The culture of social comparison.

Social comparison is one of the most ubiquitous features of human social life. This fundamental human tendency to look to others for information about how to think, feel, and behave has provided us with the ability to thrive in a highly complex and interconnected modern social world. Despite its prominent role, however, a detailed understanding of the cultural foundations of social comparison is lacking. The current research aims to fill this gap by showing that two prominent cultural dimensions, tightness-looseness and individualism-collectivism, uniquely explain variation in social-comparison proclivity across individuals, situations, and cultures. We first demonstrate the yet-undocumented link between cultural tightness and comparison proclivity across individuals, and further show that perceptions of ambient tightness and interdependence are uniquely associated with stronger social-comparison tendencies. Next, we show that these associations arise across social settings and can be attributed to properties of the settings themselves, not solely to individual differences. Finally, we show that both tight and collectivistic US states show a propensity to engage in Google searches related to specific social-comparison emotions, but that the tightness-comparison link arises from a unique psychological mechanism. Altogether, these findings show that social comparison-a fundamental aspect of human cognition-is linked to cultural practices based both in prevalence and strength of social norms as well as the tendency to construe the self in relation to others.

Competition is crucial for social comparison processes in long-tailed macaques.

Humans modulate their self-evaluations and behaviour as a function of conspecific presence and performance. In this study, we tested for the presence of human-like social comparison effects in long-tailed macaques ( Macaca fascicularis). The monkeys' task was to extract food from an apparatus by pulling drawers within reach and we measured latency between drawer pulls. Subjects either worked on the task with a partner who could access the apparatus from an adjacent cage, worked in the absence of a conspecific but with food moving towards the partner's side or worked next to a partner who was denied apparatus access. We further manipulated partner performance and competitiveness of the set-up. We found no indication that long-tailed macaques compare their performance to the performance of conspecifics. They were not affected by the mere presence of the partner but they paid close attention to the partner's actions when they were consequential for food availability. If social comparison processes are present in long-tailed macaques, the present study suggests they may only manifest in situations involving direct competition and would thus be different from social comparisons in humans, which manifest also in the absence of direct competition, for example in evaluative contexts.

Do monkeys compare themselves to others?

Social comparisons are a fundamental characteristic of human behaviour, yet relatively little is known about their evolutionary foundations. Adapting the co-acting paradigm from human research (Seta in J Pers Soc Psychol 42:281-291, 1982. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.42.2.281), we examined how the performance of a partner influenced subjects' performance in long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). Using parallel testing in touch screen setups in which subjects had to discriminate familiar and novel photographs of men and women, we investigated whether accuracy and reaction time were influenced by partner performance and relationship quality (affiliate vs. non-affiliate). Auditory feedback about the alleged performance of the co-actor was provided via playback; partner performance was either moderately or extremely better or worse than subject performance. We predicted that subjects would assimilate to moderately different comparison standards as well as to affiliates and contrast away from extreme standards and non-affiliates. Subjects instantly generalized to novel pictures. While accuracy was not affected by any of the factors, long reaction times occurred more frequently when subjects were tested with a non-affiliate who was performing worse, compared to one who was doing better than them (80% quantile worse: 5.1, better: 4.3 s). For affiliate co-actors, there was no marked effect (worse: 4.4, better: 4.6 s). In a control condition with no auditory feedback, subjects performed somewhat better in the presence of affiliates (M = 77.8% correct) compared to non-affiliates (M = 71.1%), while reaction time was not affected. Apparently, subjects were sensitive to partner identity and performance, yet variation in motivation rather than assimilation and contrast effects may account for the observed effects.

Similarity increases altruistic punishment in humans.

Humans are attracted to similar others. As a consequence, social networks are homogeneous in sociodemographic, intrapersonal, and other characteristics--a principle called homophily. Despite abundant evidence showing the importance of interpersonal similarity and homophily for human relationships, their behavioral correlates and cognitive foundations are poorly understood. Here, we show that perceived similarity substantially increases altruistic punishment, a key mechanism underlying human cooperation. We induced (dis)similarity perception by manipulating basic cognitive mechanisms in an economic cooperation game that included a punishment phase. We found that similarity-focused participants were more willing to punish others' uncooperative behavior. This influence of similarity is not explained by group identity, which has the opposite effect on altruistic punishment. Our findings demonstrate that pure similarity promotes reciprocity in ways known to encourage cooperation. At the same time, the increased willingness to punish norm violations among similarity-focused participants provides a rationale for why similar people are more likely to build stable social relationships. Finally, our findings show that altruistic punishment is differentially involved in encouraging cooperation under pure similarity vs. in-group conditions.

The role of outgroup homogeneity and the neurodynamics of the frontal cortex during beauty comparisons.

The distance effect states that the closer two compared magnitudes (e.g., two numbers, physical attractiveness in two faces), the more difficult the comparison, and the greater the activity of the frontoparietal control network. However, it is unclear whether this network is also recruited to the same extent when we perform ingroup and outgroup beauty comparisons and whether the activation of these networks is tracked by interindividual variation in the perceptions we hold about an outgroup. We recorded brain activity with fMRI, where participants compared the beauty of two women ostensibly either from their ingroup or from an outgroup. Low-distance conditions produced longer response times than the high-distance conditions, and this was found in both the ingroup and outgroup conditions. However, our neuroimaging analyses revealed that the left IFG/anterior insula showed the classic distance effect only during ingroup processing but not during outgroup processing. Notably, interaction-specific activity within the left IFG/anterior insula was related to perceptions of outgroup homogeneity assessed via a questionnaire. This set of findings reveals the dynamic role of the prefrontal cortex and its interplay with perceptions of outgroup homogeneity in shaping ingroup and outgroup decision-making.

"The mind is willing, but the flesh is weak": the effects of mind-body dualism on health behavior.

Beliefs in mind-body dualism--that is, perceiving one's mind and body as two distinct entities--are evident in virtually all human cultures. Despite their prevalence, surprisingly little is known about the psychological implications of holding such beliefs. In the research reported here, we investigated the relationship between dualistic beliefs and health behaviors. We theorized that holding dualistic beliefs leads people to perceive their body as a mere "shell" and, thus, to neglect it. Supporting this hypothesis, our results showed that participants who were primed with dualism reported less engagement in healthy behaviors and less positive attitudes toward such behaviors than did participants primed with physicalism. Additionally, we investigated the bidirectionality of this link. Activating health-related concepts affected participants' subsequently reported metaphysical beliefs in mind-body dualism. A final set of studies demonstrated that participants primed with dualism make real-life decisions that may ultimately compromise their physical health (e.g., consuming unhealthy food). These findings have potential implications for health interventions.

Comparing upward and speeding up. Motivational consequences of nonsocial comparison for speed-accuracy trade-offs.

Comparison is one of the most ubiquitous and versatile components in human information processing. Social comparisons in particular have multifaceted judgmental, affective, behavioral, and motivational consequences. Initially, the consequences of nonsocial comparisons may appear to be less complex than the consequences of social comparisons. Comparing a smaller circle with a larger circle, for example, has little motivational relevance. Across two studies, however, we demonstrated that different types of nonsocial comparisons influence the motivational underpinnings of participants' subsequent performance. Participants who were perceptually or numerically induced to compare upward (e.g., to compare a smaller stimulus with a larger stimulus) in a first task traded accuracy for speed in a subsequent unrelated performance task. Conversely, participants who had compared downward traded speed for accuracy. These trade-offs are indicative of promotion- and prevention-focused motivational orientations, respectively. Comparing a geometric circle with a "superior" (e.g., larger) circle seems to yield promotion-focused strategic orientations similar to those produced by comparing oneself to a person one perceives as superior. These findings demonstrate the surprising motivational power of nonsocial comparisons.

When focusing on differences leads to similar perspectives.

The current research investigated whether mind-sets and contexts that afford a focus on self-other differences can facilitate perceptual and conceptual forms of perspective taking. Supporting this hypothesis, results showed that directly priming a difference mind-set made perceivers more likely to spontaneously adopt other people's visual perspectives (Experiment 1) and less likely to overimpute their own privileged knowledge to others (Experiments 2 and 3). Given that intergroup encounters typically evoke a difference mind-set, we also explored the possibility that such contexts might help perceivers to step outside their own perspectives. As predicted, perceivers were less "cursed" by their own privileged knowledge when mentalizing about out-group targets than when mentalizing about in-group targets (Experiment 4) and communicated more effectively with interaction partners whose minimal-group membership differed from their own (Experiment 5). Overall, acknowledging self-other differences allowed perceivers to look beyond the limits of their own perspectives and thereby provided an efficacious route to intuiting other people's minds.

Trust in everyday life.

Although trust plays a pivotal role in many aspects of life, very little is known about the manifestation of trust and distrust in everyday life. In this work, we integrated several prior approaches to trust and investigated the prevalence and key determinants of trust (vs. distrust) in people's natural environments, using preregistered experience-sampling methodology. Across more than 4,500 social interactions from a heterogeneous sample of 427 participants, results showed high average levels of trust, but also considerable variability in trust across contexts. This variability was attributable to aspects of trustee perception, social distance, as well as 3 key dimensions of situational interdependence: conflict of interests, information (un)certainty, and power imbalance. At the dispositional level, average everyday trust was shaped by general trust, moral identity, and zero-sum beliefs. The social scope of most trust-related traits, however, was moderated by social distance: Whereas moral identity buffered against distrusting distant targets, high general distrust and low social value orientation amplified trust differences between close vs. distant others. Furthermore, a laboratory-based trust game predicted everyday trust only with regard to more distant but not close interaction partners. Finally, everyday trust was linked to self-disclosure and to cooperation, particularly in situations of high conflict between interaction partners' interests. We conclude that trust can be conceptualized as a relational hub that interconnects the social perception of the trustee, the relational closeness between trustor and trustee, key structural features of situational interdependence, and behavioral response options such as self-disclosure. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Keep your fingers crossed!: how superstition improves performance.

Superstitions are typically seen as inconsequential creations of irrational minds. Nevertheless, many people rely on superstitious thoughts and practices in their daily routines in order to gain good luck. To date, little is known about the consequences and potential benefits of such superstitions. The present research closes this gap by demonstrating performance benefits of superstitions and identifying their underlying psychological mechanisms. Specifically, Experiments 1 through 4 show that activating good-luck-related superstitions via a common saying or action (e.g., "break a leg," keeping one's fingers crossed) or a lucky charm improves subsequent performance in golfing, motor dexterity, memory, and anagram games. Furthermore, Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrate that these performance benefits are produced by changes in perceived self-efficacy. Activating a superstition boosts participants' confidence in mastering upcoming tasks, which in turn improves performance. Finally, Experiment 4 shows that increased task persistence constitutes one means by which self-efficacy, enhanced by superstition, improves performance.

Relatively fast! Efficiency advantages of comparative thinking.

Comparisons are a ubiquitous process in information processing. Seven studies examine whether, how, and when comparative thinking increases the efficiency of judgment and choice. Studies 1-4 demonstrate that procedurally priming participants to engage in more vs. less comparison influences how they process information about a target. Specifically, they retrieve less information about the target (Studies 1A, 1B), think more about an information-rich standard (Study 2) about which they activate judgment-relevant information (Study 3), and use this information to compensate for missing target information (Study 4). Studies 2-5 demonstrate the ensuing efficiency advantages. Participants who are primed on comparative thinking are faster in making a target judgment (Studies 2A, 2B, 4, 5) and have more residual processing capacities for a secondary task (Study 5). Studies 6 and 7 establish two boundary conditions by demonstrating that comparative thinking holds efficiency advantages only if target and standard are partly characterized by alignable features (Study 6) that are difficult to evaluate in isolation (Study 7). These findings indicate that comparative thinking may often constitute a useful mechanism to simplify information processing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

What you feel is how you compare: how comparisons influence the social induction of affect.

Concordant and discordant affective reactions can occur after the mere perception of another person's affective expression. Most previous theorizing has been concerned with the explanation of affective concordance, typically referred to as emotional contagion, although discordant affect has received little attention. The authors propose an integrative account for the explanation of both outcomes based on a social comparison framework. Studies 1 and 2 suggest that two distinct types of comparison processes can trigger concordant or discordant affective reactions. Study 3 extends these findings by demonstrating that the influence of comparison processes on affect in an established mood contagion paradigm. The authors attempt to integrate previous research into the present account.

So pretty! The neural correlates of self-other vs familiar-other attractiveness comparisons.

Previous research has demonstrated that comparing two persons activates a frontoparietal network associated with numbers and nonsocial magnitudes. However, it is unclear whether this network is also recruited by comparisons involving the self. Self-reflection engages self-serving motivations (e.g., the maintenance of a positive self-image) and is associated with specific brain structures, such as the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), the anterior insula (AI) and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Self-other comparisons may thus rely on distinct neural activity. To clarify this question, we used fMRI and asked female participants to compare their own attractiveness (or the attractiveness of a familiar woman) to pictures of unknown women. Participants were slower for comparisons with targets whose attractiveness was similar to their own (or their familiar other). Yet although this behavioral result resembles the distance effect reported for nonsocial magnitudes, at the brain level, it was linked to the activity of the AI, the ACC and the MPFC. The effect of distance in these regions was stronger for self-other than familiar-other comparisons. We interpret these results in relation to previous literature in social psychology and social neuroscience.

Going back to Donald: how comparisons shape judgmental priming effects.

The authors examine how judgmental priming effects are shaped by comparisons. Specifically, they suggest that concept priming involves spontaneous activation of concept-consistent standards, which are then spontaneously compared to the judgmental target. In 6 studies, they used a variety of priming methods (contextual cue, subliminal priming, indirect priming) to test these notions of spontaneous standard activation and spontaneous comparison. Study 1 demonstrates that priming a trait concept activates concept-consistent standards. Study 2 suggests that these activated standards contribute to priming effects. If alternative standards that are not particularly consistent with the primed concept are activated, priming effects diminish. Studies 3-6 show that the magnitude and direction of priming effects depend on the intensity and the type of the engaged comparison. Specifically, Study 3 demonstrates that the magnitude of a priming effect depends on the intensity of comparative processing. Studies 4 through 6 show that the direction of a priming effect (assimilation vs. contrast) depends on whether judges engage in a similarity or dissimilarity testing comparison mechanism--a factor which has been found to shape comparison consequences in other domains. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved).

Two-Faced Morality: Distrust Promotes Divergent Moral Standards for the Self Versus Others.

People do not trust hypocrites, because they preach water, but drink wine. The current research shows that, ironically, when we distrust, we become moral hypocrites ourselves. We argue that experiencing distrust alerts us to the possibility that others may intent to exploit us, and that such looming exploitation differentially affects moral standards for the self versus others. Four studies ( N = 1,225) examined this possibility and its underlying motivational dynamic. Study 1 established a relationship between dispositional distrust and flexible, self-serving moral cognition. In Studies 2 and 3, participants experiencing distrust (vs. trust) endorsed more lenient moral standards for themselves than for others. Study 4 explored the role of the motivation to avoid exploitation in these effects. Specifically, participants' dispositional victim sensitivity moderated the effect of distrust on hypocrisy. Together, these findings suggest that individuals who distrust and fear to be exploited show self-serving, and hence untrustworthy, moral cognition themselves.

Only one small sin: How self-construal affects self-control.

Past research has shown that self-construal can influence self-control by reducing interdependent people's impulsivity in the presence of peers. We broaden these findings by examining the hypothesis that an interdependent (vs. independent) self-construal fosters self-control even in the absence of peers and for non-impulsive decisions. We further explore whether this effect could be mediated by the more interrelated (vs. isolated) processing style of interdependent (vs. independent) people. Such an interrelated (vs. isolated) processing style of temptations makes the impact of a single temptation more salient and can thereby increase self-control. Study 1 demonstrated that more interdependent participants show more self-control behaviour by refraining from chocolate consumption to secure a monetary benefit. Studies 2a and 2b highlighted a link between self-construal and trait self-control via the processing of temptations. Study 3 suggested that an interrelated (vs. isolated) perspective on temptations could mediate the effect of (primed) self-construal on self-control. Taken together, self-construal shapes self-control across various decision contexts.

That certain something! Focusing on similarities reduces judgmental uncertainty.

Comparative thinking is an efficient cognitive strategy that reduces judgmental uncertainty. However, comparisons may be conducted with a focus on similarities or differences. Similarity-focused comparisons seem to facilitate information-transfer, which has been suggested to drive the uncertainty-reducing effect of comparisons. This implies that similarity-focused comparisons reduce uncertainty more than dissimilarity-focused comparisons. Two experiments examine this assumption. In Study 1, a similarity-focus (compared to a difference-focus and a neutral control condition) increased judgmental certainty when the comparison was based on confident standard-knowledge. However, when the comparison was based on vague standard-knowledge the uncertainty-reducing effect diminished. Study 2 shows that a similarity-focus increases information-transfer and that a similarity-focus particularly enhanced certainty for judgments for which a standard-to-target information-transfer had occurred. These studies suggest that similarity-focused comparisons reduce judgmental uncertainty through the mechanism of information-transfer.

Alpha-band activity reflects reduction of mental effort in a comparison task: a source space analysis.

Comparison processes contribute to many core phenomena of social cognition research. Whenever humans judge a given target, they rely on comparisons with a pertinent standard. We propose that comparison processes may be so ubiquitous because they reduce mental effort. To investigate this possibility, we used dense-array Electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings together with a minimum norm source projection approach. As the dependent variable, we examined changes in parietal alpha (8-12 Hz) amplitude during a judgment task. Spectral changes in the alpha frequency range have been reliably related to attentional load, cognitive arousal, or mental effort. Two groups of participants (n=22) were procedurally primed to solve a series of target judgments in a more comparative (experimental group) versus more absolute (control group) manner. While the participants performed the critical judgment tasks, we recorded changes in alpha amplitude. Continuous EEG was transformed into a spherical source space using the minimum norm (L2) estimate and spectral changes were subsequently calculated in the source domain. Statistical parametric mapping in combination with permutation statistics was employed to map regions showing significant group differences. Results demonstrate that comparative processing was associated with smaller changes in alpha amplitude than absolute processing. This difference was most pronounced at parietal source locations, where alpha reduction was at a maximum. Temporal analysis suggested that this effect was present particularly during task preparation and execution. We conclude that comparative information processing may reduce mental effort in judgment tasks.

Playing dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making.

Judicial sentencing decisions should be guided by facts, not by chance. The present research however demonstrates that the sentencing decisions of experienced legal professionals are influenced by irrelevant sentencing demands even if they are blatantly determined at random. Participating legal experts anchored their sentencing decisions on a given sentencing demand and assimilated toward it even if this demand came from an irrelevant source (Study 1), they were informed that this demand was randomly determined (Study 2), or they randomly determined this demand themselves by throwing dice (Study 3). Expertise and experience did not reduce this effect. This sentencing bias appears to be produced by a selective increase in the accessibility of arguments that are consistent with the random sentencing demand: The accessibility of incriminating arguments was higher if participants were confronted with a high rather than a low anchor (Study 4). Practical and theoretical implications of this research are discussed.

Olympic medals as fruits of comparison? Assimilation and contrast in sequential performance judgments.

The authors investigated the evaluative consequences of sequential performance judgments. Recent social comparison research has suggested that performance judgments may be influenced by judgments about a preceding performance. Specifically, performance judgments may be assimilated to judgments of the preceding performance if judges focus on similarities between the two. If judges focus on differences, however, contrast may ensue. The authors examined sequential performance judgments, using data gathered from the 2004 Olympic Games as well as data gathered in the laboratory with students or experienced gymnastics judges as participants. Sequential performance judgments were influenced by previously judged performances, and the direction of this influence depended on the degree of perceived similarity between the successive performances.