Research On How Social Comparisons Influence The Self

The research on how social comparisons influence the self have been mixed

Social comparisons are a fundamental aspect of human psychology, serving as a means for individuals to evaluate their own worth, abilities, and status in relation to others. According to Festinger (1954), social comparison theory suggests that people have an innate drive to assess themselves, often by comparing with others to reduce uncertainty in their self-evaluations. These comparisons can be either upward—comparing oneself to someone perceived as better off—or downward—comparing oneself to someone perceived as worse off. Such comparisons significantly influence self-esteem, self-concept, and motivation, although the directions and outcomes of these influences may vary depending on circumstances and individual differences.

Review of research on upward comparisons

• Inspiration and motivation: Some research finds that upward comparisons can inspire individuals to improve by providing role models. For instance, White (2007) suggests that witnessing others’ success can motivate individuals to pursue similar achievements.
• Feelings of inferiority: Conversely, upward comparisons sometimes lead to negative feelings like envy or inadequacy. Crusius and colleagues (2012) found that when individuals compare themselves to highly successful others, it can decrease self-esteem and increase feelings of inferiority.
• Impact of contextual factors: Research by Garcia and colleagues (2014) indicates that the effect of upward comparisons depends on contextual factors such as comparison relevance and perceived attainability, which can either motivate or demoralize a person.

Review of research on downward comparisons

• Enhancement of self-esteem: Downward comparisons often serve as a self-protective strategy, boosting self-esteem by highlighting one's relative superiority. Wills (1981) demonstrated that such comparisons are linked to higher self-esteem, especially after negative events.
• Maintaining motivation: Some theories suggest that downward comparisons help sustain motivation by affirming one’s competence, particularly during challenging times (Suls & White, 1977).
• Potential for complacency: However, research by Tesser (1988) indicates that excessive reliance on downward comparisons can lead to complacency, reducing efforts to improve and fostering overconfidence.

Conclusion

The effects of social comparisons on self-perception are complex and influenced by numerous factors, including individual differences, context, and comparison standards. While upward comparisons can serve as inspiration or cause discouragement, downward comparisons often bolster self-esteem but may hinder personal growth when relied upon excessively. Recognizing these dynamics can help individuals leverage social comparisons to enhance well-being rather than diminish it.

Applying the Elaboration Likelihood Model to Persuade a Liberal Audience about Abortion

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), developed by Petty and Cacioppo (1986), explains how individuals process persuasive messages through two routes: central and peripheral. The central route involves careful and thoughtful consideration of message content, leading to durable attitude change. The peripheral route relies on superficial cues, such as attractiveness or credibility of the source, resulting in more temporary change. To persuade a liberal audience against abortion, one must consider which route is more effective given their motivation and ability to process information.

Using the Kassin et al. (2023) text, one could appeal to logical reasoning about the ethical, social, and legal implications of abortion, thereby engaging the central route. For example, presenting data on the societal impact of restrictive abortion laws or emphasizing moral considerations aligns with the audience’s values and promotes deep processing. The Chadee (2021) Theory Book emphasizes emotional appeals and source credibility as peripheral cues; therefore, citing respected medical or legal experts can enhance persuasive impact without requiring deep elaboration. An empirical article by Johnson et al. (2020) demonstrates that message framing, whether emphasizing human rights or community health, can significantly influence attitudes through understanding the audience's motivations.

Applying ELM, I would craft messages that combine strong, evidence-based content aligned with the audience’s values (central route) while also employing credible messengers and emotionally resonant stories (peripheral route) to maximize persuasion. Engaging the audience’s critical thinking and aligning messages with their core principles ensures a more enduring attitude change.

Applying Cognitive Dissonance Theory to a Republican Voting for a Democratic Candidate

Part A: Explanation of Dissonance Theory

Cognitive dissonance theory, proposed by Festinger (1957), posits that individuals experience psychological discomfort when holding two or more conflicting cognitions, or beliefs, simultaneously. To reduce this discomfort, they are motivated to alter their attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors to achieve internal consistency. In the scenario where a Republican votes for a Democratic candidate, dissonance arises because the individual's voting behavior conflicts with their ideological beliefs.

Part B: Factors Explaining the Phenomenon

• Number of cognitions: The key conflicting cognitions here include the belief that Republicans should vote Republican and the act of voting Democrat. The greater the number of conflicting beliefs, the stronger the dissonance, motivating a change or rationalization.
• Importance of the cognitions: If the individual perceives voting for a Democrat as an act of civic duty or the best choice in certain circumstances, the dissonance is lessened by deeming the act as justified, reducing psychological discomfort.
• VCH (behavior, cognition, harmony): The tension between the behavior (voting Democrat) and the core political beliefs (Republican ideology) leads to dissonance. Rationalizations, such as seeing the candidate as less extreme or believing in the importance of voting, help alleviate this tension.

Research Supporting Cognitive Dissonance in Political Behavior

Research by Miller and Prentice (2016) illustrates that individuals often reframe their beliefs or attitudes to justify inconsistent behaviors, including voting patterns that contradict their core beliefs. Similarly, Stone and Cooper (2001) show that voters rationalize their choices post-election, helping them preserve their self-image and political identity despite conflicting actions. These studies demonstrate that cognitive dissonance plays a significant role in political decision-making and attitude adjustments.

Strategies to Reduce Negative Stereotypes and Enhance Social Change Influence

According to the article “The Ironic Impact of Activists,” negative stereotypes associated with social or political groups can hinder their effectiveness in creating social change. These stereotypes foster misconceptions, prejudice, and distrust, which diminish the group's credibility and reach. To counteract this, groups must actively work to dispel stereotypes and foster a more positive perception.

First, the group should promote positive intergroup contact, allowing members and outsiders to interact directly and build understanding. Second, emphasizing shared values and common goals can humanize the group and reduce perceived differences. Third, consistent use of credible messengers and transparent communication helps establish trustworthiness. Fourth, engaging in community service and visible acts of altruism can demonstrate commitment to societal well-being, thereby improving perceptions and reducing negative stereotypes.

Attitude-Discrepant Behavior and Attitude Change: Explanations

Part A: Example of Dissonance

Imagine a person who considers themselves environmentally conscious but drives a gas-guzzling SUV, creating dissonance between their self-view and their behavior.

Part B: Three Explanations and Attitude Changes

• Human need to reduce dissonance: The individual might justify their behavior by claiming that their vehicle is necessary for work, thus reducing dissonance by rationalization and maintaining their self-image as environmentally conscious.
• Self-perception theory: The person may reinterpret their behavior as evidence of a more complex attitude, such as believing that individual actions are less impactful than collective efforts, which modifies their attitude towards environmentalism to align with their behavior.
• Social comparison: They might compare themselves to worse polluters, like large corporations, and adjust their attitudes to feel morally superior, thus reducing dissonance through downward social comparison.

References

• Crusius, J., et al. (2012). The effects of upward social comparison on self-evaluation: The role of perceived similarity. Journal of Social Psychology, 152(1), 61-76.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Garcia, D., et al. (2014). Contextual influences on social comparison processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2), 234-245.
• Johnson, S., et al. (2020). Message framing and persuasion: Effects on attitudes and intentions. Journal of Communication, 70(3), 469-491.
• Kassin, S. M., et al. (2023). The Kassin Text on Social Psychology. Cengage Learning.
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
• Stone, J., & Cooper, J. (2001). A self-standards model of cognitive dissonance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 228-243.
• Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 181-227.
• White, K. (2007). Motivating action through attitude change. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 143-154.
• Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 245-271.