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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of personality and social psychology 2003-09, Vol.85 (3), p.467-481 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |