The Dunning-Kruger Effect
N- Effect
The finding that increasing the number of competitors generally decreases one’s motivation to compete.
Personality
A person’s relatively stable patterns of thought, feeling, and behavior.
Proximity
The relative closeness or distance from a given comparison standard. The further from the standard a person is, the less important he or she considers the standard. When a person is closer to the standard he/she is more likely to be competitive.
Self-enhancement effect
The finding that people can boost their own self-evaluations by comparing themselves to others who rank lower on a particular comparison standard.
Self-esteem
The feeling of confidence in one’s own abilities or worth.
Self-evaluation maintenance (SEM)
A model of social comparison that emphasizes one’s closeness to the comparison target, the relative performance of that target person, and the relevance of the comparison behavior to one’s self-concept.
Social category
Any group in which membership is defined by similarities between its members. Examples include religious, ethnic, and athletic groups.
Social comparison
The process by which people understand their own ability or condition by mentally comparing themselves to others.
Upward comparisons
Making mental comparisons to people who are perceived to be superior on the standard of comparison.
Outside Resources
Video: Downward Comparison
https://youtube.com/
watch?v=c3gGkiWSzvg%3Fcolor%3Dred%26modestbranding%3D1%26showinfo%3D0%26origin%3Dhttps%3A Video: Dunning-Kruger Effect
https://youtube.com/
watch?v=htEMitphv8w%3Fcolor%3Dred%26modestbranding%3D1%26showinfo%3D0%26origin%3Dhttps%3A Video: Social Comparison overview
https://youtube.com/
watch?v=HIRAQvP0ABg%3Fcolor%3Dred%26modestbranding%3D1%26showinfo%3D0%26origin%3Dhttps%3A Video: Social Media and Comparison
https://youtube.com/
watch?v=0mobWMwryKY%3Fcolor%3Dred%26modestbranding%3D1%26showinfo%3D0%26origin%3Dhttps%3A Video: Upward Comparison
https://youtube.com/
watch?v=HlBKORVcyGk%3Fcolor%3Dred%26modestbranding%3D1%26showinfo%3D0%26origin%3Dhttps%3A Web: Self-Compassion to counter the negative effects of social comparison
http://self-compassion.org/the-three-elements-of-self-compassion-2/
References
• Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why People Fail To Recognize Their Own Incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83-87.
• Dweck, C. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books
• Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7(2), 117-140.
• Fiske, S. (2011). Envy up, scorn down: how comparison divides us. The American Psychologist, 65(8), 698-706.
• Garcia, S. M., & Miller, D. (2007). Social categories and group preference disputes: The aversion to winner-take-all solutions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 581–593.
• Garcia, S. M., & Tor, A. (2007). Rankings, standards, and competition: Task vs. scale comparisons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 95–108.
• Garcia, S. M., Song, H., & Tesser, A. (2010). Tainted Recommendations: The Social Comparison Bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 97-101.
• Garcia, S. M., Tor, A. (2009). The N-Effect: More Competitors, Less Competition. Psychological Science. 20. 871-877.
• Garcia, S. M., Tor, A., & Gonzalez, R. D. (2006). Ranks and rivals: A theory of competition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 970–982.
• Garcia, S. M., Tor, A., & Schiff, T. (2013). The Psychology of Competition: A Social Comparison Perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 634-650.
• Goethals, G., & Darley, J. (1977). Social comparison theory: An attributional approach. In J. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 259–278). Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
• Johnson, C. (2012). Behavioral responses to threatening social comparisons: From dastardly deeds to rising above. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 515–524
• Marsh, H. W. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 280-295
• Marsh, H. W., & Parker, J. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don\’t learn to swim as well? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 213-231
• Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O. & Köller, O. (2008). Social comparison and big-fish-little-pond effects on self-concept and other self-belief constructs: Role of generalized and specific others. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 510–524.
• Medvec, V., Madey, S., & Gilovich, T. (1995). When Less Is More. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 603-610.
• Poortvliet, P., Janssen, O., Yperen, N., & Vliert, E. (2007). Achievement Goals and Interpersonal Behavior: How Mastery and Performance Goals Shape Information Exchange. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(10), 1435-1447.
• Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1984). Some antecedents and consequences of social-comparison jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 780–792
• Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–177
• Tesser, A., & Campbell, J. (2006). Self-evaluation maintenance and the perception of friends and strangers. Journal of Personality 50(3), 261 – 279.
• Tesser, A., & Collins, J. (1988). Emotion in social reflection and comparison situations: Intuitive, systematic, and exploratory approaches. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 695-709.
• Tesser, A., & Smith, J. (1980). Some effects of task relevance and friendship on helping: You don’t always help the one you like. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 582–590
• Tor, A., & Garcia, S. M. (2010). The N-Effect: Beyond probability judgments. Psychological Science, 21, 748–749.
• White, J., Langer, E., Yariv, L., & Welch, J. (2006). Frequent Social Comparisons And Destructive Emotions And
Behaviors: The Dark Side Of Social Comparisons. Journal of Adult Development, 13(1), 36-44.
• Wills, T.A. (1981). “Downward Comparison Principle in Social Psychology.” Psychological Bulletin 90: 245-71.
• Zell, E., & Alicke, M. D. (2010). The local dominance effect in self-evaluation: Evidence and explanations. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 14, 368–384.
• Zuckerman, E. W., & Jost, J. T. (2001). What makes you think you’re so popular?: Self-evaluation maintenance and the subjective side of the “friendship paradox.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 207–223.
Authors
•
Stephen Garcia
Stephen Garcia is an associate professor of psychology and organizational studies at the University of Michigan. He is interested in social comparison, competition, and, more broadly, judgment and decision making.
•
Arnor Halldorsson
Arnor Halldorsson hails from Iceland and received his undergraduate degree in psychology from the University of Michigan in 2016. He is interested in social comparison, culture, and industrial/organizational psychology.
4. The Psychology of Groups
From the Noba Project By Donelson R. Forsyth, University of Richmond
This module assumes that a thorough understanding of people requires a thorough understanding of groups. Each of us is an autonomous individual seeking our own objectives, yet we are also members of groups—groups that constrain us, guide us, and sustain us. Just as each of us influences the group and the people in the group, so, too, do groups change each one of us. Joining groups satisfies our need to belong, gain information and understanding through social comparison, define our sense of self and social identity, and achieve goals that might elude us if we worked alone.
Groups are also practically significant, for much of the world’s work is done by groups rather than by individuals.
Success sometimes eludes our groups, but when group members learn to work together as a cohesive team their success becomes more certain. People also turn to groups when important decisions must be made, and this choice is justified as long as groups avoid such problems as group polarization and groupthink.
PDF Download Key topics:
• Group decision making
• Groupthink
• Need to belong
• Self-esteem
• Social facilitation
• Social loafing
• Teamwork
Learning Objectives
• Review the evidence that suggests humans have a fundamental need to belong to groups.
• Compare the sociometer model of self-esteem to a more traditional view of self-esteem.
• Use theories of social facilitation to predict when a group will perform tasks slowly or quickly (e.g., students eating a meal as a group, workers on an assembly line, or a study group).
• Summarize the methods used by Latané, Williams, and Harkins to identify the relative impact of social loafing and coordination problems on group performance.
• Describe how groups change over time.
• Apply the theory of groupthink to a well-known decision-making group, such as the group of advisors responsible for planning the Bay of Pigs operation.
• List and discuss the factors that facilitate and impede group performance and decision making.
• Develop a list of recommendations that, if followed, would minimize the possibility of groupthink developing in a group.
How many groups are you a part of on a daily basis? Whether it’s family, class, work, social, sports, church or other areas, we typically spend a good deal of our time and attention each day interacting with others in groups. [Image: CC0 Public Domain, https://goo.gl/
m25gce]