Major Social Comparison Issues - Research Paper Example

Social Comparison Social Comparison based on body image Lamer d ‘’within Gender and Between Gender Upward Social Comparison” in her article argues that issues related to an individual’s body image and self-esteem are related irrespective of one’s age, ethnicity, and gender. Her vindications are reinforced by the press report of 2010 by National Organization of Women which highlights that 49% of girls between 3 to 6 years are worried of being fat. There are numerous campaigns against insecurities emanating from body images. For an instant, campaigns such as Operation Beautiful advocates for positive talk on women with the aim of counteracting trends related to body insecurity (Boyle, 2010). Social Comparison Theory provides the platform for individuals to maintain self concepts that are accurate. However, the benefits of social comparison have significantly had some controversies (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Langer, Pirson, & Delizonna (2010) illuminate that researchers studying comparison of physical attraction have been skeptical of the Social Comparison Theory. The theory does not incorporate the negative effects either due to falsification of images or expectations that are unrealistic. The portrayals of the media have been idealized and the exposure has consequently resulted into behavioral effects (Festinger, 1954). In an attempt to assert their convictions, the researchers attempted to measure behavioral changes and self-esteem between participants who perceived female beauty standards as unrealistic relative to a control group (Patrick, Neighbors & Knee, 2004). The implicit method of self evaluation was used to measure the rate at which individuals responded to target words that were either ugly or attractive (Guvenc & Aktas, 2006). The finding of the research illuminated that women were unlikely to associate with target words that were attractive as opposed to the ugly ones due to exposure (Trampe, Stapel & Siero, 2007). The explicit measures were also employed (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). These explicit methods were Multi-Dimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MDBSRQ) and Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (RSE). In comparison to the findings highlighted through the self evaluation measure, MDBSRQ measure indicated the importance of appearance on its appearance subscale. In addition, measures that were behavioral were used to internalize the ideals of beauty (Gurari, Hetts & Strube, 2006). Women who did not or indulged in eating less junk food had been privy to the advertisements that were unrealistic in comparison to those who were in control conditions (Shomaker & Furman, 2007). The results revealed that behavioral measures were more significant relative to the responses that were explicit. Since there was dissatisfaction on explicit images of the body being ineffective, Lamer (2012) argued that the influence of the comparison might have been more than anticipated or realized.   Bailey & Ricciardelli (2010) evaluated the extent to which comments in reference to both positive and negative appearance related with social comparison in terms of upwards or downwards comparison. In addition, they investigated the relationship between comments on appearance and tendencies of social comparison with the dissatisfaction of the body and eating disorder.   Bailey & Ricciardelli (2010) realized that making upward social comparison correlated positively with the negative comments they received. Moreover, the findings highlights that the negative comments on appearance that children hear have the potential of making them make upward comparison in their future life (Jones, 2001). Furthermore, the comments they may have a lot of concern on body image. On the other hand, Patrick, Neighbors, and Knee (2004) study was aimed at determining the link between self esteem and the ability of making social comparison. The first study was done by the participants in the study being required to make comparison between the women or females in various advertisements and the quality of those adverts. The results pointed out that the women in the category of higher contingent self esteem (CSE) had higher chances of making comparisons of themselves to the women in the adverts despite the fact that they were to promptly rate the women. The second study encompassed the investigation on the frequency or rather regularity with which social comparison was made in life. The journaling technique was employed to put in record that approximately 51% comparisons made were not intended and in most cases were done with strangers as opposed to friends, famous individuals or acquaintances (Lips, 2006). The effects of post comparison were that women felt much worse after the upward comparison relative to downward comparison where they felt slightly better. This frequency is linked to the CSE where the effects of post comparison correlated positively with both the downward and upward comparison’s direction. The next research was conducted by Montoya (2008) on the extent to which individual’s behavior in terms of relationship related to their perception on attractiveness. The participants in the research entailed men and women who were heterosexual though some other studies focused on individuals in uncommitted relationship. Montoya study entailed rating on physical attraction form outside rates and personal rating as well (Gaudoin, 2011). This was correlated with the judgment of people’s attractiveness and the probability of being in relationship with the individuals; being rejected; and enjoyment or satisfaction or happiness in the relationship. In the first study, the participant’s photos were taken as they rated physical attractiveness that was targeted. Other participants were required to rate the pictures resulting into a rating that was objectively based on physically attractiveness. This study illuminated that objective physical attractiveness had a negative relationship with the extent to which participants rating on individual physical attractiveness. Participants who were more attractive had higher chances of rating other targets less attractive. On the other hand, the second study revealed that as participants physical attractiveness in terms of objectivity declined their ratings in terms of anticipated satisfaction of being in relationship with specific or particular targets elevated. However, the forth study showed that the expected probability of being in a relationship positively related with the participant’s objective physical attractiveness. Therefore, the research indicates the benefits of higher rating of the subjective physical attractiveness. It serves as the upper boundary of targets having the potential of one imagining who they can be in a relationship with. Langer, Pirson & Delizonna (2010) research was based on mindfulness being a barrier to the effects of downward or upward social comparison. One of the conditions of the study was that controlled groups neither made social comparison nor training in mindfulness. The other condition was that the second group did not incorporate training in mindfulness. The third group employed both the training in mindfulness and made upward and downward social comparison. They realized that by making social comparison, they viewed their performance by undertaking their assigned tasks negatively. The higher characteristic mindfulness had a positive relationship with both the ability in drawing and enjoyment in terms of drawing. This is in contrast to the social comparison theory which illuminates social comparison as a strategy for improvement. However, Langer, Pirson & Delizonna (2010) study showed the social comparison as a barrier to individual perceptions of ability and hamper performance. Moreover, this study also revealed the effectiveness of traits that were mindfulness as likely barriers in the society with emphasis being laid on competition. Training in mindfulness may be employed as prevention efforts towards body dissatisfaction. As for Jones (2001), his study is based on gender differences as a criterion for attractiveness, as well as, targets in social comparison. In this study, the participants described what they perceived as an ideal attractiveness in both the boys and girls at adolescent stage. The boys’ description on the adolescent girls did not encompass traits such as style, intelligence and fame as attractive (Hellmich, 2010). This was a converse for the girls’ description. On the other hand, on the adolescent boys, the boys noted factors such as facial appearance, personality, and intelligence which were also a converse of the girls’ description. The second study revealed that physical attractiveness was more significant in comparison to personality traits as a target for the girls’ comparison. In reference to themselves concerning popularity, style or personality the girls made social comparison to their peers than with the models or celebrities. The boys too had similar perception to those of the girls. In the first study, there were higher chances of the female/girl being described on the criterion of weight while the boys on the criterion of being build or their shape. Lamer (2012)’s study focuses on gender social comparison and how social comparison is made by the male. He incorporates personality, mindfulness, and social comparison with the aim of comprehending responses that are effective to social comparison. His five hypotheses are: Scores on mindfulness on MAAS (Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale) having a significant positive relationship with the scores of self-esteem on RSE. The in within gender condition participants reacting negatively on PANAS than in between gender conditions on both the negative and positive scale. Scores of mindfulness on MAAS having a negative relationship with the negative impacts on PANAS scores. The scores of RSE having a positive relationship with attainable beauty. Higher social comparison oriented participants’ scores on various subscales of INCOM having higher negative and lower positive influencing PANAS scores than with social comparison that were lower. The methods applied in the identification of the participants entailed 70 students (50 women and 20 men who were heterosexual). 27 women were assigned in the within gender condition randomly while the remaining to the between gender condition. On the other hand, 10 men were in the in between gender condition and the others in the within gender condition. The materials that were used were the priming task, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE), Iowa-Netherland Comparison Orientation Scale (INCOM), Perception and Attractiveness Beauty (PAB), and Demographic questionnaire. The finding from the several study provided support for several highlighted hypothesis as stated above (hypothesis 1, 3, and 4). However, hypothesis 2 and 5 were rejected. Other finding showed that men were not so positive after rating others as opposed to rating women. The participants with low self esteem noted self confidence as their description for beauty. Women on the other hand, rated the potential of either a man or a woman dating them as slim compared to the men. In addition, women also highlighted sociability playing a significant role in their attractiveness relative to the men. Social comparison based on self-esteem Each human being has something he or she feels he/she is good at. What individuals feel they are good at becomes important facet of their self esteem hence mood crops up as a result of comparison to others. The biasness of social comparison emanates from social comparison and where they derived self-esteem from. The biasness can be defined as conscious or unconscious dislike or competitive feeling that others are better compared to us. In the business climate, it can hugely influence the decisions pertaining to hiring processes. Garcia’s studies revealed that in the hiring decision process, individuals tend to favor those that do not compete with their own particular or specific strength. The hypothesis of the study was that individuals with high stand on a dimension have the potential of preventing others (especially those who surpass them on the similar stand) to protect their stands. In another study, Garcia and colleagues focused on the link between protecting and individuals self-esteem with the tendency for the individuals to recommend those who do not surpass them in the concerned dimension. The participants were randomly tasked with the responsibility of making recommendations to the potential hires. One of the tasks was that a company was hiring individuals with equivalent qualification and experience in the same field of an individual already existing in the same position who was required to make the decision. Furthermore, the decision also entailed making decisions that attempt to align the decision making power and the degree of salary. The preferences were indicated on a continuous scale and the responses were related to self-esteem. The outcome revealed that the majority of the participants recommended new recruits compensation on the modality of their average standing. Those in the high salary scale but low on decision making power recommended or favored more the power to make decisions on the new recruits. They had a conviction that salary would likely elevate the new recruits’ self-esteem. Unfortunately, the study did not only show the causes but also the relationship between the biasness in collaboration and self-esteem. On the contrary Carnegies relied on the services of individuals that were better than him. Managers can employ this tactic as their strengths. To build a team that would escalate result, Carnegie did not fear hiring individuals better than him even those with similar expertise as him. He argued that on the contrary to peoples’ perception, it does not present threats to the manager’s position but instead helps the manager in building reputation as an individual who is result oriented. Therefore as per the results of Garcia’s study, as much as it may be favorable to the individuals in the organization, it can be very detrimental to the organization. That is if people are recommended and hired using the social comparison method of self-esteem. Awareness to the biasness of the social comparison can aid in the hiring process. References: Bailey, S. D., & Ricciardelli, L. A. (2010). Social comparisons, appearance related comments, contingent self-esteem and their relationships with body dissatisfaction and eating disturbance among young women.  Eating Behaviors, 11, 107-112 Boyle, C. (2010). Operation beautiful. Retrieved 26th April 2015 from: http://operationbeautiful.com/ Lamer, S (2012). lways Greener on the Other Side: Within-Gender and Between-Gender Upward Social Comparisons. Retrieved on 26th April 2015 from: http://ccpsyj.weebly.com/upward-comparisons-article.html Langer, E., Pirson, M., & Delizonna, L. (2010). The mindlessness of social comparisons.  Psychology Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(2), 68-74 Montoya, R. M. (2008). "Im hot, so Id say youre not”: The influence of objective physical attractiveness on mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1315-1331 Brown, K. W. & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: The role of mindfulness in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822-848 Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 114-140. Gaudoin, T. (2011). Body image is more than skin deep. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on 26th April 2015 from:http://proquest.umi.com. Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P.  (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 129-142. Gurari, I., Hetts, J. J., & Strube, M. J. (2006). Beauty in the “I” of the beholder: Effects of idealized media portrayals on implicit self-image.  Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 273-282 Guvenc, G. & Aktas, V. (2006). Age, gender, prejudice, interpersonal sensitivity and locus of control as predictors of self esteem, assertiveness and communication skills in adolescence. Turk Psikoloji Dergisi, 21(57), 45-62.  Hellmich, N. (2010). What’s a girl to do about body image?; ‘Rock what you’ve got,’ says Katherine Schwarzenegger. USAToday. Retrievedon 26th April 2015 from: http://proquest.umi.com. Jones, D. C. (2001). Social comparison and body image: Attractiveness comparisons to models and peers among adolescent girls and boys. Sex Roles, 45, 645-664 Lips, H.M. (2006). A new psychology of women: Gender, culture, and ethnicity. (3rd ed.) Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.   Patrick, H., Neighbors, C., & Knee, C. R. (2004). Appearance-related social comparisons: The role of contingent self-esteem and self-perceptions of attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 501-514 Shomaker, L. B. & Furman, W. (2007). Same-sex peers’ influence on young women’s body image: An experimental manipulation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 871-895 Trampe, D., Stapel, D. A., & Siero, F. W. (2007). On models and vases: Body dissatisfaction and proneness to social comparison effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 106-118 Read More