Social comparison consists of comparing oneself with others in order to evaluate or to enhance some aspects of the self. Evaluation of ability is concerned with the question “Can I do X?” and relies on the existence of a proxy performer. A proxy's relative standing on attributes vis‐à‐vis the comparer and whether the proxy exerted maximum effort on a preliminary task are variables influencing his or her informational utility. Evaluation of opinions is concerned with the questions “Do I like X?”“Is X correct?” and “Will I like X?” Important variables that affect an individual's use of social comparison to evaluate his or her opinions are the other person's expertise, similarity with the individual, and previous agreement with the individual. Whether social comparison serves a self-enhancement function depends on whether the comparer assimilates or contrasts his or her self relative to superior or inferior others. The kinds of self‐knowledge made cognitively accessible and variables such as mutability of self-views and distinctiveness of the comparison target may be important determinants of assimilation versus contrast.

This article describes a series of studies using the daily process paradigm to describe and understand the affective dynamics of people who experience frequent and intense bouts of a wide range of negative emotions. In several studies, community residents reported on problem occurrence and affect several times a day or at the end of the day. We found reliable evidence that persons who scored high (vs. low) in Neuroticism reported more daily problems, tended to react with more severe emotions, experienced more mood spillover from prior occasions, and exhibited stronger reactions to recurring problems (the "neurotic cascade"). The susceptibility of neurotics to stress seems to extend to all types of problems while certain other dimensions of personality (e.g., Agreeableness) are associated with hyperreactivity to particular kinds of problems. The research demonstrates how daily process research can provide insight about classic problems in the field of individual differences.

Top-down and bottom-up approaches were combined to assess the relative impact of extraversion, neuroticism, and daily events on daily mood. Ninety-six community-residing men completed diaries for 8 consecutive nights. Extraversion predicted positive mood, whereas neuroticism predicted positive and negative mood. Undesirable events predicted negative mood and, more modestly, positive mood. Desirable events predicted positive mood. Negative dispositional and situational factors play a larger role in daily positive affect than positive factors do in daily negative affect.

A naturalistic diary study was conducted to investigate the degree to which agreeableness and neuroticism moderate emotional reactions to conflict and nonconflict problems. Healthy community-residing males made diary recordings at the end of each of 8 successive days concerning problem occurrence and daily mood. Consistent with predictions based on person-environment fit, participants who scored higher in agreeableness experienced more subjective distress when they encountered more interpersonal conflicts than did their less agreeable counterparts. Neuroticism was related to a small but consistent reactivity to both conflict and nonconflict problems, contrary to person-environment fit. Reasons for the differences in the affective dynamics of agreeableness and neuroticism are discussed.

The structure of trait anger was tested in a study of 24 self-report scales. Exploratory factor analyses in an undergraduate sample (N = 457) yielded a two-factor model (comprising cynicism and aggression) and a three-factor model (representing angry emotions, aggressive behaviors, and cynicism). Subsequent evaluations, including confirmatory factor analyses, indicated that the three-factor model provided the best characterization of the trait anger domain. The three-factor solution was consistent with an "ABC" conceptualization of trait anger, consisting of the dimensions of affect, behavior, and cognition. The three factors showed strikingly different associations with the Big Five personality traits. Angry Affect was most strongly related to Neuroticism, whereas Behavioral Aggression was associated with low Agreeableness. Cynical Cognition represented a blend of neurotic and disagreeable characteristics. Modest mean-level differences were observed between the genders for each factor.