Lonely but not alone
By Prof
Dr Sohail Ansari “The
Messenger of Allah (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) has said:
“Whenever the waves of calamities encompass you like the dark night, seek
refuge with the Qur’an - for it is an intercessor whose intercession will be
accepted. One who takes it as a guide, Allah will lead that person into Heaven;
and whoever disregards it or goes against it, will be lead into the Hell fire.” Fadhlul
Qur’an, Page 599
Alone but not lonely
·
You
can be lonely but not alone and alone but not lonely; but if alone you become
lonely or if lonely you become alone; then you are happy if people are with you
and people are with you if you are happy.
Individualization may refer to
·
the development of
individual traits
·
a central concept in
the philosophy of C. G. Jung on personal development, under the term individuation.
·
in sociology and
political theory, a process towards individualism (so in Hans T. Blokland, Georg Simmel, Ferdinand Tönnies)
·
in recent sociology (Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim, Zygmunt Bauman) the consequence of social changes in late modernity, in which individuals are
increasingly required to construct their own lives.
Social identity is a person's
sense of who they are based on their group membership(s). Tajfel (1979)
proposed that the groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.)
which people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem.
Social comparison theory, initially proposed by social psychologistLeon Festinger in 1954,[1] centers on the belief that there is a
drive within individuals to gain accurate self-evaluations. The theory explains
how individuals evaluate their own opinions and abilities by comparing
themselves to others in order to reduce uncertainty in these domains, and learn
how to define the self.
Following the initial theory, research began to focus on social
comparison as a way of self-enhancement,[2][3] introducing the concepts of downward
and upward comparisons and expanding the motivations of social comparisons.[4]
Initial framework[edit]
In the initial theory, Festinger provided nine main hypotheses.
First, he stated that humans have a basic drive to evaluate their opinions and
abilities and that people evaluate themselves through objective, nonsocial
means (Hypothesis I).[1] Second, Festinger stated that if
objective, nonsocial means were not available, that people evaluate their
opinions and abilities by comparison to other people (Hypothesis II).[1] Next, he hypothesized that the
tendency to compare oneself to another person decreases as the difference
between their opinions and abilities becomes more divergent.[1] In other words, if someone is much
different from you, you are less likely to compare yourself to that person
(Hypothesis III). He next hypothesized that there is a unidirectional drive
upward in the case of abilities, which is largely absent in opinions.[1] This drive refers to the value that is
placed on doing better and better.[5] (Hypothesis IV). Next, Festinger
hypothesizes that there are non-social restraints that make it difficult or
even impossible to change one's ability and these restraints are largely absent
for opinions.[1] In other words, people can change
their opinions when they want to but no matter how motivated individuals may be
to improve their ability, there may be other elements that make this impossible[5] (Hypothesis V). Festinger goes on to
hypothesize that the cessation of comparison with others is accompanied by
hostility or derogation to the extent that continued comparison with those
persons implies unpleasant consequences (Hypothesis VI). Next, any factors
which increase the importance of some particular group as a comparison group
from some particular opinion or ability will increase the pressure toward
uniformity concerning that ability or opinion within that group. If
discrepancies arise between the evaluator and comparison group there is a
tendency to reduce the divergence by either attempting to persuade others, or
changing their personal views to attain uniformity. However, the importance,
relevance and attraction to a comparison group that affects the original
motivation for comparison, mediates the pressures towards uniformity
(Hypothesis VII). His next hypothesis states that if persons who are very
divergent from one's own opinion or ability are perceived as different from
oneself on attributes consistent with the divergence, the tendency to narrow
the range of comparability becomes stronger (Hypothesis VIII). Lastly,
Festinger hypothesized that when there is a range of opinion or ability in a
group, the relative strength of the three manifestations of pressures toward
uniformity will be different for those who are close to the mode of the group
than for those who are distant from the mode. Those close to the mode will have
stronger tendencies to change the positions of others, weaker tendencies to
narrow the range of comparison, and even weaker tendencies to change their own
opinions (Hypothesis IX).[1]
Theoretical advances[edit]
Since its inception, the initial framework has undergone several
advances. Key among these are developments in understanding the motivations
that underlie social comparisons, and the particular types of social
comparisons that are made. Motives that are relevant to social comparison
include self-enhancement,[2][3] maintenance of a positive
self-evaluation,[6] components of attributions and
validation,[7] and the avoidance of closure.[8][9] While there have been changes in
Festinger's original concept, many fundamental aspects remain, including the
prevalence of the tendency towards social comparison and the general process
that is social comparison.
Self-evaluation[edit]
According to Thorton and Arrowood, self-evaluation is one of the functions of social
comparison. This is one process that underlies how an individual engages in
social comparison.[10] Each individual's specific goals will
influence how they engage in social comparison. For self-evaluation, people
tend to choose a comparison target that is similar to themselves.[11] Specifically, they are most interested
in choosing a target who shares some distinctive characteristic with
themselves. Research suggests that most people believe that choosing a similar
target helps ensure the accuracy of the self-evaluation. However, individuals
do not always act as unbiased self-evaluators, and accurate self-evaluations
may not be the primary goal of social comparison.
Self-enhancement[edit]
Individuals may also seek self-enhancement, or to improve their
self-esteem.[11] They may interpret, distort, or ignore
the information gained by social comparison to see themselves more positively
and further their self-enhancement goals. They will also choose to make upward
(comparing themselves to someone better off) or downward (comparing themselves
to someone worse off) comparisons, depending on which strategy will further
their self-enhancement goals. They may also avoid making comparisons period, or
avoid making certain types of comparisons. Specifically, when an individual
believes that their ability in a specific area is low, they will avoid making
upward social comparisons in that area. Unlike for self-evaluation goals,
people engaging in social comparison with the goal of self-enhancement may not
seek out a target that is similar to themselves. In fact, if a target's
similarity is seen as a threat, due to the target outperforming the individual
on some dimension, the individual may downplay the similarity of the target to
themselves.
Later advances in theory led to self-enhancement being one of the four self-evaluation motives:, along with self-assessment, self-verification,
and self-improvement.
Main article: Self-evaluation motives
Main article: Self-enhancement
Main article: Self-assessment
Main article: Self-verification
Main article: Self-improvement
[edit]
Wills introduced the concept of downward comparison in 1981.[3] Downward social comparison is a
defensive tendency that is used as a means of self-evaluation. When a person
looks to another individual or group that they consider to be worse off than
themselves in order to feel better about their self or personal situation, they
are making a downward social comparison. Research has suggested that social
comparisons with others who are better off or superior, or upward comparisons,
can lower self-regard,[12] whereas downward comparisons can
elevate self-regard.[13] Downward comparison theory emphasizes
the positive effects of comparisons in increasing one's subjective well-being.[3] For example, it has been found that breast
cancer patients made the majority of comparisons with patients less fortunate
than themselves.[14]
Although social comparison research has suggested that upward
comparisons can lower self-regard, Collins indicates that this is not always
the case.[15] Individuals make upward comparisons,
whether consciously or subconsciously, when they compare themselves with an
individual or comparison group that they perceive as superior or better than
themselves in order to improve their views of self or to create a more positive
perception of their personal reality. Upward social comparisons are made to
self-evaluate and self-improve in the hopes that self-enhancement will also
occur. In an upward social comparison, people want to believe themselves to be
part of the elite or superior, and make comparisons highlighting the
similarities between themselves and the comparison group, unlike a downward
social comparison, where similarities between individuals or groups are
disassociated.[8]
It has also been suggested that upward comparisons may provide
an inspiration to improve, and in one study it was found that while breast
cancer patients made more downward comparisons, they showed a preference for
information about more fortunate others.[16]
Another study indicated that people who were dieting often used
upward social comparisons by posting pictures of thinner people on their
refrigerators.[15] These pictures served as not only a
reminder of an individuals current weight, but also as an inspiration of a goal
to be reached. In simple terms, downward social comparisons are more likely to
make us feel better about ourselves, while upward social comparisons are more
likely to motivate us to achieve more or reach higher.
[edit]
Aspinwall and Taylor looked at mood, self-esteem, and threat as
moderators that drive individuals to choose to make upward or downward social
comparisons.[17] Downward comparisons in cases where
individuals had experienced a threat to their self-esteem produced more
favorable self-evaluations.
[edit]
Aspinwall and Taylor found that upward social comparisons were
good in circumstances where the individuals making the comparisons had high
self-esteem, because these types of comparisons provided them with more
motivation and hope than downward social comparisons.[17] However, if these individuals had
experienced a recent threat or setback to their self-esteem, they reported that
upward comparisons resulted in a more negative affect than downward
comparisons.
[edit]
However, people with low self-esteem or people who are
experiencing some sort of threat in their life (such as doing poorly in school,
or suffering from an illness) tend to favor downward comparisons over upward
comparisons. People with low self-esteem and negative affect improve their mood
by making downward comparisons. Their mood does not improve as much as it would
if they had high self-esteem. Even for people with low self-esteem, these
downward social comparisons do improve their negative mood and allow them to
feel hope and motivation for their future.
[edit]
Individuals who have a negative mood improve their mood by
making upward social comparisons, regardless of their level of self-esteem. In
addition, both individuals with high self-esteem and low self-esteem who are in
a positive mood elevate their mood further by making upward comparisons.
However, for those who have recently experienced a threat to their self-esteem
or a setback in their life, making upward social comparisons instead of
downward social comparisons results in a more negative affect. Self-esteem and
existence of a threat or setback in an individual's life are two moderators of
their response to upward or downward comparisons.
Competitiveness[edit]
Because individuals are driven upwards in the case of abilities,
social comparisons can drive competition among peers.[18] In this regard, the psychological
significance of a comparison depends on the social status of an individual, and
the context in which their abilities are being evaluated.
Social status[edit]
Competitiveness resulting from social comparisons may be greater
in relation to higher social status because individuals with more status have
more to lose. In one study, students in a classroom were presented with a bonus
point program where, based on chance, the grades for some students would
increase and the grades for others would remain the same. Despite the fact that
students could not lose by this program, higher-status individuals were more
likely to object to the program, and more likely to report a perceived distributive injustice. It was suggested that
this was a cognitive manifestation of an aversion to downward mobility,
which has more psychological significance when an individual has more status.[19]
Proximity to a standard[edit]
When individuals are evaluated where meaningful standards exist,
such as in an academic classroom where students are ranked, then
competitiveness increases as proximity to a standard of performance increases.
When the only meaningful standard is the top, then high-ranking individuals are
most competitive with their peers, and individuals at low and intermediate
ranks are equally competitive. However, when both high and low rankings hold
significance, then individuals at high and low ranks are equally competitive,
and are both more competitive than individuals at intermediate ranks.[20][21]
[edit]
Several models have been introduced to social comparison,
including the self-evaluation maintenance model (SEM),[12] proxy model,[22] the triadic model and the three-selves model.[23]
Self-evaluation maintenance model[edit]
The SEM model proposes that we make comparisons to maintain or
enhance our self-evaluations, focusing on the antagonistic processes of
comparison and reflection.[12] Abraham Tesser has conducted research
on self-evaluation dynamics that has taken several forms. A self-evaluation
maintenance (SEM) model of social behavior focuses on the consequences of
another person's outstanding performance on one's own self-evaluation. It
sketches out some conditions under which the other's good performance bolsters
self-evaluation, i.e., "basking in reflected glory", and conditions
under which it threatens self-evaluation through a comparison process.[24]
Proxy model[edit]
The proxy model anticipates the success of something that is
unfamiliar. The model proposes that if a person is successful or familiar with
a task, then he or she would also be successful at a new similar task. The
proxy is evaluated based on ability and is concerned with the question
"Can I do X?" A proxy's comparison is based previous attributes. The
opinion of the comparer and whether the proxy exerted maximum effort on a
preliminary task are variables influencing his or her opinion.[8]
Triadic model[edit]
The Triadic Model builds on the attribution elements of social
comparison, proposing that opinions of social comparison are best considered in
terms of 3 different evaluative questions: preference assessment (i.e.,
"Do I like X?"), belief assessment (i.e., "Is X correct?"),
and preference prediction (i.e., "Will I like X?"). In the Triadic
Model the most meaningful comparisons are with a person who has already
experienced a proxy and exhibits consistency in related attributes or past
preferences.[8]
Three-selves model[edit]
The three-selves model proposes that social comparison theory is
a combination of two different theories. One theory is developed around
motivation and the factors that influence the type of social comparison
information people seek from their environment and the second is about
self-evaluation and the factors that influence the effects of social
comparisons on the judgments of self.[23] While there has been much research in
the area of comparison motives, there has been little in the area of
comparative evaluation. Explaining that the self is conceived as interrelated
conceptions accessible depending upon current judgment context[25] and taking a cue from Social Cognitive Theory, this model examines
the Assimilation effect and distinguishes three classes of
working Self-concept ideas: individual selves, possible
selves and collective selves.
Media influence[edit]
The media has been found to play a large role in social
comparisons. Researchers examining the social effects of the media have used
social comparison theory have found that in most cases women tend to engage in
upward social comparisons with a target other, which results in more negative
feelings about the self. The majority of women have a daily opportunity to make
upward comparison by measuring themselves against some form of societal ideal.
Social comparisons have become a relevant mechanism for learning about the
appearance-related social expectations among peers and for evaluating the self
in terms of those standards" (Jones, 2001, P. 647).
Although men do make upward comparisons, research finds that
more women make upward comparisons and are comparing themselves with
unrealistically high standards presented in the media.[26] As women are shown more mainstream
media images of powerful, successful and thin women, they perceive the
"ideal" to be the norm for societal views of attractive. Some women
have reported making upward comparisons in a positive manner for the purposes
of self-motivation, but the majority of upward comparisons are made when the
individual is feeling lesser and therefore evoke a negative connotation.
Criticisms[edit]
Many criticisms arose regarding Festinger's similarity
hypothesis. Deutsch and Krauss[27] argued that people actually seek out
dissimilar others in their comparisons maintaining that this is important for
providing valuable self-knowledge, as demonstrated in research.[28][29] Ambiguity also circulated about the
important dimensions for similarity. Goethals and Darley clarified the role of
similarity suggesting that people prefer to compare those who are similar on
related attributes such as opinions, characteristics or abilities to increase
confidence for value judgments, however those dissimilar in related attributes
are preferred when validating one's beliefs.[7]
Comments
Post a Comment