Abstract
The present paper examined the preferences of below average performers for opponents. In Experiment 1, subjects solved maze problems and were subsequently given feedback indicating they had below average ability. They were then asked to indicate their preferences for above average, average, or below average others as opponents for a subsequent competitive interaction. Results indicated that below average subjects preferred below average and average persons equally as opponents. Supplementary data suggested that below average subjects may be assuming that they will improve on later trials and thus be able to succeed against average-ability opponents. Experiment 2 offered further evidence in support of this notion. The results suggest that the similarity hypothesis may not apply to those cases where it is in the individual’ s self interest to believe he will improve. The implications of the results for competition and social comparison are discussed
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Festinger, L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 1954, 7, 117–140.
Hoffman, P. J., Festinger, L., & Lawrence, D. H. Tendencies toward group comparison in competitive bargaining. Human Relations, 1954, 7, 151–159.
Martens, R., & White, V. Influence of win-loss ratio on performance, satisfaction and preference for opponents. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1975, 11, 343–362.
Miller, R. L., & Suls, J. M. Affiliation preferences as a function of attitude and ability similarity. In J. M. Suls & R. L. Miller(Eds.), Social comparison processes. Washington, D.C: Hemisphere/Halsted, 1977.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The authors express their gratitude to Robert Anello, Paul Sommer, Robert Woolf, and Mark Reader, who aided in the collection of the data
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gastorf, J., Suls, J. & Lawhon, J. Opponent choices of below average performers. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 12, 217–220 (1978). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03329675
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03329675