In the previous chapter it was examined whether intimate partners' evaluation of their relationship quality was affected by inducing them to actively engage in cognitive downward social comparison. The findings of these studies as reported in the previous chapter suggest that this induced cognitive downward comparison process resulted in higher perceived quality of the relationship, particularly for individuals who display more relational discontent and a stronger orientation toward social comparison. However, the question that arose in the introductory chapter was how observers would react when they observed someone else engaging overtly in downward social comparison activities. To address this question, the present chapter focuses on reactions to other people who openly display downward comparison behavior. More specifically, in a series of experimental studies, participants were presented with a short fragment supposedly derived from a group discussion. In this fragment, in which one of the discussants publicly evaluated his or her close relationship, the disclosures were systematically manipulated so that participants were provided with either enhancing versus deprecating, or enhancing versus absolute (i.e. noncomparative) fragments. It was explored whether self-enhancing downward comparisons were considered as more socially undesirable and would elicit more negative evaluations of the discloser.
7. This chapter is based on Oldersma, Buunk, and De Dreu (1999). Preliminary analyses of some of the data in this chapter were presented at the Seventh International Conference on Personal Relationships, Groningen, July 1994; Oldersma, De Dreu, and Buunk (1994).
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.
The studies in the current chapter examined individuals' reactions to others who overtly display self- and partner-enhancing downward comparisons. Participants were told that they would be required to read a brief scenario, which was a fragment that ostensibly was derived from a group discussion. Each scenario depicted someone who publicly evaluated his or her intimate relationship (the gender of the evaluator was not specified). The evaluator's statements were made about either the self (as a relationship partner) or the relationship partner. Moreover, in Studies 4 and 5, the evaluations were made in an enhancing or in a deprecating fashion, whereas in Study 6 the scenarios contained either comparative or noncomparative evaluations about the self or the partner.
In each study, having read the scenario, participants were asked in part to indicate the extent to which they considered the verbal statements as socially desirable, the extent of sympathy felt for the discussant, whether they felt annoyed whilst reading the statements, and the attributions they made for the discussant's statements. Study 5 was carried out to replicate the findings in Study 4. In addition to examining participants' reactions to someone else's self- or partner-evaluations, it was examined as to what extent participants themselves were able to generate evaluations of the self or the partner in either an enhancing or in a deprecating way. As the former studies did not examine the differential effects of comparative (i.e. with explicit references to social comparison) and noncomparative evaluations (i.e. without references to social comparison), Study 6 was conducted to confirm and extend the results of Studies 4 and 5 under the same carefully designed experimental conditions. In Study 6, the comparative nature of self- and partner-enhancing evaluations was manipulated systematically. Furthermore, in Study 6, the possibly moderating role of individual differences in social comparison orientation was explored by examining the extent to which reactions to someone else engaging in self- and partner-enhancing downward comparison were moderated by social comparison orientation (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999).
In this first study, participants were provided with a short fragment, supposedly derived from a group discussion, in which someone publicly characterized the self or the intimate partner in enhancing or deprecating terms. It was predicted that it would be seen as more socially appropriate and desirable to describe one's own intimate partner in an enhancing fashion than to describe oneself (as a relationship partner) as positive and as superior to others. Accordingly, it was assumed that a partner-deprecating evaluation will be rated as more socially inappropriate and undesirable than a self-denigrating evaluation.
Since there has been very little research on how people actually respond to enhancing self-presentations, as Schlenker and Leary (1982) have already indicated, the current study explored recipients' attributions for the discussant's statements about the self or the intimate partner. It was assumed that one can make at least two attributions when a person discloses enhancing or deprecating characterizations of the self or the intimate partner. Firstly, self-enhancement attributions will be made when the evaluation is seen as the result of the discussant's motivation to feel good about the self (e.g., Taylor amp;& Brown, 1988, 1994) and the discussant's concern to manage the impression that she or he makes on others and embellishing the self in order to receive social approval and acceptance (e.g., Baumeister, 1982). Secondly, compliance attribution will be made when individuals believe that the discussant is induced to advocate publicly an opinion that conforms to the present social norms (e.g., Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). Not surprisingly, it was anticipated that enhancing evaluations would be attributed to a greater degree of self-enhancing and self-presentational motives than deprecating evaluations, and that this difference would be more pronounced when the discussant considered the self instead of the intimate partner. In contrast with the self-enhancing and the self-presentational motives, the compliance attribution would be more pronounced when the discussant described the intimate partner instead of the self, in such a way that describing the partner in an enhancing manner would be attributed to a greater degree of compliance than when the self is considered in an enhancing manner. Self-evaluations would lead to a less pronounced difference in compliance attribution.
Sample and participants
Participants were individuals from a representative sample of households recruited by the Telepanel Foundation in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Each of these households is equipped with a microcomputer that is connected to the central computer of the Telepanel Foundation. Regularly, members of the households answer computerized questionnaires presented via the computer. All instructions and questions are presented on the computer screen and questions can be answered by means of a keyboard. The computer administers all answers and, upon completion of the questionnaire, the responses are sent to the computer of the Telepanel Foundation.
The final sample of 722 individuals who participated in the study were currently involved in relationships. They participated in what they thought was a study on "Partner and Relationship." This vague description was chosen in order to avoid specific expectations about the objectives of the study. Their ages ranged from 17 to 56, with an average of 37.1 years. Unfortunately, demographic information regarding marital status and the duration of the relationship was only available from 370 participants (187 women, and 183 men). Of this subsample, 301 participants were married, 51 were cohabitating, and 18 were dating exclusively. Their relationships had an average length of 16.0 years (ranging from 1 month to 35.5 years).
Design and procedure
A 2 x 2 factorial design was used in this study. Two levels of Direction of Comparison (enhancing versus deprecating) and two levels of Target under Evaluation (self vs. partner) constituted between-participants factors. The dependent variable involved the extent to which the verbal statements were considered as socially desirable. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions.
The study was introduced to participants as a study dealing with their opinions and their reactions to other people's public evaluation of their intimate relationship and their intimate partner. Of principal interest here is a set of four scenarios that were developed to serve as the basis for varying the direction of comparison and the target under evaluation. All scenarios described a prior research in which participants discussed their relationship. Participants in each experimental condition were informed that they would be given a short fragment to read from one of the group discussions. They were requested to read very carefully the verbatim fragment that was allegedly derived from a group discussion. The instructions to the participants were worded as follows:
Last year, we conducted a study about Students and Their Relationships. Over 300 individuals participated in this study. During group sessions, participants discussed their experiences in intimate relationships. Below, you can read a short fragment from such a session, wherein one of the individuals evaluates the relationship. Please read the fragment carefully before answering the subsequent questions.
The statements in this fragment conveyed that one of the discussants evaluates the self (as a partner) or the intimate partner as positive and above average, or as negative and below average. The statements in the self-enhancing condition read:
I'm proud of myself as a partner (.....) Hm, well, I am just better looking than others (.....) and I believe that as a partner, I am doing better than others.
To compare the responses to a self-enhancing evaluation with an evaluation in which the partner was described as positive and in a superior fashion, a partner-enhancing evaluation version was used:
I'm proud of my partner (.....) Hm, well, my partner is just better looking than others (.....) and I believe that my partner is doing better than others.
In addition, two discussion fragments were created that involved self- and partner-deprecating evaluations. The following illustrates the self-deprecating condition:
I'm not proud of myself as a partner (.....) Hm, well, I am just not better looking than others (.....) and I believe that as a partner, I am doing worse than others.
In the partner-deprecating condition the scenario stated:
I'm not proud of my partner (.....) Hm, well, my partner is just not better looking than others (.....) and I believe that my partner is doing worse than others.
After reading the scenario, participants were asked to answer a set of questions. Each question was displayed on the computer screen simultaneously with the discussion fragment. They could proceed at their own pace through the computer program.
Dependent variables
Social desirability of the verbal statements was measured with two questions. Following Cialdini et al. (1990, 1991), two items were used that required participants to indicate the extent to which they expected most people would do (i.e. the descriptive norm) and what they believed ought to be done in the same situation (i.e. the injunctive norm). Hence, participants were asked "Do you consider the statements as normal?" and, respectively, "Do you consider the statements as reprehensible?" (reverse scored) on 5-point scales ranging from I disagree strongly to I agree strongly. The two questions obtained a correlation of .66 and were averaged to form one variable, so that higher scores indicated higher social desirability.
Feelings of sympathy for the discussant's statements were assessed by asking participants on a 5-point scale whether they felt sympathy for the discussant. The scale ranged from Not at all to Very much.
Participants then responded to two attribution measures designed to assess self-enhancement attribution and compliance attribution. Self-enhancement attribution was measured by asking whether participants believed that the discussant made his statements (a) to enhance self-esteem, (b) to feel good about the self (c) to make a good impression on others, and (d) to receive full appreciation of others. The four items were closely associated with one another, as indicated by a Cronbach's coefficient alpha of .82. Secondly, compliance attribution was measured by asking participants whether they believed that the discussant made his statements (a) because the discussant did not wish to put forward a different view, and (b) to avoid others' disapproval. The two items obtained a correlation of .44 and were averaged to form one variable. The items were answered on 5-point scales ranging from Not at all to Very much.
Social desirability, sympathy, and attribution ratings were submitted to two-way (Target under Evaluation X Direction of Comparison) analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Means and standard deviations in all conditions are displayed in Table 4.
The ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of target under evaluation, F(1, 718) = 3.59, p < .06, and a significant main effect of direction of comparison, F(1, 718) = 37.85, p < .001, upon social desirability. Participants considered verbal statements about the self as somewhat more undesirable (M = 2.64) than statements about the partner (M = 2.55), and public evaluations in an enhancing manner were seen as less undesirable (M = 2.79) than deprecating evaluations (M = 2.39). As expected, however, these main effects were qualified by a significant two-way interaction, F(1, 718) = 162.05, p < .001. This reliable effect reflects the fact that enhancing statements about the partner were rated as less socially undesirable than deprecating statements, whereas the reverse appeared when the statements concerned statements about the self (see Table 4).
TABLE 4
Means and standard deviations of social desirability, sympathy,
and attributions as a function of direction and target in study 4
| Enhancing | Deprecating | |||||||
| Self | partner | Self | Partner | |||||
| Dependent Variables | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD |
| Social Desirability | 2.38a | .85 | 2.85b | .93 | 3.09b | .98 | 1.89c | .72 |
| Sympathy | 1.87a | .79 | 2.60b | .89 | 2.67b | .94 | 1.72a | .72 |
| Self-Enhancement | 3.56a | .77 | 3.11b | .76 | 2.66c | .76 | 2.93b | .73 |
| Compliance | 2.74 | .84 | 2.81 | .72 | 2.75 | .73 | 2.70 | .78 |
Note. Values could range from 1 to 5; higher scores indicate higher social desirability, more sympathy, and stronger attributions. Cell means within a row not sharing a superscript differ significantly at p < .05 by Duncan's multiple range tests.
N = 722, n ranged from 156 to 207 per cell.
Next, the effects of target and direction of comparison on sympathy ratings were examined in a two-way ANOVA. Participants reported more sympathy for a discussant who publicly evaluated his or her intimate relationship in an enhancing fashion (M = 2.33) than with a discussant who made deprecating evaluations (M = 2.17), F(1, 718) = 6.29, p < .02. Target under evaluation did not yield a significant effect, F < 1, ns, but interacted significantly with direction of comparison, F(1, 718) = 175.41, p < .001. As shown in Table 4, partner-enhancing statements evoked more feelings of sympathy than partner-deprecating statements, whereas self-enhancement elicited less sympathy than self-deprecation.
The ANOVA's performed on the attribution ratings yielded, not surprisingly, a significant main effect of direction of comparison on self-enhancement attributions, F(1, 718) = 85.68, p < .001. The means showed that relative to the deprecating evaluation condition, enhancing evaluations were attributed more strongly to a desire of self-enhancement (Ms = 2.79 vs. 3.30). Finally, the predicted interaction of target under evaluation and direction of comparison was significant only for attributions to self-enhancement, F(1, 718) = 39.55, p < .001. As revealed in Table 4, self-enhancement was more strongly attributed to a motive to enhance the self than partner-enhancement, whereas the reverse was true in the deprecation conditions. No other main effects or interaction effects approached significance.
Supplemental analyses
One of the reasons that people may consider self-enhancing evaluations and partner-deprecating evaluations as more socially undesirable than partner-enhancing and self-deprecating evaluations, respectively, is that they felt an antipathy to the discussant in the former conditions. Put in other words, participants's ratings of sympathy for the discussant could conceivably explain why people consider both former evaluations as more socially undesirable than the both latter evaluations. Also, the reverse may be true, namely that participants's feelings of sympathy could have been influenced by their social desirability ratings. Social desirability, in fact, was highly correlated with the sympathy ratings, r(722) = .72, p < .001.
To determine whether participants' social desirability ratings did account for the effects on sympathy, a 2 (Target under Evaluation) by 2 (Direction of Comparison) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with including sympathy as a covariate. Also, to investigate the reverse possibility, the foregoing ANCOVA was repeated treating social desirability as a covariate.8 Both analyses revealed that the main effects of direction of comparison and the interactive effects of target under evaluation and direction of comparison remained significant.
8. Before performing the analyses of covariance, preliminary analyses confirmed that the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes was upheld.
The results of Study 4 support the prediction regarding the appropriateness of self-enhancing social comparison. Participants considered partner-enhancing comparisons as less socially inappropriate and such comparisons elicited less negative evaluations of the discussant than self-enhancing comparisons. In a similar vein, partner-deprecating was seen as more socially inappropriate than self-deprecating, and evaluating the partner in a denigrating fashion thus seems to elicit more disapproving reactions than self-deprecation. Indeed, the results of this study indicate that partner-deprecation and self-enhancement are negatively sanctioned because the person communicating such evaluations installs an antipathy in the observer. Also, additional analyses were performed to examine the alternative explanation that the effects on social appropriateness were due to antipathetic feelings for the discussant rather than to the experimental manipulations, and vice versa. However, no evidence for this was found. Finally, enhancing evaluations appeared to be attributed to a greater degree of self-enhancement motives than deprecating evaluations, and more so when the discussant evaluated the self instead of the intimate partner.
It should be noted, however, that one possible limitation of the results of Study 4 is that the computerized questionnaire as used by the Telepanel Foundation imposed certain restrictions on the length of the verbatim scenario and the limited number of items that assessed social desirability, which may not be sufficiently reliable to capture the hypothesized effects. Therefore, a second study was conducted to further corroborate and extend the findings of Study 4 and to meet the aforementioned limitations.
In Study 5 the set of scenarios was further developed and extended to again serve as the basis for varying the direction of comparison and the target under evaluation. Moreover, the measure of social desirability was expanded to include additional items. In addition, a measure of identification was added to the present study. It was anticipated that participants would identify more with an discussant who reveals partner-enhancing evaluations than with a self-enhancing discussant, whereas this pattern would be reversed if the discussant communicates self- and partner-deprecating characterizations.
Finally, in accordance with the paradigm that was employed in Chapter 2, namely a thought-listing task that induced participants to actively engage in cognitive downward social comparison, participants in the current study were likewise asked to actively evaluate the self or the partner in the same manner as the discussant whose statements are reproduced in an accompanying scenario. Where self-enhancing evaluations, relative to enhancing evaluations of the partner, are generally considered as more socially inappropriate, and where such evaluations seem to evoke more negative emotions on the side of recipients who find themselves in an unfavorable position, people asked to provide such self- or partner-evaluations might themselves experience a greater reticence to describe themselves than to describe the partner in an enhancing manner. Hence, it was expected that people would be able to generate more extensive partner-enhancing descriptions than self-enhancing evaluations. On the other hand, in view of the fact that partner-deprecating evaluations are generally appraised more negatively than deprecating self-evaluations, it was anticipated that people would be able to generate more extensive self-deprecating descriptions than partner-deprecating evaluations. To test the assumption, a thought-listing task invited participants to portray the self or partner in either an enhancing or deprecating manner (according to the experimental conditions).
Sample and participants
Participants were 64 undergraduates attending the University of Groningen (39 women, and 25 men). They were recruited for a study regarding "Partner and Relationship". The mean age of the sample was 20.0 years, with a range from 17 to 25 years (19.9 years for women, 20.2 years for men). Twenty-nine (45%) participants were, at the time of the study, involved in relationships (29 dating relationships, 5 cohabitating, none married). The average duration of relationships was 1.7 years (ranging from 2 months to 6.3 years; 2.1 years for women, .9 years for men). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions and they were given a prospect of winning one of six 50-guilder gift coupons (approximately $30) for their participation.
Design and procedure
A 2 x 2 factorial design was used in this study. Two levels of Direction of Comparison (enhancing versus deprecating) and two levels of Target under Evaluation (self vs. partner) constituted between-participants factors. The dependent variables were the extent to which the verbal statements were considered as socially desirable, the extent to which participants felt sympathy for the discussant, the degree of identification with the discussant, and the attributions made for the discussant's communicative behavior.
Participants participated in what they thought was a study dealing with their opinions and their reactions to other people's public evaluation of their intimate relationship and their intimate partner. They completed the study privately and anonymously. The instructions to the participants were identical to those used in Study 4. All participants were informed that they would receive a brief fragment supposedly derived from a group discussion. They were asked to read the verbatim fragment very carefully as follows:
Last year, we conducted a study about Students and Their Relationships. Over 300 students from various branches of science participated in this study. During group sessions, participants discussed their experiences in intimate relationships. Below, you can read a short fragment from such a session, wherein one of the students evaluates the relationship. Please read the fragment carefully before answering the subsequent questions.
Next, on the same page, the scenario was presented. The following is the self-enhancing version of the fragment supposedly derived from a group discussion:
...in our relationship, I'm doing a lot of positive things (.....) I am really proud of myself as a partner (.....) Hm, when I look around, I'm very attractive (.....) compared to others, I believe that as a partner, I am doing better than others.
The scenario of the partner-enhancing fragment read:
...in our relationship, my partner is doing a lot of positive things (.....) I am really proud of my partner (.....) Hm, when I look around, my partner is very attractive (.....) compared to others, I believe that my partner is doing better than others.
In the deprecating conditions, the self-deprecating scenario was as follows:
...in our relationship, I'm doing a lot of negative things (.....) I am not really proud of myself as a partner (.....) Hm, when I look around, I'm not attractive (.....) compared to others, I believe that as a partner, I am doing worse than others.
Finally, the scenario of the partner-deprecating fragment read:
...in our relationship, my partner is doing a lot of negative things (.....) I am not really proud of my partner (.....) Hm, when I look around, my partner is not attractive (.....) compared to others, I believe that my partner is doing worse than others.
Next, participants completed the measures of social desirability, sympathy, identification and the two attribution scales. Finally, participants who were at the time of the study involved in an ongoing relationship were asked to answer an additional question. They were asked to imitate the discussant and act accordingly, by writing down an relationship-evaluation in the same manner as the discussant did in the scenario. Finally, participants were debriefed, thanked for their participation, and dismissed.
Dependent variables
Social desirability of the verbal statements was measured by six items (including the two items used in Study 4) that required participants to indicate the extent to which they expected most people would do and what they believed what ought to be done in the same situation. Hence, participants were asked on 5-point scales "Do you consider the statements as...," completed with the following adjectives: normal, usual, appropriate, desirable, reprehensible, and remarkable, with the last two adjectives reverse scored. The scales ranged from I disagree strongly to I agree strongly. The items were found to load on a single factor and all ratings were thus averaged to a single index of social desirability, with the higher score indicating higher social desirability. The internal consistency of the composite score, as measured by Cronbach's coefficient alpha, was calculated to be .85.
The measure of sympathy was identical to that used in Study 4. Identification was measured by asking participants the following two questions: "Do you recognize yourself in the discussant?" and "Do you resemble the discussant?," both scores on 5-point scales ranging from ranging from Not at all to Very much. The two items obtained a correlation of .70 and were averaged to form one variable, so that higher scores indicated more identification with the discussant.
Each attribution measure was expanded to include some additional items measuring the attributions that were made for the enhancing or deprecating self- and partner-evaluations. The measures included, among others, the items used in Study 4. The measure of self-enhancement attribution was extended to a 6-items measure by the addition of two items (Cronbach's alpha = .88). The additional items asked whether participants believed that the discussant made his statements (a) to allow the self to appear in the best possible light, and (b) to boast about the self. The compliance attribution was expanded by adding two items asking participants whether they believed that the discussant made his statements (a) to comply with the group norm, and (b) because the discussant expected others to do the same (Cronbach's alpha = .83). The items were answered on 5-point scales ranging from Not at all to Very much.
Finally, having completed the list of questions, participants who at the time of the study were involved in an ongoing relationship, were asked to answer an additional question. They were told that the experimenter wanted them to imitate the discussant by portraying themselves (as a partner) or their partner in a similar way. Thus, in accordance with the experimental condition to which participants were assigned they were asked to generate as many as possible enhancing or deprecating qualities of themself or their intimate partner. Participants who were not dating anyone at the time of the study were not presented with this question.
The ratings of social desirability, sympathy, identification, and the two forms of attributions were submitted to two-way (Target under Evaluation X Direction of Comparison) analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Means and standard deviations in all conditions are displayed in Table 5.
The ANOVA on the social desirability ratings yielded a significant main effect of direction of comparison such that public evaluations in a enhancing manner were seen as less undesirable (M = 3.00) than deprecating evaluation (M = 2.11), F(1, 60) = 40.21, p < .001. Furthermore, the ANOVA revealed a marginal tendency to consider statements about the partner as less undesirable (M = 2.68) than statements about the self (M = 2.43), F(1, 60) = 3.04, p < .09. However, as in Study 4, these main effects were qualified again by the predicted target under evaluation x direction of comparison interaction, F(1, 60) = 9.93, p < .01. As is evident in Table 5, the interaction arose because participants evaluated enhancing statements as less undesirable than deprecating statements, but particularly so when the target of evaluation was the partner.
TABLE 5
Means and standard deviations of social desirability, sympathy,
identification, attributions, and number of qualities
as a function of direction and target in study 5
| Enhancing | Deprecating | |||||||
| Self | Partner | Self | Partner | |||||
| Dependent Variables | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD |
| Social Desirability | 2.66a | .67 | 3.34b | .58 | 2.21c | .47 | 2.01c | .51 |
| Sympathy | 2.31a | .79 | 2.88b | .72 | 3.31b | .60 | 2.31a | .70 |
| Identification | 2.34ab | .65 | 2.63b | .87 | 1.97ac | .64 | 1.56c | .60 |
| Self-Enhancement | 3.38a | .68 | 3.09a | .79 | 2.17b | .33 | 2.49b | .57 |
| Compliance | 2.50 | .66 | 2.70 | .77 | 2.33 | .69 | 2.30 | .55 |
| Number of Qualities | 6.38a | 3.02 | 10.00b | 4.05 | 5.25a | 1.67 | 3.29a | 2.87 |
Note. Values could range from 1 to 5 (except for number of qualities); higher scores indicate higher social desirability, more sympathy and identification, and stronger attributions. Cell means within a row not sharing a superscript differ significantly at p < .05 by Duncan's multiple range tests.
N = 64 participants, n is 16 per cell, except for the latter variable, N = 29, n ranged from 6 to 8 per cell.
Further, ANOVA on the sympathy ratings yielded neither a significant main effect of direction of comparison, nor a main effect of target under evaluation did not yield significant effects on sympathy, F < 1.53, ns. However, a significant interaction effect was found, F(1, 60) = 19.49, p < .001. Inspection of Table 5 reveals that self-enhancing statements evoked less sympathy than partner-enhancement, whereas the reverse was true for self- and partner-deprecation.
Subsequently, ANOVA on the identification levels revealed a marginally significant main effect of direction of comparison, F(1, 60) = 3.87, p < .06, indicating that participants identified more with an enhancing than with a deprecating discussant (Ms = 2.48 vs. 1.77). Target under evaluation did not yield significant effects on identification, F < 1, ns. However, a marginally significant interactive effect was found on identification, F(1, 60) = 3.87, p = .05. As can be seen from the data in Table 5, the identification levels showed a similar, though somewhat weaker, pattern of results as was observed with participants sympathy ratings. That is, participants identified less with a self-enhancing discussant than with a partner-enhancing discussant, whereas the reverse was true for self- and partner-deprecating discussants.
The ANOVA's performed on both attribution ratings yielded again a significant main effect of direction of comparison on self-enhancement attributions, F(1, 60) = 34.37, p < .001, and a marginally significant effect on the compliance attribution, F(1, 60) = 2.96, p < .10. Condition means showed that relative to the deprecating evaluation condition, enhancing evaluations were attributed more strongly to self-enhancement (Ms = 2.33 vs. 3.23) and to compliance (Ms = 2.31 vs. 2.60). Finally, the predicted interaction of target under evaluation and direction of comparison was marginally significant for the self-enhancement attributions, F(1, 60) = 3.82, p < .06. As can be seen from Table 5, self-enhancement was more strongly attributed to a motive to enhance than partner-enhancement, whereas the reverse was true in the deprecation conditions. No other main effects or interaction effects approached statistical significance.
An ANOVA of the number of qualities revealed a main effect of direction of comparison, F(1, 25) = 11.04, p < .01, whereas no significant effect was found of target under evaluation, F < 1, ns. Thus, regardless of whether the participants evaluated themself or their intimate partner, those in the enhancing conditions generated a greater number of qualities (M = 7.93) than those in the deprecating conditions (M = 4.33). This main effect was modified by a significant interaction between direction of comparison and target under evaluation, F(1, 25) = 6.50, p < .02. As Table 5 shows, Duncan's multiple range tests indicated that participants generated more extensive descriptions when they described their partner in an enhancing manner than when they provided self-enhancing descriptions. In contrast with the expectation, there were no significant differences between the number of qualities in the self- and partner-deprecating conditions, and neither did the number of qualities in the self-enhancing condition differ from both deprecating conditions.
Supplemental analyses
As noted earlier, participants's ratings of social desirability could have been influenced by their levels of sympathy or identification, and vice versa. That is, if the effects of target under evaluation and type of evaluation on the social desirability ratings are mediated by participants' feelings of sympathy for the discussant or identification with the discussant, the effects on social desirability should remain reliable even when the effects of their ratings of sympathy and identification are statistically removed from the ratings of social desirability, and vice versa. Both ratings were related with social desirability, r(64) = .33, p < .01, and r(64) = .70, p < .001, respectively.
To explore whether the effects on social desirability were mediated by sympathy or identification, 2 (Target under Evaluation) by 2 (Direction of Comparison) ANCOVAs were performed after adding sympathy or identification as a covariate.9 First, controlling for sympathy did eliminate the interactive effect, F(1, 59) = 1.18, ns, whereas the main effect of direction of comparison on social desirability remained significant, F(1, 59) = 59.74, p < .001. The absence of a significant interaction, the marginally significant main effect of direction of comparison on sympathy notwithstanding, suggests that the effects of the experimental manipulations on the social desirability ratings were mediated by feelings of sympathy for the discussant. Secondly, the ANCOVA on social desirability was repeated after adding identification as a covariate (see footnote 3) revealed a somewhat different pattern. Both the main effect of direction of comparison on social desirability remained, F(1, 59) = 16.01, p < .001, as did the two-way interaction, F(1, 59) = 5.62, p < .03.
Also, ANCOVAs on the sympathy and identification ratings were conducted treating desirability as a covariate (see footnote 3) to investigate the reverse possibility, namely that the effects on sympathy and identification are mediated by participants' perceptions of social desirability of the verbal statements. The interactive effect of direction of comparison and target under evaluation remained statistical significant after partialling out the desirability variable, F(1, 59) = 9.41, p < .01. In contrast, an ANCOVA on participants' identification ratings with desirability as a covariate failed to find any effect, Fs < 1, ns. In short, these findings suggest that the interactive effect between direction of comparison and target under evaluation on social desirability was mediated by feelings of sympathy.
9. Before performing the analyses of covariance, preliminary analyses confirmed that the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes was upheld.
The pattern of findings obtained in Study 5 thus supported the results of Study 4. That is, Study 5 replicated and supplemented the measures as used in Study 4 with measures that were expanded with additional items along with the addition of a measure of identification with the discussant. As in Study 4, an interaction of direction of comparison and target under evaluation was found: Consistent with the main findings of Study 4, it was seen as less socially inappropriate and undesirable to describe one's own intimate partner in an enhancing fashion than to describe oneself (as a partner) as positive and superior to others, whereas a partner-deprecating evaluation was rated as more socially inappropriate and undesirable than a self-denigrating evaluation.
In addition, Study 5 revealed that the differences in social desirability ratings were mediated by the degree of sympathy that people felt for the discussant. This finding suggests that perceptions of social desirability are driven by participants' feelings of sympathy for the discussant. Consequently, in response to the discussant's descriptions of the self or the partner individuals experience greater or lesser feelings of sympathy for the discussant which, in turn, will affect perceptions of social desirability of the self- and partner-evaluations. This was not the case for identification; the effects on identification appeared to be mediated by perceptions of social desirability, thus indicating that the effects on feelings of identification were mediated by individuals' perceptions of social desirability of the verbal statements.
Furthermore, participants in Study 5 were induced to evaluate the self or the partner in either an enhancing or in a deprecating way. As predicted, participants who were asked to evaluate their intimate partner in an enhancing manner were able to generate more qualities than those who were asked to evaluate the self (as a partner) in a like manner. This finding makes sense, if, as suggested earlier, partner-enhancement is considered as more socially acceptable than self-enhancement and people act accordingly. Assuming that this is the case, people may anticipate possible negative reactions and may feel a greater reluctance to evaluate themselves in an enhancing fashion than to engage in partner-enhancing evaluations. An alternative explanation for the fact that people were better able to engage in partner- rather than in self-enhancing evaluations may be a differential cognitive availability of information about the self or the partner. Individuals who are involved in an ongoing close relationship probably have available to them more extensive positive mental models of their partner than of themselves (as a partner). Thus, it seems likely that this differential availability can affect the evaluation process of the partner or the self.
The first two studies were therefore successful in showing individuals' reactions to others' self- and partner-evaluations in either enhancing or deprecating terms. However, these studies did not investigate whether it was explicit social comparison that accounted for the effects on social desirability and recipients' feelings or the fact that the discussant made boastful statements regardless of whether or not he or she engaged in social comparison. That is, the former studies did not examine the differential effects of comparative (i.e. with explicit references to social comparison) and noncomparative evaluations (i.e. without references to social comparison), a limitation that will be remedied in the next study. Study 6 was designed to confirm and extend the results of Studies 4 and 5 under the same carefully designed experimental conditions, manipulating systematically the comparative nature of self- and partner-enhancing evaluations and looking at a wider variety of possible responses in order to obtain further evidence for the predicted reactions to such downward social comparisons.
Armed with evidence for the validity of the assumptions regarding the appropriateness of self-enhancement and partner-enhancement, a third study was designed to explore the responses to downward social comparison of the self and the close partner with others. Specifically, Study 6 addressed the question of how recipients respond to comparative and noncomparative evaluations. The major question was whether comparative and noncomparative evaluations of the self and the partner would influence individuals' social desirability ratings of such evaluations and their feelings about the discussant. Further, it was examined whether participants felt annoyed whilst reading statements containing explicit reference to social comparison (cf. Brickman & Bulman, 1977). It was expected that people would consider comparative statements as more socially undesirable than noncomparative statements, and that this difference would be more pronounced when the evaluations concerned the self rather than the partner. Accordingly, comparative evaluations would evoke fewer positive feelings (i.e., sympathy) and more negative feelings (i.e., annoyance) than noncomparative evaluations, and more so when it concerned self-evaluations rather than the partner-evaluations.
Furthermore, it was examined whether participants would suppose the discussant to be more satisfied with his or her relationship when the statements included evaluations of positive qualities in a comparative (i.e., self- or partner-enhancing social comparison) rather than in a noncomparative manner. In line with the findings presented in Chapter 2, it was expected that someone who overtly evaluates the self or the partner in an enhancing fashion would be expected to experience more relationship satisfaction than someone who exhibits evaluations in a noncomparative manner. Furthermore, in view of the fact that partner-enhancement is considered as more desirable and elicits more positive feelings for the discussant than self-enhancement, it was anticipated that this effect would be more pronounced where it concerned partner-enhancing rather than self-enhancing evaluations.
Finally, Study 6 explored whether the reactions to comparative evaluations would be moderated by individual differences in recipients' orientation toward social comparison (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). As outlined earlier in the current thesis, the concept of social comparison referred to the personality disposition of individuals who are strongly oriented to social comparison, who are quite attentive to their own status relative to others, and who are interested in information regarding others' thoughts and behaviors in similar circumstances. Although social comparison was not related to social desirability, various studies have showed that social comparison orientation was positively related to the selection and the attention to comparison information, as well as to the affective consequences of such comparisons (Van der Zee et al., 1998; see also Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). Thus, it seems likely that an individual who observes someone else engaging in explicit and overt social comparison, and who is high in social comparison orientation may be particularly attentive to comparison activities, because the observer might reason that he or she is involved in the comparison as one of the comparison targets. Moreover, such an observation may in turn even prompt the observer to also engage in social comparison. Thus, relative to observers low in social comparison orientation, those high in social comparison orientation may regard explicit references to social comparison as more socially undesirable and may respond more negatively when someone openly contrasts, for instance, the self as a partner or the intimate partner, with others worse off. Therefore, it was predicted that especially those high in social comparison orientation would react negatively to other individuals who make boastful statements with an explicit reference to social comparison, in particular when the statements refer to the self rather than to the intimate partner.
Sample and participants
Participants were 166 undergraduates attending the University of Groningen (118 women, and 48 men). The mean age of the sample was 19.8 years, with a range from 18 to 25 years (19.6 years for women, 20.1 years for men). Seventy-eight (47%) participants at the time of the study were involved in relationships (69 dating relationships, 9 cohabitating, none married). The average duration of relationships was 1.8 years (ranging from 1 month to 7.2 years; 2.1 years for women, 11 months for men). All participants were paid 5 Dutch guilders (approximately $3 in U.S. currency) for their participation in the study.
Design and procedure
A 2 x 2 factorial design was used in this study. Two levels of Target under Evaluation (self vs. partner) and two levels of Type of Evaluation (comparative versus noncomparative) constituted between-participants factors. Likewise, the experimental procedure was similar to that used in Study 5, with the following exceptions. A new set of four scenarios were developed to serve as the basis for varying the target under evaluation and the type of evaluation. In the comparative self-evaluation condition, the participants read the following fragment:
I'm proud of myself as a partner (.....) Hm, well, when I look around, I feel that I'm doing many things better than most others. I listen to my partner much better and not only dare to talk to my partner about everything, but am also more honest with my partner than others are with their partners (.....) compared to others, I have less difficulty accepting my partner and give the other sufficient room to go one's own way (.....) also, I share many interests with my partner and have the same sense of humor (.....) So, yes, I believe that as a partner, I am doing better than others.
In the comparative partner-evaluation condition, references to the self were replaced by references to the partner. The participants read the following statements:
I'm proud of my partner (.....) Hm, well, when I look around, I feel that my partner is doing many things better than most others. My partner listens to me much better and not only dares to talk to me about everything, but is also more honest with me than others are with their partners (.....) compared to others, my partner has less difficulty accepting me and gives me sufficient room to go my own way (.....) also, my partner shares many interests with me and has the same sense of humor (.....) So, yes, I believe that my partner is doing better than others.
In the noncomparative conditions, by contrast, references to social comparison were omitted. Thus, in the noncomparative self-evaluation condition participants read the following fragment:
I'm proud of myself as a partner (.....) Hm, well, when I think about it, I feel that I'm doing many things well. I listen to my partner very well and not only dare to talk to my partner about everything, but am also very honest with my partner (.....) I have no difficulty accepting my partner and give the other sufficient room to go one's own way (.....) also, I share many interests with my partner and have the same sense of humor (.....) So, yes, I believe that as a partner, I am doing good.
In the noncomparative partner-evaluation condition, reference to the self were changed to be referencing to the partner. In this manner, the scenario in this condition stated:
I'm proud of my partner (.....) Hm, well, when I think about it, I feel that my partner is doing many things well. My partner listens to me my very well and not only dares to talk to me about everything, but is also very honest with me (.....) my partner has no difficulty accepting me and gives me sufficient room to go my own way (.....) also, my partner shares many interests with me and has the same sense of humor (.....) So, yes, I believe that my partner is doing good.
As in Study 5, the participants were informed that after carefully reading the statements as reproduced in the verbatim fragment they were to continue with the questions regarding the social desirability of the statements. In Study 6, participants were asked to answer additional questions that were designed to assess how they felt after reading the statements and to assess the supposed extent of relationship satisfaction that the discussant may experience.
Social comparison orientation10 was measured by the INCOM, an 11-item scale that was developed by Gibbons and Buunk (1999; see also Study 2 of the current dissertation for a more thorough discussion). The items were measured using 5-point scales, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). All ratings were averaged to form a single index, resulting in a INCOM-score with the higher score indicating stronger social comparison orientation (Cronbach's alpha = .80).
Finally, when all the data were collected, participants were thoroughly informed about the purpose of the study, and after being paid they were thanked for their assistance and dismissed.
Dependent Variables
The items on the social desirability measure were taken from the questionnaire used in Study 5 (Cronbach's alpha = .84). Also, the assessment of sympathy was identical to that used in Studies 4 and 5. In addition, participants were asked on a 5-point scale whether they experienced feelings of annoyance about the discussant's statements. The scale ranged from Not at all to Very much.
Furthermore, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which the discussant would be satisfied with his or her relationship. They did have the opportunity to evaluate the presumed relationship satisfaction on a 10-point scale ranging from 1 (extremely unsatisfied) to 10 (extremely satisfied).
10. It can be supposed that participants might suspect the true purpose of the study and would be less candid if they first answered questions about social comparison than if the social comparison items are answered after the assessment of the dependent variables. To test this possibility, an order manipulation was employed. Half of the participants first completed the INCOM scale followed by the scenario and the successive items of the dependent variables, whereas for the remaining half of the participants the order was reversed. Analyses revealed that order did not qualify any of the reported effects in the current study, and will thus not be further considered in the analyses. Put in other words, the assessment of individuals' orientation toward social comparison did not affect their reactions to someone else's social comparison activities.
First, it was explored whether social comparison orientation moderated any of the expected effects of target under evaluation and evaluation. To do this, hierarchical moderated regression analyses were conducted to test the extent to which orientation toward social comparison interacted with the dummy coded experimental variables. Social comparison orientation did not yield significant main effects, neither did it qualify any of the reported effects in the current study. Thus, individual differences in orientation toward social comparison was not included in further analyses.
Next, the dependent variables were submitted to a two-way (Target under Evaluation X Type of Evaluation) analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Means and standard deviations for all measures are presented in Table 6. First, the ANOVA on social desirability revealed a significant main effect for target under evaluation and a significant main effect for type of evaluation. Participants judged statements about the partner less undesirable (M = 3.60) than statements about the self (M = 3.07), F(1, 162) = 26.78, p < .001. As expected, noncomparative evaluations were seen as less undesirable (M = 3.59) than comparative evaluations (M = 3.05), F(1, 162) = 29.10, p < .001. These main effects were qualified by the predicted Target x Evaluation interaction, F(1, 162) = 5.64, p < .02. As can be seen in Table 6, the interaction arose because participants evaluated comparative statements as less desirable than absolute statements, and more so when the statements focused on superior qualities of the self.
The ANOVA on feelings of sympathy indicated that partner-evaluations evoked more sympathy (M = 3.47) than self-evaluations (M = 2.67), F(1, 162) = 24.32, p < .001. Type of evaluation by the discussant also significantly affected participants' sympathy for the discussant, F(1, 162) = 15.51, p < .001, with participants who had read noncomparative evaluations felt more sympathy for the discussant (M = 3.38) than participants who had read comparative evaluations (M = 2.73). There was a significant interaction between target and evaluation, F(1, 162) = 10.74, p < .001. As can be seen in Table 6, participants expressed the least sympathy for the discussant who provided statements that emphasized the superiority of the self. Duncan's multiple range tests between the remaining three condition revealed no significant differences, indicating that someone who describes the partner in comparative or in noncomparative terms, and someone who engages in noncomparative self-evaluations can expect the same amount of sympathy for his or her evaluations.
As expected, a reverse pattern of results was found for feelings of annoyance. A main effect of target of evaluation was observed, F(1, 162) = 17.47, p < .001, indicating that partner-evaluations evoked less annoyance (M = 1.89) than self-evaluations (M = 2.56). Also, the main effect of type of evaluation was significant, F(1, 162) = 10.34, p < .01, revealing that participants who read noncomparative evaluations felt less annoyed about the statements (M = 1.98) than those who read comparative evaluations (M = 2.51). Although the Duncan's multiple range tests on the levels of sympathy and annoyance revealed an identical pattern of results (see Table 6), the analysis of variance failed to support the interaction effect between target and evaluation, F(1, 162) = 2.34, p = .13. Notwithstanding the absence of a significant interaction effect on the annoyance ratings, the overall pattern of results suggests that especially self-enhancing evaluations of the self as a partner elicited the least positive feelings for the discussant, whereas the remaining types of evaluations yielded similar levels of sympathy and annoyance.
TABLE 6
Means and standard deviations of social desirability,
sympathy, annoyance, and relationship satisfaction
as a function of evaluation and target in study 6
| Noncomparitive | Comparitive | |||||||
| Self | Partner | Self | Partner | |||||
| Dependent Variables | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD |
| Social Desirability | 3.45a | .64 | 3.73c | .62 | 2.70b | .65 | 3.44a | .60 |
| Sympathy | 3.24a | .93 | 3.51a | 1.20 | 2.11b | .88 | 3.41a | 1.00 |
| Annoyance | 2.19a | .89 | 1.77a | 1.04 | 2.93b | 1.08 | 2.03a | 1.02 |
| Satisfaction | 8.01a | 1.12 | 7.34bc | 1.35 | 7.35b | 1.48 | 7.95ac | 1.49 |
Note. Values could range from 1 to 5 for social desirability and sympathy levels, and for relationship satisfaction from 1 to 10; higher scores indicate higher social desirability, more sympathy, and greater satisfaction. Cell means within a row not sharing a superscript differ significantly at p < .05 by Duncan's multiple range tests.
N = 166 participants, n ranged from 38 to 43 per cell.
Further, an ANOVA on the level of presumed relationship satisfaction yielded a significant interaction between target and evaluation, F(1, 60) = 3.82, p < .06. As Table 6 reveals, this interaction largely derives from participants' tendency to rate the relationship of someone evaluating the self (as a partner) in comparative terms as less satisfying than the relationship of a person who provides self-evaluations in a noncomparative manner, whereas the reverse is true when someone evaluates the partner. Thus, the effects of social comparison on the perceived quality of the relationship are believed to be most beneficial when someone perceives his or her intimate partner as better the others, whereas self-enhancing social comparison is to a lesser extent associated relationship satisfaction. No other effects approached statistical significance.
Supplemental analyses
As in Studies 4 and 5, it was examined whether the obtained effects on social desirability were mediated by participants' sympathy for the discussant or by their feelings of annoyance about the discussant's statements, and vice versa. Participants social desirability ratings were highly correlated with their levels of sympathy and annoyance, rs = .67, and -.71, respectively, both ps < .001. Accordingly, four 2 (Target under Evaluation) by 2 (Type of Evaluation) ANCOVAs were conducted to determine whether the effects remained significant when the variance explained by the sympathy and annoyance ratings was partialled out.
The first analysis covaried participants' scores on the sympathy index out of the scores on the social desirability index.11 When the effects of sympathy were statistically removed, the main effects of target under evaluation and type of evaluation still emerged, F(1, 161) = 7.40, p < .01, and F(1, 161) = 13.37, p < .001, respectively. However, the interactive effect was no longer reliable, F < 1, ns. The second ANCOVA covaried participants' scores on the social desirability index out of their scores on the sympathy index (see footnote 5). In contrast with the main effect of evaluation, the main effects of target under evaluation remained, F(1, 161) = 5.39, p < .03, as did the interaction, F(1, 161) = 5.31, p < .03. As was the case in Study 5, these findings also suggest it were feelings of sympathy that mediated the interactive effect on social desirability.
We next examined whether feelings of annoyance did account for the effects on social desirability by conducting an analysis after adding annoyance scores as a covariate (see footnote 5). Reliable effects for target under evaluation and type of evaluation still emerged, F(1, 161) = 9.36, p < .01, and F(1, 161) = 17.49, p < .001, respectively. In this analysis, the interactive effect was marginally significant, F < 3.25, p = .07. In a fourth ANCOVA, participants' scores on the social desirability index were covaried with their scores on the annoyance index (see footnote 5). In contrast to the aforementioned ANOVA on the annoyance scores, no significant effect effects emerged, Fs < 1, ns. Hence, perceptions of social appropriateness and desirability appeared to mediate the effects of target and evaluation on feelings of annoyance.
11. Before performing the analyses of covariance, preliminary analyses confirmed that the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes was upheld.
The results of Study 6 support the conclusions from the preceding studies. Firstly, evaluations containing explicit references to social comparison were considered as more socially inappropriate than evaluations without reference to comparison with others. Secondly, it was seen as more socially acceptable to discuss the positive qualities of one's intimate partner than one's own qualities (as a partner). This difference was more pronounced when the evaluations contained explicit references to social comparison. That is, someone's boastful self-evaluation gained less approval than someone boasting about the positive qualities of his or her partner. This divergence became more pronounced when the discussant included explicit references to social comparison in the self- and partner-evaluations.
Further, feelings of sympathy for the discussant appeared to mediate the interactive effect on social desirability. These feelings yielded a pattern of results that was mainly in line with those of the desirability ratings. People expressed more sympathy for noncomparative than for comparative discussants. Also, those evaluating the qualities of the partner could count on more sympathy than self-evaluations, and this was especially true when the discussant used social comparison to come to a judgment. The absence of an interactive effect on the desirability ratings when sympathy was controlled for suggests that the weak effects may be attributable to participants's sympathy for the discussant. The pattern of annoyance was opposite to the pattern of results obtained for the sympathy ratings. However, in contrast to the sympathy variable, social desirability mediated the effects on feelings of annoyance.
The findings of Study 6 were compatible with those of the studies reported in Chapter 2, in that participants believed a discussant to be more satisfied with his or her relationship when the discussant's evaluations focused on positive qualities of the partner in comparative terms rather than in noncomparative terms. The reverse appeared to be true with respect to self-evaluations. That is, in contrast to the prediction, people tended to believe that someone who evaluated the self (as a partner) in a comparative manner would be less satisfied with his or her relationship than someone who evaluated the self noncomparative terms. One possible explanation may be that self-enhancing social comparison is regarded as a form of defensive coping which may arouse the suspicion that the discussant is somewhat unhappy with his or her relationship. A second alternative explanation may be that the supposed extent to which the discussant would be satisfied with his or her relationship could have been influenced by participants's feelings of sympathy for the discussant. However, this second alternative account had no evidence to support it as additional analyses did not indicate that sympathy mediated the effects on presumed relationship satisfaction.12
Finally, a measure of the social comparison orientation (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999) was included in Study 6 to evaluate the possibly moderating role of recipients' orientation toward social comparison on the reactions to comparative and noncomparative evaluations of the self and the partner. Firstly, the aforementioned effects were independent of the order in which the variables --social comparison and the dependent variables referring to the scenario-- were assessed. Secondly, reactions to comparative evaluations were not moderated by individual differences in recipients' orientation toward social comparison.
12. Presumed relationship satisfaction correlated significantly with the sympathy ratings, r(166) = .33, p < .001. A 2 (Target under Evaluation) by 2 (Type of Evaluation) ANCOVA was conducted to determine whether the effects on presumed relationship satisfaction remained significant when the variance explained by the sympathy rating was partialled out. The interactive effect of target under evaluation and type of evaluation was marginally significant, F(1, 161) = 3.88, p = .51.
Although some researchers (e.g., Brickman & Bulman, 1977; Hemphill & Lehman, 1991; Wills, 1981, 1991b) have suggested the potential existence of normative sanctions against engaging in social comparison, past social comparison research has devoted little attention to the reactions to publicly conveyed social comparisons. In an attempt to approach this void, three studies were reported in the current chapter that presented participants with a short fragment supposedly derived from a group discussion wherein someone publicly evaluated his or her close relationship in either an enhancing and a deprecating (Studies 4 and 5), or in a comparative and a noncomparative (Study 6) manner. The three studies document the reactions to others engaging in downward social comparison by demonstrating that, relative to self-enhancement, people seem to consider others' partner-enhancement more socially desirable. Furthermore, someone who publicly evaluates his or her partner in a partner-enhancing fashion evoked in the observers of such downward comparison activities more positive and less negative feelings than someone displaying self-enhancing downward comparisons. In contrast, people expressed less appreciation for others' partner-deprecating evaluations than for others evaluating the self as a partner in a denigrating manner.
Even though the data in Studies 5 and 6 are correlational and cannot be used to establish causal relations between the dependent variables, the pattern of results suggests that the differences may be mediated by feelings of sympathy for the discussant. That is, the data suggest that when people read the statements, they are for instance, confronted with someone who publicly boasts that his or her own relationship is superior to that of others, which may imply an inferior standing of the relationship of others. In response to these boastful statements, observers of such statements may feel criticized and feel antipathy for the discussant. This is in line with Brickman and Bulman's (1977; see also Smith, 1994; Tesser et al., 1988) line of reasoning, namely that people might suffer by comparison when someone else is claiming his or her own superiority over other people, thereby implying that those others are regarded as less fortunate due to their inferior status. Further, the person of inferior status may feel bad about him- or herself, and may develop negative feelings for the superior person. Hence, Brickman and Bulman (1977, p. 153) suggested that "norms grow up that restrict or prohibit social comparison, even at the cost of depriving people of interesting and potentially valuable information," and that little sympathy will be felt for someone who violates this norm, which is typically the case when somebody publicly engages in self-enhancing social comparison.
The findings of the current studies may help us understand more clearly why some individuals state that they do not engage in social comparison. As noted previously, participants in social comparison research frequently display a resistance to questions that ask them to evaluate themselves in comparison to other persons. The current series of studies suggest that one possible reason for this resistance may be that people anticipate potential disapproval of their social comparison activities by those others who are involved in the process of comparison, especially when the social comparison implies that those others are worse off. Another line of reasoning assumes that people admit their social comparison activities with reserve due to individual differences in orientation toward social comparison. In an extensive research program on the personality disposition to engage in social comparison, Gibbons and Buunk (1999) demonstrated that this disposition was associated with a variety of social comparison behaviors. However, in Study 6, individuals' reactions to someone else engaging in social comparison were not moderated by individual differences in recipients' orientation toward social comparison. Apparently, individuals' orientation toward social comparison do not affect their response to social comparison activities of other people. In Chapter 2, a series of studies is reported which examined whether the consequences of cognitive downward comparison was moderated by social comparison orientation. In two studies, participants were not passive recipients of social comparison information, but were induced to actively engage in social comparison themselves.
In conclusion, the findings reported here suggest that presenting one's partner in a favorable manner may prove a relatively acceptable and effective way to enhance and maintain a positive image of the self, the partner, and the relationship. That is, people's public image is better off when they state that they engage in partner, rather than in self-enhancement, especially when they take the opportunity to make social comparisons to worse-off others. As researchers continue to examine the ways in which people engage in social comparison, future research will need to explore the ways in which research on social comparison is impeded by individuals' reluctance to provide accounts of their social comparison activities.