Social comparison in the classroom: Priming approach/avoidance changes the impact of social comparison on self-evaluation and performance.

BACKGROUND: Social comparisons between pupils are especially relevant at school. Such comparisons influence self-perception and performance. When pupils evaluate themselves more negatively and perform worse after an upward comparison (with a better off pupil) than a downward comparison (with a worse-off pupil), this is a contrast effect. On the other hand, when they evaluate themselves more positively and are better after an upward than downward comparison, this is an assimilation effect. AIMS: We examine assimilation and contrast effects of comparison in the classroom on pupils' self-evaluation and performance. Previous work by Fayant, Muller, Nurra, Alexopoulos, and Palluel-Germain (2011) lead us to hypothesize that approach vs. avoidance moderates the impact of upward vs. downward comparison: approach should lead to an assimilation effect on self-evaluation and performance, while avoidance should lead to contrast on self-evaluation and performance. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, we primed pupils with either approach or avoidance before reading upward or downward comparison information about another pupil. We then measured self-evaluation (Experiment 1) and performance (Experiments 1 and 2). RESULTS: Results confirmed our predictions and revealed the predicted interaction on self-evaluation (Experiment 1) and performance (Experiment 2): approach leads to an assimilation effect (in both experiments) whereas avoidance leads to a contrast effect (in Experiment 2). CONCLUSIONS: These experiments replicate previous studies on self-evaluation and also extend previous work on performance and in a classroom setting. Priming approach before upward comparison seems especially beneficial to pupils.

"Science Manipulates the Things and Lives in Them": Reconsidering Approach-Avoidance Operationalization Through a Grounded Cognition Perspective.

Approach and avoidance orientations are key elements of adaptive regulation at the evaluation-behavior interface. On the one hand, continuous evaluations of the world fuel approach-avoidance reactions as a function of the individual's immediate environment. On the other hand, in turn these individual-environment adjustments influence evaluations. A grounded perspective of social cognition, placing the sensorimotor aspects of individual-environment interactions at the core of cognition, has much to offer for the understanding of evaluative processes. Despite the growing enthusiasm for a grounded view of cognition and action in the approach-avoidance literature, its core principles are seldom reflected at the operationalization level. In this paper, we relied on the insights of a grounded perspective to propose more encompassing operationalizations of approach-avoidance orientations and investigate their influence on evaluations. Across six studies, we varied the approach-avoidance operationalizations (upper-body incline, upper-body posture and walking steps) and incrementally considered the grounded assumptions. We failed to obtain the theorized positive effect of approach (as compared to avoidance) on evaluations. Interestingly, further exploratory analyses on two studies conducted in Virtual Reality suggested that the more participants felt being present in the situation, the more the approach-avoidance ecological actions activated the corresponding neuropsychological systems. We discuss these emergent findings in light of grounded cognition and the notion of feeling of presence.

Contrast effect in spatial context: Robustness and practical significance.

Contrary to lay conceptions, unattractive locations can under certain circumstances increase the perceived value of neighboring areas. This phenomenon is akin to a contrast effect. However, extant research on this type of contrast suffers from two limitations. First, the use of repeated measures may inflate the likelihood of observing a contrast effect. Second, there is a lack of meaningful comparisons for gauging the size of the effect. We designed three experiments to address these issues. In each, we assessed how much participants valued places located increasingly far from an unsafe housing block. Participants either rated several target locations or just a single one at a time. We also assessed whether the positiveness of the contrast effect due to the unsafe housing block would be able to compete with the positive effect of a nearby park. The results replicate past findings of a contrast effect in spatial context; they show that the effect generalizes to a different design; and they demonstrate that a contrast effect due to an unattractive location can indeed be as "beneficial" for some neighboring areas as the effect of a genuinely attractive location. (PsycINFO Database Record

The out-of-my-league effect.

When taking into account the chances of success, strategic mating motivations do imply a bias not toward the most attractive individuals, but toward average or mildly attractive individuals, undermining the explanation of Maestripieri et al. at a fundamental level. This leaves open the possibility of alternative explanations and calls for a full-fledged explicit model of courtship behavior.

A mindset of competition versus cooperation moderates the impact of social comparison on self-evaluation.

Do people feel better or worse about themselves when working with someone who is better than they are? We present the first replication of the work of Stapel and Koomen (2005), who showed that being in a competitive vs. cooperative mindset moderates the effects of social comparison on self-evaluation. In Experiment 1, we present a close replication of Stapel and Koomen (2005, Study 2). Participants in competition/cooperation had to self-evaluate after receiving information about the personal characteristics of an upward/downward comparison target. In Experiment 2, we went further by providing feedback about both the comparison target and the self. Our results and a small-scale meta-analysis combining our experiments and Stapel and Koomen's (2005) confirm that a competitive/cooperative mindset moderates the impact of social comparison on self-evaluation; nevertheless, the effect size we found across the two experiments is clearly more modest than the one found in Stapel and Koomen's (2005) work.