PA RT I I

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGIC AL
PERSPECTIVES

3070-117-005.indd 71 5/20/2008 12:40:37 PM

3070-117-005.indd 72 5/20/2008 12:40:37 PM
 5

Social Comparison and Envy

mark d. alicke and ethan zell

It could be that the history of human affairs has left us with low expectations, but many
of the sins that were once considered “deadly” now seem more like quaint misdemean-
ors than egregious offenses. Pride, gluttony, and sloth are merely peccadilloes, and as
far as lust goes—do not even get us started. In fact, for all but the purest among us, the
deadly sins resemble bad habits rather than opprobrious shortcomings, and some are
downright salutary in the right time, place, and dosage (Twitchell, 1997).
This brings us to envy. Envy is primarily a self-affliction, and along with most of the
deadly sins, it seems less repugnant than behaviors or emotions whose primary aim or
upshot is to harm others. One might interject here that the punishment in hell for envy—
being placed in freezing water—is somewhat less onerous than being dismembered alive
(for the sin of anger), thrown in snake pits (for sloth), or put in cauldrons of boiling oil
(for greed), but still—no cakewalk. Besides promising a less gruesome after-life, envy
stands apart from the other sins in a more significant way: It does not seem to serve any
useful purpose (Fairlie, 1978). Pride instills self-confidence, lust stimulates procreation
or at least revelry, gluttony pleases the palate and belly, anger motivates people to protect
their interests, sloth conserves energy, but what in the world does envy buy people?
Our guess is that envy is the regrettable offspring of otherwise benign tenden-
cies. In particular, envy may be rooted in the natural propensity to compare one’s at-
tributes, possessions, and circumstances with those of others. More than 50 years of
social-psychological research devoted to the study of such social comparison processes
(Festinger, 1954; Stapel & Blanton, 2007; Suls & Wheeler, 2000) has demonstrated that
comparisons with other people, made either consciously or unconsciously, provide indis-
pensable data for self-evaluation. In particular, researchers who study social comparison
examine how people construct their identities, or predict their behavioral outcomes, by
comparing their characteristics, states, and circumstances with those of relevant others.
In addition to providing information for self-analysis, social comparisons have emo-
tional consequences (Brickman & Bulman, 1977; Smith, 2000). People who compare

73

3070-117-005.indd 73 5/20/2008 12:40:37 PM

 74 Social Comparison and Envy

favorably on important dimensions are likely to experience positive mood, a heightened

sense of their efficacy to achieve personal goals, and an improved sense of global self-
esteem, whereas unfavorable comparisons are more apt to engender negative mood
and a diminished sense of efficacy and self-worth. Enter envy. Envy is a negative social
comparison-based emotion, one that arises when person A compares unfavorably with
person B with respect to an attribute, possession, or position that person B has and
person A wants. Person B’s advantage can be real or perceived; trivial or consequen-
tial; a matter of degree or kind; and due to luck, effort; or natural ability. What matters
ultimately is that person A believes that person B’s advantage is in some way unjust
(although see Leach, chap. 6, this volume) and harbors ill will or at least unpleasant
feelings toward person B because of it (Smith & Kim, 2007).
In this chapter, we discuss what social comparison theorists have to say about envi-
ous people and their targets, as well as the situational factors that nurture or discourage
envy. We explore the conditions under which social comparisons are most likely to
engender envy, as well as the consequences of envious feelings for oneself and their
source. We consider both interpersonal and intergroup envy and consider directions for
future research.

Encountering Superior Comparison Targets:

Upward Social Comparison

Individuals are all inspired by stories of people who possess prodigious physical abili-
ties, moral character, ambition, kindness and courage, or intellectual aptitude. The long-
ing for heroes and legends is compelling enough to elevate the good to the exceptional
and the exceptional to the sublime. But heroes are typically worshipped from afar; they
are celebrities, people from another era, or contemporaries whose exploits provide vi-
carious rather than direct satisfaction. The experience of exceptional people can be quite
different when they are friends, peers, or competitors whose characteristics and abilities
threaten individuals; self-views and emotional well-being. Whether or not comparisons
with a superior target—what social psychologists call “upward comparisons”—arouse
envy depends on the context in which the comparison occurs, the nature of the rela-
tionship with the target, the envier’s status and prospects, and the way in which the
comparison’s implications are construed.

The Comparison Context

Social Comparison Perspective

Although abundant research evidence demonstrates that chronic differences in
social comparison tendencies influence reactions to upward comparisons (Gibbons &
Buunk, 1999), temporary emotional and cognitive states may also play a role. Someone
who has recently lost a job, ended a relationship, or suffered a financial loss is unlikely

3070-117-005.indd 74 5/20/2008 12:40:37 PM

 Social Comparison and Envy 75

to feel especially magnanimous. Learning that a friend has just landed a dream job,
begun an exhilarating new romantic relationship, or won the lottery is a less positive
experience after suffering a personal setback (Smith, Eyre, Powell, & Kim, 2006), es-
pecially when the other’s good fortune occurs in an area that is important to one’s self-
concept (Salovey & Rodin, 1984). Although research on this topic is scant, it seems
reasonable to assume that transient and chronic mood states affect the potential envier’s
reaction to unfavorable comparisons (Rosenhan, Salovey, & Harris, 1981). In the same
way that people who are in positive moods are more helpful (Isen, Clark, & Schwartz,
1976), they are also more likely to react nobly to another’s superiority rather than suc-
cumbing to the ignoble emotion of envy.
Transient emotional states are not the only factor that influences a person’s social
comparison perspective (Alicke, 1999). Recent experiences may also play a role. Poten-
tial enviers who have been primed by their own mistreatment, or by seeing others treated
unfairly, may make a special effort to overcome their envious feelings in an attempt to
avoid perpetrating similar harms. Conversely, experiences that remind people of their
inferior status and disappointments may heighten susceptibility to envy.
The setting in which upward comparisons occur may also influence the potential
envier’s mindset. One possibility is that the loss of face (Goffman, 1959) that attends
unfavorable comparisons will enhance the envier’s plight and increase his or her envious
feelings toward the superior target. On the other hand, envy is an ignominious emotion,
one which few people are willing to broadcast. When another’s superiority is publicly
exhibited, the inferior comparer may put on a show of appreciating the other’s positive
qualities. Ironically, people sometimes come to believe their public performances and
internalize the actions and attitudes that they convey. When people come to believe their
public endorsement of the superior target, envious feelings may be circumvented.

Direct Versus Vicarious Comparisons

The average person in the Internet age participates in a larger global community
than a person in any previous generation. This expansion of experience and hence social
comparison opportunities exploded with the advent of television and has accelerated
with the World Wide Web. People are now routinely exposed to the lives of others whose
circumstances differ substantially from their own. Those who enjoy especially felicitous
life experiences benefit in some ways from the frequent “downward comparisons” they
experience (i.e., comparisons with people who are worse off than themselves). But the
sheer number of lives and circumstances that people encounter also ensures frequent
exposure to better-off others. In short, people are consistently exposed to others who
live more glamorous lives and enjoy far greater material comforts.
As Belk notes (chap. 12, this volume), modern envy is aroused as much, if not
more, by the things that others have rather than by the attributes they possess. Whereas
the sin of coveting was once limited to one’s neighbors, it now extends to people who
we will never meet. The enormous market that has developed for exposing unflatter-
ing information about celebrities and their lives, including pictures by paparazzi and

3070-117-005.indd 75 5/20/2008 12:40:38 PM

 76 Social Comparison and Envy

stories in tabloids and on the Internet, suggests that many people harbor ill will to-
ward the rich and famous, despite being continually fascinated by their exploits. Sports
fans, to cite one prominent example, express outrage at players’ salaries on countless
talk radio and television shows, and these fans react with particular venom, admixed
with delight, when their heroes run afoul of the law or common decency. Interestingly,
sports fans seem to direct their resentment at the players, whose earnings represent
a small fraction of the owners’ wealth. There may be many reasons for this, but one
possibility is that fans feel more similar to the players than to the owners. As we will
elaborate below, unfavorable comparisons with others who are perceived to be similar
to oneself are prime breeding grounds for envy.
Although upward vicarious comparisons—those made with hypothetical others, or
with people whom the envier never interacts with—are capable of arousing envy, there is
good reason to believe that such comparisons are less potent than unfavorable compari-
sons made with others who are immediately present. Although this issue has not been
studied directly in relation to envy, research has shown that social comparisons made with
people who are physically present have more impact than comparisons based on statisti-
cal information about others’ performance. In one study (Buckingham & Alicke, 2002),
participants were led to believe that they had outperformed or underperformed a coactor
(actually, a confederate of the experimenter) on a lie detection task and also learned that
their score was better or worse than average. Results showed, as would be expected,
that participants evaluated their test performance and lie detection ability more favorably
when they outperformed rather than underperformed the coactor. More interestingly, at-
tributions of lie detection ability were influenced only by the coactor’s performance; on
this measure, the performance of a single coactor completely negated information about
average performance. Subsequent studies showed that aggregate information does influ-
ence ability attributions when coactor information is unavailable, thus demonstrating that
it is the influence of the single coactor’s score rather than the pallid nature of statistical
feedback that accounts for the neglect of the latter on ability attributions. The final study
in this series showed that a coactor’s mere presence was sufficient to lead participants to
ignore the statistical information.
In more recent research, Zell and Alicke (unpublished data) varied whether par-
ticipants believed that their task performance placed them at the top or bottom of the
group of five people who were presently taking the test, and that overall, their score
placed them in the 84th or 32nd percentile of about 1,500 participants who had taken
the examination. Main effects were obtained for both local comparisons (people who
were at the top of the group of five evaluated themselves more favorably than those at
the bottom) and general comparisons (people in the 84th percentile evaluated them-
selves more favorably than those in the 32nd percentile). However, the local compari-
son effects were far stronger than the general ones, even though the local comparisons
were based on a sample size of five whereas the general comparison was based on a
sample that was 300 times as large. Clearly, comparisons made with others in one’s
immediate environment carry far more weight than vague, distributional information
about placement in the larger population.

3070-117-005.indd 76 5/20/2008 12:40:38 PM

 Social Comparison and Envy 77

It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that envious feelings are intensified in

direct interactions with better off others. On the face of it, it seems illogical to be more
influenced by the outperformance of a single individual or a small group than by one’s
overall standing in the larger distribution. But the heightened impact of “local” ver-
sus “general” comparisons makes good evolutionary sense. Humans evolved in small
groups, and even today, most people’s fortunes and misfortunes hinge on their relation
to a relatively small group of family members, peers and associates. Understandably,
these are the people whose successes and failures habitually impact the self (Beach &
Tesser, 2000; D’Arms & Kerr, chap. 3, this volume; Hill & Buss, chap. 4, this volume;
Sedikides & Skowronski, 2003).

Conscious Versus Unconscious Social Comparisons

Throughout the history of social comparison research, interpersonal comparisons
were depicted as events in which people explicitly tested the implications of behavioral
feedback by evaluating their own characteristics versus those of others. In fact, in early
research on the topic, research participants were presented with various comparison
targets and asked to rank their value for assessing their abilities (Latané, 1966).
A significant advance in more recent social comparison research comes from the
recognition that most comparative processes occur implicitly, below conscious aware-
ness. Research has shown, for example, that self-evaluations automatically evoke
thoughts of comparison others (Mussweiler & Ruter, 2003), and conversely, that inter-
personal judgments automatically evoke thoughts about oneself (Dunning & Hayes,
1996). Research by Stapel and Blanton (2004) takes the spontaneous nature of social
comparison one step further by showing that social comparisons occur when the com-
parison target is presented outside of conscious awareness, and without any explicit
intention to evaluate oneself.
The fact that people make social comparisons while being unaware of doing so has
interesting implications for envy. If comparing unfavorably sometimes occurs below
conscious awareness, then it seems reasonable to assume that people can be unaware of
their envious feelings (Vidaillet, chap. 15, this volume). What they probably are aware
of, however, is that they harbor ill will toward the superior target. In seeking to explain
these negative feelings to themselves, they may exaggerate small faults of the superior
target, or manufacture faults that do not exist. In justifying envy that they do not real-
ize they have, therefore, they may form a far more negative view of the superior target
than reality warrants.
The study of implicit social comparison processes may also help elucidate the
scope of envious reactions, as well as their consequences for enviers and their targets.
Because envy is an undesirable social emotion, people are generally more motivated to
conceal it. Studying envy explicitly in the laboratory, therefore, may underestimate the
pervasiveness and power of envious reactions. Because implicit measures are difficult or
impossible to control, they hold the promise of more accurately assessing the conditions
that arouse envy and the responses that it evokes from the inferior comparer.

3070-117-005.indd 77 5/20/2008 12:40:38 PM

 78 Social Comparison and Envy

Importance and Centrality

Abundant research evidence suggests that the impact of upward comparisons depends
on the importance of the comparison dimension to the inferior comparer’s global self-
esteem (Salovey & Rodin, 1984; Sedikides & Strube, 1997; Tesser, 1991). These find-
ings suggest that people are less likely to experience envy regarding a target’s superiority
on a dimension that is unimportant to them than on one that defines them, or on which
their self-esteem is staked (Crocker & Park, 2003). A philosophy professor living in the
woods, for example, does not envy the hunting prowess of the neighbors, whereas the
neighbors lose little sleep over the professor’s superior grasp of Hegelian dialectic.
One of the curious facts about life in modern Western economies, however, is that
new needs rapidly proliferate. In fact, enormous marketing and advertising industries
exist precisely to transmute desires into needs, and to accentuate and expand those needs
(Belk, chap. 12, this volume). As a result, people readily come to define themselves with
regard to material possessions whose primary value derives from the fact that others have
them (Marcuse, 1964). This is how someone who rarely watches television comes to
experience envy at the sight of the neighbor’s gargantuan plasma television set. This abil-
ity to induce a sense of inferiority on focal dimensions that were originally unimportant,
and therefore to instill envy, is one of the most pernicious ramifications of the habitual
tendency to make upward comparisons (Frank, 1999).
The potential dangers of unfavorable upward comparisons are not limited to mate-
rial objects but extend to virtually any attribute. Exposure to other people’s physical and
intellectual prowess, along with the benefits that these advantages accrue, can heighten
the desire to acquire them, as well as create envy for the person who possesses an abun-
dance of the desired traits.

The Nature of the Relationship

The relationships that can exist between the comparer and target are varied and com-
plex. Whether real or imagined, long-standing or impromptu, close or distant, they are
based on similar or dissimilar attributes. The prototypical social comparison situation is
one in which a focal event or outcome instigates the comparer’s search for relevant com-
parison targets to elucidate his or her standing on an attribute. For example, a student
who receives a test score might want to know how others performed.
But this is only one of the many ways in which comparisons can arise. A more
frequent comparison context is one in which events and outcomes simply unfold, and
people seek to clarify their standing on event-related attributes by comparing them-
selves to others in their immediate environment—those with whom they share group
membership, occupational status, a romantic relationship, friendship, kinship, or locale.
For some of the dimensions on which comparisons arise, the basis of the relationship
provides a diagnostic data source. For example, a person who works in the same com-
pany at the same job level is a diagnostic comparison target for assessing the appropri-
ateness of one’s salary. On the other hand, a friend who works in a completely different

3070-117-005.indd 78 5/20/2008 12:40:38 PM

 Social Comparison and Envy 79

occupation is less relevant. Nevertheless, as we elaborate below, there is evidence that

people readily make nondiagnostic comparisons, which raises the possibility that envy
can be evoked by comparisons that seem, on the face of it, to be irrelevant to the envier’s
characteristics or status (Gilbert, Giesler, & Morris, 1995; Mussweiler, Ruter, & Ep-
stude, 2004; Stapel & Blanton, 2004; Sweeney & McFarlin, 2005).

Perceived Similarity
Consistent with the focus of Festinger’s (1954) original social comparison paper, the
similarity between the comparer and target has been the most discussed and researched
topic in the social comparison canon, and it is clearly important factor in understanding
envy (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004). Yet similarity remains a murky issue. One important
advance in understanding the role of similarity in upward social comparisons has been
obtained in research by Lockwood and Kunda (1997). Their study shows that similarity
with a superior target tends to be inspiring if the inferior target can plausibly anticipate
attaining the superior target’s status. On the other hand, similarity has a deflating effect
on the self-concept if the superior target’s ability appears beyond reach.
A distinction that is sometimes drawn among focal, related, and surrounding at-
tributes (Wood, 1989) also helps bring the similarity problem into relief. The focal di-
mension is the subject of the comparison; people can compare themselves to others,
for example, with regard to their intelligence, popularity, wealth, and talent. Similarity
estimates are straightforward when objective data on the focal dimension are available.
Two students who have always received similar grades in math, for example, can con-
fidently assume that they will perform similarly on a math test. Furthermore, a student
who outperforms or underperforms a coequal has an unambiguous reference point from
which to assess his or her performance.
When background information on the focal dimension is lacking, people can es-
timate their similarity by relying on related attributes—attributes that are predictive or
diagnostic of their standing on the focal dimension (Wheeler, Martin, & Suls, 1997).
Two people who are engaged in an athletic contest for the first time, and who have no
foreknowledge of each other’s ability, can at least gauge their similarity on the related,
physical attributes that are typically needed to succeed and forecast the outcome of the
contest on this basis.
Relying on focal data and related attributes is the logical way to assess one’s pros-
pects and attributes. Yet there is abundant evidence to suggest that people routinely
access ostensibly irrelevant dimensions for self-evaluation. For example, people rely on
comparisons with same-sex others even when sex has little bearing on the focal evalu-
ative dimension (Suls, Gaes, & Gastorf, 1979; Zanna, Goethals, & Hill, 1975), or on
physical attractiveness to evaluate their logical reasoning ability (Miller, 1982). These
nondiagnostic bases for comparison are called surrounding attributes. However, we pre-
fer to use the terms focal dimension to refer to the attribute that is being assessed and
peripheral dimension to refer to attributes or states that are used as a basis for prediction
or analysis, regardless of their diagnosticity.

3070-117-005.indd 79 5/20/2008 12:40:38 PM

 80 Social Comparison and Envy

Within this complex similarity matrix, envious reactions are the likely outcome of
an unfavorable comparison that is unexpected from peripheral similarities. Consider
first a comparison between two strangers in which peripheral similarities are minimal
and, therefore, expectations are weak. The superiority of one stranger over the other is
unlikely to arouse much envy because the inferior comparer has no way of knowing how
he should fare in relation to the target.
Things become more complex when peripheral similarity is introduced. In real-
ity, this complexity exists even in comparisons between strangers due to their ability
to base predictions on nonverbal characteristics such as age, sex, and various physical
attributes. Even abstract statistical comparisons, such as comparing one’s performance
against a group average, evokes demographic characteristics of the sample.
To help outline the kinds of peripheral similarity that can influence the comparer’s
potential envy after an upward comparison, consider four examples. The first example
is one in which one neighbor ponders the other’s ability to make major upgrades to
his house. Because the disadvantaged neighbor perceives peripheral similarity by dint
of living in the same neighborhood in similar houses, envy on the focal dimension of
financial stature is acute. According to the envier’s calculations, the neighbors should
be similar on the focal dimension, but they are not. In this example, perceived similarity
on related attributes leads to an expectation on the focal dimension (i.e., wealth) that is
violated by the neighbor’s ostensible advantage.
The second example involves a young swain ditched by his inamorata for another
suitor. Obviously, the injured party is interested in the ways in which he differs from the
preferred rival, and his envy is stoked by the qualities his rival possesses that he lacks.
In contrast to the previous example, the injured party in this case must acquire new
information about similarities to assess the dimensions on which he is dissimilar (e.g.,
intelligence, physical attractiveness, or personality). It is these dimensions—the ones on
which he compares unfavorably to his rival and that presumably constitute the basis for
his downfall—that will be the source of his envious feelings. In essence, similarity and
dissimilarity are unknown in advance but are ascertained by assessing differences between
one’s own and the superior target’s characteristics.
The third example is the galling experience of finding out via survey data that one’s
salary is far below the average of others in your profession with the same level of expe-
rience. Peripheral similarity in this case is defined by the profession and level of experi-
ence, as well as by the inferior target’s perception of his or her skill level relative to
others. This self-evaluation requires a more abstract comparison than one that involves
only a few others. The envy that inferior comparers experience under these circum-
stances may be confined to those whom they perceive to be at or above their skill level,
whereas their feelings toward those they perceive to be below them on the dimensions
that are related to the focal dimension of salary are characterized instead by resentment.
The fourth and final example is one in which two friends with distinctly different
personality, values, and habits apply for the same job, which one of them successfully
obtains. In this example, the friends are quite different with regard to dimensions that
are peripheral to the focal one that the job entails, and the example can be constructed

3070-117-005.indd 80 5/20/2008 12:40:39 PM

 Social Comparison and Envy 81

such that the peripheral dimensions are largely unrelated to the focal one. Despite dif-
ferences in basic personality and attitudes, the bond of friendship that exists between
the two creates a context that heightens the distress for the unsuccessful partner. This
produces a strong possibility for envy, assuming that the job was an attractive one.
These examples delineate a number of distinct features of peripheral similarity.
First, peripheral dimensions may be related or unrelated to the focal one, and envy is
most likely to be aroused when peripheral dimensions predict superiority but the out-
come of the comparison is negative. Second, one’s standing on peripheral dimensions is
not always known in advance, and the experience of envy can sometimes instigate the
search for peripheral similarities and dissimilarities. Third, peripheral similarity refers
to relatively abstract norms, such as comparisons with a national average, in addition
to specific comparisons with individuals. Finally, the relationship between people, such
as their closeness, can be considered a type of peripheral dimension that influences the
experience of envy on a focal dimension. The importance of closeness as a predictor of
envy is elaborated in the next section.

Closeness
Envy is generally more acute when people compare unfavorably to close friends
or relatives rather than to casual acquaintances. There are several reasons why close
relationships evoke more envy. First, people interact more frequently with close individu-
als, and so the pain of unfavorable comparison is experienced repeatedly. Second, close
relationship partners are more likely to compete for the same resources, and competitive
situations are breeding grounds for envy (Foster, 1972; Lindholm, chap. 13, this volume).
Third, inferior comparers in close relationships may realize that they have had far more
opportunities than the other to gain an advantage; feeling inferior to someone who one
should be superior to can induce envy. Fourth and finally, unfavorable comparisons in
close relationships are constant reminders not only of the superior member’s advantage
but also of the inferior member’s inferiority and its ramifications (e.g., having a less de-
sirable job, the inability to send one’s children to top schools, or the inability to perform
as well at valued tasks).
Tesser’s (1988) self-evaluation maintenance model provides the most well-
developed perspective on the role of closeness in the social comparison literature. Tesser
distinguishes between two self-evaluative modes: reflection and comparison. Reflec-
tion refers to thinking about the ways in which the comparer is similar to the target,
whereas the comparison process emphasizes differences. Reflection entails claiming
some of the other’s accomplishments for oneself, or “basking” in their attainments. This
occurs when the other’s accomplishments are highly meritorious, when the comparer
feels psychologically close to or interdependent with the target (which Tesser likens to a
sense of belongingness), and when the comparison dimension is not a vital component
of the inferior comparer’s self-concept. When a close other’s performance is more cen-
tral, the comparison process predominates, resulting in an unpleasant affective state that
presumably includes envy.

3070-117-005.indd 81 5/20/2008 12:40:39 PM

 82 Social Comparison and Envy

Tesser’s model suggests, therefore, that the most powerful context for envy is one in
which the success or attainment of close others threatens the inferior relationship mem-
ber on an important comparison dimension. As Tesser acknowledges, however, there are
important exceptions to this rule. Perhaps the most important moderator of these close-
ness effects is the interdependence (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) of the relationship mem-
bers. A parent, for example, whose child is smarter, wealthier, more attractive, or more
athletic, is probably more likely to revel in these advantages, even when they highlight
his or her own disadvantages. Parents and their children are highly interdependent both
in a biological sense and a material one: In a healthy parent-child relationship, both gain
from each other’s advantages and suffer from each other’s losses.
A different type of interdependence obtains among group members who depend on
each other for success, such as members of a symphony orchestra, an athletic team, or
a business organization. If the superiority of the top members confers glory and wealth
on the others, the inferior members are more likely to bask in the more accomplished
members’ attainments than to envy them.
A special case of simmering envy exists when one relationship member attains
goals, acquires possessions, or garners awards that inferior members believe should
have been reserved for them—as in the immortal words of Ray Charles (1953): “it
should’ve been me with that real fine chick” (Charles, 2001). Imagine an example of
high school friends who take many of the same courses together. It is possible for more
diligent students to outshine their cohorts and yet to possess less innate ability. When
the originally inferior students subsequently receive higher standardized test scores and
are accepted at better colleges, the superior high school students feel a strong sense of
injustice. Envy is accelerated if the formerly inferior students reach their potential and
attain immense success and recognition, especially if the lower performing students
believe that these rewards should have been bestowed on them. Athletic competition
provides another compelling example of this type of “table-turning” envy. Often, the
most celebrated stars on college athletic teams are not the ones who are drafted the
highest as professionals. The order in which athletes are drafted for professional teams
is based as much, if not more, on perceived potential than on acquired attainments. It is
especially galling, therefore, for the winner of the Heisman trophy as the best college
football player to fall precipitously in the draft to another player whom he has routinely
outperformed. The envious feelings that this creates are exacerbated if the formerly
inferior player outshines the college star in the professional ranks.
Despite these multiple inducements to envy in close relationships, envy is an un-
comfortable emotional state, and there is considerable incentive for envious relationship
members to conquer their feelings and find a way to accept the other’s positive attri-
butes. Envy is often an immediate reaction to learning of a disadvantage, but may dis-
sipate over time, especially in close relationships, whose survival depends on the ability
of partners to accept each other’s faults, and in the case of envy, their accomplishments
as well. There is little research that investigates the conditions and circumstances that
enable people to surmount their envious feelings (Exline & Zell, chap. 17, this volume).

3070-117-005.indd 82 5/20/2008 12:40:39 PM

 Social Comparison and Envy 83

One strong possibility, however, involves the emergence of interdependent goal pursuits
(Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). When the superior target’s advan-
tage works to the benefit of the less capable member, in such organizations as sports
teams, symphony orchestras, and medical units, envious feelings may be palliated.

The Envious Person’s Standing

The distance between the superior and inferior comparers’ standing on the focal
attribute, and the basis of the inferiority, are topics that have received little attention
in the social comparison literature. An especially potent stimulant for envy is when
the superior party’s advantage signals a weakness or shortcoming in the inferior party.
Consider the example of two female friends who decide to take painting lessons to-
gether: One clearly possesses a great deal of artistic talent, whereas the other possesses
none. If the inferior performer had possessed at least some promise, she could console
herself with the possibility of catching up in time (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997). Assum-
ing that she had high hopes of possessing artistic talent, this circumstance could evoke
considerable envy.
People can also feel inferior with regard to their material possessions and prospects.
Although an acquaintance’s lottery winnings are mute with regard to one’s own abili-
ties, they do highlight personal financial limitations. Driving an unreliable automobile,
or being unable to travel to interesting places, seem much worse in the face of another’s
new freedoms and opportunities.
Envy is exacerbated when the comparer’s disadvantage is unexpected. An espe-
cially poignant example is when the inferior performer falls behind someone whom
he or she used to easily surpass. This problem becomes even worse when it reverses
a long-standing pattern. An example is a younger sibling overtaking an older one on a
dimension that is important to both of them. The loss to the formerly advantaged party
is another instigator to envy.

Avoiding, Minimizing, and Controlling Envy

There is no way to tell with precision how frequently envy results from unfavorable up-
ward comparisons in everyday life. Although there is good reason to believe that envy is
pervasive (Schoeck, 1969; it also seems likely that envious feelings can be vanquished
or diminished when inferior comparers are able to construe their disadvantage in a posi-
tive, or at least less negative, way (Salovey & Rodin, 1988). Furthermore, even when
strong envious reactions occur initially, it is possible that these emotions dissipate, or
are overcome, with time. Even when enviers fail to vanquish these emotions, they may
transmute them into other forms such as indignation (Smith & Kim, 2007) or use them
as a motivational tool for improvement (Exline & Zell, chap. 17, this volume). In this
section, we discuss some of the factors that influence the ability to control envy and the
construal processes that are available to combat it.

3070-117-005.indd 83 5/20/2008 12:40:39 PM

 84 Social Comparison and Envy

Temporal Frame
Comparisons can be made between an individual and one or more other persons, or
self-referentially among an individual’s past, present, and future states. The former have
been called “social comparisons” and the latter “temporal comparisons” (Albert, 1977)
in the research literature, but we prefer to separate the self-referential versus social na-
ture of the comparison with its time frame because these are independent dimensions.
People can, and often do, compare with other people’s past and future states. An older
brother might, for example, compare his younger brother’s skill to his own at a similar
developmental stage, or the younger brother might project into the future to assess how
he will compare with his older sibling.
This temporal aspect of social comparison provides various construal strategies for
palliating envious reactions. One tactic is to exaggerate one’s former prowess (“the older
I get, the better I used to be”) while minimizing the present importance of the attribute.
A different possibility involves exaggerating the quality of current attributes by down-
playing their former status (Wilson & Ross, 2001). Thus, even if inferior performers com-
pare unfavorably to another person, they can take solace in their improvement over time.
Perhaps an even more pervasive strategy is to respond to unfavorable social com-
parisons by projecting favorable future prospects, including the possibility that inferior
comparers will eventually surpass the superior target. A number of studies suggest that
upward comparisons can be a source of inspiration rather than deflation (see Collins,
1996, for a review), provided that they allow for or even encourage the belief that the
inferior performer is capable of matching or approximating the superior target’s level in
the future (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997).

Objectivity-Subjectivity of Social
Comparison Dimensions
The focal dimension in most social comparison studies has been an intellectual or
social ability, such as the ability to solve anagrams, answer standardized test problems,
or judge another’s attributes or sincerity (social sensitivity). Caution is required, there-
fore, in extrapolating from this research to other dimensions on which envy is experi-
enced such as physical prowess, social status, reputation, and wealth.
An essential determinant of the inferior comparer’s ability to diminish envy via fa-
vorable construals is the objective determinability of the judgment. Favorable construals
are infeasible for highly objective tests. If one person consistently runs faster than the
other, it is ludicrous for the slower runner to claim superiority. Similarly, it is difficult
to deny another’s superior wealth or occupational status. The judgment dimensions that
underlie many if not most comparisons, however, are more subjective in nature. Virtu-
ally all social characteristics, for instance, are subjectively based because the rules for
validating social characteristics are fuzzier than those for physical or intellectual quali-
ties. Although precise norms exist for establishing scores on certain intellectual tests,
the rules for defining levels of cooperativeness, shyness, or politeness are indefinite
(Dunning, Meyerowitz, & Holzberg, 1989). Thus, rather than envying someone who is

3070-117-005.indd 84 5/20/2008 12:40:39 PM

 Social Comparison and Envy 85

considered to possess better social characteristics, one can simply deny that the superi-
ority exists, or at least question its magnitude or significance.
Even relatively objective judgment dimensions allow room for interpretation. A
person who fares poorly in a physical competition can argue that he or she had a bad day
or that the conditions were poor. Excuses such as these question the reliability and valid-
ity of the comparison. When comparisons with a particular target occur infrequently or
irregularly, the reliability of the outcome is uncertain. Likewise, the subjectivity inher-
ent in many judgments provides a reasonable opportunity to question the comparison’s
validity. For example, a less successful artist, writer, or musician might attribute a tar-
get’s greater success or popularity to declining cultural values. Envy can be obviated,
therefore, by defining the implications of the comparison in a way that minimizes their
negative value for the self.

Basis of Superiority
It seems reasonable to assume that the basis of the superior target’s advantage
should influence the inferior comparer’s envy, but empirical evidence on this point is
scant, and specific predictions are difficult to derive. Two factors regarding the per-
ceived basis of the superior target’s advantage seem important. The first is the way in
which the superior target’s advantage has evolved, in particular, the inferior comparer’s
feeling about the legitimacy or fairness of the advantage (Smith & Kim, 2007). People
whose favorable characteristics result from effort and hard work seem more admirable
than those whose advantages result from birth, nepotism, or sheer luck (e.g., winning
the lottery). But the relation of envy to perceived fairness is complex (D’Arms & Kerr,
chap. 3, this volume; Leach, chap. 6, this volume). On the one hand, people who earn
their stripes through diligence and effort seem more admirable than enviable. At the
same time, meritorious comparison targets pose a greater threat to the inferior compar-
er’s sense of competence because they suggest a lack of effort or desire on the inferior
comparer’s part (Montaldi, 2000; Smith, Parrott, Ozer, & Moniz, 1994). The demarca-
tion line between admiration and envy is, therefore, a tenuous one.
The second factor potentially provides some clarification, namely, the degree to
which the inferior member believes that the comparison dimension is a controllable one
on which improvement is possible. In general, envy should be greater when the inferior
comparer believes that he or she has little chance to attain the superior target’s status
than when such attainments seem feasible (Smith & Kim; 2007; but see Leach, chap. 6,
this volume). Research on upward comparisons (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997) has shown,
for example, that first-year graduate students tend to view a superior job talk by a new
candidate as inspiring, whereas fifth-year graduate students, whose comparison to the
superstar is more immediate, have more adverse reactions. Although this research fo-
cuses on the consequences of such comparisons for self-judgments, envious reactions
may follow the same pattern.
Sometimes, even when the superior target’s advantages on the focal dimension
do not inspire envy, their ramifications on peripheral dimensions may do so. Financial

3070-117-005.indd 85 5/20/2008 12:40:39 PM

 86 Social Comparison and Envy

wealth is a prime example. For someone who is not particularly motivated by financial
gain, a “lowly” acquaintance’s winning the lottery is, by itself, inconsequential. But,
when the uncouth, semiarticulate lottery winner purchases first edition volumes of lit-
erature that the less fortunate comparer has lusted after, or paintings by a favorite artist,
envy lurks (Epstein, 2003).
This example highlights an interesting kind of envy that is directed toward a for-
merly downward comparison that has now turned upward. Many examples can be cited;
a particularly powerful one is represented in the violent reactions that occurred dur-
ing the reconstruction period following the American Civil War. White bigotry was
stoked by sight of people who they believed were their inferiors holding positions of
responsibility and power in the local government. This led to a backlash that gave rise
to, among other things, the Ku Klux Klan and violence and lynchings of African Ameri-
cans (Bennett, 2003).
The emergence of nouveau riche merchant classes has aroused similar reactions.
The position of those who held power based more on hereditary privilege than native or
acquired skills was threatened by the emerging democratic spirit that culminated in the
American Revolution. The success of the former “lower” classes instilled a unique type
of envy among the formerly advantaged. Such upstarts are often considered crass, un-
cultured, and ill-mannered, primarily because their personalities, habits, and lifestyles
differ from the ones that had previously prevailed.
Finally, the way that superior comparison targets handle their advantages are im-
portant considerations in the envy equation. Celebrities such as Paris Hilton and Brit-
tany Spears, who flaunt their advantages and waste their opportunities, wind up as
objects of disdain (Harris, Cikara, & Fiske, chap. 8, this volume), whereas people who
forego their riches to construct buildings for the homeless are especially adulated. As-
suming that envy is a precarious fusion of admiration and disdain, it is possible that
neither of these extreme groups will arouse much of it. Instead, the strongest magnet
for envy may be an upward target who possesses just enough of a flaw to warrant bad
feelings, but not so much of it that they are simply disliked or pitied.

Explanatory and Attributional Mechanisms

The consequences of envy usually include emotions such as hostility and feelings
of unfairness as well as behaviors such as distancing oneself from superior targets, dis-
paraging them, and undermining their efforts. Sometimes, these ignoble efforts fail,
and superior targets continue to increase the gap between themselves and the inferior
comparers while reaping further benefits. When this happens and “primary control”
(Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982) cannot be restored by the inferior comparer’s im-
provement or the superior target’s decline, the inferior person may resort to various
forms of “secondary control” to diminish envious feelings. Primary control entails actu-
ally reducing the ability gap, whereas secondary control refers to construal or explana-
tory mechanisms that reinterpret the event in a way that is more advantageous to the
inferior comparer.

3070-117-005.indd 86 5/20/2008 12:40:40 PM

 Social Comparison and Envy 87

One such secondary control mechanism is to compensate for the disadvantage on

the focal dimension by emphasizing one’s advantages in traits or characteristics that are
unrelated to the present comparison. This tactic is similar to what is known as “compen-
satory self-inflation,” (Baumeister & Jones, 1978; Greenberg & Pysczynski, 1985), ex-
cept that rather than elevating peripheral self-dimensions to compensate for poor status
on a focal one, it involves elevating one’s standing on dimensions that yield a relative
advantage over the target. Along these lines, the inferior performer might reason “I may
not be athletic, but I’m much smarter than him, “she may be rich but her kids are brats,”
or “she may be smart, but I am far more popular.”
Another way to cope with envy via secondary control is to rearrange one’s values
(Tesser, 1991). For example, a person who envies others’ financial status can downplay
the importance of financial security or bemoan the shallowness of material pursuits; a
girl who is unpopular in high school can emphasize her intellectual prowess, and so on.
In short, people can cope with envy by extolling the dimensions on which they compare
favorably and minimizing the importance of the dimensions that evoke envy.
Research conducted in our laboratory on the “genius effect” (Alicke, LoSchiavo,
Zerbst, & Zhang, 1997) provides another secondary control mechanism for dealing with
envy. When the upward target’s superiority on the focal dimension is unambiguous, it
is difficult for the inferior comparer to proffer believable excuses. Under these circum-
stances, an effective tack is to exaggerate the outperformer’s ability. If the outperform-
er’s ability is construed as truly exceptional, it is possible for inferior comparers to place
their own status in a relatively favorable light. There is no shame, in other words, in
comparing unfavorably to a superstar. Thus, envy can be forestalled via the belief that
the superior performer’s status renders him or her beyond reach.

Magical Thinking
An extreme, but probably common, secondary control procedure for dealing with
inferior status and envy is to engage in fantasy or magical thinking. Fantasizing about
future success, winning the lottery, or being an athletic star or celebrity, might help
reduce the psychological distress that envy evokes. Philosophers have claimed that reli-
gious beliefs serve this purpose (Nietzsche, 1887/1967). The belief in a glorious after-
life, especially one in which the tables are turned so that the “meek inherit the earth,”
perhaps represents a way to reconcile inferior status in the present life.
People can also imagine the decline of the superior target’s admired qualities, as
exemplified in Joni Mitchell’s (1974) lyrics: “. . . dreaming of the pleasure I’m going to
have watching your hairline recede my vain darling.” Imagining the target’s downfall is
a relatively weak coping strategy when the superior target’s advantages are obvious, but
it provides a last resort when more direct coping mechanisms are unavailable.

Intergroup Envy

Although social comparison theory has tended to emphasize the consequences of

comparisons for individual identity, intergroup comparisons have not been ignored.

3070-117-005.indd 87 5/20/2008 12:40:40 PM

 88 Social Comparison and Envy

People frequently calibrate the attributes, abilities, and status of their family, friends,
teams, and organizations through comparisons with other relevant groups. Children
wonder, for example, whether their families have as much money as their friends’
families, and competitive organizations, such as athletic or debating teams, naturally
desire to compare their abilities with those of the opposition. The central tenet of social
identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) is that individual self-esteem is staked in part
on the status of the groups to which people belong. Membership in favorably regarded
groups confers benefits on individuals’ self-esteem. On the other hand, belonging to
poorly regarded groups can be detrimental to self-evaluations and self-esteem.
Because group affiliations influence personal identity and self-esteem, some of the
same factors that affect the experience of individual envy can be translated to the in-
tergroup context. In general, people can be expected to experience more envy when an
out-group is superior on characteristics that are central rather than peripheral to group
identity. Students who identify with their schools’ athletic teams or academic reputa-
tions will likely experience more envy when their inferiority is revealed on these attri-
butes than on less central ones. On less central dimensions, a group’s prowess is a source
of admiration rather than envy.
The nature of the relationship between in-groups and out-groups also influences the
experience of envy. Ironically, holding an out-group in high regard on a focal compari-
son dimension is more rather than less likely to produce envy, especially when the out-
group is perceived negatively on peripheral dimensions such as warmth and emotional
complexity (Harris, Cikara, & Fiske, chap. 8, this volume). Competitive intergroup situ-
ations are especially likely to evoke envy among the inferior group members (Fiske,
Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). Realistic group conflict theory (Esses, Dovidio, Danso,
Jackson, & Semenya, 2005) suggests that groups compete for limited resources, and that
in competitive contexts, one group’s gain is tantamount to a loss for the disadvantaged
group. The anti-Semitism exhibited in Nazi Germany is a historical example of “envi-
ous prejudice” (Glick, 2002). Jews were perceived to have disproportionate power and
influence in German life and were also thought to possess morally inferior traits such as
deceitfulness. This combination of perceived power and moral defects created a climate
that was ripe for envy and helped justify hatred toward and mistreatment of the Jewish
population. Instances of international strife have also been attributed in part to envy
(Schimmel, 1993), especially with regard to the ill will expressed between poor and
rich nations. Some instances of global Islamic terrorism have been ascribed to envy and
resentment of Western power and influence (Zakaria, 2001).
Envying other groups may lead to further mistreatment of them. Intergroup emo-
tions theory suggests that specific emotions such as fear and anger predict prejudice
and discrimination (Mackie, Silver, & Smith, 2004). It could also be argued that envy
influences discriminatory behavior. Because social comparison processes can occur
without awareness (Mussweiler, Ruter, & Epstude, 2004; Stapel & Blanton, 2004),
envy toward out-groups is perhaps implicated in subtle forms of implicit prejudice and
discrimination. Furthermore, intergroup envy can produce hostility. Envied out-groups
can be subject to aggression when it is perceived that their status was obtained through

3070-117-005.indd 88 5/20/2008 12:40:40 PM

 Social Comparison and Envy 89

illegitimate or unjust tactics (Miller, 2001). Envy can also result in aggression due to
the potent self-esteem threat that superior out-groups pose. These effects are likely most
pronounced for individuals with unstable high self-esteem who are prone to severe emo-
tional reactions when their grandiose self-views are questioned (Baumeister, Smart, &
Boden, 1996).
Intergroup envy can have powerful behavioral consequences. However, there are
conditions under which individuals can capitalize on the fluid nature of the social self
to sidestep the deleterious consequences of envy. An example is downplaying one’s
membership in low-status groups. Following an in-group’s victory, members can assert
“we won,” but when the group fails to achieve success, claim that “they lost” (Cialdini
et al., 1976). Additionally, members of low-status groups may emphasize their standing
within the group and minimize the relevance of the group’s standing relative to others
(Crocker & Major, 1989). As the research on the “big-fish-in-the-little-pond” effect
demonstrates, good members of bad groups have higher self-evaluations and aspirations
for the future than bad members of good groups, despite being objectively worse off
(Marsh & Parker, 1984).

Conclusions

Encountering talented and advantaged people can be an edifying, and at the same time
precarious, experience. It is natural to admire those who possess especially meritorious
qualities. However, people who are more attractive, more popular, smarter, wealthier, or
more skilled cast other people’s own qualities in a disadvantageous light. There is a fine
line, therefore, between admiring people’s superiors and basking in their accomplish-
ments, and envying them and wishing them ill will.
In research on social comparison processes, superior others are referred to as
“upward comparison targets.” Although the number of studies devoted to the topic of
upward comparison is large, the proportion that specifically addresses the emotion of
envy is small. Much of what we have written in this paper, therefore, required what we
hope were reasonable extrapolations from how people respond to unfavorable upward
social comparisons to the context of envy. In general, the likelihood that people will
experience envy toward a superior comparison target should increase with the closeness
of the target, the importance of the comparison dimension to the inferior comparer’s
self-concept, the objective determinability of the dimension on which the inferiority
is revealed, and the immediacy of the comparison.
Perhaps the major unresolved issue in the study of upward comparison and envy
concerns the role of similarity on peripheral dimensions, including the closeness of the
upward comparison target. From a purely logical perspective, people should “diagnose”
their standing on focal dimensions by relying on predictions that are based on related
ones; this is, in fact, one of the basic tenets of Festinger’s original social comparison
theory. But research shows that people are perfectly willing to use ostensibly irrelevant
comparison dimensions to predict their focal standing. It is important, therefore, to get

3070-117-005.indd 89 5/20/2008 12:40:40 PM

 90 Social Comparison and Envy

a better handle on the actual psychology of social comparisons—what people think they
are doing and trying to accomplish—as opposed to relying on the statistical logic that
often seems to elude self-evaluations. The conditions under which people seek diagnos-
tic comparisons as opposed to convenience samples and logically irrelevant peripheral
similarity is a worthy topic for future investigation.
Virtually all discussions of envy from a social comparison vantage treat it is an
upward comparison phenomenon; that is, as one in which an inferior comparer experi-
ences hostility toward someone with higher status on the focal comparison dimension.
It would be interesting to explore, however, whether there is such a thing as downward
comparison envy, and if so, the form it takes and the conditions under which it arises. As
research on “fear of envy” suggests (Foster, 1972), being in an advantaged position has
problems of its own, especially the one of avoiding the hostility that envious people ex-
perience. In this regard, people with supreme achievements may long for simpler times
when their lives were less busy, complicated, or when they had fewer responsibilities.
Envy is a pervasive, and yet, not inevitable, feature of upward social comparisons.
We have described various tactics and construal mechanisms that inferior comparers can
use to reduce or obviate their envious feelings. However, the implicit or automatic na-
ture of upward comparisons, and the possibility that people can experience envy without
even knowing it, suggests that these palliatives will often fail to work. Furthermore, by
seeking to justify their envious feelings by disparaging the upward target, people may
actually increase rather than reduce the distress that envy causes.

References
Albert, S. (1977). Temporal comparison theory. Psychological Review, 84, 485–503.
Alicke, M. D. (1999). Self-orientations in self and social judgment. Psychological Inquiry, 10,
35–39.
Alicke, M. D., LoSchiavo, F. M., Zerbst, J. I., & Zhang, S. (1997). The person who outperforms
me is a genius: Esteem maintenance in upward social comparison. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73, 781–789.
Baumeister, R. F., & Jones, E. E. (1978). When self-presentation is constrained by the target’s
knowledge: Consistency and compensation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
36, 608–616.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence
and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5–33.
Beach, S. R., & Tesser, A. (2000). Self-evaluation maintenance and evolution: Some speculative
notes. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research
(pp. 123–140). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Bennett, L., Jr., (2003). Before the Mayflower. Chicago: Johnson Publishing Co.
Brickman, P. & Bulman, R. J. (1977). Pleasure and pain in social comparison. In J. Suls &
R. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives
(pp. 209–234). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Buckingham, J. T., & Alicke, M. D. (2002). The influence of individual versus aggregate social
comparison and the presence of others on self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 83, 1117–1130.

3070-117-005.indd 90 5/20/2008 12:40:40 PM

 Social Comparison and Envy 91

Charles, R. (2001). It should’ve been me. On The best of Ray Charles–The Atlantic years [CD].
New York: Atlantic Recording Cooperation. (1959)
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976).
Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 34, 366–375.
Collins, R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-
evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 51–69.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of
stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630.
Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2003). Seeking self-esteem: Construction, maintenance, and protec-
tion of self-worth. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity
(pp. 291–313). New York: Guilford Press.
Dunning, D., & Hayes, A. F. (1996). Evidence for egocentric comparison in social judgment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 213–229.
Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A., & Holzberg, A. D. (1989). Ambiguity and self-evaluation: The
role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability. Journal of Perso-
nality and Social Psychology, 57, 1082–1090.
Epstein, J. (2003). Envy: The seven deadly sins. New York: Oxford University Press.
Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Danso, H. A., Jackson, L. M., & Semenya, A. (2005). Historical
and modern perspectives on group competition. In C. S. Crandall & M. Schaller (Eds.), The
social psychology of prejudice: Historical and contemporary issues. Seattle, WA: Lewinian
Press (pp. 94–114).
Fairlie, H. (1978). The seven deadly sins today. Washington, DC: New Republic.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A.J.C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype
content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
Foster, G. (1972). The anatomy of envy. Current Anthropology, 13, 165–202.
Frank, R. H. (1999). Luxury fever. New York: The Free Press.
Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development
of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76, 129–142.
Gilbert, D. T., Giesler, R. B., & Morris, K. A. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of Perso-
nality and Social Psychology, 69, 227–236.
Glick, P. (2002). Sacrificial lambs dressed in wolves clothing: Envious prejudice, ideology, and
the scapegoating of Jews. In L. S. Newman & R. Erber (Eds.), What social psychology can
tell us about the Holocaust (pp. 113–142). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday
Publishers.
Greenberg, J., & Pysczynski, T. (1985). Compensatory self-inflation: A response to the threat to
self-regard of public failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 273–280.
Isen, A. M., Clark, M., & Schwartz, M. F. (1976). Duration of the effect of good mood on helping:
Footprints on the sand of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 385–393.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New
York: Wiley.
Latané, B. (Ed.) (1966). Studies in social comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy, Suppl. 1.

3070-117-005.indd 91 5/20/2008 12:40:41 PM

 92 Social Comparison and Envy

Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on
the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 91–103.
Mackie, D. M., Silver, L., & Smith, E. R. (2004). Intergroup emotions: Emotions as an inter-
group phenomenon. In L. Z. Tiedens & C. W. Leach (Eds.), The social life of emotions
(pp. 227–245). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Marcuse, H. (1964). One dimensional man. Boston: Beacon Press.
Marsh, H. W., & Parker, J. W. (1984). Determinants of students self concepts: Is it better to be a
relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t swim well? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 47, 213–231.
Miller, C. T. (1982). The role of performance-related similarity in social comparison of abili-
ties: A test of the related attributes hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
18, 513–523.
Miller, D. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 527–553.
Mitchell, J. (1974). Just like this train. On Court and spark [CD]. Los Angeles: Elektra/Asylum
Records.
Montaldi, D. F. (2000). Dispositional envy: Envy types and schemas. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Mussweiler, T., & Ruter, K. (2003). What friends are for! The use of routine standards in social
comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 467– 481.
Mussweiler, T., Ruter, K., & Epstude, K. (2004). The man who wasn’t there: Subliminal social
comparison standards influence self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
40, 689–696.
Nietzsche, F. (1967). On the geneology of morals (W. Kaufman & R. J. Hollingdale, Trans.) New
York: Random House. (Original work published 1887)
Rosenhan, D. L., Salovey, P., & Harris, K. (1981). The joys of helping: Focus of attention medi-
ates the impact of positive affect on altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
40, 899–905.
Rothman, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self:
A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
42, 5–37.
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1984). Some antecedents and consequences of social-comparison jeal-
ousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 780 –792.
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1988). Coping with envy and jealousy. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 7, 15–33.
Schimmel, S. (1993). Seven Deadly Sins. New York: Bantam Doubleday.
Schaubroeck, J. & Lam, S. K. (2004). Comparing lots before and after: Promotion rejectees’
invidious reactions to promotees. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
94, 33–47.
Schoeck, H. (1969). Envy: A theory of social behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J. J. (2003). Evolution of the symbolic self: Issues and prospects.
In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 594 – 609). New
York: Guilford Press.
Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own
self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 209–269. New York: Academic Press.

3070-117-005.indd 92 5/20/2008 12:40:41 PM

 Social Comparison and Envy 93

Smith, R. H. (2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward
social comparisons. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory
and research (pp. 173–200). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Smith, R. H., Eyre, H. L., Powell, C. A., & Kim, S. H. (2006). Relativistic origins of emotional
reactions to events happening to others and to ourselves. British Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 45, 357–371.
Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 46 – 64.
Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Ozer, D., & Moniz, A. (1994). Subjective injustice and inferiority
as predictors of hostile and depressive feelings in envy. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 20, 705–711.
Stapel, D. A., & Blanton, H. (2004). From seeing to being: Subliminal social comparison af-
fect implicit and explicit self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
87, 468–481.
Stapel, D. A., & Blanton, H. (Eds.). (2007). Social comparison theories. New York: Psychology
Press.
Suls, J., Gaes, G., & Gastorf, J. W. (1979). Evaluating a sex-related ability: Comparison with
same-, opposite-, and combined-sex norms. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 294–304.
Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of social comparison. New York: Plenum/
Kluwer Academic Publishing Corp.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, B. (2005). Wage comparisons with similar and dissimilar others.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 113–131.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel &
W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L. Berkow-
itz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 20, pp. 181–227). New York:
Academic Press.
Tesser, A. (1991). Emotion in social comparison and reflection processes. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills
(Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 115–145). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Twitchell, J. B. (1997). For shame: The loss of common decency in American culture. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.
Wheeler, L., Martin, R., & Suls, J. (1997). The proxy model of social comparison for self-
assessment of ability. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 54 – 61.
Wilson, A. E., & Ross, M. (2001). From chump to champ: People’s appraisals of their earlier and
current selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 572–584.
Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes.
Psychological Bulletin, 106, 231–248.
Zakaria, F. (2001, October 15). The politics of rage: Why do they hate us? [Electronic version].
Newsweek, 22– 40.
Zanna, M. P., Goethals, G. P., & Hill, J. F. (1975). Evaluating a sex-related ability: Social com-
parison with similar others and standard setters. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy, 11, 86 –93.
Zell, E., & Alicke, M. D. (2007). [Local standards, general standards, and self-evaluation.] Un-
published raw data.

3070-117-005.indd 93 5/20/2008 12:40:41 PM