On apples and oranges : structure mapping in standard selection
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The selection of social comparison standards is traditionally assumed to be guided by similarity between the self and the standard. Despite the theoretical and empirical prominence of this similarity hypothesis, however, relatively little is known about the determinants of similarity in standard selection. To remedy this shortcoming we apply recent insights into the role structure mapping — a process of aligning interconnected relational structures of attributes — plays in similarity comparisons to the realm of social comparison. We propose that similarity in relational structures between individual attributes of the target and the standard critically determine which standard is selected for comparison. Consistent with this assumption, Studies 1 and 2 show that inducing a specific relational structure in participants’ accessible self-knowledge leads them to select comparison standards with similar structures. In addition, Study 3 suggests that similarity in relational structures may be a stronger determinant of standard selection than similarity in isolated features.
Abstract
The selection of social comparison standards is traditionally assumed to be guided by similarity between the self and the standard. Despite the theoretical and empirical prominence of this similarity hypothesis, however, relatively little is known about the determinants of similarity in standard selection. To remedy this shortcoming we apply recent insights into the role structure mapping — a process of aligning interconnected relational structures of attributes — plays in similarity comparisons to the realm of social comparison. We propose that similarity in relational structures between individual attributes of the target and the standard critically determine which standard is selected for comparison. Consistent with this assumption, Studies 1 and 2 show that inducing a specific relational structure in participants’ accessible self-knowledge leads them to select comparison standards with similar structures. In addition, Study 3 suggests that similarity in relational structures may be a stronger determinant of standard selection than similarity in isolated features.
참고문헌 (48)
- Catrambone, R, "The effects of surface and structural features matches on the access of story analogies", 28, pp.318~334 (2002)
- Chi, "Categorization andrepresentation of physics problems by experts and novices", pp.121~152 (1981)
- Clement, "Systematicity as a selection constraint inanalogical mapping", pp.89~132 (1991)
- Human Relations, "A theory of social comparison processes", pp.117~140 (1954)
- I, "A field study of social comparison processes inability evaluation British Journal of Social Psychology", pp.287~305 (1993)
- Forbus, K. D, "MAC", FAC: A model of similaritybased retrieval, 1995, pp.19, 141~205
- Gentner, "A theoretical framework for analogy", pp.155~170 (1983)
- Gentner, "Metaphor as structure mapping", pp.47~59 (1988)
- Gentner, "Structural alignment in comparison Nodifference without similarity", pp.152~158 (1994)
- Gentner, D, "Structure mapping in analogy and similarity", 52, pp.45~56 (1997)
- Gentner, D, "Defining structural similarity", 6, pp.1~20 (2006)
- Gentner, "Language and the career of similarity Perspectives on thought and language Interrelations in development", pp.225~277 (1991), Cambridge UniversityPress
- Gentner, "The roles of similarity intransfer Separating retrievability from inferential soundness", pp.524~575 (1993)
- Gentner, "Systematicity and surface similarity in thedevelopment of analogy", pp.277~300 (1986)
- Gilbert, D. T, "When comparisons arise", 69(2), pp.227~236 (1995)
- Goldstone, "Time course of comparison", pp.29~50 (1994)
- Goldstone, "Relational similarity and thenonindependence of features in similarity judgments", pp.222~262 (1991)
- "Determinants of social comparison choices", pp.473~489 (1971)
- Higgins, E.T., "Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience", pp.133~168 (1996), New York, NY: The Guilford Press
- Holyoak, "Surface and structural similarity in analogicaltransfer", pp.332~340 (1987)
- Holyoak, "Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction", pp.295~355 (1989)
- Holyoak, K. J, "Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought" (1995), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
- Holyoak, K. J, "Restricting working-memory capacity impairs relational mapping", pp.224~228 (1999), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
- Kihlstrom, "Mental representations of the self Advances in experimental social psychology", pp.145~180 (1984), Academic Press
- Lockwood, P, "Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self", 73, pp.91~103 (1997)
- Love, B. C, "A structural account of global and local processing", 38, pp.291~316 (1999)
- Lockwood, P, "Could it happen to you? Predicting the impact of downward comparisons on the self", 82, pp.343~358 (2002)
- Markman, "Structural alignment during similaritycomparisons", pp.431~467 (1993)
- Markman, A. D, "Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons", 24, pp.235~249 (1996)
- Medin, "Respects for similarity", pp.254~278 (1993)
- Miller, "The role of performance-related similarity in social comparisonof abilities A test of the related attributes hypothesis Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology", pp.513~523 (1982)
- Miller, D. T, "The construction of social norms and standards", pp.799~829 (1996), New York: Guildford
- Mussweiler, T., "Focus of comparison as a determinant of assimilation versus contrast in social comparison", 27, pp.38~47 (2001)
- Mussweiler, T., "Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences", 110, pp.472~489 (2003)
- Mussweiler, T, "The “relative self”: Informational and judgmental consequences of comparative self-evaluation", 79, pp.23~38 (2000)
- Mussweiler, T, "Consequences of social comparison: Selective accessibility, assimilation, and contrast" (2000), New York: Plenum
- Ross, "This is like that The use of earlier problems and the separationof similarity effects Journal of Experimental Psychology", pp.629~639 (1987)
- Shepard, "Representation of structure in similarity data", pp.373~421 (1974)
- Lawhon, "Social comparison choices for evaluatinga sex- and age-related ability", pp.102~105 (1978)
- Thagard, P, "Making sense of people: Coherence mechanisms", pp.3~26 (1998), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
- A, "Features of similarity", pp.327~352 (1977)
- Wheeler, "Motivation as a determinant of upward comparison", pp.27~31 (1966)
- Wheeler, "Related attributes in choice ofcomparison others Journal of Experimental Social Psychology", pp.489~500 (1982)
- Wheeler, L, "The proxy model of social comparison for self-assessment of ability", 1, pp.54~61 (1997)
- Wheeler, "Social comparison in everyday life", pp.760~773 (1992)
- Wheeler, "Factors determining choice of acomparison other Journal of Experimental Social Psychology", pp.219~232 (1969)
- Wood, "Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personalattributes", pp.231~248 (1989)
- Goethals, "Social comparison with similar others and standard setters", pp.86~93 (1975)