How High Is Up? Calibrating Social Comparison in the Real World

Research generated by social comparison theory has been criticized for its deficiencies in conceptual clarity and mundane realism. In the present study, the respondents are competitive bridge players engaging in a form of the "you-hold" game, a social comparison activity common to this subculture. Because this game is played seriously, with real and meaningful comparators, mundane realism should be heightened. Clarification of some key concepts, notably "comparison upward", is anticipated because the setting makes possible valid assessments of the abilities of the various players. The method makes use of nominational responses to scenarios in which comparison motive is varied with outcome valence and locus of control. Ability scores of nominations are regressed against those of the choosers with the lines constrained to pass through the origin to simplify comparison. A similar strategy was employed using various sociometric nominations both to validate the method and provide a baseline for comparison. The results suggest that information seeking induces the greatest degree of upward comparison, ego enhancement was found to be lower, and ego defense lowest; though even here comparison was found to be reliably upward. Items describing "fixes" where ability was not implicated were found, surprisingly, to give results very similar to those for ego enhancement. Events with negative outcomes were unexpectedly found to generate greater comparison upward than ones with positive outcomes. Finally, locus of control provided little differences.