BEING BETTER THAN SOME BUT NOT BETTER THAN AVERAGE - SELF-ENHANCING COMPARISONS IN AEROBICS

This field study examined social comparison processes in experimentall y created aerobics classes in which performance standards were either uniformly high or low or were mixed. Our general hypothesis was that s tudents of a low-aerobics standard participating in a class dominated by high-performing students would seek to make self-enhancing comparis ons to protect their self-esteem. Given the class composition, however , it was expected they would engage in downward comparison with a spec ific other ('better than some') rather than with a generalized other ( 'better than average'). Consistent with expectations, evidence was fou nd 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 performi ng worse. In contrast to other student groups, however, they rated the ir performance to be worse than average. These findings suggest that p eople's choice between different self-enhancing comparison strategies may depend upon opportunities provided by the social comparison contex t.