1
Research Methods
Lab 4: Research Methods
by
Ryan Sloan
200902892
Presented to J. Wright
in Psychology 240
Social Psychology
Department of Psychology
St. Francis Xavier University
April 10th, 2012
2
Research Methods
A Self Regulatory Measuring Stick
In recent studies conducted by Kevin P. McIntyre and Donna Eisenstaedt, it is suggested
that social comparison is used as a self-regulatory measuring stick that helps individuals decide
where they stand compared to relative self-standards. Social comparison theory states that
people learn about themselves and therefore alter their self-perception by comparing and
evaluating their traits, abilities and opinions against the people around them. Ideal, ought and
feared selves are what is being compared either upwards or downwards and contributes to the
experience of discrepancy related emotions. Ideal self- guides describe what outcomes they
would ideally like, or which qualities people would choose if they had the choice. Ought selfguides are the qualities and outcomes people feel they ought to possess. Social comparison is
something that is prevalent and of easy access in today’s society and is often more useful than
other forms of feedback because it is often done at an unconscious level. People rely on
feedback from the surrounding environment to decide if they want to conform to society or to
distance themselves from that particular outcome. According to Higgins (1998) ideal
discrepancies are related to weather positive outcomes are present or absent, whereas the
ought and feared discrepancies are related to the presence and absence of negative outcomes.
The example used to describe this relationship is if a student makes a 70 percent on an exam,
he may have wanted to make a higher mark, so, the positive outcome was absent. If the
student is then informed the class average is a 60 percent then there would be no discrepancy
because the student has surpassed or equaled the expected performance. In upward
comparison the hypothesis is that individuals may assimilate (meaning they want to become
like that person) because they are inspired by their target which would cause them to perceive
3
Research Methods
a reduction in ideal discrepancy. They may contrast against these upward targets and feel bad
about themselves by the comparison and perceive and increase in ideal discrepancy magnitude.
If social comparison is related with the experience of self-discrepancies then social comparison
tendencies should also predict the how often individuals experience agitation and dejection
related emotions which is tested in both studies, and content and cheerfulness-related
emotions only in the second study.
Study 1 (method and findings)
In the first study 98 undergraduate students (48 males and 50 females) in a Midwestern
university participated in the study. Each student completed the test on a pc computer with
MediaLab software and was tested individually. The participants in study one first completed
INCOM, a comparison test that is designed to measure individual differences in the likelihood of
participating in social comparison. In the test questions such as “Do they often compare
themselves with others?” were asked. The participants had to give their level of agreement to
a particular statement by picking a number on a 5 point scale from disagree strongly to strongly
agree. At the end of the test everything was added up to create a single index of social
comparison orientation.
Next they had to list 5 traits that described their ideal selves. After each one of these
traits they were asked to rate the degree to which they would ideally possess each attribute
and the degree to which they actually possess each attribute. When this was completed they
were to list 5 traits of the person they “ought” to be. Next they had to rate the degree in which
they ought to possess each attribute and the degree to which they actually possess the
4
Research Methods
attribute. These ratings were also on a 5 point scale that had a range from slightly to extremely.
Participants then indicated how frequently they feel various dejection and agitation related
emotions. Disappointed, discouraged, low, and sad are dejection emotions that they were
asked to rate on another 5 point scale from 0-4 (from almost never to almost always). They
completed the same test for the agitated emotions (like agitated, on edge, uneasy and tense).
The results for this too were added up and generated separate indices for dejection and
agitation emotions.
Their prediction was right and social comparison orientation was significantly and
positively correlated with both ideal and ought self discrepancies. This means that if people
engage more in social comparison it will result in an increase in both types of self discrepancies.
It was also shown that increases in the chronic tendency to partake in social comparison were
associated with increases in frequency of experiencing agitation-and dejection related
emotions. Ideal discrepancy magnitude correlated significantly with both dejection and agitated
related emotions while the ought discrepancy magnitude correlated only with frequency of
agitated emotions. Study 1 supports the notion that social comparison functions as a selfregulating measuring stick.
Study 2 (method and findings)
Study 2 was very similar to the first study, the differences being that the participants in
study 2 completed a modified version of the INCOM test to measure upward comparisons and
downward comparisons. The upward comparison test has 6 items that measure a person’s
tendency to use upward comparisons (comparing with people they think are better). On the
5
Research Methods
other end of the spectrum there is 6 items listed that measure a person’s tendency to use
downward comparisons (comparing people who they think are less then themselves). It is also
ranked on a 5 point scales just like study 1; from disagree strongly to strongly agree. Next they
completed the same computerized test with the exception they had to list 5 traits that
described the feared self (or the type of person you never want to be). For each of these traits
the participants indicated how much they would not want to have that trait as well as how
much of the trait they actually represent on a 4 point scale from slightly to extremely. Lastly
the participants completed a test that measured the frequency of experiencing emotions to
assess agitation and dejection while more items were added to measure cheerfulness and
contentment emotions. The results of study 2 indicate that chronic upward comparisons
resulted in larger ideal discrepancies, which points to contrast. Though ought discrepancy
magnitude did not have as much of a correlation. Downward social comparison resulted in
smaller feared discrepancies which is indicative of assimilation. Ideal discrepancy magnitude
was positively correlated with dejection and agitation and negatively correlated with
contentment. Ought discrepancy magnitude correlated with dejection but not agitation. Lastly,
feared self-discrepancy was negatively correlated with agitation and dejection meaning that
participants felt these emotions less frequently as the discrepancy from the feared self
increased.
Criticisms/shortcomings
One shortcoming or limitation with this experiment is that the participants had to
complete many tests and questions which could be time consuming and confusing. In study 1
6
Research Methods
and 2 there are a number of different tests ranging from listing traits, to numbering, as well as
indicating the frequency of certain feelings. With so much going on in the experiment it could
be easy for the participant to lose sight of what they are doing and to list or number something
incorrectly skewing the data. The questions are also very similar which may have an effect on
the attention that is given to the later ones. Another issue that may rise from the time
consuming experiment is that participants may grow bored and it may not command the
attention that is necessary to retrieve accurate results.
Another shortcoming to these studies is that emotions are difficult things to quantify;
meaning the data isn’t necessarily indicative to how people feel. Feelings change all the time,
and some people feel certain emotions more intensely than others. Attempting to quantify
emotions such as agitation can be difficult as some people get agitated easier than others, and
for different reasons. The reasons for choosing to upwardly compare someone or downwardly
compare someone also change quite frequently and it is hard to imagine that only these select
few of emotions play a role in this. If the study could be done in an environment where people
are observing upward or downward comparisons to people, than the understanding of the illicit
emotions may come easier. Have people complete take the test verbally in front of everybody
the first time and have them come back a couple weeks later to complete the study individually
and on the computer. This way you can see if social comparisons were occurring when the test
was taken in front of the other participants.
7
Research Methods
Research question
Can social comparison theory be applied in public schools to make for higher overall
test score averages? And will it be a result of upward or downward comparisons?
This is an important question to ask because if it is true it means we can set up school
systems in ways that produce higher overall grades from students. The feelings that were
talked about in the previous study such as agitation and dejection could play a role in reducing
the differences in grades. A test will will be taken by participants to see if social comparisons
lead to higher grades. The hypothesis is that in the “no social comparison condition” the
people with higher grades will do better on the test than the low grade attainers while the
singling out or anonymous questions virtually will have no effect. This is because nobody has to
upwardly or downwardly compare to people so see where they stand. In the social comparison
condition expecting individual questioning, will lead to a greater distance between scores on
the test and expecting anonymous questions will reduce the differences. This is because when
the students with the lower scores look up to the people with the higher scores they will see
the contrast and believe they will get lower marks.
8
Research Methods
Method Section
Proposed participantsThe participants that will be used in this study will be from the ages of 14 to 15 years old
and will selected based on a high education fulfillment (higher grades) or a low education
fulfillment (lower grades) recruited from the students at Northumberland Regional High School.
ApparatusA classroom will be needed to hold the participants, paper and pencils for the test.
ProcedureStudents will be placed in groups of 10 with 5 of them having higher grades, and 5 of
them having lower grades. In one test there will be a social comparison condition where the
kids are told what their actual grades are in comparison to everyone else. There will also be a
“no social control” condition where the kids are informed their grades are at the same level.
After this the students will go through a science lecture for 30 minutes in length, either in an
individuated condition (where they will be told they will be asked to answer questions in front
of their peers) and an anonymous condition (where they will be told they will not be singled out
for questioning). There will not actually be any form of verbal questioning at the end; instead,
each participant must write a test based on the information that was lectured. After they are
finished the tests they are free to leave and the results from the test will be collected.
9
Research Methods
References
Kevin p. McIntyre & Donna Eisenstadt (2011): Social Comparison as a Self-Regulatory Measuring
Stick, Self and Identity, 10:2, 137-151