1. Effects of Marital Satisfaction & Personality Grace White, B.S.

2.  1. Brief Introduction to Concepts/Proposal  2. History of Social Comparison Theory Defining Social Comparison Downward Comparison Theory Personality & Social Comparison  3. Relationship Uncertainty & Social Comparison  4. Social Comparison in Relationships  5. Proposed Study

3.  1. Brief Introduction to Concepts/Proposal  2. History of Social Comparison Theory  3. Relationship Uncertainty & Social Comparison  4. Social Comparison in Relationships  5. Proposed Study

4.  Individuals’ self-views are often shaped by social experience.  Mechanism of influence is social comparison.  Social Comparison Theory* posits we make comparisons when no objective standard of evaluation is present. * Festinger (1954)

5.  Social comparison is used to better judge how we are performing in specific self- relevant domains.  Individuals compare their interpersonal relationships to others’ relationships to evaluate how they measure up.

6.  Paucity of research examining the motivations for and frequency of relational comparisons.  Current research has not significantly examined the associations with satisfaction or personality.

7.  Current proposal:  To investigate how marital satisfaction and relationship uncertainty relate to the frequency and direction of relational comparisons in everyday life.  To examine how the personality characteristics of neuroticism and hostility relate to affective responses to comparison information.

8.  1. Brief Introduction to Concepts/Proposal  2. History of Social Comparison Theory  3. Relationship Uncertainty & Social Comparison  4. Social Comparison in Relationships  5. Proposed Study

9.  1. Brief Introduction to Concepts/Proposal  2. History of Social Comparison Theory  3. Relationship Uncertainty & Social Comparison  4. Social Comparison in Relationships  5. Proposed Study

10.  Compare ourselves to others to gain relevant, diagnostic information about our opinions and abilities.  Upward comparisons= compare self to those that are better off  Downward comparisons= compare self to those that are worse off  Original belief that people actively, consciously select comparison targets; however also has unconscious, uncontrollable component.

11.  Downward social comparison theory* contends that individuals can enhance their subjective well-being by comparing themselves with others who are believed to be worse off.  Under conditions of threat, people prefer to compare to those they believe are worse off than them on the threatened dimension. *Wills (1981)

12.  Individuals with high self-esteem have shown greater benefits from downward comparisons, whereas individuals with low self-esteem garnered improvements in mood after upward comparisons (Wheeler, 2000)

13.  Challenges to theory:  Evidence for upward comparisons in threatened populations  Evidence of increased negative affect after downward comparisons  Evidence that high self esteem do not significantly benefit from or extensively make downward comparisons

14.  Challenges to theory:  Evidence for upward comparisons in threatened populations  Evidence of increased negative affect after downward comparisons  Evidence that high self esteem do not significantly benefit from or extensively make downward comparisons

15.  Challenges to theory:  Evidence for upward comparisons in threatened populations  Evidence of increased negative affect after downward comparisons  Evidence that high self esteem do not significantly benefit from or extensively make downward comparisons

16.  Challenges to theory:  Evidence for upward comparisons in threatened populations  Evidence of increased negative affect after downward comparisons  Evidence that high self esteem do not significantly benefit from or extensively make downward comparisons

17.  Personality related to frequency and direction of comparisons, as well as affective responses to comparison information.  Especially in relation to Big 5 traits.

18.  Individuals high in extraversion and low on agreeableness compare downward more often.  Individuals high on openness make more upward comparisons and report less negative affect in reaction to these comparisons.  Direction of comparison has not been specifically associated with neuroticism.  Individuals who are high on this dimension experienced greater increases in positive affect after downward comparisons than individuals low in neuroticism (Olson & Evans, 1999).

19.  Personality is also related to individual differences in making comparisons.  “Social Comparison Orientation” (SCO) = inclination to make or not make comparisons with others.  High levels of public and private self- consciousness, as well as a strong interpersonal orientation or interest in mutual self-disclosure; also weakly related to low self-esteem and neuroticism.

20.  1. Brief Introduction to Concepts/Proposal  2. History of Social Comparison Theory  3. Relationship Uncertainty & Social Comparison  4. Social Comparison in Relationships  5. Proposed Study

21.  1. Brief Introduction to Concepts/Proposal  2. History of Social Comparison Theory  3. Relationship Uncertainty & Social Comparison  4. Social Comparison in Relationships  5. Proposed Study

22.  Social comparison can improve feelings about one’s own abilities, therefore relational comparisons can, in a parallel manner, improve feelings about one’s romantic relationships.  Why compare?

23.  Relationship uncertainty can persist beyond the initial stages of relationship development.  Its levels remain in flux throughout the lifespan of a relationship, although the nature of the uncertainty changes.

24.  Uncertainty reduction theory (URT) posits individuals strive to make sense of interpersonal situations by reducing uncertainty about the self, partner, and the relationship between them (Berger & Calabrese, 1975).  Social comparison, as a coping or maintenance strategy, may be a process through which relationship uncertainty can be reduced.

25.  1. Brief Introduction to Concepts/Proposal  2. History of Social Comparison Theory  3. Relationship Uncertainty & Social Comparison  4. Social Comparison in Relationships  5. Proposed Study

26.  1. Brief Introduction to Concepts/Proposal  2. History of Social Comparison Theory  3. Relationship Uncertainty & Social Comparison  4. Social Comparison in Relationships  5. Proposed Study

27.  Examined the link between marital stress and uncertainty and the desire for affiliation.  The desire to affiliate in relation to (a) the degree of marital dissatisfaction and (b) uncertainty about how things are going in one’s marriage.  The higher the degree of marital dissatisfaction and the greater the uncertainty, the stronger was the desire to affiliate.  Those high in marital dissatisfaction preferred upward affiliation and, therefore, desired contact with individuals in better marriages.

28.  Examined whether downward social comparison enhanced relationship satisfaction.  Investigated the impact of describing one’s self and one’s relationship, in comparison to others doing worse, on relationship and marital satisfaction.  Downward comparison produced higher ratings of relationship satisfaction among comparison participants than among those who did not engage in comparison processes.

29.  Explored comparison processes as means of coping with relationship problems or means of relationship improvement.  Association between the severity of partners’ specific relationship problems and their tendency to engage in downward social comparisons.  More satisfied spouses tended to perceive themselves as better off, with regard to specific marital problems, in comparison to others (Frye & Karney, 2002).

30.  1. Brief Introduction to Concepts/Proposal  2. History of Social Comparison Theory  3. Relationship Uncertainty & Social Comparison  4. Social Comparison in Relationships  5. Proposed Study

31.  1. Brief Introduction to Concepts/Proposal  2. History of Social Comparison Theory  3. Relationship Uncertainty & Social Comparison  4. Social Comparison in Relationships  5. Proposed Study

32.  More clearly understand whether or not comparisons are a product of satisfied versus dissatisfied relationships.  Whether or not this association is moderated by relationship uncertainty, can provide insight into whether or not comparison is a mechanism of coping or maintenance  Knowing what types of comparisons (i.e. upward or downward) satisfied and dissatisfied individuals engage in also can provide insight into the role that this process plays in relationship outcomes.

33.  Goals:  1. To examine the association between level of marital satisfaction and frequency of comparisons.  2. To examine the association between level of marital satisfaction and direction of comparisons (i.e. upward or downward).  3. To determine whether or not this association is moderated by relationship uncertainty.  4. To examine the associations between affective response to comparisons and neuroticism and hostility.

34.  Goals:  1. To examine the association between level of marital satisfaction and frequency of comparisons.  2. To examine the association between level of marital satisfaction and direction of comparisons (i.e. upward or downward).  3. To determine whether or not this association is moderated by relationship uncertainty.  4. To examine the associations between affective response to comparisons and neuroticism and hostility.

35.  Goals:  1. To examine the association between level of marital satisfaction and frequency of comparisons.  2. To examine the association between level of marital satisfaction and direction of comparisons (i.e. upward or downward).  3. To determine whether or not this association is moderated by relationship uncertainty.  4. To examine the associations between affective response to comparisons and neuroticism and hostility.

36.  Goals:  1. To examine the association between level of marital satisfaction and frequency of comparisons.  2. To examine the association between level of marital satisfaction and direction of comparisons (i.e. upward or downward).  3. To determine whether or not this association is moderated by relationship uncertainty.  4. To examine the associations between affective response to comparisons and neuroticism and hostility.

37.  Goals:  1. To examine the association between level of marital satisfaction and frequency of comparisons.  2. To examine the association between level of marital satisfaction and direction of comparisons (i.e. upward or downward).  3. To determine whether or not this association is moderated by relationship uncertainty.  4. To examine the associations between affective response to comparisons and neuroticism and hostility.

38.  General Design & Methods:  Sample: newlywed individuals from Johnson County  Procedure: In-lab session to discuss relational comparisons, assess marital satisfaction, relationship uncertainty, neuroticism, hostility. Asked to keep records of relational comparisons made in daily life for 5 days.

39.  General Design & Methods:  Measures: Quality of Marriage Index (QMI; Norton, 1983) is a widely used 6-item measure of satisfaction. Relationship Uncertainty (Knobloch and Solomon,1999) is a 16-item measure that includes four 4-item subscales representing the four areas of relationship uncertainty: behavioral norms, mutuality, definitional, and future. The Cook-Medley (Ho) Scale (Cook & Medley, 1954) The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) is a measure of mood and affective trait dimensions.

40.  General Design & Methods:  Measures: Social Comparison Orientation (SCO) (Buunk & Gibbons, 1999) Spouse reports??

41.  General Design & Methods:  Measures: Rochester Social Comparison Record (RSCR) includes: the “circumstances of the comparison” (e.g. social interaction, visual), the “dimension of the comparison” (i.e. academics, personality), the “type of relationship to the comparison other” (relative, close friend, ordinary friend, acquaintance, or stranger), the “comparison similarity to the other” (from inferior to superior), affective ratings (pre- and post-comparison ratings on affect), and an open-ended description of the comparison (Wheeler & Miyake, 1992).