The man who wasn't there: Subliminal social comparison standards influence self-evaluation ☆

By Thomas Mussweiler, Katja Rüter, K. Epstude. 2004

211 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Life provides an endless stream of social comparison information. Because opportunities to compare with others are so abundant, social comparison theory traditionally assumes that people are selective in their comparison activities and primarily compare with deliberately selected standards. Recent research, however, demonstrates that social comparisons often occur spontaneously, even if no standard is explicitly provided or deliberately selected. We examined whether comparisons are so spontaneous that they are even engaged if people are fleetingly exposed to a potential standard—so fleetingly that they remain unaware of the standard. In three studies, participants were subliminally primed with moderate versus extreme, high versus low standards during self-evaluation. Results demonstrate that self-evaluations are influenced by subliminally presented standards. Specifically, self-evaluations are assimilated towards moderate standards and contrasted away from extreme standards. These self-evaluative consequences of subliminal standards, however, were only obtained if participants engaged in self-reflection during standard exposure. These findings emphasize that social comparisons are truly ubiquitous processes that are engaged even for fleeting exposure to standard information.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d82b16762c61ef82c3930c657409e11148e1732f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

To Each His Own? How Comparisons with Others Influence Consumers' Evaluations of Their Self-Designed Products (2010, background): “Yet research has shown that the innate drive to look externally for comparison information is quite strong (Klein 1997; Mussweiler and Ruter 2003; Mussweiler, Ruter, and Epstude 2004).”
The Limits of Attraction (2014, background): “…evidence for both contrast and assimilation effects within the extensive body of literature on context effects in psychology (Bless and Schwarz 1998; Mussweiler, Rüter, and Epstude 2004); and (3) it could help explain unsuccessful brand extensions (e.g., Bic underwear), in which unattractive…”
Social comparison processes in an organizational context: New directions (2007, background): “Recent research has found that the presentation of a comparison target subliminally spurs social comparisons outside of the subjects’ conscious awareness, with conscious effects on self-evaluation ( Mussweiler, Ruter, & Epstude, 2004; Stapel & Blanton, 2004).”
The Effects of Thin and Heavy Media Images on Overweight and Underweight Consumers: Social Comparison Processes and Behavioral Implications (2010, methodology): “Next, participants completed a Picture Comparison Task (Mussweiler et al. 2004b) to measure their (dis)similarity focus.”
Self-Evaluative Effects of Temporal and Social Comparison (2009, background): “Furthermore, what we do know is confined to retrospective reports that are limited by the possibilities of inaccurate recall or by participants lacking awareness of the comparisons they routinely engage in (Mussweiler et al., 2004 and Stapel and Blanton, 2004).”
On Being Exposed to Superior Others: Consequences of Self-Threatening Upward Social Comparisons (2010, unknown): “athletic domain; see Mussweiler, Ruter, & Epstude, 2004a, 2004b ).”