Self-Evaluation Strategies in College Women Trying to Lose Weight: The Relative Use of Objective and Social Comparison Information.

We examined patterns of self-evaluative information use in a sample of college women who were trying to lose weight (N = 306). Participants described their weight loss experiences and answered questions about their self-evaluative activity via an online survey. The analysis strategy examined the relative use of four types of self-evaluative information (objective, upward social comparison, lateral social comparison, and downward social comparison) to meet three basic self-evaluative motives (accurate self-assessment, self-enhancement, and self-improvement). We also examined the role that dissatisfaction, uncertainty, importance, and self-esteem played in the relative use of information and the relationship of these factors on weight loss success. Our findings support previous research showing the primacy of accurate and self-improvement motives in the domain of weight loss and the usefulness of lateral social comparison information for meeting all three motives. Women evaluating their weight reported using upward social comparison information most often, followed by objective information. Lateral and upward social comparison information were rated as more useful than downward social comparison information for meeting accuracy and self-improvement motives. Both lateral and downward social comparison information were reported as especially useful for self-enhancement, with upward social comparison information rated as least useful. Our study utilized an integrative approach for understanding self-evaluative processes in the area of college women's weight loss. We found general support for our hypotheses regarding well-documented patterns of social comparison information usefulness for meeting three self-evaluative motives. Our data also support earlier research arguing that it is important to view information use in the context of multiple self-evaluative motives.

Group Polarization Revisited: A Processing Effort Account.

Research has shown that processes of social comparison as well as persuasive argumentation are involved in group polarization. We propose a processing effort account according to which the role of these processes in determining group polarization is contingent on ability and motivation. The impact of information regarding others' positions on group polarization should be higher given low (vs. high) ability or motivation. In contrast, the impact of persuasive argumentation should be higher given high (vs. low) ability and motivation. Results in line with these assumptions were obtained in two experiments in which individuals' ability (Experiment 1) or motivation (Experiment 2), information regarding group average position, and argument persuasiveness were manipulated. Furthermore, consistent findings were also obtained in a third experiment testing the role of motivation in real group discussions. A processing effort account provides a novel perspective for investigating the development of group extremity.

Do monkeys compare themselves to others?

Social comparisons are a fundamental characteristic of human behaviour, yet relatively little is known about their evolutionary foundations. Adapting the co-acting paradigm from human research (Seta in J Pers Soc Psychol 42:281-291, 1982. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.42.2.281), we examined how the performance of a partner influenced subjects' performance in long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). Using parallel testing in touch screen setups in which subjects had to discriminate familiar and novel photographs of men and women, we investigated whether accuracy and reaction time were influenced by partner performance and relationship quality (affiliate vs. non-affiliate). Auditory feedback about the alleged performance of the co-actor was provided via playback; partner performance was either moderately or extremely better or worse than subject performance. We predicted that subjects would assimilate to moderately different comparison standards as well as to affiliates and contrast away from extreme standards and non-affiliates. Subjects instantly generalized to novel pictures. While accuracy was not affected by any of the factors, long reaction times occurred more frequently when subjects were tested with a non-affiliate who was performing worse, compared to one who was doing better than them (80% quantile worse: 5.1, better: 4.3 s). For affiliate co-actors, there was no marked effect (worse: 4.4, better: 4.6 s). In a control condition with no auditory feedback, subjects performed somewhat better in the presence of affiliates (M = 77.8% correct) compared to non-affiliates (M = 71.1%), while reaction time was not affected. Apparently, subjects were sensitive to partner identity and performance, yet variation in motivation rather than assimilation and contrast effects may account for the observed effects.