct sensation
o Perceptual level – information interpreted through top- down

processing – that is based on previous learning
o Memory level – focus on information via previous experience [selective

attention]
• How can an individual check on the accuracy of this subjective information?

• The reality is that individuals only receive limited direct sensory

information and this is also limited, biased and distorted by previous
experiences (subjective information)
Further information about the world and themselves

• Individuals also receive independent information from other sources, but
this has generally been interpreted by others (hence, further subjective
interpretation of subjective information)
Challenge then is what is reality? [or do humans live in a biased

subjective world]
• Need in some way determine the reliability and validity of this subjective
information

Social comparison process 3a
on the following
a) Compare past information you accepted as true and information you

questioned
o What was the difference between the two
• was it the information (it was unbelievable)
• was it the source of the information (did not trust the source)
b) When your best friend comments on your abilities – do you accept it as

true?
o In most cases we believe our best friend is telling the truth
o However, do you think you get the real thing every time?

Social comparison process 3b
c) When your best friend asks you to comment on his/her appearance/ability

– do you always tell the whole truth???
“Does this dress make me look fat?”

Social comparison theory investigates
• why we seek out information,
• from whom do we seek out this information, and
• under what circumstances do we seek out information
Sources of extra information

• Institutions – governments, news services, websites (official or
otherwise), club bulletins, etc
• Other people in formal networks – University staff, official websites,

emails, etc
• Other people in informal networks – family, friends, other students,

other students enrolled in that particular course etc

Who influences humans most?
Answer: Other people in informal networks [and mostly people considered

as strong ties – see Granovetter’s research in previous lecture]
Why these people?

Because
• Spend more time and Interact with them more than anyone else
• Discuss and clarify concerns without being embarrassed [asking lecturer

in class] and making a significant effort [sending staff an email]
• Trust these people as they are friends and their motives are known (and
are positive) – see friendship formation in future lecture

End of learning objective 1
Consider
Pause
Reflect – on how much information about your

world comes from formal sources [Governments,
news feeds] and how much comes from informal
sources [family, friends, social media]?

Learning objectives
2. State the social comparison theory and describe Schachter's

(1959) affiliation experiments


behaviour


• Social comparison is defined as people, when uncertain,
seek out others in similar situations to compare their
thoughts, feelings and actions
Key terms
o when uncertain
o others in similar situations
o compare
o thoughts, feelings and actions

Schachter (Study 1)
Stanley Schachter – famous social psychologist
• was interested in creating uncertainty

in subjects/participants and then determining
how they would behave [seek more information]
• used a true (laboratory) experimental design [see lecture on research

methods]
• attempted to determine cause (uncertainty) and effect (increase in social

comparison behaviours)

Research design –
The Posttest-only control group design is a research design in which
• Participants/subjects are randomly allocated into groups
• there are [at least] two groups [control and experimental]
• one of which [control group] does not receive a treatment or intervention
• and data are collected on the outcome measure only after the treatment or

intervention
Research details – for Schachter’s first study
Results – anxious/uncertain participants are more likely to seek out
others (??)

Confounding explanations, that is there are two possible
explanations for why uncertainty caused the shift to sitting with others,
but “why”?
Two explanations
1. Social comparison – wanted more information regarding experiment
and the degree of shock/pain
2. Social distraction – high anxiety may lead to seeking others out that will
distract them from the forthcoming event
Hence, Schachter needed [and did complete] a second study

Schachter’s second study
Conclusion
• The vast majority of subjects [95%] who were uncertain about future events
sought out others who were in the same situation to compare their thoughts,
feelings and possible actions
Other key findings
• Need to determine why there were exceptions [did not engage in social
comparison and sat with the dissimilar others]
• That is, the 5% who did not compare

Consider
Pause
Reflect – on the last time you were uncertain about

some aspect of University – did not knowing the
answer make you anxious and did you contact an
informal source to sort things out?

Learning objectives



behaviour


Key findings/Parameters
There are three parameters [or distinguishing features

Everyday examples
School reunions provide opportunities
to engage in social comparison – how
you are doing in comparison to class
mates
Pre-surgery patients recover faster

and leave hospital earlier if given
opportunity to discuss operation with
a post surgery patient

Exceptions 1
Three situations where social comparison does not occur
1. Extreme fear/anxiety – people with extreme anxiety, fear they may

panic and lose control, hence seek out (dissimilar) others (in different
settings) to calm them, not similar others who may panic them

Exceptions 2
2. Distressed and embarrassed – people who feel psychologically
challenged (eg, males may believe that society expects them to mask
their feelings), may remove themselves
from the distressing situation rather than
compare and feel these strong emotions
3. Negative consequences – people will not engage in social comparison

if the consequences for doing so are negative and lead to shame,
disgrace or discrimination (eg, people informed they have HIV-AIDS
may not share this because of possible discrimination, but may seek out
a support group [that is choose not to disclose]

Consider
Pause
Reflect – on personal information that you do not

share with others – is that information too anxiety
invoking, would lead to distress/embarrassment
or would lead to negative consequences from
those you would share it with

Learning objectives


4. Illustrate how social comparison theory explains normal and

abnormal behaviour


Applications – normal 1
Settings
• No social comparison – dentist waiting

room – maybe high anxiety, but no
uncertainty – no interaction and no social
Comparison
• Social comparison – outside exam room –

typically a high degree of anxiety as well
as a high degree of uncertainty
Hence high levels of conversation

Content before and after formal examinations
• Before exam
Social comparison conversation includes:
1. “What did you study?”
2. “Will this be on the exam?”
3. “How hard will this exam be?”
• After exam
Social comparison conversation includes:
1. “What was the answer to …?”
2. “Did you find the exam hard?”
3. “Was this covered in the lectures?”
Who do you talk to and what are their characteristics?

• Who do students talk to?
o Friends? Strangers? Anyone?
 Friends if available
• What are their characteristics?

Social comparison predicts they will be similar to you
o Typically friends who are similar in terms of gender, ability, amount of

time/effort put into study, life style, attitudes to study, personality???
• Need to study person perception, affiliation and friendship formation

(see later lectures)

Applications – Abnormal 1
Study by Swallow (1995)
Depressed patients (compared to non-depressed patients) both reflecting on

their own poor performances
Depressed patients:
• Increased their number of social comparisons (compared to less

comparison) – received more bad feedback and thus more depressed
• Made upward comparisons (compared to downward comparisons)

therefore greater sense of loss and greater depression
• Thus while non-depressed people minimized negative outcomes for

poor performance, depressed patients increase comparisons and
become more depressed
Another example of how people actively influence future outcomes

Applications – Abnormal 2
Jackson et al (2020)
Effect of Facebook use
• No direct relationship
/correlation between
Facebook use and depression
• However, for individuals who actively seek out more information via
Facebook [social comparison], there is a strong relationship – more
Facebook use, the greater the levels of depression
• Stronger effect in females
• Motivation – appears to be upward social comparison

Consider
Pause
Reflect – on the positives and negatives of sharing

information on social media – when has sharing
benefited you and when has making comparisons
led to you feeling depressed, anxious or stressed

Learning objectives



behaviour
5. Explain the following eight sources of self-knowledge:

Socialization; Reflected appraisal; Feedback; Self perception;
Labelling arousal states; Distinctiveness; Social comparison;
and, Social identity

Who am I? You be the subject [self definition]
• Write down 10 things that describe who you
are
1. I am ……………………………………………………………….
2. I am ……………………………………………………………….
3. I am ……………………………………………………………….
4. I am ……………………………………………………………….
5. I am ……………………………………………………………….
6. I am ……………………………………………………………….
7. I am ……………………………………………………………….
8. I am ……………………………………………………………….
9. I am ……………………………………………………………….
10. I am ……………………………………………………………….

Influences of culture and [Western] education 1
• Western born and western educated see themselves as independent, self
contained and context free eg, I am friendly, I am hardworking, I like
camping, etc
• Out of 10, how many of your descriptors were about your personality or
preferences?
Influences of culture and [Western] education 2
• Traditional or collectivist and non western educated people see
themselves as interdependent, eg, I am Jan’s friend, I am serious at work.
Collectivist
individualist
• Out of 10, how many of your descriptors qualified or provided a context?

What is the (social) self?
• Collection of basic beliefs about our own self
o What are we good at (or do poorly in)

o What situations we prefer (or avoid)
o Do we perceive ourselves as an individual or as part of a
group/collective
• Determined by knowledge/feedback from social situations (see social

comparison)

Learning objective 5
5. Explain the following eight sources of self-knowledge

i. Socialization
ii. Reflected appraisal
iii. Feedback
iv. Self perception
v. Labelling arousal states
vi. Distinctiveness
vii. Social comparison
viii. Social identity

Where does self-knowledge come from?
Socialization –
• that is treated in particular ways by parents, teachers and friends (eg,
sleeping arrangements as infants and adult behaviour in terms of the
cultural dimension of individualism and collectivism)
Co-sleeping = collectivism
Independent sleeping = individualism


i. Socialization
iii. Feedback
iv. Self perception
vi. Distinctiveness

Reflected appraisal
– reactions to a person from others
• People react [generally non-verbally]

Either positively (versus negatively)
in response to our behaviour, thus
shaping the behaviour into
societal/cultural norms
www.sharpshoota.com/index.php?showimage=153


i. Socialization
iii. Feedback
iv. Self perception
vi. Distinctiveness

Feedback from others
– family, friends, others give feedback about our qualities
• strong relationship between what parents think
and child’s perception of that ability
• primary school parents decide

child’s activities (sport, music, drama)
• Peers in adolescence give informal

feedback due to choices
(sporting teams, invites to parties, re dating)
• Accept objective feedback on test scores with teachers’ comments [that is

on abilities
….but do not accept another’s comment on motivations


i. Socialization
iii. Feedback
iv. Self perception
vi. Distinctiveness

Self perception 1
– generally distorted in positive way (see attribution bias)
• Most people perceive themselves above average (in comparison to their
peer group) in terms of abilities, amount of work/degree of motivation and
social interpersonal skills
www.geelongsgym.com.au/blog/author/marc/

Self perception 2
– sometimes body image is distorted in negative way
A distorted/poor body image can lead to poor self-esteem
or a product of an eating disorder


i. Socialization
iii. Feedback
iv. Self perception
vi. Distinctiveness

Labelling arousal states – [see emotions]
• Schachter & Singer (1964) inferred emotions from physiology plus cognition
Physiol Interacts Cognitive label Leads to Emotion

level with state
Arousal X Nothing to do = Frustration
No arousal X Nothing to do = Boredom
Arousal X Angry person = Anger/

compete
Arousal x Happy person = Happy/
cooperate

5. the following eight sources of self-knowledge

i. Socialization
iii. Feedback
iv. Self perception
vi. Distinctiveness

Environmental distinctiveness
– our individualized self-concept emphasizes factors that make us distinctive
• Ask people to “tell about themselves”, and people will highlight positive
distinctive characteristics, eg, only ethnic person in group, one male in an
all-female group, etc
Note: cultural values

“tallest flower always first picked”
versus
“nail that sticks out is hammered down”
and decide which of the above statements

refer to individualistic thought andwhich
to collectivist thinking

Learning objective5

i. Socialization
iii. Feedback
iv. Self perception
vi. Distinctiveness

Comparative self-assessments
– when there are no objective measures, use social comparison to
estimate abilities
• Comparisons are biased and lead to self enhancement
..
– See attribution bias [see next lecture]

RMIT University
• Eg, compare abilities in areas
Slide 74
we are good at [ignore others]

i. Socialization
iii. Feedback
iv. Self perception
vi. Distinctiveness

• Social identity
– identify with specific (reference) groups,
which in turn influence future behaviours
(see lecture on Conformity)
o Get people to describe themselves –

eg, male, old, educated, sports fan etc
o Everyone will provide a different description, but descriptions typically reflect

their social identity as defined by reference groups

There are three types of self-enhancements
1. Perceive self more positively
• Rate oneself more positively on personality traits compared to how
friends would rate them
• Remember achievements in more detail than failures/embarrassments
• Perceive we do more for others than done for us
2. Believe they have more control over events than is actually the case
• Credit sport wins to own play, team losses to bad day, poor refereeing or
poor team play
• Avoid things we are not good at (eg sport) and select activities we enjoy
(and excel at)
3. Are unrealistically optimistic about the future

• Receiving objective feedback from others - realistic
• Selecting future goals – slightly optimistic
• Implementing these goals – unrealistically optimistic

Reasons for this self-enhancement
• Unrealistic optimism plus increased perceived control
o Feel better about oneself – more positive interactions and happier life
o Persist longer on difficult tasks – hence work harder and achieve more
Pessimistic
i i i h
motivation complain social drop out
interaction
Optimistic
h h h h
motivation praise social achieve
interaction

Consider
Pause
Reflect – on those social comparisons that lead to

self-enhancement – eg, do you focus and share
your successes but downplay and ignore your
failures

Conclusions
1. While there are three major theories explaining human social
behaviour – social comparison has the most influence from day to
day
2. Social comparison theory explains how individuals resolve

uncertainties in their lives
3. When uncertain, individuals use social comparison with similar

others, but this causes “group consensus” and leads to conformity
4. Social comparison theory for most people leads to self-

enhancement, but for people experiencing depression, social
comparison creates more depression
5. Understanding the eight sources of self-knowledge allows people

to achieve a well-rounded view of themselves and their reality

BESC1528 Lect 3 Soc Comp Slides 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

BESC1528 Lect 3 Soc Comp Slides 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BESC1528 Lect 3 Soc Comp Slides 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychology of Social Life

RMIT University Slide 2

RMIT University Slide 3

Score 1 if you basically agree with the following statements

1. I have known for many years that I would be studying at

2. I knew what to expect when I began university

3. I have already completed a tutorial task in this course

Score 1 if you basically agree with the following statements

1. Do your non-university friends respond positively when you

2. Do important others [family, friends, work colleagues]

Add a one or a zero to your cumulative score

Score 1 if you basically agree with the following statements

1. Does your family/friends facilitate/help you to succeed [do well]

2. Does your family/friends congratulate [or show interest] when

Add a one or a zero to your cumulative score

Score 1 if you basically agree with the following statements

1. If you were asked to describe yourself using three adjectives,

2. When you meet someone new, do you generally mention that

Add a one or a zero to your cumulative score

RMIT University Slide 7

Score 1 if you basically agree with the following statements

1. Are you happy at University, do you enjoy university life?

2. Have you made, or do you have acquaintances or friends at

Add a one or a zero to your cumulative score

RMIT University Slide 8

Score 1 if you basically agree with the following statements

1. Do you try to spend more time with people from university?

2. Do you identify with university student issues, such as lower or

Add a one or a zero to your cumulative score

RMIT University Slide 9

Score 1 if you basically agree with the following statements

1. When you compare yourself with non-university friends, do you

2. Do you mainly compare your behaviours with friends who are

Add a one or a zero to your cumulative score

Score 1 if you basically agree with the following statements

1. Have your purchased [or considered purchasing] university

2. Do you select university-type clothing to wear to university

Add a one or a zero to your cumulative score

RMIT University Slide 11

Does your cumulative score [over the eight sources of self-

RMIT University Slide 12

Reflect – on how important your social network of

Stop and have a short rest break

Play and continue with lecture

2. State the social comparison theory and describe Schachter's (1959)

3. Name the three parameters of social comparison research and

4. Illustrate how social comparison theory explains normal and abnormal

5. Explain the following eight sources of self-knowledge: Socialization;

RMIT University Slide 15

2. State the social comparison theory and describe Schachter's (1959)

3. Name the three parameters of social comparison research and

4. Illustrate how social comparison theory explains normal and abnormal

5. Explain the following eight sources of self-knowledge: Socialization;

RMIT University Slide 16

Hence, the social environment/context is the determining factor

RMIT University Slide 17

• It seems to be associated with “comparison” – that is, individuals