CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 103Personality Traits and PsychologyDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Ego threat elicits different social comparison processes among high and low self-esteem people: Implications for interpersonal perceptions

Vohs, Kathleen D., Heatherton, Todd F.·2004·Social Cognition
DOI 10.1521/soco.22.1.168.30983
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Two studies examined the effect of self-image threat on the use of social comparisons by those who have high and low trait self-esteem. In the absence of threat, trait high and low self-esteem people engaged in similar social comparison processes. When threatened, however, trait high self-esteem people made more downward social comparisons and trait low self-esteem people made more upward social comparisons. In Study 1, these effects were found for comparisons against an interaction partner and against generalized others. Study 1 also showed that state self-esteem rose among high self-esteem participants because they made downward social comparisons. Study 2 linked social comparisons to interpersonal likability and found that people with high trait self-esteem were liked less by perceivers when they made downward comparisons, whereas those with low trait self-esteem were liked more when they made upward comparisons. Discussion focuses on the interrelations among trait self-esteem, self-concept, and interpersonal perceptions in the context of self-defense.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1521/soco.22.1.168.30983

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Adults make less favorable appraisals of others following negative feedback.

    “Researchers have also found that adults make less favorable appraisals of others (5, 9, 10)”

    From Development of self-protective biases in response to social evaluative feedback (2017) · cites this paper as [10]

  • Adults tend to rate accepting peers more favorably, respond to negative feedback by denigrating others, and engage in retaliatory impression updating, consistent with previous work.

    “The tendency for adults to rate accepting peers more favorably (36), respond to negative feedback by denigrating others (5, 9, 10), and engage in retaliatory impression updating (11) aligns with previous work.”

    From Development of self-protective biases in response to social evaluative feedback (2017) · cites this paper as [10]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
ORCID
Venue
Social Cognition
Publisher
Guilford Publications
Published
2004-02
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
168-191
ISSN
0278-016X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1521/soco.22.1.168.30983
OpenAlex
W1981447990
Cited by
103
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Social Cognition (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
self-esteem, social comparison, downward social comparison, upward social comparison, interpersonal perception, self-concept, self-defense, state self-esteem

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review