1
Q
Role Model
A
Special kind of comparison target
- very specific target
- often a superior other
- can influence our behaviour & motivations, self-evaluation, decision making & goal achievement
2
Q
Role Models as Behavioural Models
A
- role model posses skills & display techniques which the actor (thinks they) lacks
- from whom the actor can learn by comparison & observation
3
Q
Role Models as Future or Possible Selves
A
- teach us not how possible, but that something is possible
e. g. female president
4
Q
Role Model as Inspiration
A
- role models that away inspire
- teach by example
- excite admiration & emulation
- some role models are just inspiring in what they convey about how one should live
- goes hand in hand with role model as future selves
5
Q
Online Influencers
A
- more recent type of role models
- instagram posts evoke envy through social comparison
- Facebook profiles of attractive individuals evoked depressed feelings though social comparison process
> but mainly among women & individuals who aren’t that popular in real life
6
Q
Principles how role models influence us
A
- Relevance
- Attainability
- Positive or negative?
7
Q
Relevance
A
- when identification is possible –> influence
- gender, age, ethnicity, attitudes, personality, background interest
- ## highly attractive others influence perceptions of one’s own attractiveness only id they are the same sex
8
Q
Attainability
A
Is the success of the comparison target attainable?
- could role model be future you?
yes:
- provides an indication of particular goals to aim for
- points to road one should (could) follow
- makes one feel more competent & capable of similar achievements
- -> Inspiration, encouragement, motivation
no:
- could lead to discouragement demoralisation
- highlights one’s own failures & shortcomings
9
Q
Positive or negative?
A
Is the role model and/or the behaviour/attitudes displayed positive or negative?
- exhibit positive or negative behaviour (to be avoided)?
- depends on regulatory focus
10
Q
Positive Role Models
A
- individuals who have achieved outstanding success
- e.g. star athletes
- they inspire by illustrating ans ideal, desired self, highlighting possible achievements that one can strive for, and demonstrating the route for achieving them
- inspire others by encouraging the pursuit of success
- highlight possible achievements
- demonstrate the route to get there
- they can motivates by giving a guid in how to achieve success
- personification of plausible desired selves that people can realistically aspire to become and illustrate the means for achieving these desired selves
11
Q
Negative Role Models
A
- Individuals who have experienced misfortune
- e.g. public announcements with examples of AIDS patients, smokers that got lung cancers
- inspire by illustrating feared, to-be-avoided self
- show possible future disasters & highlight mistakes that need to be prevented
- motivate by showing key strategies for avoiding failure
- personify unwanted, feared selves & highlight ways of forestalling such selves
- individuals report that Social comparison wore-off others in domains such s marital satisfaction & health can be distressing bc reminder of a possible negative future
12
Q
Role Models & Regulatory Focus
A
Influences the inspirational impact of positive/negative role models
2 types:
- prevention-focused
- promotion-focused
- also influenced by information sensitivity & stability of regulatory focus
13
Q
Promotion-focused
A
striving to achieve an ideal self, and so produce sensitivity to the absence of positive outcomes
- eager pursuit of gains or success (strategies used)
concerned with
- advancement
- growth accomplishment
- maximising success
When driven by Promotion-goals:
- scrutinise their social world for information that beards on the pursuit of success
- especially well-attuned to emotions relating to the successful or unsuccessful pursuit of positive outcomes
- tend to focus on interpersonal strategies geared toward promoting desired outcomes
- show especially high motivation and persistence on tasks that are framed in terms of promotion
- are concerned with achieving their hopes, whites and aspirations
14
Q
Prevention-focused
A
striving to avoid disaster, and so produce a sensitivity to the presence or absence of negative outcomes
- vigilant avoidance of losses or failure (strategies used)
concerned with
- security
- safety
- responsibility
- minimising failure
- focus on information relevant to the avoidance failure
- especially likely to notice & recall information relating to the avoidance of failure by others
- particularly well-attended to emotions relating to the success or unsuccessful avoidance of negative outcomes
- tend to focus on interpersonal strategies geared toward preventing negative outcomes
- tend to show high motivation and persistence on tasks that are framed in terms of prevention
- are concerned with safety, protection, responsibility
15
Q
Information sensitivity & regulatory focus
A
- people are especially sensitive to info that fits their dominant regulatory focus (promotion or prevention)
- they show enhanced motivation & performance when they are encouraged to pursue strategies that match their regulatory concerns
16
Q
Stability of regulatory focus
A
- although there are stable individual differences in dominant regulatory ficus, one’s current focus also depends on situational factors
17
Q
Priming & regulatory focus
A
- possible ti induce promotion or prevention goals by framing possible rewards or penalties for performance
- either in terms of benefits to be Gaines
- or in terms of losses to be avoided (priming prevention)
- regulatory focus can also be primed by having participants describe personal experiences relevant either to promotion or to prevention
18
Q
Motivational Theory of Role Modelling
A
proposes different types of role models (behavioural, possible selves, inspirations) lead to certain motivations to achieve a goal, learn a skill etc. via different pathways
- goal embodiment:
Do they model the approach or avoid behaviour? - Attainability
- -> 1 & 2 influence expectancy - desirability
- -> influences value
19
Q
Obama effect
A
the success of a role model may shield stereotyped targets from the negative effects of stereotyped threat (increased academic performance in black students that watched his speech)
- Buffering effects: if he can, I ca
20
Q
Stereotype Threat
A
process whereby you know that you are part of a group in society that is the target of a lot of stereotype
- e.g in academic context: aware of stereotype –> feel threatened –> try to disprove (get high grades) or engage in self-fulfilling prophecies
21
Q
Role Models & Mimicry
A
Study by Late et al:
exposed women to four pictures of the Clintons
- open vs closed body picture
- Hillary vs Bill Clinton
After look at picture, had to give a speech
- women exposed to Hillary “open” role model (=power) but not the male “open” role model had a more open body posture themselves
- role models have an effect on body posture which creates mimicry
22
Q
Why do we compare ourselves?
A
- to gain self-knowledge
- Social comparison is all about the self & our self concept
3 Principles:
- self-evaluation
- Self-enhancement
- Self-improvement
23
Q
Why do we want to gain self-knowledge?
A
- to evaluate our abilities, thoughts, feelings, goals
- find out if we match up to others
- are we in line with what others think/feel?
- to know who we are/innate desire to figure out who we are
24
Q
Acquiring self-knowledge
A
can be done by comparing ourselves to others
- difficult to acquire
25
Obstacles to Self-knowledge
- often influenced by motivational (self-protective or self-serving) processes like repression, suppression, intentional forgetting etc.
- -> e.g. we like to forget that we are not always as kind as we want to be
- dissociations between explicit & implicit processes
> unconscious processes (e.g. attitudes & stereotypes) are often not accessible to consciousness
> cannot add to our self-knowledge, cannot access
26
Social Comparison Theory
When objective measure of performance are unavailable, people compare themselves to one another in a n attempt to accurately evaluate their own opinions & abilities
- self-discrepancy theorising supports the idea that emotion mediates the relationship between comparison-based discrepancy & behavioural responses
- -> empirical evidence lacking
- ppl compare to gain self-knowledge
- ppl motivated to evaluate their opinions & abilities
problem: often no "objective" standards are present
solution: compare yourself with others
3 basic motives:
- self-evaluation
- self-enhancement
- self-improvement
27
Self-evaluation
| motive of comparison
The need for accurate self-evaluation
e.g. having a certain grade in class, compare with others to see how am I doing?
28
Self-enhancement
| motive of comparison
Process of creating & maintaining a positive image of oneself
e.g. If feel bad about self & want to feel better, compare to someone hi is doing worse than me to help feel better about self
29
Self-Improvement
Motive to gather information about how to advance through life
e.g. compare to someone who did better, ask how did you achieve a better grade? gives info on how to do better in the future
30
Types of comparison
- upward comparison
| - downward comparison
31
Upward Comparison
the comparison target is someone who performs better or is better off than the individual
- when motivated by self-evaluation & self-improvement
> ppl tend to make more upward comparisons
32
Downward Comparison
the target performs worse or is worse off than the individual
when motivated by self-enhancement
> people tend to engage in downward comparison which may improve the mood, subjective well-being, self-esteem (especially true for those who are weak or threatened in a certain domain who are depressed)
33
Social Comparison General
all about the self & our self-concept
- does not have to be conscious to affect us
(subliminal exposure can lead to self-evaluation)
- overall goal is to gain self-knowledge
34
When is which target for comparison chosen?
self-evaluation & self-improvement motive:
- acquiring accurate evaluations of your abilities & opinions
- -> slightly better-off other
- because these are the ones that will provide us with the most info about ourselves
Self-enhancement motive:
- to boost your self-esteem
- -> worse-off other
35
Self-Evaluation Model
Combination of the two dimensions let to different outcomes of comparisons
- Relevance
- Closeness
36
Relevance
| Self-Evaluation Model
- in order for comparisons to provide us with information about ourselves, the comparison dimension should be relevant to us
e. g. if I don't do/value sports, comparing to professional soccer player is not relevant
37
Closeness
is the comparison target a friend or stranger?
| Is the person important to me?
38
Consequences of Upward Social Comparison
- motivated by self-evaluation & self-improvement motives
--> highlight persons shortcomings in relevant attributes
"you are not as well off as some others"
- feeling of inferiority, negative affect
- can be positive, lead to inspiration
- can be negative, lead to envy & jealousy
> when ppl negatively compared to targets who outperform then on relevant dimensions
39
Consequence of Upward Comparison & Attainability
Depending on how attainable a goal appears to be, negative or positive affect may result
- negative affect likely when goal seems unattainable
- positive responses (hope & inspiration) likely the goal seems attainable
--> these emotions, in turn, provide people with are or enhanced goals in the future
40
Consequences of Downward Comparison
Downward Comparison is motivated by the desire for self-enhancement
"you are better off than some others"
- positive affect, reduction of anxiety
> e.g. when person actually does outperform a target on a self-relevant dimension, this leads to stronger feelings of pride & happiness
--> positive affect is more likely as ppl feel better about themselves as a result of the comparison
- Pride, happiness (booth self-esteem)
- can also have negative effects like Schadenfreude
41
Contrast effects
Evaluating yourself away from the target
- may be a result of social comparison
- "dissimilarity testing", focusing on dissimilarities to create contrast
- selective focus on differences with target
w.g. feel unattractive --> compare to attractive person --> feel even less attractive --> lowering self-evaluation
42
Assimilation
Evaluating toward target
- may result from social comparison
- "similarity testing"
- selective focus on similarities with the target
- especially relevant when someone is an inspiration to you & you feel similar to them
43
Similarity
Similar:
could be future you --> identification
Dissimilar:
not future you --> contrast
- similar others tend to be close others
- close others more likely to be comparison target
- provide more information about you bc they are more similar to you
- focus on similarities or differences affects goal achievement
--> identification contrast model
44
Identification Contrast Model
Builds on Social Comparison
Dimensions:
- upwards vs downward comparison (comparison direction)
- Identify vs contrast (interpretations)
Positive Outcomes:
- Upward-identification (hope, inspiration, optimism)
- downward contrast (relief, pride)
Negative outcomes:
- Downward identification (fear, worry, anguish)
- Upward contrast (envy, inadequacy, frustration, shame)
45
Identification
| Identification Contrast Model
individuals may assume that the situation of the target is similar to their actual fate to may be their own future
46
Contrast
| Identification Contrast Model
Individuals will conifer the target as a standard to evaluate their current state
47
Selective Accessibility Model
Aims to explain whether assimilation or contrast occurs earn one is confronted with a relevant comparison standard
- in beginning of social comparison process, perceived first makes quick & holistic assessment of similarity between self & standard
- briefly considering small number of salient features (e.g. category membership, salient person characteristics) to determine whether the self is generally rather similar or dissimilar from target
- outcome of initial assessment of perceived similarity then determines whether subsequent social comparison process is driven by similarity testing or dissimilarity testing
- model focuses on stages in comparison process
> early stage: global similarity assessment
> followed by more conscious similarity testing or dissimilarity testing
48
High perceived Similarity
| Selective Accessibility Model
Similarity-testing (leads more likely to assimilation effects)
- activation of standard-consistent information about self
49
Low perceived Similarity
| Selective Accessibility Model
```
dissimilarity testing (leads more likely to contrast effects)
- activation of standard-inconsistent information about the self
```
50
Summary of Selective Accessibility Model
Whether perceiver will assimilate to or contrast away from standard depends on the info activated during quick and holistic initial assessment
--> thus salient stimulus features (e.g. body shape of model) and similarity to perceivers representation of self on that dimension (e.g. own body shape)
51
Self-evlauation Maintenance Model (SEM)
examines the process through which people maintain positive self-evaluations in the face of potentially threatening comparisons with others
- ppl motivated to maintain/improve their self-evaluations
threats to positive self-evaluations will prompt ppl to eliminate the threats to self through several possible behaviours
- adjusting personal relevance of domain in question
- altering target's or one's own perceived performance level
- reducing one's relational closeness to the comparison target
provides theoretical association between social comparison, emotional arousal and behaviours
Closeness:
whether an outstanding other will have impact on self depends in extent to which other is psychologically close
52
Social-Discrepancy Theory (SDT)
rooted in traditions of cognitive consistency & dissonance
- makes claims about the relationship among discrepancies, affect & ultimately behaviour
- suggests that perceived inconsistencies or discrepancies between actual self & either ideal or ought self result in specific negative affects (dejection, agitation) that over time develop into patterns of emotional distress
Like SEM:
self-discrepancy theorising supports the idea that emotion mediates the relationship between comparison-based discrepancy & behavioural responses
> empirical evidence is lacking
53
Social Comparison & Social Media
cannot escape comparisons of social media
- often unaware of being effected
study: instagram pictures compared by likes
- downward comparison group got 38 likes, comparison target 29 likes
- upward comparison group got 29 likes, comparison target 38 likes
- -> downward comparison group reported feelings schadenfreude, more superiority, feeling better after comparison
- -> upward comparison group wanted to be comparison target, more inferiority, sadness, jealousy & resentment & felt worse after comparison
