Occasionally, we may encounter other people who openly embellish their success by contrasting others bad fortune to their own accomplishments. This may confront us with a situation wherein we are expected to enjoy the good fortune of the other, although we might privately be embarrassed by the fact that someone else in public elaborates on his or her success by turning others' misfortune to their advantage.

In a similar vein, romantic partners may encounter someone else who calls attention to his or her intimate relationship that appears to be more enjoyable in comparison to the relationship of similar others. Although we might be pleased by the good fortune of others, we might privately be annoyed by the swanker who appears to take advantage of others' bad luck. Consequently, publicly drawing attention to one's own good fortune with explicit references to social comparison with unfortunate others may have a major drawback.

That is, as Wills and Suls (1991) noted, when people notice someone else who overtly, and without much hesitation, engages in downward social comparison, they may feel that this swanker is aiming his or her comparisons at themselves which may make further social interaction troublesome. Namely, observers may conclude from the overtly displayed downward comparisons that their own standing is considered less favorably, or indeed, inferior to that of the discloser. In conclusion, it can be assumed that people may consider others' overt downward comparison behaviors as socially undesirable because those comparisons are seen as socially inappropriate grounds for obtaining satisfaction within one's own situation.

It was Wills (1981) who noted the conflict between the potential benefits for those who engage in downward comparison on the one hand, and the pain in those who are depicted as the worse off others on the other hand. In his influential paper about downward comparison theory, Wills (1981) postulated the ambivalence principle. According to this principle, "people do not regard comparison with less fortunate others as wholly admirable" (p. 246).

Put in other words, downward comparison "goes against normative prescriptions and empathic tendencies of concern with other people" (Wills, 1991b, p. 378). People are ambivalent about engaging in downward social comparison because they might experience both the advantages (i.e., self-enhancement) and disadvantages (i.e., self-enhancement at the expense of others) of doing so. Therefore, as Wills (1981) reasoned, when people engage in downward comparison, they do so in a private and implicit way to avoid the possible disapproval and the negative responses of the observers of such downward social comparison behaviors.

However, relatively few studies have provided evidence for this notion. An exception is a study by Hemphill and Lehman (1991) who found evidence for the social undesirability of downward comparison. These authors demonstrated that multiple sclerosis patients made fewer downward comparisons --but not fewer upward comparisons-- and reported less positive affective consequences of comparisons with worse off others when they considered social comparison as more inappropriate.

This chapter is intended to explore the implications of the aforementioned ambivalence principle of downward social comparison and directs attention towards the responses to others engaging in overt downward social comparison activities, an area that, in spite of its relevance, and in contrast to the evidence on Wills' (1981) principle of downward comparison, has been scarcely examined in recent research. More precisely, three experimental studies examined individuals' reactions to someone who publicly engages in downward comparison and boasts about his or her superior standing. Individuals' perceptions of the social desirability and appropriateness of engaging in such downward comparison are examined, as well as their feelings about explicit and publicly displayed downward social comparisons.