Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7(2), 117-140.
Summary
Humans have an innate tendency to compare themselves to others, specifically their opinions and their abilities. People want to know if their opinions are “correct” and if their assessment of their abilities is accurate. If there exists no “objective” measure (this is our first preference), people will achieve this through social comparison. Without the fixed point of an objective measure or a social comparison, our evaluations of our opinions and abilities are unstable (another reason why consistent feedback can help promote consistency).
When seeking a target for comparison, people are most likely to select similar others as a referent. This seems to be related to homophily, which is the tendency humans have to like people who are similar to themselves. If a person is very different from us, the comparison that we seek will be more difficult. Thus, people are attracted to situations where others are similar to themselves. Even a slight homophily preference can result in segregation, as Schelling famously showed with a checkerboard. This simulation from Frank McCown of Harding University provides an excellent visualization. Try settings of “Similar: 25% Red/Blue: 50/50% Empty: 5% Size: 30x30 Delay: 40 ms” and hit “Start.” Now increase the similarity to 50% and press start again. Now increase the similarity to 70% and see what happens. Finally, change the Red/Blue to 15/85% and run it several times. If you decrease empty to 1% (as in a crowded city), how often does the minority end up on the fringes?
In social comparison, we are quicker to believe that we are above average than we are to believe that we’re below average (see p. 123). In terms of ability, we tend to avoid situations where we believe ourselves to be superior (p. 124). That, coupled with a Western cultural belief that better abilities are more valuable, leads to an upward drive in an individual’s abilities. Social restraints are able to change opinions, but rarely ability. When a person believes that another is superior to them, they generally stop comparing themselves to that person.
In groups, there is a drive to uniformity. If an ability is deemed to be particularly important or useful, the drive to uniformity regarding that specific ability increases. For example, a teacher who is judged in accordance with their students’ standardized test scores will put more emphasis on preparation for the test, leading to increased test scores and decreased test variance. Drive to uniformity is greater for those in the center of the group than those in the fringes. The more desirable a group is to an individual, the greater the desire for uniformity.
Application
A common enemy can unify a team (Hypothesis VII), as can a common goal (Corollary to Derivation E). The very act of attaching salience to a measure or ability will tend a society towards hierarchy. Minority subgroups exert greater pressure towards uniformity than do majorities – hence team goals might be more effective than company goals. This paper is really well written, and a gold mine for managers. Would be interesting to use as a basis for an essay exam.
Comments powered by Disqus.