Dare to compare: Fact-based versus simulation-based comparison in daily life
Dare to compare: Fact-based versus simulation-based comparison in daily life
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jesp.2007.04.002
复制
发表时间：
2008-05-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Roese, Neal J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Summerville, Amy;Roese, Neal J.
我们使用经验抽样方法检查了日常生活中社交、反事实、过去时间和未来时间比较的相对频率，其中随机提示参与者使用携带两周的掌上电脑记录思想样本。比较思维占所有思维的 12%，并且所有四种比较类型的出现频率相当。比较可以是基于事实的（即基于现实，如社会和过去时间比较）或基于模拟（即基于想象，如反事实和未来时间比较）。因为后者更加“无限制”，并且因为更大的感知机会会带来更大的自我完善，所以我们预测并发现，反事实和未来时间比较比社会和过去时间比较更有可能向上（相对于向下）。所有比较类型都更多地关注接近动机而不是回避动机，但反事实除外，它显示出对两者的关注程度相同。这些发现揭示了比较思想在日常生活中的重要性，并强调了使用通用理论平台描述社会、反事实或时间比较的综合理论的价值。 (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. 保留所有权利。
We examined the relative frequency of social, counterfactual, past-temporal, and future-temporal comparison in daily life using an experience-sampling method, in which participants were randomly prompted to record thought samples using palmtop computers carried for two weeks. Comparative thought accounted for 12% of all thoughts, and all four comparison types occurred with equivalent frequency. Comparisons may be either fact-based (i.e., based on actuality, as in social and past-temporal comparison) or simulation-based (i.e., based on imagination, as in counterfactual and future-temporal comparison). Because the latter are more "unbounded," and because greater perceived opportunity invites greater self-improvement, we predicted and found that counterfactual and future-temporal comparison were more likely to be upward (vs. downward) than social and past-temporal comparison. All comparison types focused on approach more than avoidance motives, except for counterfactuals, which showed equivalent focus on both. These findings reveal the prominence of comparative thought in daily life, and underscore the value of an integrative theory that describes social, counterfactual, or temporal comparison using a common theoretical platform. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.