| 000 -LEADER |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
02220nab a22001817a 4500 |
| 005 - DATE AND TIME OF LATEST TRANSACTION |
|---|
| control field |
20230203104621.0 |
| 008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
230203b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d |
| 100 1# - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME |
|---|
| Preferred name for the person |
Gerber, J. P. |
| Relator term |
author |
| 245 12 - TITLE STATEMENT |
|---|
| Title |
A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on |
| 264 #4 - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. (IMPRINT) |
|---|
| Date of publication, distribution, etc |
2018 |
| 520 3# - SUMMARY, ETC. |
|---|
| Summary, etc |
These meta-analyses of 60+ years of social comparison research focused on 2 issues: the choice of a comparison target (selection) and the effects of comparisons on self-evaluations, affect, and so forth (reaction). Selection studies offering 2 options (up or down) showed a strong preference (and no evidence of publication bias) for upward choices when there was no threat; there was no evidence for downward comparison as a dominant choice even when threatened. Selections became less differentiable when a lateral choice was also provided. For reaction studies, contrast was, by far, the dominant response to social comparison, with ability estimates most strongly affected. Moderator analyses, tests and adjustments for publication bias showed that contrast is stronger when the comparison involves varying participants' standing for ability (effect estimates, -0.75 to -0.65) and affect (-0.83 to -0.65). Novel personal attributes were subject to strong contrast for ability (-0.5 to -0.6) and affect (-0.6 to -0.7). Dissimilarity priming was associated with contrast (-0.44 to -0.27; no publication bias), consistent with Mussweiler (2003). Similarity priming provided modest support for Collins (1996) and Mussweiler (2003), with very weak assimilation effects, depending on the publication bias estimator. Studies including control groups indicated effects in response to upward and downward targets were comparable in size and contrastive. Limitations of the literature (e.g., small number of studies including no-comparison control conditions), unresolved issues, and why people choose to compare upward when the most likely result is self-deflating contrast are discussed. |
| 650 #0 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Topical term or geographic name as entry element |
Social comparison |
| 654 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--FACETED TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Focus term |
Meta-analysis |
| 700 1# - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME |
|---|
| Personal name |
Wheeler, Ladd |
| Relator term |
author |
| 700 1# - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME |
|---|
| Personal name |
Suls, Jerry |
| Relator term |
author |
| 773 ## - HOST ITEM ENTRY |
|---|
| Title |
Psychological Bulletin |
| Relationship information |
vol. 144, no. 2: (February 2018), pages 177-197 |
| 942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS |
|---|
| Source of classification or shelving scheme |
|
| Item type |
JOURNAL ARTICLE |