Ayn's Multiple World

One h*(& of a long day.

Umm, this post is about 10,000 words or 17 pages. You might want to start at the end and then work your way around it, or you might want to read tomorrow I'm sure it'll be a shorter post. ;)

In combining social comparison and self-insight: We consider as an individual, "I might feel myself as positively higher than an other; though "they" as others might perceive me negatively lower than its collective selves." In a sense nobody meets the mark, though we can privately think we have. It seems if you claim to be a big fish, larger fish can and will come by to eat you. If you can lay low as if you were a little fish, bigger fish may leave you alone - perhaps even, because there are bigger fish to fry. It seems there is almost more independence being a small fish from a large pond. Small ponds can be tough on the big fishes. Case in point … we considered Tom Cruise's audaciousness of jumping on Oprah's couch. Both Oprah and Cruz are bigger fish in a small super-star pond. Oprah obviously though was the bigger fish, and the couch represents the smaller pond where all the big fishes meet. Plus, collectively, we all know its wrong to jump on furniture. Although we state it is critical to stand independently as individuals and mavericks, we also stand for democracy, which is rule of the majority. The majority will follow a leader, but it's not a good idea for any big fish to think him or herself over-sized. For example, maintaining the story-line of Oprah, she is now a small tadpole in another realm, in that she's turned toward providing a school for young girls in Johannesburg, South Africa. This fulfills a promise she made to Nelson Mandela. Mandela is a bigger fish than even Oprah. And, so it goes on.

Ok, back to business...

Good morning. This is me … We’re just settling in here and its already 9:05 am. Man … where does time fly?? I think we woke up early this morning around 4 am, but shortly after found ourselves nodding off, so we went back to bed, until about 7:30. So, that might be part of the problem. We had some on-line doing stuff to take care of, but I think that’s done. We’re waiting now for our chance to talk to Deb, cuz its like been forEVER since we talked to her. Shoot, that’s no good!

WooHOOO we’re on break … Deb and us … she had the incredible patience to sit with me and go through who everyone is in the group picture taken from my camera of the Speaker of the House’s visit. Through obvious reasons I won’t post it here, but I feel so good about someone important finally knowing of who we talk about. It is a very good picture with the exception that I’m not in it. BUT, that is good, because we are not comfortable with our weight and pictures. But, it was a little rude that no one got me. I think probably what happened is that it happened very quickly and there wasn’t time to think … I know the State Representative had a busy schedule, he said something about a 10 am meeting … he got to our place at 8:45 am. Big deal for sure.

Anyway, We will have this picture locked into our memory for a long, long time alongside all those delicious rolls, donuts, and bagels that were loaded onto the table in front of him. Good coffee too. The picture has the Representative and his beautiful wife, a couple family people, then Sr, our friend, the other two Q’s, 6 of the 7 DSPs, and the Sister that stays with Sr. Tess. Great picture and there are big red hearts in the background and everyone is smiling nicely. Good, good picture.

Ahh … We’re back! We’ve been all filled-up with Deb magic!

*Sigh* ok ok … time is late 11:40 am we’re going to need transitioning over to school somehow. We’ve stuff to be figuring out. Right now we feel a bit intimidated by the school stuff, so maybe if we write in general for a few moments?

I don’t know too much worth discussing that hasn’t already been discussed with Deb.

Not too much information from work at all. Did work all week and it looks like work next week too. Sr. is talking about getting the program started for the boundaries. So, we’ll probably start sometime next week. She has it scheduled so the leadership group, group 1, group 2, and group 3 will each have a once a week sessions for one hour. I had planned on every other week so it would have taken up only 2 hours a week, but we’ll have to adjust. It is a pretty major program and is going to take at least a month to get through it. Sister decided to require that the DSPs sit through the meeting as well. That kind of makes me nervous that people will be watching me teach, but I’m the head of the teachers and need to take on that responsibility.

Damn I got a something something family member on my hands she’s asked twice proof of who I am or she won’t open the pictures she asked me to send her of the above.

She’s giving me a headache. Ok, let’s just move on.

Anyway, it will be a new experience because it means I have to tailor things to both clients and staff so that everyone gets something out of the program including us.

I am happy that the program includes a curriculum, which states the main purpose of each lesson and gives you examples of ideas you can try with the group. Because our center is grouped by ability, it will be up to me to translate it on those four different levels. I would like to make sure the staff doesn’t sit back and is – co-teaching. I want that they participate, because they know the clients very well, and in some cases better than me, because they are with them day in and day out. I also know that Sr. is going to sit in on the first meeting or two to follow the materials. She says she wants to know whether or not it is worth $1,100 for the program. I am going to need looking into how things will work, right away Monday morning. I’m going to watch the video and then set-up objectives for each of the groups. That usually means saying something like, “the individual will …. And then we fill in with what we want him or her to learn. The first lesson is an introduction to the main girl that will be in the video clips from start to finish.

And, in a light manner it will introduce the circles, which are levels of intimacy in knowing people from you, out to the local baker.

Oh man … another email from that person who didn’t know I was who I said I was. She didn’t want to get tricked and was suspitious of emails from unknown sources.

That’s fair enough, but I want to move on with my day now. I’ve checked off a task. She’s got the pictures she wanted. Good cleared my screens.

I wish I’d thought to have brought home the curriculum, but I know I needed time to see the movie clip too and I didn’t want to mess with our VCR. Soooo, can’t doo much with that … need to move on.

Still worrying about a deadline at school. Two deadlines actually, but I’m still working through the processing of our week. What’s next. Let’s see … there was the staff training meeting. That went only so-so … they listened for a long time to the presentation of what our information processing was, and then one of the DSPs the one that’s been there for only a couple weeks … freaked out and said, “I’m going to TELL SR. BECAUSE THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I SHOULD HAVE TO KNOW. I think she said that because the material was harder and because she was intimidated, which I didn’t mean, but she is also the type that is theatrical and very willing to blow things out of proportion, but then again, the other staff were telling her how bad it was when we were surveyed because of both the actual surveyer and because of sister’s emphasis on passing with such high marks.

There’s that person again. Ok, we erased her … this should REALLY be enough now … she tends to linger on too long … and we are against giving her information to share with others. We’re like that … feel protective of the agency. I know the other Q feeds her lots of information and I just don’t want to go there. Ok, it’s over … let’s breath and go on.

I’m having hard time thinking concentration … I need to focus better. Anyway as to the staff who went under … we tried to lessen the amount of emotions they had put into learning, but realize the staff is going to do what they have to do. Most of the time they don’t ask what it is they need to know to understand, they just through up white flags that there is too much to learn. They are for the most part not very understanding of the big picture … how the center is running beyond them being in their classrooms and doing “The Program.” They are unsure of things like what IS the Program. We spent a good part of yesterday’s meeting with the clients teaching THEM what is the program. We had them list out the different groups they go to like math, dancing, cooking, and art. As they were doing that, we wrote them on the board and then when we had a whole bunch of groups (circles with names), we drew a whole big circle around the smaller circles and said “The program” is all these things held together. Then we experimented and I asked them, “What is your program at the Center?” We just took the top bunch, of people, but they were getting it slowly that their program was all of those things we mentioned. Most couldn’t read the words we were writing down, but they knew each time they named a group, that I would write a name on the board that matched and it had a circle around it. I think they can really grasp that concept. Now, the tricky part is that I need to teach the DSPs that same concept … that all these things are the program, and we have a means of analyzing the program affect on the individuals served. That was the major point we were trying to get across. Since the one lady flipped out and her peers decided to further traumatize I’m guessing I didn’t do very well. Every time someone would say something, I would come in and negate it, but there were too many that wanted to blow things out of proportion. They wanted to believe that the whole accreditation process revolved around how they answered questions. I had to work hard at relaying to them there are thousands of elements and as important as their part was – it was the collective whole, and that’s why we had started working already in trying to teach, what it is that they don’t know. I have to study my presentation better, so I know when people are getting emotionally overwhelmed. I don’t like it how the many exploited the emotion of the one. And, I don’t like it that I couldn’t take care of it without everyone getting involved.

It seems then as if I didn’t have control of the meeting. And, that is a very lousy feeling. I wrote a short note to sister what had happened to the one and the response of the many. I didn’t get feedback yet from her at her level. I’m sure I will hear that further down the line. Because at our center … the boss hears all the problems. It’s just that kind of funnel organization.

So, I gotta get over it. I’m feeling very bad that I’m 47 years old and we don’t present better than we do. I look at our friend and Sr. and there is no doubt that if they said something, everyone would listen to them, because of “who” they are. I don’t always know “who” I am. I think that we are doing a good job of conveying information, but I have to take responsibility for not knowing that the new staff was going to jump ship. I should have somehow checked her out more carefully in that … was she getting the proper lesson as we were going along. I waited until the end and by that time she was pretty freaked. She kept saying this is like being back at school again, and I’m not going through that! I’ll have to talk to Sr. about that. There’s know doubt she’s been informed about how easy it is to run to sister, so that their problems emotionally, become my problems in teaching. I could figure that out without having to now defend myself against the boss. Somehow I have to be strong enough to not worrying about defense and worrying about the whole. I need to approach this all differently. This week I was making sure I had no personal messages. I was going to be more business-like. I think the personal helps to express more comfort, but the staff have always been resistant to learning … especially, the Spanish-speaking portion. All of them have no problem speaking English all but one DSP has finished school and the one without has 10 years practice with the job.

I think somehow we’ve got to be able to convey it is ok to learn. I think we’d gotten to that point previously, but now we have this newer staff and the one before her who is relatively new too. It’s been built up at the center that I am very smart. This doesn’t help. At work I treat everyone with respect for the people they are doing tough jobs. It’s not easy to be with the clients day in and day out. But, they have to stop balking when we try to relay the differences in what we know and they know … because CARF is going to want to know if they are as involved as they should be in what happens around the center. I come in with expert knowledge because so much of the program is what we designed, but they don’t want to think hard or be challenged. They say they want to know more, but when you tell them more … they get freaked out. I’m pretty sure this is just our viewpoint, but I know that I have to figure out a better way, because I want them to be involved more because then they are better assets to the organization.

I also have to worry, because we’re losing our wonderful new Q who’s gone through a years’ training with us. When sister presented her with a caseload, she thought (wrote to sister) that her workload was being doubled, but there wasn’t enough money to go with it. Sister had given her a 70-75 cent raise which meant $1,400-$1,500 more, but she was looking at getting $3,000-4,000 more. Sister has never given that kind of raise before and told her quite plainly that it would not be fair to the Q’s ahead of her. I think in some ways sister is saying that to make sure the other Q and us don’t bolt, but we tried to reassure sister that even with education, we weren’t planning on going anywhere – as long as the sisters would have us. A boss has to hear this kind of thing sometime. And, in my heart I believe my stick-to-it-ness to be very strong. I think the hardest part we would have is not being lost to another program, but not taking a second look if we could be hired by a University. But, I am SOOOO far from believing that’s not going to happen anytime soon, we’ll just mosey on down the path. Sister is also stiring up water with us and I’m sure the other Q, in that the new Q isn’t as worthy as she thinks she is. I’ve got some opinion on that too.

I think the new Q is very smart and she’s been able to learn everything we’ve given her with minimal effort. She’s shown that she can be responsible, she is quite efficient, and other than the fact she loses time with her mother and sometimes sister who is younger and gets brought to work, AND beside the fact that she’s on the phone with her boyfriend every hour or two … and beside the fact she can get emotional and go home crying, well beside all that she is very business-like and professional.

D_)(* Just bathed myself in coffee. That wasn’t too smart OR Professional! Yeeks. Anyway … this above is part of the process of losing people. You try to minimalized their importance to the agency. All of these things are true, but were certainly worth ignoring, because when the new Q is working … she’s very good at what she is doing. I think the hardest part of her job was in learning to do goals … She still cannot do, or I should say has not done a goal setting all the way through, but she is close and I believe with practice would be able to complete this. I worry because she was leaning toward the easier path, which was taught to her by the other Q. The other Q. only has a handful of goals so that six of her people in the same group could all be counting money, or writing single sentences. When the new Q. told me she had that preference a little part of me died. Because I felt that if left on her own, would she revert to an easier route.

However, the new Q did so much, so well. I’m not saying that she really, beside the goals got into the thinking hard part, but she learned the simple things around annuals. It wasn’t a hard task to observe and type it up, nor was it a hard job to summarize the goals written from the perspective of a DSP, and it isn’t hard to talk to a parent during a meeting, although, it can be. These are the things she’s learned. But, she hasn’t learned that taking care of clients is only one part of the job. She’s been there for about 15 months and hasn’t stood up in front of clients either in a small group or large group. She hasn’t had to do home base or client billing like the other Q, nor could she teach the DSPs, or certainly mastermind the programs development or CARF accreditation. She hadn’t even sat in on her first administration meeting. She has no idea or interest what is happening with the business of the center. She’s not taken a part. But, she was still thinking she was worthy of a $3-4,000 raise. The reason she gave sister was because she has bills to pay (she’s just moved out with her boyfriend), not because of what she can or cannot do for the center. It’s always been understood by the other Q and us that doing the client load was like a 1/4th of what we do for the agency. As much as I love the new Q and I do, I think she is erring in that she most likely took the view of someone who is young and generally undexperienced and that of her boyfriend who has not long arrived from living in a different country. The point that makes me very angry in all that. Is that the boyfriend is an un-educated illegal alien and is depending on his girl friend to bring in enough money so that the two of them can have their own apartment and cars. We have to say if that’s how the new Q wants to do anything fine! Her life … but in the process we feel used.

She knew of the pay-scale when she started. I feel she knew all along that she needed the training, but that she was going to move on for more money. To me that is use and abuse of the system. I feel especially bad in that it was me who did the training. The thing is though that she was the best student I’d ever had. It hurts because I think she has figured in her life she has learned as much from me as she wants to know. She capped-our relationship and it hurts some. I think if she works on it she’ll find a company that wants to pay her a couple of thousand a year more, but I think it’s a bad move. How much is $2,000 to say it’s going to make or break any deal. Sister was willing to pay her 65% of what she pays me. I think that’s fair enough. I don’t think this person would have the fortitude to take on something that is really hard like CARF. I think she’s also bothered by being an administrator, so being that much above her peers and her mother, who holds the bottom-of-the-rung job at the center. That part hasn’t’ been spoken of, but I’m willing to bet that plays a difference.

We did speak to the mother this week. Since her daughter has been hired first part-time then full-time since July, the mother usually only talks to us when she has business with us. She used to be more a friend. I still think she’s a friend, but its been a strain on the relationship to know how lowly you can be in comparison of the relationship with the daughter. It’s kind of a matter of when she used to come back to the desk, she would stick her head in the door and just say hello. Now, she only goes as far as the daughter, and she doesn’t stick her head in the door to say hello. And, I know she holds a lot of conversations with the other DSPs and I’m paranoid enough to think that I come up. So be it. It’s the load I took on. As my friend says, it doesn’t matter because you are management now and have to have a tougher hide. So, we’re working on it. Especially in this process of letting us go of the new Q. Because I’m going to miss her like the dickens. If she wants to work for money go for it. I’m sure I could find more than the center pays too, but that’s not my point. I think the young woman has a right to grow elsewhere, and I think she’ll get somewhat involved in whichever company next takes her. Her mother has worked at the center 10 years and doing so the center has been apart of the new Q’s life, but she is willing to give that up. Would she always only be loyal to the company that paid her the best salary? That just doesn’t make sense to me, but I could see it making sense to a lot of people. Just not me.

It’s kind of hard, because I think that there’s more going on with this change than just a young Q leaving. There’s something that goes on of all who are left behind when someone leaves. People question why they are still here, and I really think the bosses go through a period of not knowing what’s going to happen with the rest of her staff. I think that was hard pressed this week. The boss spent some good time making sure that I stayed on the right page with it. I’d like to believe though it was just because I’ve been the staff trainer that she’s shared so much information on the other leaving. I have no doubt though that she’s done the same with the other Q. The other Q, must be as freaked as I am in getting the extra work load back. I did ask sister this week, if we weren’t still going to hire another Q. Sister had strong doubts, because she’s worried about having to pay an extra $70,000 dollars out of the budget for new the clients’ transportation. The State has changed the rules and out of the same money it gives before wants the centers to take on transportation cost. That’s something that could bust an agency. I think the only way sister is going to do it is to get a couple of drivers to pick up and drop off clients from the vans we already have. If between two part-time drivers and gas that cost $70,000, I really would be in the wrong job.

The one conversation that didn’t come up was me now being considered anything more than a Q. For the most part my being a Program Director. I will still have the work of a program director without the title, and I will still have to do the Q work of having a caseload. Plus, I will not be given the 6% raise that sister was willing to pay the new Q … to do ¼ of my job. That all makes me pretty angry. And, because sister knows my loyalty, she can be pretty sure I won’t jump ship, even though in a sense it is like being demoted. There will be a competition for my hours put into everything I do … like for example what will have 4-6 hours less a week as I prepare and teach this the four groups and their teachers about boundaries? No responsibilities were taken away from me, I gained no title, or pay, I lost my assistance, while being expected to do more. Something has to give here. I don’t know … I think I have to talk to somebody about this. We’ll try our friend first, and then we’ll go back to sister. I think that $25,000-28,000 was budgeted for help, we should expect to at least get someone else in to replace the one that is going.

I’m not going into what the clients think about losing another staff member. I think there are only 5 that concern me. The new Q was working individually with 5 people from the first group, because their staff couldn’t give them enough attention. What are sister’s options … either the goals get simplified beyond my horror with a staff coming in only part-time who says she’s overwhelmed, or I get that job too? I don’t know. Sister this last week kept saying when are you going to be done with CARF because there are other things to do. I will never be done with CARF. That is a lousy way to think of it … because CARF is supposed to be a way of our life and the way we do everything. It’s not a luxury it’s a necessity.

Oh man … now we’re beginning to feel like we’re the one’s overwhelmed. It’s just that this one change affects so many things. If there is nothing else I know … it’s the lesson learned on not getting behind with the Qnotes and annuals, but those tasks are more uninteresting and dominating of time than anything else. I want to be learning, not just completing routines. I know somehow I’m going to need making all of that seem more important, but I’m just tired of it. I wanted to think other thoughts.

I don’t mind as much taking on the new program, but its not going to be the same as creating a program. Maybe I’m not there yet, and there will be plenty to do learning this new thing, so perhaps maybe instead of spinning my wheels, I should be learning how to do that program more effectively. I know also I have school. We are on the chapter that most likely will be my favorite chapter of all because it has to do with self-systems and that’s the thing out of educational psychology I like more than anything else. But, I haven’t finished reading, my day is slipping past, I have two papers to write and the teacher I believe will be very strict … she’s planning on taking down the classroom I believe by Tuesday.

So maybe I’ve come to a point of crossing over? I need to do that work as much or maybe more importantly than anything else right now. But, I very much hold my sanity in check with my blog writing, in that it helps me clarify what’s happened and what I want to do. In getting back to the point of adding a program this next upcoming week, I have think that maybe whatever I am learning about is going to be what helps me get through whatever it is that I need to be learning. Sister still doesn’t know I’ve returned to school and I’m thinking she would have my hide if she knew. But, inside me I know there’s something that wants to be learning, just I resist too I think. I think it’s because learning is harder, not after you get going, but in the part of getting there. I have to incorporate that in my thoughts of DSP training. Looking now at my text book, I realize that there are 20 pages left of the chapter and I have to make a choice to read it, or try to do the work without it. I am also going to need reading something from the library as an article. Maybe I could do something there … hold on.

Hmm, doesn’t look like we got that far. Better, read what is due a little better than we have … hold one more moment please. Ok, this is what we got to do … and basically it should all be done by tomorrow … plus we need to go to school and check out a few things … and make some comments. Better do that right away … here … you catch up on our assignment list and we’ll meet below in about a half hour. It is about 2 now … so, lets pay attention to that clock! Ok, go!

Learning Activities
u03s1 Reading

Read Chapter 3, "The Social Self," in your textbook.

u03s2 Research Article

Locate and read one research article related to self-esteem or self-concept that is relevant to this unit. It may be published in a professional journal of your choice. Find an article no older than 1990. Incorporate the article you located into your response for one of the discussions.

u03a1 Project – Topic Selection

In this assignment, you will select the topic for your research paper project.
Instructions:

1. In a separate document, describe the project or paper you intend to write for the course. Briefly present your ideas of the point to be developed. This description should be brief but specific enough to let the instructor assess the acceptability of the project.
2. Optional—Contact your instructor if you are having problems. What (if any) problems are you encountering in finding the information you need? How can your instructor be of assistance?
3. Attach your document to this assignment.

When you complete this assignment, click Submit.

u03d1 Differences :

For this activity, you will locate an article on the Internet and discuss it and the text readings from this unit.

Instructions:

1. Incorporate the article you located in Study u03s2 into your response to this discussion or Discussion u03s2, and list the full citation for the article.
2. Remember to cite information from the text readings as appropriate.
3. Compare theories of self-concept, self-esteem, and self-presentation. How could you apply these concepts in your profession?

u03d2 Self-esteem :

For this activity, you will locate an article on the Internet and discuss it and the text readings from this unit.

Instructions:

1. Incorporate the article you located in study activity u03s2 into your response to this discussion or Discussion u03s1, and list the full citation for the article.
2. Your text discusses a number of factors that are related to self-esteem. Critically analyze how gender, race, and culture are related to self-esteem.

Hmm, ok can I say one thing here? Somehow we got a whole lot of papers collected in our email about social comparison theory, what happened there and what are we going to do about it … if we could use those papers, it would save us a lot of work looking for something. BUT, I don’t have a clue as to what held all those papers together, and even if I did it would be using old homework, which is against the rules. I think I’m ok using the articles though, because we never wrote the paper or wrote anything about these articles. We are still going to have to come up with a paper idea on what to write the Final paper on.

Seems like there are 36 articles. Pretty sure we don’t need that many … I wonder what they are all about … I know social comparison, but what held them together. Maybe we better do some scouting. Think we’re going to do some gathering of information. How much will be enough. I’d like to do enough to do the references, but that’s a lot of excess info to siphon through. Maybe I should just make a reference for each and attach to abstract. I still need to do some work with APA formatting, because I’m unsure anymore how to reference things. Let me check that first.

Ok, I got the right one … electronic copy of a journal article, three to five authors, retrieved from database. Solid!!!

Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., Oppler, S. H., & White, L. A. (1993). Role of early supervisory experience in supervisor performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 443-449. Retrieved October 23, 20000, from the PsycARTICLES database.

Ok, we’re going to go on from there. I think we have to chose one of these articles to be our main one and that has to get discussed in both assignments, now as to the assignment … think here … I only have to:

1) describe my final paper
a. brief, but enough to let instructor assess the acceptability of project
2) briefly present my ideas of the point to be developed

Let’s look at this briefly without all the references to make it faster. I’m thinking after doing about five that my interests had to do with learning goals and social comparison.

1) This study used a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experiment to
examine student satisfaction with eight processes of collecting student
ratings of instruction by varying (a) method (group interviews vs.
individual standardized rating forms), (b) timing (midterm vs. end of
course), and (c) amount of instructor reaction to student ratings
(restricted vs. extended). Consistent with predictions drawn from
reactance and social comparison theories, students were more satisfied
with interview methods at midterm followed by extended instructor
reaction than with traditional approaches for collecting student
opinions about instruction (i.e., standardized rating forms administered
at the end of a course).

2) Pass … not a study

3) Research on social comparison processes has assumed that
a comparison in a given direction (upward or downward) will lead to a
particular affective reaction. In contrast, the present two studies
proposed and found that a comparison can produce either positive or
negative feelings about oneself, independent of its direction. Several
factors moderated the tendency to derive positive or negative affect
from upward and downward comparisons. In Study 1, cancer patients low in
self-esteem and with low perceived control over their symptoms and
illness were more likely to see downward comparisons as having negative
implications for themselves. Those low in self-esteem were also more
likely to perceive upward comparisons as negative. In Study 2,
individuals with high marital dissatisfaction and those who felt
uncertain about their marital relationship were more likely to
experience negative affect from upward and downward comparisons. The
implications of these findings for social comparison theory and for the
coping and adaptation literature are discussed.

4) Integrating developments in social comparison and
achievement theories suggested that ability goals will promote
ability-appraisal and self-serving functions of social comparison and
that mastery goals will enhance interest in social comparisons that can
promote learning. A novel design let Ss choose between different kinds
of social information. Seventy-eight Israeli 6th graders performed a
task in a mastery or ability goal condition and then examined tables
providing social information relevant 1) to learning about the task, 2) to
normative ability assessment, or 3) to identifying their personal style. As
predicted, mastery Ss spent longer at the task table than ability Ss,
who spent longer at the normative table, especially if they had
performed well. Goal conditions also affected relations between time at
the normative table and perceived competence and interest in the task.
Implications of this framework and methodology for social comparison
theory are discussed.

5) This study examined the emotional similarity
hypothesis—a derivation from social comparison theory, which predicts
that increasing fear should lead to greater affiliation with someone who
is awaiting the same threat (and who therefore is of relatively similar
emotional status) relative to someone who has already experienced the
threat (and who therefore is of relatively dissimilar emotional status).
The results failed to support the emotional similarity hypothesis and in
so doing challenged the importance of emotional comparison as a
determinant of verbal affiliation under threat. Cognitive clarity
concerns instead seemed to account better for the observed effects on
verbal affiliation. Supplementary analyses of nonverbal affiliation
(facial glances) likewise ran counter to an emotional similarity
prediction. Effects of affiliation on anxiety were also examined.
Previous conclusions regarding the pattern and causes of affiliation
under threat that have relied on the affiliate-choice paradigm are
considered.

6) Although the hypothesis that people will alter
comparison behavior in response to threat is consistent with the
formulation of social comparison theory, the empirical evidence for the
natural occurrence of such shifts is weak. Two studies were conducted to
examine this hypothesis. In the first study, adolescents' perceptions
were assessed before, during, and 6 months after their participation in
an academic program for gifted students. Male students who performed
poorly, and also worse than they had expected in the program,
demonstrated self-protective “strategies” by lowering the amount and
level of academic comparison they reported engaging in and by lowering
their perception of the importance of academics. Female students, who
generally performed as well as expected, reported relatively little
change. By follow-up, most of the male students' perceptions had
returned to baseline. A second study found that both male and female
college students who thought they had performed poorly academically also
demonstrated these shifts in comparison. Motivations behind the
strategies are discussed

7) Two studies (331 children ages 9–11) examined the
proposal that the functions served by children's attention to peers'
work differ both in their informational focus (whether children seek
information either to improve their products or to evaluate their
ability) and in their goal focus (whether information seeking serves
either mastery or performance achievement strivings). In both studies
responses to a self-report measure of reasons for looking at peers' work
supported this hypothesis. Study 2 also examined the effect of a mastery
versus a performance goal condition on reasons for looking at peers'
work, subsequent information seeking, and interest in the task. Goal
condition affected goal, but not informational, functions of looking at
peers' work. Both goal condition and individual differences in
endorsement of mastery versus performance reasons predicted later
information seeking and interest. Implications for social comparison
theory and for classroom learning and motivation are discussed.

8) Female participants were exposed to high or low threat
in the presence of another person believed to be facing either the same
or a different situation. In Study 1, each dyad consisted of 2 actual
participants, whereas in Study 2, each dyad consisted of 1 participant
and 1 confederate, trained to convey either a calm or a nervous reaction
to the situation. Affiliation patterns in both studies, defined in terms
of the amount of time spent looking at the affiliate, were consistent
with S. Schachter's (1959) “emotional similarity hypothesis”; threat
increased affiliation and did so particularly with affiliates believed
to be facing the same situation. The authors also found evidence of
behavioral mimicry, in terms of facial expressions, and emotional
contagion, in terms of self-reported anxiety. The behavioral mimicry and
emotional contagion results are considered from both primitive emotional
contagion and social comparison theory perspectives.

9) Three studies examined affective, self-evaluative, and
behavioral responses to objective and social comparison information. In
the first study, 437 male and female college undergraduates imagined
they had a 30% or 60% risk of experiencing a negative event and that the
average person's risk was higher or lower. All types of responses were
sensitive to relative but not absolute risk. In the second study, 60
male and female college undergraduates learned that they scored 40% or
60% on a task and that this score was above or below average. Subsequent
behaviors whose outcomes depended largely on objective ability still
reflected attention to relative standing. This effect of comparative
feedback was shown to be mediated by changes in self-evaluation. A
third, follow-up study demonstrated that attention to comparative
feedback (in the context of objective information) hinges on its
desirability. Implications for social comparison theory are discussed.

10) Social comparison theory has linked improved performance
to both the tendency to compare with others who are performing well and
the tendency to view the self as better than others. However, little
research has investigated the effects of either variable outside of a
controlled laboratory environment. Moreover, there is reason to believe
that the 2 tendencies would be in opposition to one another, because
people who compare upward might subsequently view themselves as
relatively less competent. The results of a longitudinal study of 876
students in their 1st year of secondary education indicated that both
variables independently predicted improved academic performance and that
these 2 tendencies did not conflict.

11) More Americans try to change their health behaviors
through self-help than through all other forms of professionally
designed programs. Mutual support groups, involving little or no cost to
participants, have a powerful effect on mental and physical health, yet
little is known about patterns of support group participation in health
care. What kinds of illness experiences prompt patients to seek each
other's company? In an effort to observe social comparison processes
with real-world relevance, support group participation was measured for
20 disease categories in 4 metropolitan areas (New York, Chicago, Los
Angeles, and Dallas) and on 2 on-line forums. Support seeking was
highest for diseases viewed as stigmatizing (e.g., AIDS, alcoholism,
breast and prostate cancer) and was lowest for less embarrassing but
equally devastating disorders, such as heart disease. The authors
discuss implications for social comparison theory and its applications
in health care.

12) Field research of this kind has the potential to develop
theory about coping and treatment processes. We discuss theoretical
concepts from social support research, social comparison theory, and
emotional processing models, which can help to understand what is
happening in group-based interventions and to plan interventions that
address the interface between socially supportive processes and
individual differences in anxiety reactions. We discuss methodological
approaches that can be used to assess how treatment effects are mediated
and suggest settings where controlled evaluations are possible. Such
research can enrich theory about group processes and build the
effectiveness of group-based interventions.

13) Although often credited with prompting a paradigm shift
in social comparison theory, T. A. Wills's (1981) downward comparison
(DC) theory has received some criticism recently. In particular, several
recent studies have failed to find support for T. A. Wills's (1981)
contention that threat and accompanying negative affect lead to a desire
for DC. These apparent failures have led some investigators to question
basic principles of the theory. To resolve this controversy, 5 studies
were conducted examining preferred comparison level (PCL) after
performance; 4 of the studies also assessed change in this preference.
Results supported DC theory, but with modifications. Specifically,
individuals who performed poorly lowered their PCLs. Under some
circumstances, this“downward shift” included an increased interest
in“true” DC—comparing with worse-off others. A reconciliation of these
results with those of previous studies is offered.

14) The relationship between perceived discrimination and
psychological distress was investigated within a social comparison
theory framework. Predictions of a variant of social comparison
theory—relative deprivation theory—as well as predictions from the
stress-buffering literature pertaining to the moderating effects of
self-esteem were tested using samples primarily composed of European
American women. Results regarding the theorized self-protecting roles of
personal self-esteem (Study 1) and collective self-esteem (Study 2)
indicated mixed support for personal self-esteem and consistent support
for collective self-esteem as moderators of the discrimination–distress
relationship. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for
theory, practice, and research pertaining to the impact of
discrimination and social stigma.

15) Social comparison theory maintains that people think
about themselves compared with similar others. Those in one culture,
then, compare themselves with different others and standards than do
those in another culture, thus potentially confounding cross-cultural
comparisons. A pilot study and Study 1 demonstrated the problematic
nature of this reference-group effect: Whereas cultural experts agreed
that East Asians are more collectivistic than North Americans,
cross-cultural comparisons of trait and attitude measures failed to
reveal such a pattern. Study 2 found that manipulating reference groups
enhanced the expected cultural differences, and Study 3 revealed that
people from different cultural backgrounds within the same country
exhibited larger differences than did people from different countries.
Cross-cultural comparisons using subjective Likert scales are
compromised because of different reference groups. Possible solutions
are discussed.

16) Skip couldn’t open

17) Academically selective schools are intended to affect
academic self-concept positively, but theoretical and empirical research
demonstrates that the effects are negative. The big-fish—little-pond
effect (BFLPE), an application of social comparison theory to
educational settings, posits that a student will have a lower academic
self-concept in an academically selective school than in a nonselective
school. This study, the largest cross-cultural study of the BFLPE ever
undertaken, tested theoretical predictions for nationally representative
samples of approximately 4,000 15-year-olds from each of 26 countries (N
= 103,558) who completed the same self-concept instrument and
achievement tests. Consistent with the BFLPE, the effects of
school-average achievement were negative in all 26 countries (M beta =
−.20, SD =.08), demonstrating the BFLPE's cross-cultural
generalizability.

18) Self-enhancement bias has been studied from 2
perspectives: L. Festinger's (1954) social comparison theory
(self-enhancers perceive themselves more positively than they perceive
others) and G. W. Allport's (1937) self-insight theory (self-enhancers
perceive themselves more positively than they are perceived by others).
These 2 perspectives are theoretically and empirically distinct, and the
failure to recognize their differences has led to a protracted debate. A
new interpersonal approach to self-enhancement decomposes
self-perception into 3 components: perceiver effect, target effect, and
unique self-perception. Both theoretical derivations and an illustrative
study suggest that this resulting measure of self-enhancement is less
confounded by unwanted components of interpersonal perception than
previous social comparison and self-insight measures. Findings help
reconcile conflicting views about whether self-enhancement is adaptive
or maladaptive.

19) The internal/external frame of reference (I/E) model
explains a seemingly paradoxical pattern of relations between math and
verbal self-concepts and corresponding measures of achievement, extends
social comparison theory, and has important educational implications. In
a cross-cultural study of nationally representative samples of
15-year-olds from 26 countries (total N = 55,577), I/E predictions were
supported in that (a) math and verbal achievements were highly
correlated, but math and verbal self-concepts were nearly uncorrelated;
(b) math achievement had positive effects on math self-concept, but
negative effects on verbal self-concept; and (c) verbal achievement had
positive effects on verbal self-concept, but negative effects on math
self-concept. Supporting the cross-cultural generalizability of
predictions, multigroup structural equation models demonstrated good
support for the generalizability of results across 26 countries
participating in the Programme for International Student Assessment
project sponsored by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.

20) The affiliation preferences of 151 adult heavy smokers
who joined smoking cessation groups were assessed at the 1st group
session and were then used to predict their smoking status 6 and 12
months later. Those who preferred to be in groups with other smokers who
were having relatively little trouble quitting were more likely to be
successful than were those who preferred others who were having more
difficulty quitting. This prospective effect was mediated by
psychological distancing from the image of the typical smoker:
Preference for others who were doing well was associated with a decrease
in perceived similarity to the typical smoker, which, in turn, was
associated with successful cessation. Implications of these findings for
cessation groups and social comparison theory are discussed.

21) Two studies were conducted to investigate men's drive
for muscularity. Study 1 explored the relationship between sociocultural
factors and social comparison and participants' scores on the Drive for
Muscularity Attitudes Questionnaire. Men's exposure to idealized media
images of the male body and self-reported comparisons to universalistic
targets correlated positively with the intensity of their drive for
muscularity. Study 2 examined men's beliefs about the drive for
muscularity using a qualitative methodology. Results indicated that a
number of factors, in addition to those investigated by sociocultural
and social comparison theories, may contribute to men's desire to become
more muscular. These factors include the perceived social and physical
benefits of muscularity. The implications of the current research and
avenues for future inquiry are outlined.

22) The authors investigated why people change power
distributions. Social comparison theory predicts that people strive to
be positively distinct in power from comparison others. However, if
equal-power others are categorized as in-group members and
different-power others as out-group members, people may try to make
their group more powerful than the out-group. Seventy participants
performed a decision-making task in a hierarchical structure. Another
person had equal or more power; a third had equal or less power than the
participant. Participants indicated they shared group membership more
with equal-power than unequal-power others. However, power differences
increased more with equally than with less powerful others. Thus, group
differentiation does not necessarily suppress interpersonal comparison
and involves striving for interpersonal positive distinctiveness.

Oh man … I’m like fried. It’s almost now 8 pm and I’ve been looking too long at something too narrow in scope … I cannot think any more … my thoughts are all impeding on one another and I can’t tie together the beginning of one sentence to the end of that sentence. I think, we’re going to call it a day and head toward bed. Maybe we can think more clearly in the morning.

I am so disappointed with myself for inability to finish a project considering the whole day put into things.

This is my notes as to where the above 22 statements has left me. I end in amuck. I’m not going to get down though, please??!! It’s just been a long day and we are caught up in our detail-mindedness. Maybe we can think more clearly if we just go to bed for now. This is where we are leaving it.

Describe the paper and the ideas that we are going to develop - Our paper is going to be about the up and downs of social comparison

Students were more satisfied with collecting group information during mid-term and the discussion is more than less in quantity.

Two studies found that regardless of upward or downward comparison Subjects could have either positive or negative feelings (independent of direction)

Cognitive clarity rather than fear lead to greater verbal affiliation in comparing socially with someone in a similar circumstance

Study found that the hypothesis that people will alter comparison behavior in response to threat was weak. Subjects lowered level of academic comparison by lowering perception of the importance of academics. Females equaled out

In relation to threat this second study found that subjects affiliation did correspond to them finding themselves aligned to similar others AND that self-reported anxiety carried over to facial expressions and emotional contagion

Children comparing socially differ in 1) informational focus = a) improve their products, b) evaluate their ability, and 2) goal focus = a) serve mastery strivings, b) performance achievement strivings

Ability goals = 1) promotion of ability-appraisal, 2) self-serving functions of social comparison
Mastery goals = 1) enhanced interest in social comparison and having said that social comparison may promote learning

Conjunction of both last two studies … Social comparison(attention to peers) changes in either promoting learning (mastery strivings leading to mastery goals), or information focus (ability goals promote self-appraisal and evaluation).

Objective ability reflected attention to relative standing and attention paid to comparative feedback hinged on desirability (whether or not you liked what you were hearing)

Next study found comparison up or down was irrelevant to the findings

Stigmatizing (sex and alcohol) affects lead to more support seeking than non stigmatizing affects (heart disease)

People who performed poorly were more likely to compare downward than people who felt threatened (and its corresponding negative affects)

Collective self-esteem was a moderator of the discrimination-distress relationship (mixes support for personal self-esteem - averaging)

There are more differences within cultures then between cultures in examining people thinking about themselves compared to others

Students from academically selective schools (big fish in little pond)had lower academic self-concepts than in public schools (little fish in big pond) who had higher academic self-concepts

Social comparison theory = Self-enhancers 1) perceive self as more positive than they perceive others (looking down at others); self-insight theory = Self-enhancers 2) perceive self as more positive than others perceive them (others looking down at them); New theory = decomposing self-perceptions into 1) perceiver effect, 2) target effect, 3) unique self-perception

People were correlated as to math and verbal achievement, but math achievement had positive effect on math self-concept/negative verbal self-concept; verbal achievement had positive effect on verbal self-concept/negative math self-concept (student assessment - cross cultural)

People who were quitting smoking did better by comparing self to were quitting than when comparing self to other typical smokers (people who had not quit) - case of social comparison upward

The more a male compared himself favorable to media images of muscularity the more intense their drive and also compared their belief about their drive

The intensity of drive and the belief about one's drive related positively to media representation of masculinity

Group differences do not necessarily suppress interpersonal comparison and involves striving for interpersonal positive distinctiveness. (better or more unique than others) - it seems more important to be unique within group than is important for your group to be better than other … or better to be big fish in little pond than be a little fish in bigger pond

Ok, this is like then a warm-up of having gotten about this far.

In combining social comparison and self-insight: We consider as an individual, "I might feel myself as positively higher than an other; though "they" as others might perceive me negatively lower than its collective selves." In a sense nobody meets the mark, though we can privately think we have. It seems if you claim to be a big fish, larger fish can and will come by to eat you. If you can lay low as if you were a little fish, bigger fish may leave you alone - perhaps even, because there are bigger fish to fry. It seems there is almost more independence being a small fish from a large pond. Small ponds can be tough on the big fishes. Case in point … we considered Tom Cruise's audaciousness of jumping on Oprah's couch. Both Oprah and Cruz are bigger fish in a small super-star pond. Oprah obviously though was the bigger fish, and the couch represents the smaller pond where all the big fishes meet. Plus, collectively, we all know its wrong to jump on furniture. Although we state it is critical to stand independently as individuals and mavericks, we also stand for democracy, which is rule of the majority. The majority will follow a leader, but it's not a good idea for any big fish to think him or herself over-sized. For example, maintaining the story-line of Oprah, she is now a small tadpole in another realm, in that she's turned toward personally providing a school for young girls in Johannesburg, South Africa, fulfilling a promise she made to Nelson Mandela.

In social comparison the relevance of being the big or little fish

1. More satisfied with collectivist approach (1)
2. Males comparing themselves to media images of masculinity showed themselves more intense in their physical fitness drive (21)
3. Smokers did better in comparing self higher (upward) to people who had quit, compared to when comparing self to typical smokers (20)
4. Comparing up or down irrelevant in the study (10)
5. Can have positive or negative feelings about self in either direction (3)
6. Your relative standing affected your objective ability and comparative feedback from others hinged on whether or not you were satisfied with what you were hearing (9)
7. In a discrimination-distress relationship you are more likely to find self-esteem from a collective group identity (14)
8. The more stigmatizing the more support you might seek (11)
9. Social comparison with threat …
a. Affiliated more with others being threatened (8)
i. Compared facial expressions
ii. Compared emotional contagion
b. Cognitive clarity better predictor than fear threat (5)
c. Being big fish in a little pond led to lower self-concepts, than being little fish in a large pond (higher self-concept) (17)
i. Perhaps because it is threatening to be the big fish.
d. Lowered comparison effect by devaluing perception of pond (academic threat) (6)
e. Affiliated less with others when threatened (5)
f. More likely to compare downward if you had performed poorly (more so than if you were threatened) (13)
10. New theory = decomposing self-perceptions into (18)
a. 1) perceiver effect,
b. 2) target effect,
c. 3) unique self-perception
11. Social comparison changes when (4 & 7)
a. Promote learning (mastery strivings lead to mastery goals
b. Promote self-appraisal and self-evaluation (information focus)
12. Achievement had an affect on self-concept, but only on the domain it concerned (19)
13. More difference within groups than between groups (15)
14. It appears to be more important to strive toward interpersonal positive distinctiveness more than mitigate group differences (22)

posted by Ann Marie @ 1/27/2007 07:57:00 PM Comments: 0