What Friends Are For! The Use of Routine Standards in Social Comparison

Social comparisons are frequently used for self-evaluation. As a consequence, judges have to be efficient in each comparison step. Standard selection, however, is traditionally seen as an elaborate process in which judges deliberately select similar standards. We propose that often judges do not eng...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of personality and social psychology 2003-09, Vol.85 (3), p.467-481
Hauptverfasser: Mussweiler, Thomas, Ruter, Katja
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 481
container_issue 3
container_start_page 467
container_title Journal of personality and social psychology
container_volume 85
creator Mussweiler, Thomas
Ruter, Katja
description Social comparisons are frequently used for self-evaluation. As a consequence, judges have to be efficient in each comparison step. Standard selection, however, is traditionally seen as an elaborate process in which judges deliberately select similar standards. We propose that often judges do not engage in such deliberate selection processes. Instead, they use routine standards -- standards that have frequently been used for self-evaluation. Consistent with this assumption. Studies 1-3 demonstrate that student participants activate knowledge about their best friend -- a likely routine standard -- during self-evaluation. In Study I, lexical decisions for the best friend's name are facilitated after self-evaluation. In Study 2, participants judge their best friend faster after evaluating themselves on the same dimension. In Study 3, this is even the case if the best friend is dissimilar & consequently undiagnostic. Finally, in Study 4, self-evaluations are primarily influenced by comparison information about an experimentally created routine standard. 1 Table, 3 Figures, 47 References. [Copyright 2003 The American Psychological Association.]
doi_str_mv 10.1037/0022-3514-85.3.467
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60533691</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>60533691</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_miscellaneous_605336913</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNyrsOgjAUgOEOmoiXF3A6Lm5goVx0NEZ0FowjaeAQaqDFHnh_HYyz05_8-Rhb-9zzuUh2nAeBKyI_dPeRJ7wwTibM-c0ZmxM9OedhFAQOuzwaOUBqFeqK4GgRUmM3kDcId0IwNdzMOCiNkA1SV9J-lNKQmVLJFk6m66VVZPSSTWvZEq6-XbBtes5PV7e35jUiDUWnqMS2lRrNSEXMIyHigy_-hm-GrkH6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>60533691</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What Friends Are For! The Use of Routine Standards in Social Comparison</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Mussweiler, Thomas ; Ruter, Katja</creator><creatorcontrib>Mussweiler, Thomas ; Ruter, Katja</creatorcontrib><description>Social comparisons are frequently used for self-evaluation. As a consequence, judges have to be efficient in each comparison step. Standard selection, however, is traditionally seen as an elaborate process in which judges deliberately select similar standards. We propose that often judges do not engage in such deliberate selection processes. Instead, they use routine standards -- standards that have frequently been used for self-evaluation. Consistent with this assumption. Studies 1-3 demonstrate that student participants activate knowledge about their best friend -- a likely routine standard -- during self-evaluation. In Study I, lexical decisions for the best friend's name are facilitated after self-evaluation. In Study 2, participants judge their best friend faster after evaluating themselves on the same dimension. In Study 3, this is even the case if the best friend is dissimilar &amp; consequently undiagnostic. Finally, in Study 4, self-evaluations are primarily influenced by comparison information about an experimentally created routine standard. 1 Table, 3 Figures, 47 References. [Copyright 2003 The American Psychological Association.]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3514</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514-85.3.467</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JPSPB2</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>Friendship ; Judgment ; Selection Procedures ; Self Evaluation ; Social Comparison</subject><ispartof>Journal of personality and social psychology, 2003-09, Vol.85 (3), p.467-481</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923,33773</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mussweiler, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruter, Katja</creatorcontrib><title>What Friends Are For! The Use of Routine Standards in Social Comparison</title><title>Journal of personality and social psychology</title><description>Social comparisons are frequently used for self-evaluation. As a consequence, judges have to be efficient in each comparison step. Standard selection, however, is traditionally seen as an elaborate process in which judges deliberately select similar standards. We propose that often judges do not engage in such deliberate selection processes. Instead, they use routine standards -- standards that have frequently been used for self-evaluation. Consistent with this assumption. Studies 1-3 demonstrate that student participants activate knowledge about their best friend -- a likely routine standard -- during self-evaluation. In Study I, lexical decisions for the best friend's name are facilitated after self-evaluation. In Study 2, participants judge their best friend faster after evaluating themselves on the same dimension. In Study 3, this is even the case if the best friend is dissimilar &amp; consequently undiagnostic. Finally, in Study 4, self-evaluations are primarily influenced by comparison information about an experimentally created routine standard. 1 Table, 3 Figures, 47 References. [Copyright 2003 The American Psychological Association.]</description><subject>Friendship</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Selection Procedures</subject><subject>Self Evaluation</subject><subject>Social Comparison</subject><issn>0022-3514</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNyrsOgjAUgOEOmoiXF3A6Lm5goVx0NEZ0FowjaeAQaqDFHnh_HYyz05_8-Rhb-9zzuUh2nAeBKyI_dPeRJ7wwTibM-c0ZmxM9OedhFAQOuzwaOUBqFeqK4GgRUmM3kDcId0IwNdzMOCiNkA1SV9J-lNKQmVLJFk6m66VVZPSSTWvZEq6-XbBtes5PV7e35jUiDUWnqMS2lRrNSEXMIyHigy_-hm-GrkH6</recordid><startdate>20030901</startdate><enddate>20030901</enddate><creator>Mussweiler, Thomas</creator><creator>Ruter, Katja</creator><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20030901</creationdate><title>What Friends Are For! The Use of Routine Standards in Social Comparison</title><author>Mussweiler, Thomas ; Ruter, Katja</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_miscellaneous_605336913</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Friendship</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Selection Procedures</topic><topic>Self Evaluation</topic><topic>Social Comparison</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mussweiler, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruter, Katja</creatorcontrib><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Journal of personality and social psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mussweiler, Thomas</au><au>Ruter, Katja</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What Friends Are For! The Use of Routine Standards in Social Comparison</atitle><jtitle>Journal of personality and social psychology</jtitle><date>2003-09-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>467</spage><epage>481</epage><pages>467-481</pages><issn>0022-3514</issn><coden>JPSPB2</coden><abstract>Social comparisons are frequently used for self-evaluation. As a consequence, judges have to be efficient in each comparison step. Standard selection, however, is traditionally seen as an elaborate process in which judges deliberately select similar standards. We propose that often judges do not engage in such deliberate selection processes. Instead, they use routine standards -- standards that have frequently been used for self-evaluation. Consistent with this assumption. Studies 1-3 demonstrate that student participants activate knowledge about their best friend -- a likely routine standard -- during self-evaluation. In Study I, lexical decisions for the best friend's name are facilitated after self-evaluation. In Study 2, participants judge their best friend faster after evaluating themselves on the same dimension. In Study 3, this is even the case if the best friend is dissimilar &amp; consequently undiagnostic. Finally, in Study 4, self-evaluations are primarily influenced by comparison information about an experimentally created routine standard. 1 Table, 3 Figures, 47 References. [Copyright 2003 The American Psychological Association.]</abstract><doi>10.1037/0022-3514-85.3.467</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-3514
ispartof Journal of personality and social psychology, 2003-09, Vol.85 (3), p.467-481
issn 0022-3514
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60533691
source Sociological Abstracts; EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES
subjects Friendship
Judgment
Selection Procedures
Self Evaluation
Social Comparison
title What Friends Are For! The Use of Routine Standards in Social Comparison
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T16%3A15%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20Friends%20Are%20For!%20The%20Use%20of%20Routine%20Standards%20in%20Social%20Comparison&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20personality%20and%20social%20psychology&rft.au=Mussweiler,%20Thomas&rft.date=2003-09-01&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=467&rft.epage=481&rft.pages=467-481&rft.issn=0022-3514&rft.coden=JPSPB2&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/0022-3514-85.3.467&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E60533691%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=60533691&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true