Mindsets and Social Comparison: Being Aware of the Competitor

Abstract

Abstract The mindset theory posits that people have less favorable beliefs while deliberating on actions or goals than while planning and implementing them. This is thought to be a self-regulatory mechanism that helps people choose reasonable goals, on one hand, and persist in goal pursuit, on the other. In the present experiment we tested the hypothesis that the beliefs of implemental participants differ from those of deliberative ones only in case that favorable views would not set them up for failure and disappointment. Participants in a deliberative or in an implemental mindset were asked to compare with two other persons with respect to a set of achievement-related activities. They were also told that they would have to compete with one of these persons in a motor-skills task. It could be shown that the participants generally tended to rate the comparison targets as being worse off. As in former experiments, this tendency was, however, reduced in deliberative participants. In addition, it was reduced in implemental participants when they expected to compete with the comparison target later on. Implemental participants did thus have more favorable views than deliberative ones only if they had not to compete with the comparison target. This seems to be a good strategy to enhance the feelings of one's own competence without running the risk of failure and embarrassment. Key words: mindsets, action phases, social comparison, competition If people have to evaluate personal prospects or possible risks, they usually tend to reveal a comparative optimism. They rate their own chances more favorably than those of other people and believe that their abilities are above average (Svenson, 1981; Taylor & Brown, 1988). This kind of social comparison may enhance self-esteem and has beneficial effects on attention, goal setting, and problem solving as well as on physical and mental health (see Armor & Taylor, 1998; Aspinwall, Richter, & Hoffman, 2001; Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997 for review and discussion). The need to enhance one's self-esteem or to maintain a positive sense of the self (self-enhancement) (Taylor & Brown, 1988; Tesser, 1988) is, however, not the only goal of social comparison. Since social comparison has been assumed to satisfy a number of personal needs, three main motivational processes have been discussed to underlie the engagement in it, as well as to determine its direction (e.g. Wayment & Taylor, 1995; Taylor, Wayment, & Carrillo, 1996). Festinger (1954) proposed that a motivation to evaluate one's own abilities and opinions drives people to rely on social-comparison information especially in cases when no absolute standards are available. Traditionally, it has been accepted that social comparison serves this need for accurate self-appraisal and meets it through a comparison with similar others (lateral social comparison). The above mentioned need for self-enhancement is supposed to be met through a second motivational process called downward social comparison. That means that people compare themselves to others whose performance is worse than their own. Third, social comparison could aim at improving oneself (Wood, 1989) and this need for self-improvement seems to be best met by a comparison to those whose outcomes are better than one's own (upward social comparison) (Taylor, Wayment, & Carrillo, 1996). It is important to consider that upward, downward and lateral social comparisons can not only manifest themselves in the choice of a comparison target, but they can also find an expression in the evaluation and description of a given person one is being compared to. As mentioned above, people generally tend to rate their own prospects more favorably than those of other people. Does this mean that they are exclusively guided by selfenhancement needs? Taylor and Gollwitzer (1995) have found support for the hypothesis that they are not. In a set of experiments they could show that people were less inclined to engage in downward social comparison when they were deliberating on potential actions and goals as compared to when they were planning or implementing them. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.