Social Comparison in Deaf and Hearing Students

BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1987, 8(4), 295-308 Copyright © 1987, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

A Test of the Similarity Hypothesis: Social Comparison in Deaf and Hearing Students Kathryn M. Ryan Lycoming College

The present study explored the possibility that deaf and hearing college students would prefer similar social comparisons on achievement tests. It was also expected that deaf students, due to their communication handicap, would most prefer deaf norms on a language-based achievement test. Thirty deaf and 28 hearing college students participated in an experiment ostensibly generating normative information on a new achievement test and gave their personal preferences for the kinds of norms they would like to see: nondisabled, learning disabled, deaf, blind, disabled, or gifted. Along with the social comparison measures, subjects were asked to estimate the performance of the aforementioned groups. Results showed unexpectedly little support for the similarity hypothesis. On one measure, subjects showed a clear preference for information about higher performers. A small preference for similarity appeared on a second measure. In addition, although the deaf expected to do worse on a verbal test than on a logic test, they did not show a greater desire to compare with the deaf on the verbal test. The implications of these results for social comparison research are explored.

In 1954, Leon Festinger published a seminal article setting forth his theory of social comparison. Briefly, Festinger believed that humans have a drive to evaluate their opinions and abilities and, to the extent that nonsocial (or objective) criteria are unavailable, that they will compare themselves to others. Festinger further made the point that similarity must be the basis for selecting comparison targets in order to precisely evaluate one's opinions and abilities. Moreover, Festinger proposed that there is a unidirectional drive upward for ability that is not present in the evaluation of opinions. Requests for reprints should be sent to Kathryn M. Ryan, Department of Psychology, Lycoming College, Williamsport, PA 17701.

296

RYAN

This is because there is a positive direction for most abilities (e.g., it is better to run faster; an A is better than a B). Thus, for ability, people may not only want to compare with similar targets, but they may want to compare with slightly worse targets so that they will be superior. Subsequent research (Brickman & Berman, 1971) has shown that people like to compare with others, even when objective information is available. Research (e.g., Goethals & Darley, 1977; Gruder, 1977) also has supported a hypothesis originated by Singer (1966) that two motives underlie social comparisons: a desire for self-evaluational information and a desire for self-validational information. The desire for ability evaluation refers to the individual's need to know how well he or she is doing, as was proposed in Festinger's original thesis. The desire for ability validation refers to the individual's need to know that he or she is doing well, as can be inferred from the unidirectional drive upward previously described. Interestingly, however, these drives have never been directly tested. Instead, they are inferred from certain social comparison choices: The selection of a similar target is presumed to reflect the self-evaluation motivation, and the selection of a dissimilar target is presumed to reflect the self-validation motivation. Moreover, Goethals and Darley (1977) argued that individuals will compare downward for validational purposes —because in doing this they would always "win." In contrast, however, research shows that average or above-average performers (e.g., Gruder, 1971; Thornton & Arrowood, 1966; Wheeler, 1966) usually compare upward for validational purposes, whereas downward comparisons are only made by inferior performers (e.g.. Friend & Gilbert, 1973; Hakmiller, 1966). Perhaps average or aboveaverage performers compare upward because in this they can't lose! If they do comparatively poorly vis-a-vis the better performer, they have lost against the best. And, if they win, they have won against the best. (See Linsenmeier & Brickman, 1978, for a related argument regarding preference for difficult tasks.) Further, Goethals and Darley (1977) argued that the typical selection of a comparison target is not usually based on performance but rather on characteristics presumably related to performance (e.g., age, sex, and education). This is because we usually do not know an individual's performance until after we compare with him or her. Support for this thesis comes from a Gastorf and Suls (1978) study that showed that individuals' self-evaluative certainty after comparison was influenced by similarity in the educational background of comparison targets. Further, Sanders, Gastorf, and Mullen (1979) found that respondents' perceptions of their own ability relative to that of other students were more influenced by same-sex than by opposite-sex targets. Moreover, Zanna, Goethals, and Hill (1975) found that people almost always selected same-sex referents on their first choice, although they frequently switched to opposite-sex refer-

SOCIAL COMPARISON: DEAF AND HEARING STUDENTS

297

ents on their second choice when they believed the opposite sex would excel. In addition, Suls, Gaes, and Gastorf (1979) found that interest in same-sex comparisons was high, even when sex differences in performance were not made salient. Finally, Feldman and Ruble (1981) found that similarity was preferred in the target's sex, whereas dissimilarity was sought in terms of target performance. Therefore, it appears that similarity may be especially desired in comparisons based on nonperformance, ability-related characteristics. This study explores whether disability is perceived to be an ability-related characteristic for social comparison purposes in deaf and hearing college students. One might propose that disability would be an especially salient ability-related characteristic due to the historically common practice of educationally segregating disabled students. Nevertheless, Strauss (1968) examined the social comparison preferences of totally blind adults and found that most blind individuals said they preferred to compare with sighted persons for ability, personal appearance, and character selfevaluations. This was especially true for late-blinded adults.^ On the other hand, about one fifth of the subjects said they did not compare themselves to anyone. And, respondents were slightly more likely to desire similar social comparison targets for ability than for personal appearance and character evaluations. Perhaps broad questions about whom one is likely to compare with — questions such as those used in the Strauss study —oversimplify the comparison process and gloss over some of the subtleties in ability comparison judgments. Blind adults may be more likely to compare with other blind individuals only on those abilities they consider to be influenced by blindness. The thesis that some characteristics may not be perceived to be related to ability is supported by research by Miller (1982, 1984). Miller (1982) found that college students perceived that the specific college they attended was relevant to social comparison choice only when its relevance to achievement test scores was made explicit. In this context, deaf college students provide an interesting population. Because deafness can cause early language acquisition problems, it can delay learning —a delay that may be misinterpreted as intellectual impairment (Furth, 1966). Moreover, because deafness is a communication handicap, language-based (or more correctly, English-based) tests may be thought to be especially difficult for the deaf student. One might predict that deaf students' expectations for success on achievement tests may be 'In the current study, deaf students were asked to note the age at which they became deaf. The only influence of this factor on expectancies and comparison preferences was on the students' expectancies for the performance of the deaf. Congenitally deaf students expected the deaf to perform better (M = 3.34) than did those who became deaf after birth (M = 4.17), F(\, 24) = 7.67, p = .01. Nevertheless, these differential expectancies did not translate into differential comparison preferences.

298

RYAN

lower than hearing students' because deaf students believe that hearing students and hearing colleges are better (K. Jordan, personal communication, June 12, 1985). These expectations may be especially low on the language-based tests due to the English handicap many deaf students experience. On the other hand, deaf college students may feel that their intellectual superiority is responsible for their acceptance at college. (In fact, one might argue that deafness may be perceived to be an inhibiting factor in educational advancement, and therefore deaf college students must be especially bright because they have succeeded in spite of their handicap.) If this were the case, deaf college students may expect to outperform their hearing peers, even on language-based tests. Moreover, there is reason to believe that deaf college students may be especially likely to desire similar social comparisons. This is because many deaf adults presently are going through a "deaf pride" movement similar to the women's movement in the 1970s and the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Deaf students frequently are first acquainted with this movement at Gallaudet College,"^ the only liberal arts college for the deaf in the world. The movement has been stimulated by the relatively recent discovery by linguists that American Sign Language (ASL) is a real language, with its own vocabulary, grammar, and semantics (Baker & Cokely, 1980; Stokoe, 1978). Previously, deaf persons had been told that ASL was just an inferior version of English. The knowledge that ASL is a real language has brought pride to the deaf community and a growing interest in deaf culture. This may enhance the deaf student's desire to be a part of the deaf community and to compare with other members of the deaf community. Finally, because deaf students often meet many deaf people for the first time at Gallaudet College, this may stimulate an awareness of their own special status and produce a need to compare with similar others. This study examined social comparison processes in deaf students at Gallaudet College and in a comparison sample of hearing students at Lycoming College. Under the guise of developing a series of different norms for a shortened version of a new "achievement test," college students were asked to take a short test and to respond to some comparison questions. The tests were either verbal (verbal ability) or nonverbal (logical reasoning) and were said to predict college success. The students were told that there was a variety of normative information available, and the test developer would like to know their personal preferences so that the appropriate norms could be presented to students taking the test in the future. The norms included information about the performance of gifted, disabled, deaf, blind, learning-disabled, and nondisabled college students. It was assumed that the gifted norms would be expected to provide positive ^Gallaudet College is now Gallaudet University.


299

range information and that the learning-disabled norms would be expected to provide negative range information. The subjects were asked to make their selections in terms of a rank order preference and an additional set of ratings. They were also asked about their expectations for their own performance and for the performance of the different comparison samples. It was hypothesized that deaf students would expect to do worse on the verbal abilities test than on the logical reasoning test because deafness is a communication handicap (Hypothesis 1). It was also expected that similarity would be sought in the norms selected: Deaf students would most want to see the deaf norms, and hearing students would most want to see the nondisabled norms (Hypothesis 2). Finally, due to their English handicap, it was expected that deaf students would be more hkely to want to see deaf norms on the verbal abilities test than on the logical reasoning test; this is because deafness is perceived to be more closely related to abihty on the verbal abihties test than to ability on the logical reasoning test (Hypothesis 3).

METHOD Subjects Subjects were 31 deaf college students who were enrolled in the summer school program at Gallaudet College and 28 hearing students who were in an introductory psychology course during the fall term at Lycoming College. All the deaf students were enrolled at Gallaudet College during the academic year. An incomplete data set from 1 subject in the Gallaudet sample had to be discarded, leaving a total of 30 deaf students (13 in the verbal abilities condition and 17 in the logical reasoning condition). There were 14 hearing students in the verbal abilities condition and 14 in the logical reasoning condition. The Gallaudet students each received $3, and the Lycoming students each received one lab credit for participating in the research. The deaf students became deaf on the average at 2.34 years (SD = 3.88 years) and learned to sign on the average at 10.26 years (SD = 7.49 years). All but 2 deaf students had hearing parents, and the students rated themselves as on the average between profoundly and less than profoundly deaf— 1.67 on a 3-point scale ranging from profoundly deaf (\) to hard of hearing (3). In addition, the Gallaudet students were older (M = 22.40 years) than the Lycoming students (M = 18.79 years). There were also more Black students (4) in the deaf student sample than in the hearing student sample (0). Finally, the hearing students were more likely to be freshmen than were the deaf students.

300

RYAN

Procedure Subjects were run individually or in groups of 2 or 3. The experimenter began by explaining to the subject(s) the need to create valid shortened versions of traditional college achievement tests. She explained that subjects would take such a test in order to provide needed normative information and that they would be asked to respond to a posttest series of questions about which norms they would prefer to see. Subjects were asked to fill out a form collecting some background information, including an ability estimate, and to read an explanation of the experiment that reiterated what the experimenter said. The terms verbal abilities and logical reasoning were used several times in their respective instructions. The instructions also gave the subjects practical information about the achievement tests they would be taking, information such as how many tests there were and how much time they would have for each test. The verbal abilities test had two subtests: a vocabulary test (definitions) and a story memory task. The logical reasoning test had three subtests: opposites, similarities, and analogies. All the tests were taken from the California Short Form Test of Mental Maturity (Sullivan, Clark, & Tiegs, 1963). After subjects were finished with the tests, they were given norm information instructions that reiterated the need to learn, from the students' point of view, which norms would be most helpful to the students. (It should be noted that subjects were not given feedback about their own performance.) The subjects were asked to rank, in terms of norm desirability, six groups of college students: learning-disabled students, nondisabled students, blind students, deaf students, gifted students, and disabled students. Subjects were then asked to individually rate (on a scale from 1 to 7) how much they would like to see the lowest, the average, and the highest scores for students in each of the six groups. Finally, subjects were asked to estimate (on a scale from 1 to 7) how well they did on the test and how well they thought most students from each of the six groups did on the test. Subjects were debriefed and were thanked for their participation in the study.

RESULTS Hypothesis 1 It was hypothesized that the deaf students would expect to perform worse on the verbal abilities test than on the logical reasoning test, whereas no difference was hypothesized in hearing students' expectations for performance on the two tests. Surprisingly, a significant interaction, F(l, 54) =

SOCIAL COMPARISON: DEAI AND HEARING STUDENTS

301

10.19, p < .01, emerged on expectancies: Deaf students' expectancies were lower before taking the verbal abilities test than before taking the logical reasoning test, whereas hearing students' expectancies were lower before taking the logical reasoning test than before taking the verbal abilities test (see Table 1). The same pattern emerged for the subjects' expectations about how well they had performed on the test after taking it, F(l, 54) = 7.67, p < .01. In addition, expectancies for how well learning-disabled students would perform followed the same pattern, F(l, 54) = 6.75, p = .01. Hearing students expected that learning-disabled students would do better on the verbal abilities test than on the logical reasoning test, and deaf students expected that learning-disabled students would do better on the logical reasoning test than on the verbal abilities test (see Table 1). Thus, it could be that the deaf students saw the verbal abilities test as generally more difficult, whereas hearing students believed the logical reasoning test was generally more difficult. This can be tested by a Subject Group (Deaf vs. Hearing) x Test (Verbal Abilities vs. Logical Reasoning) x Target Disability Group repeatedmeasures analysis of variance (ANOVA) calculated on the expectations subjects had for how they had performed and for how individuals in each of the six disability groups would perform. This yielded a significant Subject Group x Test interaction, F(l, 54) = 4.34, p < .05, showing that hearing students expected the logical reasoning test to be significantly TABLE 1 Deaf and Hearing Students' Expectancies for the Verbal Abilities Test and Logical Reasoning Test Deaf Students

Self-expectancies Pretest^ Posttest^ Target group expectancies Learning disabled^ Disabled Blind Deaf Nondisabled^ Gifted M"

Hearing Students

Verbal Abilities

Logical Reasoning

Verbal Abilities

Logical Reasoning

3.62 4.23

2.91 3.65

3.07 3.50

3.57 4.00

3.27 3.83

5.69 4.62 3.92 3.85 3.15 2.15 3.95

5.12 4.53 4.53 3.62 3.00 2.12 3.79

5.21 4.29 3.79 3.71 3.43 1.64 3.65

6.21 4.57 4.86 3.86 4.00 1.79 4.18

5.543 4.50b 4.29bc 3.75,, 3.38, 1.93,

M

Notes. 1 = very well, 1 = very poor. Means with different subscripts differ significantly at p < .05. ^A significant Subject Group x Test interaction. "^A significant subject group main effect.

302

RYAN

harder than the verbal abilities test for all groups, whereas there was no significant difference in the deaf students' overall expectations (see Table 1). Thus, it appears that deaf students expected the verbal abilities test to be more difficult for the deaf and learning-disabled students than for the others, whereas hearing students expected the logical reasoning test to be uniformly more difficult for all the students. This ANOVA also yielded a target disability group main effect, F(6, 324) = 74.93, p < .01, which showed that the gifted were expected to outperform all other groups and that the learning disabled were expected to underperform all other groups (see Table 1). In addition, the nondisabled were expected to outperform the disabled and the blind but not themselves (M = 3.83) or the deaf. In addition, analysis of the actual test performance of the two college groups showed that, for the two verbal abilities tests, deaf students (definition M = 10.00, memory M = 14.38) performed significantly worse than the hearing students (definition M = 15.36, memory M = 19.00). Moreover, a similar pattern emerged on the analogy section of the logical reasoning test (deaf A/ = 8.53, hearing M = 10.36) but not on the similarity section (deaf A/ = 8.24, hearing M = 8.93) or on the opposite section (deaf M = 6.35, hearing M = 7.07). Thus, deaf students' expectations were somewhat confirmed insofar as they did worse vis-a-vis hearing students on the verbal abilities test than on the logical reasoning test. Hypothesis 2 The second hypothesis proposed that deaf students would most want to see the deaf norms and that hearing students would most want to see the nondisabled norms. This prediction can be tested in two dependent measures: the rank-order preferences for the six disability groups and the rated preferences for seeing the lowest, average, and highest information for each of the six different groups. Mann-Whitney tests for differences in ranks that deaf and hearing students assigned to the six disability groups showed only two significant effects: a significantly greater preference for nondisabled norms in the hearing students compared to the deaf students (p < .05) and a significantly greater preference for the deaf norms in the deaf students compared to the hearing students (p < .01; see Table 2). This supports the second hypothesis. On the other hand, the deaf did not appear to prefer deaf norms over nondisabled or gifted norms, even though hearing students apparently preferred nondisabled and gifted norms to the others. The rated preferences assigned to the lowest, average, and highest information for the six disability groups were analyzed via a Subject Group (Deaf vs. Hearing) x Test (Verbal Abilities vs. Logical Reasoning) x Information Type (Lowest, Average, or Highest Score) x Target Disability Group repeated-measures ANOVA. This analysis yielded two main effects:


303

TABLE 2 Ranked and Rated Social Comparison Preferences for Deaf and Hearing Students Rated Preferences^

Ranked Preference^ Students

Hearing Students

Students

Hearing Students

4.90 4.43 4.40 2.30 2.23 2.67

4.68 4.18 4.04 3.96 1.61 2.46

3.92 3.98 4.04 3.41 3.48 3.24

4.07 3.92 3.61 4.06 3.13 2.67

Deaf Target group preferences Learning disabled Disabled Blind Deaf Nondisabled Gifted

Deaf

M 4.OO3 3.953 3.833 3.733 3.3l3b

2.881,

Note. Means with different subscripts differ significantly at p < .01. *1 = first choice, 6 = last choice. ^1 = want to see very much. 1 = do not want to see at all.

for information type, F(2, 106) = 46.43, p < .01, and for target disability group, F(5, 265) = 8.95, p < .01, and no interactions. The highest scores (M = 2.89) were preferred to the average scores (M = 3.44), and these were preferred to the lowest scores (M = 4.52; p < .01, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test). In addition, the gifted norms were preferred to all but the nondisabled norms (/? < .01, Tukey's HSD; see Table 2). Again, there was no Subject Group x Disability interaction, which argues against the similarity hypothesis. Thus, the second hypothesis received only mixed support, as the best performers were the most preferred on the rated preferences.^ Hypothesis 3 The third hypothesis proposed that deaf students would most want to see deaf norms on the verbal abilities test. To test this hypothesis, a traditional two-way (Subject Group x Test) ANOVA would be appropriate, except that Levene's (1960) test for equal variances shows nonhomogeneous variances (p < .01) in the different cells in the only relevant significant interaction —that for preferences for nondisabled norms, F ( l , 54) = 4.08, p < .05. Nevertheless, it is worth reviewing, as it was in an interesting was further supported in an analysis of covariance in which subjects' expectations for how well each of the six disability groups would perform was run as a covariate. This revealed a significant covariate effect, F ( l , 264) = 15.72,p < .01, and a nonsignificant disability group main effect, F(5, 264) = 1.23, p > .10.

304

RYAN

direction: Hearing students showed a relatively greater preference for nondisabled norms on the verbal abilities test (M rank = 1.43) than on the logical reasoning test (Mrank = 1.79). In contrast, deaf students showed a relatively greater preference for nondisabled norms in the logical reasoning condition (Mrank = 1.82) than in the verbal abilities condition (Mrank = 2.77). This implies a greater desire to compare with the nondisabled on the test on which one expects to do better. Nevertheless, a similar interaction was not found in the ranks of the deaf norms, which were uniformly higher in deaf students (A/rank = 2.30) than in hearing students (Mrank = 3.96). And, as was previously noted, the repeated-measures ANOVA on social comparison preferences showed no Subject Group x Test interaction, which would argue against the third hypothesis.

DISCUSSION The present study yielded unexpectedly little support for the similarity hypothesis. It was proposed that disability would be considered an important ability-related characteristic for deaf and hearing students. It was expected that deaf students would prefer deaf norms and that hearing students would prefer nondisabled norms. Nevertheless, on one measure, both deaf and hearing students rated the "smartest" groups —those expected to perform the best —as producing the most desirable normative information. Thus, the gifted students were preferred over others, such as the disabled and learning disabled, who were expected to perform relatively poorly. In addition, information about the highest performance was preferred over information about the average performance, which in turn was preferred over information about the lowest performance. On the other hand, when asked to rank the groups in terms of norm preference, deaf students showed a relatively greater preference for deaf norms than did hearing students, and hearing students showed a relatively greater preference for nondisabled norms than did deaf students. Nevertheless, although hearing students clearly preferred nondisabled over deaf norms, deaf students apparently did not prefer deaf over nondisabled norms. The hearing students may have shown such a clear preference for nondisabled norms (as they did for gifted norms) because these students were expected both to be similar and to do well. Deaf students, on the other hand, may have expected that deaf students would not perform well, but they still showed some desire for these norms. Finally, it was predicted that deaf students would most want to compare with deaf norms on the language-based test due to their expectation of doing relatively poorly on this test. This was partially supported insofar as deaf students expected to do relatively better on the logic test, and they


305

showed a greater preference for nondisabled norms on this test. Nevertheless, deaf students were not more likely to prefer deaf norms on the language test, as was predicted. And hearing students, who expected to do better on the language test, also were more likely to prefer nondisabled norms on this test. This possibly reflects an increased desire to compare with better performers when one hopes to do his or her best. Thus, the possibility that self-validational desires predominated in the current study should be considered. On the other hand, one might argue that neither motive predominated because the students did not receive feedback and because they were not selecting comparison targets on that basis. Conversely, it is possible that the better performers were selected for comparison due to evaluation as well as validation motives. Social comparison research on performance-based comparison choices (e.g., Gruder, 1971; Wheeler et al., 1969) has found nonsimilarity-based evaluation selections. Wheeler et al. used the term desire-for-range information to describe one of the motives implicit in the selections they found. However, Wheeler's data showed that the desire-for-range information was more prominent in the positive direction than in the negative direction. Implicit in Wheeler et al.'s thesis was the assumption that knowing the highest and lowest scores could help individuals to accurately assess their own ability. Moreover, Wheeler et al. found this desire-for-range information to be strong, even when subjects had already been given some idea of the possible range of scores. Gruder (1971) and Gruder, Korth, Dichtel, and Glos (1975), following up on the Wheeler et al. research, proposed two motives in addition to the range-seeking motive suggested by Wheeler and his colleagues. These motives are a desire to see a positive instance of a trait (i.e., to know exactly what it means to have the trait) and a motive related to the self-validation motive previously discussed (i.e., the desire to do comparatively well vis-a-vis those who are capable performers). It appears that the desire for similarity is not nearly so compelling as was once believed, even when considering the use of a nonperformance abilityrelated characteristic like disability. On the other hand, in the rank-ordered preferences, the deaf students showed a much clearer preference for deaf norms than the hearing students. This suggests that the two social comparison measures may reflect different desires. The possibility that a ranked preference reflects different comparison needs than a rated preference should be explored in future research. This study also raises questions about the role of disability in abilityrelated comparisons. Clearly, disability was thought to be related to ability. This was apparent in the disability main effect on the expectancy measures. In addition, disability was thought to be more ability-related in some conditions than in others. Thus, although hearing college students believed that the logical reasoning tests were uniformly more difficult than the verbal

306

RYAN

abilities tests, deaf college students believed that the verbal abilities tests were only more difficult than the logical reasoning tests for the deaf and learning disabled. Nevertheless, these expectations did not translate into differential comparison preferences. Hearing college students were relatively disinterested in comparing with most of the disability groups (the exception being the gifted). And deaf college students appeared to generally prefer deaf as well as nondisabled and gifted norms when ranking the different groups. That deaf students showed relatively greater preferences for deaf norms than did hearing students is not surprising, but that they did not prefer deaf norms over nondisabled norms is surprising. Perhaps this is because deaf students realize that they will have to compete with the nondisabled in the "real world" (outside Gallaudet) and, in anticipation of this, they need to know how well they do vis-a-vis the nondisabled.'* The deaf students' assumption concerning the relatively greater difficulty they would have on the verbal abilities tests did not translate into differential comparison preferences, with the minor exception of their ranking of the nondisabled. In these ranks, the hearing were more likely to want to compare with the nondisabled on the verbal tests, whereas the deaf were more likely to want to compare with the nondisabled on the logical reasoning tests. This looks like the desire to do well vis-a-vis capable performers that Gruder suggested. However, the variance problem caused by the relatively small and uneven sample sizes makes it difficult to judge exactly what these results mean. Nevertheless, these results indicate at least the possibility that social comparison selections may be more influenced by nonperformance characteristics considered relevant to the ability at hand than those considered irrelevant. Finally, the current results suggest the importance of follow-up research. In the context of the current movement to mainstream disabled students, it is essential to understand comparison preferences in the disabled and nondisabled. These preferences may have implications for student selfesteem, performance expectations, and intergroup relations. The results of the present study are complex enough to warrant future research in which (a) two different comparison measures (i.e., separate rankings and ratings) are used and (b) the role of nonperformance ability-related characteristics like disability is explored. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was accomplished in part through the support of a Professional Development Grant from Lycoming College. The Department of ''A similar argument was made by Suls et al. (1979) to explain females' desire to see male norms on their second social comparison when males were described as the standard setters.


307

Psychology at Gallaudet College also provided invaluable assistance in the running of this study. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Theresa Sternat and Kim Bartlett, who acted as experimenters in the study. I also thank Dorothy Johnson, King Jordan, John Levine, George Goethals, and anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.

REFERENCES Baker, C , & Cokely, D. (1980). American Sign Language: A teacher's resource text on grammar and culture. Silver Spring, MD: T. J. Publishers. Brickman, P., & Berman, J. J. (1971). Effects of performance expectancy and outcome certainty on interest in social comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 600-609. Feldman, N. S., & Ruble, D. N. (1981). Social comparison strategies: Dimensions offered and options taken. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 11-16. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. Friend, R. M., & Gilbert, J. (1973). Threat and fear of negative evaluation as determinants of locus of social comparison. Journal of Personality, 41, 328-340. Furth, H. G. (1966). Thinking without language: Psychological implications of deafness. New York: Free Press. Gastorf, J., & Suls, J. (1978). Performance evaluations via social comparison: Performance similarity versus related attribute similarity. Social Psychology, 41, 297-305. Goethals, G. R., & Darley, J. M. (1977). Social comparison theory: An attributional approach. In J. M. Suls and R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 259-278). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Gruder, C. L. (1971). Determinants of social comparison choices. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 473-489. Gruder, C. L. (1977). Choice of comparison persons in evaluating oneself. In J. M. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 21-41). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Gruder, C. L., Korth, B., Dichtel, M., & Glos, B. (1975). Uncertainty and social comparison. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, 85-95. Hakmiller, K. L. (1966). Threat as a determinant of downward comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Suppl. 1, 32-39. Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variance. In I. Olkin (Ed.), Contributions to probability and statistics (pp. 278-292). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Linsenmeier, J. A. W., & Brickman, P. (1978). Advantages of difficult tasks. Journal of Personality, 46, 96-112. Miller, C. (1982). The role of performance-related similarity in social comparison of abilities: A test of the related attribution hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 513-523. Miller, C. (1984). Self-schemas, gender, and social comparison: A clarification of the related attributes hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1222-1229. Sanders, G. S., Gastorf, J. W., & Mullen, B. (1979). Selectivity in the use of social comparison information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 377-380. Singer, J. E. (1966). Social comparison — Progress and issues. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Suppl. I, 103-110.

308

RYAN

Stokoe, W. C. (1978). Sign language structure. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok. Strauss, H. M. (1968). Reference groups and social comparison processes among the totally blind. In H. H. Hyman & E. Singer (Eds.), Readings in reference group theory and research

(pp. 222-237). New York: Free Press. Sullivan, E. T., Clark, W. W., & Tiegs, E. W. (1963). The California Short Form Test of Mental Maturity Level 5. Monterey: California Test Bureau/McGraw-Hill. Suls, J., Gaes, G., & Gastorf, J. (1979). Evaluating a sex-related ability: Comparison with same-, opposite-, and combined sex norms. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 294-304. Thornton, D. A., & Arrowood, A. J. (1966). Self-evaluation, self-enhancement, and the locus of social comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Suppl. I, 40-48. Wheeler, L. (1966). Motivation as a determinant of upward comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychlogy, Suppl. 1, 27-31. Wheeler, L., Shaver, K. G., Jones, R. A., Goethals, G. R., Cooper, J., Robinson, J. E., Gruder, C. L., & Butzine, K. W. (1969). Factors determining choice of a comparison other. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 219-232. Zanna, M. P., Goethals, G. R., & Hill, J. F. (1975). Evaluating a sex-related ability: Social comparison with similar others and standard setters. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 86-93.