A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on.

These meta-analyses of 60+ years of social comparison research focused on 2 issues: the choice of a comparison target (selection) and the effects of comparisons on self-evaluations, affect, and so forth (reaction). Selection studies offering 2 options (up or down) showed a strong preference (and no evidence of publication bias) for upward choices when there was no threat; there was no evidence for downward comparison as a dominant choice even when threatened. Selections became less differentiable when a lateral choice was also provided. For reaction studies, contrast was, by far, the dominant response to social comparison, with ability estimates most strongly affected. Moderator analyses, tests and adjustments for publication bias showed that contrast is stronger when the comparison involves varying participants' standing for ability (effect estimates, -0.75 to -0.65) and affect (-0.83 to -0.65). Novel personal attributes were subject to strong contrast for ability (-0.5 to -0.6) and affect (-0.6 to -0.7). Dissimilarity priming was associated with contrast (-0.44 to -0.27; no publication bias), consistent with Mussweiler (2003). Similarity priming provided modest support for Collins (1996) and Mussweiler (2003), with very weak assimilation effects, depending on the publication bias estimator. Studies including control groups indicated effects in response to upward and downward targets were comparable in size and contrastive. Limitations of the literature (e.g., small number of studies including no-comparison control conditions), unresolved issues, and why people choose to compare upward when the most likely result is self-deflating contrast are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Ostracism in Everyday Life: The Effects of Ostracism on Those Who Ostracize.

Ostracism is a negative interpersonal experience that has been studied primarily in laboratory settings. Moreover, these studies have focused primarily on how people feel when they have been ostracized. The present study extended this research by investigating ostracism as it occurs in daily life, focusing on how people feel about ostracizing someone. Using a method modeled after the Rochester Interaction Record (RIR), for two weeks, 64 participants (adults residing in the community) described what happened each time they ostracized someone. The questions in the diary were based on Williams's (2001) need-threat model of ostracism. Most ostracism episodes were directed toward people of equal status, and participants reported lower levels of belonging but higher levels of control after ostracizing someone. Punitive ostracism was associated with more positive outcomes for the source than when people ostracized someone for other reasons.

Clarifying the relationship between ostracism and relational devaluation.

We examine how three perspectives on relational devaluation relate to needs threat following ostracism. In two experiments with 179 first-year psychology students, distress was greatest when participants were ostracized without any prior throws, and distress decreased linearly with increasing prior inclusion. In Experiment 3, using 76 first-year psychology students, we manipulated expectations of exclusion and found expectations predicted distress following ostracism, suggesting ostracism's distress can be influenced by norm-based expectations of inclusion, and that progressive relational devaluation is not a necessary condition for ostracism's distress.

Clarifying the role of social comparison in the big-fish-little-pond effect (BFLPE): an integrative study.

It has been speculated that the big-fish-little-pond effect (BFLPE; the negative impact of highly selective academic settings on academic self-concept) is a consequence of invidious social comparisons experienced in higher ability schools. However, the direct role of such comparisons for the BFLPE has not heretofore been documented. The present study comprises the first evidence that the BFLPE (a) is eliminated after controlling for students' invidious comparisons with their class and (b) coexists with the assimilative and contrastive effects of upward social comparison choices on academic self-concept. These results increase understanding of the BFLPE and offer support for integrative approaches of social comparison (selective accessibility and interpretation comparison models) in a natural setting. They also lend support for the distinction between forced and deliberate social comparisons and the usefulness of distinguishing between absolute and relative comparison-level choice in self-assessment.

On Being Rejected: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Research on Rejection.

This article presents the first meta-analysis of experimental research on rejection, sampling 88 studies. The results are consistent with a needs account, which states that rejection frustrates basic psychological needs, but not with a numbness account, which states that rejection causes physical and emotional numbness. Rejection moderately lowers mood (d = -0.50) and self-esteem (d = -0.70), but does not decrease arousal or flatten affect. Both belonging (d = 0.69) and control (d = 1.16) are frustrated by rejection. Aggressive responses to rejection, considered paradoxical by some, appear to be due to attempts to gain control; measures that contrast belonging and control (d = -1.17) cause antisocial responding, whereas measures that do not allow for control to be restored cause prosocial responding (d = 1.21). These findings suggest that rejection makes individuals feel bad-ready to act to restore control or belonging-and that they will prioritize restoring control even if it requires being antisocial.

In search of the big fish: investigating the coexistence of the big-fish-little-pond effect with the positive effects of upward comparisons.

Blanton, Buunk, Gibbons, and Kuyper (1999) and Huguet, Dumas, Monteil, and Genestoux (2001) found that children nominated a social comparison target who slightly outperformed them in class with a beneficial effect on course grades - an assimilation effect, but with no effects on self-evaluation. However, big-fish-little-pond effect (BFLPE) research has shown that attending a high-ability school has a negative effect on academic self-concept--a contrast effect. To resolve this apparent conflict, the present investigation (1) tested the BFLPE in the Netherlands and France, using nationally representative samples (Study 1) and (2) further analysed (using more sophisticated analyses) the Dutch (Blanton et al.) study (Study 2) and the French (Huguet et al.) study including new French data (Study 3), to examine whether the BFLPE coexisted with, or was moderated by, the beneficial impact of upward comparisons. In support of the BFLPE, all studies found the negative effects of school- or class-average ability on self-evaluation, demonstrating that these assimilation and contrast effects can coexist.

Ability evaluation by proxy: role of maximal performance and related attributes in social comparison.

Four experiments tested the effects of information about a proxy's related attributes and maximal effort in social comparisons of ability. In Study 1, a proxy's prior performance at maximal effort exerted systematic effects on participants' personal performance predictions for a novel task. When information about the proxy's effort was ambiguous (Study 2). information about related attribute similarity was used in the formulation of performance predictions. In Studies 3 and 4, 2-way interaction terms revealed that participants used related attribute information in generating performance predictions when the proxy's maximum effort was unknown. However, related attribute information was disregarded when proxy's maximum effort was unambiguous. Results were consistent with the proxy comparison model of ability self-evaluation (L. Wheeler, R. Martin, & J. Suls, 1997).