|
|
|
SOCIAL
COMPARISON by Angel Scheid Introduction
On a typical day, a person may make a seemingly endless series of social
comparisons. During breakfast, a
woman might compare her opinion of a current issue with that of a Western
Courier editorialist. Once in
class, she may compare her academic performance with that of a classmate who has
recently received special recognition, and later that evening at the recreation
center, she may compare her fitness with others around her.
Over the day and across several weeks, people are likely to compare
themselves with people that they encounter both intentionally and
unintentionally.
For most individuals, social space begins with relatives and friends.
These are the people whose actions we know and care most about.
They are the people against whom we judge our own material lifestyles,
and with whom we try to keep up. The
comparisons we make between ourselves and those close to us matter. The idea of looking at similar and different behaviors and
actions is known as social comparison. Social
comparison tends to occur when an individual notices a meaningful
similarity or difference between himself or herself and another individual.
Though individuals have a lot of psychological resistance to recognizing
the extent to which they follow the lead of others, there is much evidence that
proves it to be true. Explanation
of the Topic
Leon
Festinger’s theory of social comparison process has now been part of social
psychology for over forty years (Festinger 1954).
Festinger’s theory suggests that people have the need to evaluate their
opinions and abilities through self-evaluation. Other people serve as a basis used for such comparisons (Wood
1989). Social comparison theory has
endured as a worthwhile object of studies because it captures an enduring truth
about human social life - namely, that other people provide each other with
important standards for self-evaluation.
Recent studies have suggested that social comparison has goals that are deeper
than basic self-evaluation. Joanne
Wood discusses the important roles that self-evaluation, self-improvement, and
self-enhancement play in social comparison (1989). Individuals tend to see there
own behaviors as at least better than average, but seem to be shaped by social
influences that may not always be of a manifest type. Wood (1989) also states that “self-improvement interests
may prompt one to make comparisons with others who are superior or better off;
these are called upward
comparisons. Self-enhancement
interest may prompt one to make comparisons with others who are inferior or less
fortunate than oneself; these are called downward
comparisons” (233-234). Both aspects of social comparison are
seen in marketing today. Downward
comparison theory contends that negative mood states lead people to compare
downward and these downward comparisons reduce their negative mood or increase
their positive mood (Wills 1991). The theory also holds that negative mood
states lead people to avoid comparing upward because the self-evaluative nature
of these comparisons would further threaten their already negative mood. The study also shows that people in high self-esteem compared
downward more often than people with low self-esteem.
This makes sense when you think about children teasing each other.
A real “cocky” fifth grader is more likely to make fun of a
“dorky” fourth grader than a “dorky” eighth grader.
The child has enough self-esteem to need the ego boost, but also enough
common sense to not get beat up. He
chooses the downward comparison to avoid the negative consequence of an upward
comparison. All
outcomes of upward comparison are not negative.
Positive reactions to upward comparisons may occur when individuals
perceive the position of the superior other as equivalent to their own,
attainable at a future date, or when the superior other provides inspiration to
the comparer (Collins 1996). Upward comparisons can also increase a person’s
positive affect because these comparisons have the potential to increase
accurate self-understanding. Therefore,
a greater chance of positive change can emerge from an upward comparison verse a
downward comparison. Think about
when adolescent girls start to wear cosmetics.
Usually late in middle school or early high school girls become aware of
how “pretty” the older girls look with make-up and desire to enhance their
look as well. The effects are
natural beauty enhanced by man-made products after a process of upward
comparison. Some
new ideas have been added to the previous definitions of social comparison
theory by Steven Berglas. He points
out that social comparison also includes the feeling of being able and competent
along an "ability dimension" (such as one’s profession) requires
some knowledge of how your performance compares with what is judged good (Berglas
1996). “That is not to say that
you cannot have a sense of self-worth or value as a human being without
reference to some external yardstick, only that to be certain you are valued as
a producer, you need a standard of performance to compare yourself against” (Berglas,
1996, p.35). Social Comparison in Marketing
and Examples
One
issue that marketers must deal with is the risk of creating an image that is not
deemed ideal by targeted consumers. Marketers
realize the ongoing process of social acceptance and that consumers learn to
deal with the gap between the ideal and real images by ignoring the image if it
is too different (Hogg, Bruce, and Hough 1999). The choices of images, which are
used as stimuli in advertising campaigns, play a key role for promoting goods
and services. Therefore, marketers
must avoid using any stimuli that causes adverse effects. Fortunately, marketers try to use social comparison goals and
strategies to identify potential market segments; to reach new market segments;
and to promote and position new products and services (Hogg et al. 1999).
Marketers must also recognize the social comparison goal which potential
customers are likely to be pursuing.
Trying to keep up with an ideal image is impossible unless you have the
financial resources to do so (Schor 1998). If a university professor tries to
keep up with her college friends who have all gone into investment banking,
there’s a decent chance she’ll be sinking into consumer debt, or at least
not saving much. This just shows that whether it is weight or money everything
that is gained has to be obtained within a reality dimension. Friends usually
play a key role in helping individuals keep an attainable focus of what is
actually obtainable. This leads us in to another dimension of social comparison. Reference Groups
In
today’s society, social comparison is also shaped by
social influence. A major source of social influence is reference groups.
A reference group is a group “whose presumed perspectives or values are
being used by an individual as the basis for his or her current behavior”
(Hawkins, Best, Coney 1998, p. 214). There
are three types of reference groups and each one offers individuals a different
view based upon their individual lifestyles. These groups are of critical
importance to marketers because the perceived attributes of reference groups
portray the ideal lifestyle that is accepted as accurate by the viewers.
The
first type of reference group that we will look at is aspirational. An aspirational reference group is a “nonmembership
group…that individuals frequently purchase products thought to be used by a
desired group in order to achieve actual or symbolic membership in the group”
(Hawkins et al. p. 215-216). In
general terms an aspirational group are people that we admire, but are not part
of their group. Most of the
individuals that belong in the aspirational focus are figments created by media.
According to a study conducted in by Juliet Schor, the more people watch
television, the more they think American households have tennis courts, private
planes,
“Although
these images may seem mere shadows playing across the screen of popular culture,
consumers nonetheless incorporate the evidence presented in media depictions of
social reality into their assumptions of how others live and consume” (Englis
& Solomon, 1995). These media
depictions are very strong influence especially when consumers consider a
product they are purchasing to be associated with an aspired lifestyle or image. An
example of an aspirational purchase is when women purchase lingerie from
Victoria’s Secret. Many
women do not have the angelic bodies that the models do, but want to feel
beautiful and feel sexy. By looking
at the picture from the Victoria’s
Another
company that uses an aspirational approach is Cover Girl.
In this ad featuring Niki Taylor, the caption said, “life just got
smoother.” This appeal leads
women with bad skin to believe that they can have smooth clear skin
The
next type of reference group is an associative
group. An associative group is a
membership group that an individual is currently a part of.
It is deemed by Peter York (1999) that by looking at a man’s clothes
you can figure out his occupation, reference groups, and social and political
ties. He also stated that an
individuals reference group influences clothing.
York's example is one of an associative group a certain role is fulfilled
and an associative group is formed. Another
example is Revlon using the slogan “feel like a woman.”
Revlon is a major manufacturer of make-up and by associating woman and
the way “it” should feel woman might be more inclined to purchase
The
last type of reference group is the dissassociative
reference group. This group has “a negative desirability…and can influence
behavior just as those with positive desirability” (Hawkins, et al. 1998,
p.215). These kinds of groups are
considered to be unattractive to individuals that are not a
Normative Influence
Another source of influence is normative influence.
Normative influence “occurs when an individual fulfills group
expectations to gain a direct reward or to avoid a sanction” (Hawkins, et al.
1998 p.219). Basically, many teens
wear brand name clothing to win approval from their peers and avoid wearing
cheap inexpensive
Unfortunately, whether rational or irrational the need for social comparison
through normative influence exists and may be linked to the values individuals
are born with. This also refers to
the “natural values” of people. There
are seven values that are presented to us at birth and remain with us throughout
our lives (Cathcart,
1999, p. 12): 1.
Sensuality: the relative importance of one’s physical experiences. Marketers usually appeal to this value by offering a
dining certificate, spa membership, sports outing, custom clothing, and fitness
coaching. 2.
Empathy: the relative importance feeling connected to other people. By showing an experience that allows an individual
time with the one that they love, personal advice, exclusive group rates, or the
chance to help someone marketers appeal to the value of empathy. 3.
Wealth: the relative importance ownership and value. Promotions such as cash back (General Motors),
investment advice, and free subscriptions to financial magazines are strategies
marketers utilize. 4.
Power: the relative importance control and recognition. Being a part of a prestigious group (Cadillac), more
responsibility, trophies and certificates are excellent ways that marketers
engender a feeling of power. 5.
Aesthetics: the relative importance beauty, balance and symmetry. Looking back at the example given by Cover Girl and
the erasing of fine lines is a perfect example of an aesthetic value appeal.
Marketers also stress this when looking at low-involvement products like
being pH balanced by Secret. 6.
Commitment: the relative importance a cause, being committed. Many organizations use this when trying to promote a
product that is linked to an environmental cause; this is also known as green
marketing. 7.
Knowledge: the relative importance learning and understanding. For example Microsoft has a toll free twenty-four
hour hotline and offers tutorial programs for first time users to be able to
take a hands on tour.
These normative values set an internal guideline that leads people to at
least be curious to where they fall in the spectrum of society.
Marketers take advantage of the internal cues and try to bring out the
underlying motives. However, the agreement upon internal instincts that create
our societal values and norms are not always apparent. Therefore, individuals sometimes just need advice from a
person who is more knowledgeable about something than they feel they are and
marketer’s act on this need. Informational Influence
The last factor as a source of influence that we will discuss is
informational influence. Informational
influence “occurs when an individual uses the behaviors and opinions of
reference group members as potentially useful bits of information” (Hawkins,
et al. 1998 p.218). Informational
influence is most common when an individual is deemed to very knowledgeable
about a certain product or service. For
example, if a woman cleans houses for a living people may be more
RELEVANT
WEB SITES
http://www.revlon.com/splash.html http://www.victoriassecret.com/index.html http://www.cadillac.com/homesite.htm http://www.pg.com http://www.covergirl.com/smoothers/index.shtml http://www.firstview.com/Spring96/Calvin_Klein/P013.html http://www.hoovers.com/capsules/44248.html http://www.firstview.com/hom.html http://www.fragrancenet.com http://www.elvis-presley.com http://www.gm.com http://www.microsoft.com REFERENCES
Berglas, S. (1996) “The death of status,” Inc.
(14), p.35-36. Bott, R. A. (1999) “Television images and adolescent girls’ body image disturbance,” Journal of Communication (49)2, p.22-41. Cathcart, J. (1999) “Searching for the hot
button—what really motivates people?” Canadian Manager (24),2,
p.12-13. Collins, R.L. (1996) “For better or worse: the
impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations,” Psychological
Bulletin (119), p.51-69. Englis, B.G. & Solomon, M.R. (1995) “To be and
not to be: lifestyle imagery, reference groups, and the clustering of america,”
Journal of Advertising (24)1, p.13. Festinger, L. (1954) “A theory of social comparison
processes,” Human Relations (7) p.117-140. Hawkins, D.I., Best, R.J., Coney, K.A. (1998) Consumer
Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy, Seventh Edition.
Boston: McGraw-Hill. 388, 333. Hogg, M. K., Bruce, M., & Hough, K. (1999)
“Female images in advertising: the implications of social comparison and
marketing,” International Journal of Advertising (18)4, p.445-468. Schor, J.B. (1998) “Keeping up with the trumps,” Washington
Monthly (30)7, p.34-38. Wills, T.A. (1981) “Downward comparison principles
in social psychology,” Psychological Bulletin (90), p.245-271. Wood, J.V. (1989) “Theory and Research Concerning
Social Comparisons of Personal Attributes,” Psychological Bulletin (106)2,
p.231-248. York,
P. (1999) “Just listen to that suit,” Management Today, p.103. Test
Your Knowledge!
A.
opinions, abilities, behaviors
A.
associative
A.
power
A.
informational scroll down for answers...
keep scrolling...
keep
scrolling...
1=c,
2=a, 3=c , 4=d , 5=a |
