Being better than some but not better than average: Self-enhancing comparisons in aerobics

This field study examined social comparison processes in experimentally created aerobics classes in which performance standards were either uniformly high or low or were mixed. Our general hypothesis was that students of a low-aerobics standard participating in a class dominated by high-performing students would seek to make self-enhancing comparisons to protect their self-esteem. Given the class composition, however, it was expected they would engage in downward comparison with a specific other ('better than some') rather than with a generalized other ('better than average'). Consistent with expectations, evidence was found that, relative to low-and high-standard students in uniform classes and high-standard students in a mixed class, low-standard students in a mixed class compared more frequently with a specific other performing worse. In contrast to other student groups, however, they rated their performance to be worse than average. These findings suggest that people's choice between different self-enhancing comparison strategies may depend upon opportunities provided by the social comparison context.