Social Comparison Theory: Self-Evaluation and Group Life

Goethals, George R.; Darley, John M.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_2

Cited by 141 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with Goethals and Darley's (1987) version of social comparison theory, proposing that people may be motivated to self-evaluate in order to 12 confirm that they are as good as their peers (self-validation); and with assertion that self-evaluation is a motivating factor in goal-setting, we hypothesize:…”

Section: H2: Among Those Participants Subject To No-experimenter-evalmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…This is in line with Festinger's (1954) social comparison theory, which suggests that people are driven to self-evaluate in order to seek self-knowledge. Goethals and Darley's (1987) emphasize the addition of self-validation as a motivator of self-evaluation within the context of Festinger's social comparison theory, but they acknowledge that self-knowledge is also a motivating factor, and may be used when social comparisons are not possible. Although they do not delineate the underlying motivators of selfevaluation, between self-validation and self-knowledge, 2013b) assert that self-evaluation is a motivating factor in goal-setting, operating through goal commitment.…”

Section: H2: Among Those Participants Subject To No-experimenter-evalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, in Festinger's view, the ideal objective standard is one found in the physical world, without reference to other 4 humans (i.e., objective/non-social), but if such standards are not available, people will use the abilities of others as a standard (i.e., social comparison). Goethals and Darley (1987) modified Festinger's social comparison theory, by demonstrating that the need for self-validation is also at play, and is likely equal to the need for self-knowledge. In this view, people may be motivated to self-evaluate in order to gain accurate information about their ability (self-knowledge), and/or to confirm that they are as good as their peers (self-validation).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Determining the importance of self-evaluation on the goal-performance effect in goal setting: Primary findings.

Martin¹,

McNally²,

Taggar³

2016

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although goal-setting theory is among the most studied theories in organizational behavior and work motivation, the underlying motivations that drive the goal-performance effect have received less attention. We examined the role of self-evaluation in generating the goal-performance effect via blind testing in a laboratory experiment, in which participants (N = 405) performed an idea generation task under conditions eliminating the potential for external-evaluation. Designed to replicate and extend the work of Harkins, White, and Utman (2000), our results indicate that selfevaluation plays a role in generating the goal-performance effect, and that the pursuit of selfknowledge as well as self-validation plays a role in motivating self-evaluation. These findings support hypotheses that are consistent with goal setting theory and social comparison theory, and are contrary to . Implications for theory boundaries and work motivation are discussed.

show abstract

Section: H2: Among Those Participants Subject To No-experimenter-evalmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: H2: Among Those Participants Subject To No-experimenter-evalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determining the importance of self-evaluation on the goal-performance effect in goal setting: Primary findings.

Martin¹,

McNally²,

Taggar³

2016

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants working in an environment where others are performing at a low level match the inferior performance rate (Goethals and Darley, 1987). One study found that the productivity of manual brainstorming sessions can be improved by inducing group members to compare themselves to a mythical average group (Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes, and Camacho, 1993).…”

Section: Social Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Anonymity In A Group Problem-solving Environment

Sylvester¹

2000

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…interpersonal comparisons), it is widely recognised that comparisons also arise in intergroup contexts (e.g. Goethals & Darley, 1987;Tajfel & Turner, 1979). That is, people may not only assess their individual ability by comparing their own performance with that of another person, but may also evaluate their group's ability by contrasting its performance with that of another group.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The benefits of being disadvantaged: performance‐related circumstances and consequences of intergroup comparisons

Ouwerkerk

Ellemers

2001

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People are likely to evaluate their group's standing on an ability dimension by comparing the performance level of their own group with that of an outgroup. However, in addition to contrasting performance outcomes, they may also compare the speci®c circumstances under which both groups have performed. From a related attributes perspective, we argue that the outcome of such a comparison is a crucial determinant of the extent to which the relative success or failure of one's group can be ascribed to its superior or inferior ability respectively, and hence of the degree to which the relative position of one's group on the performance dimension in question can be perceived as legitimate and stable (i.e. as justi®ed and unlikely to change). Accordingly, the present research shows that information concerning performance-related circumstances has an impact on a wide range of reactions to the relative performance of one's group, varying from the experience of positive and negative affect, to motivational responses such as changes in collective ef®cacy beliefs for performance improvement, individual effort on behalf of the ingroup, and the tendency to hinder the future performance of an outgroup. Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.There could be no honour in a sure success, but much might be wrested from a sure defeat. (T. E. Lawrence) Although Festinger's (1954) theory of social comparison processes focused on the self-evaluative function of comparisons between oneself and another person (i.e. interpersonal comparisons), it is widely recognised that comparisons also arise in intergroup contexts (e.g. Goethals & Darley, 1987;Tajfel & Turner, 1979). That is, people may not only assess their individual ability by comparing their own performance with that of another person, but may also evaluate their group's ability by contrasting its performance with that of another group. Previous research on the consequences of such intergroup comparisons has predominantly focused on displays of ingroup favouritism in evaluative judgements or outcome allocations as a response to the relative position of one's group (see Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992 The primary goal of the present study, however, is to show that, in addition to comparing the performance level of their own group with that of an outgroup, people are also likely to compare the speci®c circumstances under which both groups have performed. This may reveal that the outgroup has been advantaged or disadvantaged relative to one's own group, because, for example, it had an easier or more dif®cult task to perform, or had different resources at its disposal. From a related attributes perspective (Goethals & Darley, 1977), we will argue that the relative advantage or disadvantage of an outgroup with respect to performance-related circumstances is a crucial determinant of the extent to which the relative success or failure of the ingroup can be ascribed to its superior or inferior ability respectively, and hence of the degree to which the relative position of the ingroup ...

show abstract

Social Comparison Theory: Self-Evaluation and Group Life

Cited by 141 publications

References 48 publications

Determining the importance of self-evaluation on the goal-performance effect in goal setting: Primary findings.

Determining the importance of self-evaluation on the goal-performance effect in goal setting: Primary findings.

Influence of Anonymity In A Group Problem-solving Environment

The benefits of being disadvantaged: performance‐related circumstances and consequences of intergroup comparisons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About