Personality and Social Psychology Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
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 Google Scholar
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 Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, 219-237 (2000)
DOI: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0403_2

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.

References

  • Abelson, R. P., & Rosenberg, M. J. (1958). Symbolic psycho-logic: A model of attitudinal cognition. Behavioral Science, 3, 1-13.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Riverside.
  • Aronson, E., Turner, J., & Carlsmith, M. (1963). Communicator credibility and communicator discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 31-36.[CrossRef]
  • Arrowood, A. J. (1986) Comments on "Social comparison theory: Psychology from the lost and found." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 233-239.
  • Asch, S. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9, Whole No. 416).
  • Bargh, J. A. (1996). Principles of automaticity. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 169-183). New York: Guilford.
  • Bayton, J. A., & Byoune, E. (1947). Racio-national stereotypes held by Negroes. Journal of Negro Education, 16, 49-56.[CrossRef]
  • Bem, D. J. (1970). Beliefs, attitudes, and human affairs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  • Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic.
  • Brickman, P., & Bulman, R .J. (1977). Pleasure and pain in social comparison. In J. Suls & R. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 149-186). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
  • Brock, T. C. (1965). Communicator-recipient similarity and decision change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 650-654.[CrossRef]
  • Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1977). Persuasive arguments and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 315-332.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic.
  • Carver, C. S., & Humphries, C. (1981). Havana daydreaming: A study of self-consciousness and the negative reference group among Cuban Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 545-552.[CrossRef]
  • Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion content. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thoughts (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
  • Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Menzel, H. (1957). The diffusion of innovation among physicians. Sociometry, 20, 253-270.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Crandall, C. S. (1988). Social contagion of binge eating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 588-598.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Crano, W. D., & Cooper, R. E. (1973). Examination of Newcomb's extension of structural balance theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 344-354.[CrossRef]
  • Darke, P., Chaiken, S., Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Erb, H.-P., & Hazelwood, J. D. (1998). Accuracy motivation, consensus information, and the law of large numbers: Effects on attitude judgment in the absence of argumentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1205-1215.[Abstract]
  • Deutsch, M., & Krauss, R. M. (1965). Theories in socialpsychology. New York: Basic Books.
  • Festinger, L. (1954a). Motivation leading to social behavior. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 191-218). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  • Festinger, L. (1954b). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.[CrossRef]
  • Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups. New York: Harper & Brothers.
  • Freidson, E. (1961). Patients& views of medical practice. New York: Russell Sage.
  • Gerard, H., & Orive R. (1987). The dynamics of opinion formation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 171-202). New York: Academic.
  • Goethals, G. R. (1972). Consensus and modality in the attribution process: The role of similarity and information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 84-94.[CrossRef]
  • Goethals, G. R., & 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.
  • Goethals, G. R., Darley, J., & Kriss, M. (1978). The impact of opinion agreement as a function of the grounds for agreement. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 9, 30-42.
  • Goethals, G. R., & Nelson, R. E. (1973). Similarity in the influence process: The belief-value distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 117-122.
  • Gorenflo, D. W., & Crano, W. D. (1989). Judgmental subjectivity/objectivity and locus of choice in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 605-614.[CrossRef]
  • Gorer, G. (1948). The American people: A study in national character. New York: Norton.
  • Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1087-1199.
  • Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
  • Hovland, C., Janis, I., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Hovland, C., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.[Abstract]
  • Howard, J. W., & Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorization and memory for ingroup and outgroup behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 301-310.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Hyman, H. (1942). The psychology of status. Archives of Psychology, 269.
  • Jellison, J., & Arkin, R. (1977). Social comparison of abilities: A self-presentation approach to decision-making in groups. In J. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 235-258). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
  • Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. B. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. New York: Wiley.
  • Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
  • Kelley, H. L. (1952). Two functions of reference groups. In T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (Rev. ed., pp. 210-214). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Kelley, H. L. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. L. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 192-241). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  • Kidd, J. S., & Campbell, D. T. (1955). Conformity to groups as a function of group success. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 390-393.[CrossRef]
  • Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211-228.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Krueger, J. (1998). On the perception of social consensus. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 163-240). San Diego: Academic.
  • Kruglanski, A., & Mayseless, O. (1987). Motivational effects in the social comparison of opinions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 834-842.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Kruglanski, A., & Mayseless, O. (1990). Classic and current social comparison research: Expanding the perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 195-208.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Kunda, Z. (1989). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
  • Latané, B. (Ed.). (1966). Studies in social comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (Suppl. 1).
  • Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people's choice. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Martin, R. (2000). "Can I do X?" Using the proxy comparison model to predict performance. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 67-80). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
  • Mausner, B. (1953). Studies in social interaction: III. Effect of variation in one partner's prestige on the interaction of observer pairs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 391-393.[CrossRef]
  • Mausner, B. (1954). The effects of one partner's success in a relevant task on the interaction of observer pairs. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 557-560.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Mausner, B., & Mausner, J. (1955). A study of the anti-scientific attitude. Scientific American, 192(2), 35-39.[ISI]
  • McGuire, W. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp.191-229). New York: Academic.
  • McGuire, W. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 136-314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Merton, R. K., & Kitt, A. (1950). Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior. In R. K. Merton & P. F. Lazarsfeld (Eds.), Continuities in social research: Studies in the scope and method of "The American Soldier" (pp. 40-105). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
  • Mish, F. C. (Ed.). (1990). Webster 's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
  • Mullen, B., Atkins, J. L., Champion, D. S., Edwards, C., Hardy, D., Story, J. E., & Venderklok, M. (1985). The false consensus effect: A meta-analysis of 115 hypothesis tests. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 262-283.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Newcomb, T. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Newcomb, T. (1968). Interpersonal balance. In R. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. McGuire, T. Newcomb, M. Rosenberg, & P. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency (pp. 28-51). Chicago: Rand McNally.
  • Nissen, H. W. (1954). Comments on Professor Festinger's paper. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 219-223). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  • Orive, R. (1988). Social projection and social comparison of opinions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 953-964.[CrossRef]
  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 668-672.[CrossRef]
  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. New York: Springer.
  • Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford.
  • Reckman, R. F., & Goethals, G. R. (1973). Deviancy and group-orientation as determinants of group composition preferences. Sociometry, 36, 419-423.[CrossRef]
  • Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
  • Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The "false consensus effect": An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 119-128.
  • Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8, 15-24.
  • Sanders, G. S. (1981). The interactive effect of social comparison and objective information on the decision to see a doctor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 390-400.[CrossRef]
  • Sanders, G. S., & Baron, R. S. (1977). Is social comparison irrelevant for producing choice shifts? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 303-314.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Sarnoff, I. (1951). Identification with the aggressor: Some personality correlates of antisemitism among Jews. Journal of Personality, 20, 199-218.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190-207.
  • Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Smith, W. P. (1981). On the nature of the question in social comparison. In J. H. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior and the environment (pp. 225-339). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Smith, W. P., & Sachs, P. (1997). Social comparison and task prediction: Ability similarity and the use of a proxy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 587-602.
  • Strodtbeck, F. L., James, R. M., & Hawkins, C. (1958). Social status injury deliberations. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 379-388). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Stotland, E., & Patchen, M. (1961). Identification and changes in prejudice and in authoritarianism. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 265-274.[CrossRef]
  • Suls, J. (1986). Notes on the occasion of social comparison theory's thirtieth birthday. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 289-296.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Suls, J. (1999). The importance of the question in motivated cognition and social comparison. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 73-75.[CrossRef]
  • Suls, J., Martin, R., & Leventhal, H. (1997). Social comparison, lay referral, and the decision to seek medical care. In B. Buunk & F. Gibbons (Eds.), Health and coping: Perspectives from social comparison theory (pp. 195-226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Suls, J., & Miller, R. L. (Eds.). (1977). Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
  • Suls, J., & Wills, T. A. (Eds.). (1991). Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. London: Cambridge University Press.
  • Taylor, S., & Lobel, M. (1989). Social comparison activity under threat: Downward evaluation and upward contacts. Psychological Review, 96, 569-575.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  • Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129-140.[ISI]
  • Wheeler, L., Martin, R., & Suls, J. (1997). The proxy social comparison model for self-assessment of ability. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 54-61.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Wheeler, L., Shaver, K. G., Jones, R. A., Goethals, G. R., Cooper, J., Robinson, J. E., Gruder, C. L., & Butzine, K. W. (1969). Factors determining choice of a comparison other. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 219-232.[CrossRef]
  • Wheeler, L., & Zuckerman, M. (1977). Commentary. In J. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 335-357). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
  • Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245-271.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Wood, J. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 231-248.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Wood, J. V., & VanderZee, K. (1997). Social comparisons among cancer patients: Under what conditions are comparisons upward and downward. In B. Buunk & F. X. Gibbons (Eds.), Health, coping, and well-being: Perspectives from social comparison theory (pp. 299-328). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.[CrossRef]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
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 Google Scholar
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 Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?