Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SPSP Annual Meeting 2010

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Personality and Social Psychology Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Suls, J.
Right arrow Articles by Wheeler, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Suls, J.
Right arrow Articles by Wheeler, L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Three Kinds of Opinion Comparison: The Triadic Model

Jerry Suls

René Martin

Department of Psychology, University of Iowa

Ladd Wheeler

School of Psychology, University of New South Wales

This article introduces the triadic model, which proposes that the social comparison of opinion is best considered in terms of 3 different evaluative questions: preference assessment (i.e., "Do I like X?"), belief assessment (i.e., "Is X correct?"), and preference prediction (i.e., "Will I like X?"). Each evaluative question is associated with a different comparison dynamic. The triadic model proposes that comparisons with persons similar in related attributes have special importance for preference assessment. For belief assessment, comparisons with persons of more advantaged status (or "expert") are most meaningful, although comparison targets also should hold certain basic values in common (the "similar expert"). Finally, in preference prediction, the most meaningful comparisons are with a person who has already experienced X (a proxy) and who exhibits either consistency (but not necessarily similarity) in related attributes or past preferences. Prior research and 4 new studies are described that support the theory.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, 219-237 (2000)
DOI: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0403_2
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
R. Spears, N. Ellemers, and B. Doosje
Strength in Numbers or Less Is More? A Matter of Opinion and a Question of Taste
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, August 1, 2009; 35(8): 1099 - 1111.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
M. J. Callan, J. H. Ellard, N. Will Shead, and D. C. Hodgins
Gambling as a Search for Justice: Examining the Role of Personal Relative Deprivation in Gambling Urges and Gambling Behavior
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, November 1, 2008; 34(11): 1514 - 1529.
[Abstract] [PDF]