 |
The frog pond effect is the theory that individuals evaluate themselves as worse than they actually are when in a group of higher-performing individuals. [1] [2] This effect is a part of the wider social comparison theory. It relates to how individuals evaluate themselves based on comparisons to other people around them, and is generally due to upward comparisons toward people who are better than themselves. [1]
James A. Davis first noticed this effect in 1966 in relation to college students' ambition and the impact of their local rank based on the environment they were surrounded by, i.e., they can see themselves as "big frogs in little ponds or little frogs in big ponds". Davis suggested that when students are surrounded by very high-achieving classmates, they may then develop lower aspirations. [1] His main findings related to how men made career decisions more closely related to their undergraduate GPA, rather than the actual quality of the school they attended, showing that students evaluated their performance as worse based on comparison to high-performing peers from their school, versus comparing their school advantageously to other schools. [1]
McFarland and Buehler [2] theorized that the effect happens because individuals self-monitor within-group rather than compare across groups. When evaluating oneself against in-group members versus out-group members, there is a tendency towards contextual neglect for available information, where people place more weight on their position within their group, rather than the larger general population. [3] The closer intragroup context has more weight than the farther away intergroup comparison. [3] Called the local dominance effect, this is the tendency for people to focus on the comparisons of few people around them rather than many people not as close, in regards to their self-perceptions. [4]
A frame of reference context can be applied to look at the frog pond effect in regards to self perceptions in schools where comparing students from a nationwide sample, there were slightly negative influences of self-esteem and academic ability given the school environment. [5] Controlling for socioeconomic status and academic potential, an average student in a very high-achieving school had lower academic self-conceptions versus an average student at a more typical school. [6]
Oftentimes called a paradox, the frog pond effect goes against traditional social comparison theory because high-achieving people may actually have better self-concepts of their abilities when they are surrounded by lower-achieving environments, rather than a comparison group of high-achieving people in competitive environments. [3] [4]
The ability sub scale of the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure [7] is used in evaluations of the frog-pond effect by asking 6 items such as "I often compare myself with others with respect to what I have accomplished in life." This scale asks people to think about how they judge themselves with others which is then adjusted to compare oneself against various specific groups, such as within a school or cultural setting. [8]
Looking at entry to competitive environments (such as in a work or school context), comparison within group significantly predicted what type of group participants wanted to be in. [8] For example, participants were two-thirds as likely to prefer being a part of a less exclusive group where they were ranked only slightly above average compared to being included in a high-performing group where they were not ranked as high. [8]
The frog pond effect was looked at regarding applications of high school students to elite universities, comparing students across their individual success as well as relative to their high school peers. [9] The authors argued that basing admissions on the three components of the Academic Index (AI) [10] of the primary SAT, SAT Subject Tests, and percentile class rank sets students at high-achieving schools already at a disadvantage because their relative achievements are overshadowed by those of their competitive peers. These students are seen as little frogs in a big pond. Therefore, those students at less prestigious high schools would have a greater advantage for admission into those elite colleges. Indeed, they found students with similar applications but different school environments were less likely to be offered admission if they came from a high-achieving school where their class ranking would be lower than a similar student at a more average school. [9] This can lead to a decrease in self-concept and educational aspirations. [9]
Recently, there has been an increased focus on the impact of race into frog pond effects and how they can impact the accessibility in education contexts. Focusing on racial diversity in schools, there has been a lack of substantial success in increasing higher education representation, but with minority students having the comparable aspirations, the disconnect lies with the abilities for these students to go to college and succeed. [11] In minority-concentrated schools, there is a tendency for lower achievement in education than comparative white-concentrated schools due in part to the peer influences of competitiveness in the latter. [12]
There are also claims that affirmative action can inadvertently deter students from achieving their best because they are admitted to schools where they are amongst very competitive peers. [11] [13] Although this has been disputed by some, who note the opportunities given to students who normally would not have access to them and the greater benefits for a university to have a diverse student body. [14] [15]
A potential moderator for the frog pond effect is the extent to which one feels that there is a sense of collective self-esteem within the group that is high, which would then allow them to look past their local group to compare to others outside of their immediate area. [2] Davis found was the extent that individuals felt they had "flair" or talent for the related subjects to their career choices, which was stronger for GPA than school quality. [1]
Individuals are affected by the frog pond effect the most when they come from an individualistic culture, lack strong social connections, and have low collective self-esteem. [2] Specifically, the decision on which "pond" to enter can be influenced by cultural differences--mainly with East Asian students more likely to choose to be in the more prestigious environment over European American students. [8] The stronger focus of intragroup connections follows the cross cultural differences of social identity theory. [8] [16]
In 1984, Marsh and Parker created a similar construct called the "big-fish-little-pond effect" (BFLPE) that has the same underlying concept of people evaluating their own worth against their immediate peers differs on the high or low achievements of those around them. [17]
The Dunning–Kruger effect refers to a cognitive bias, whereby people whose ability at a task is in fact low or average overestimate their own ability. [18] By contrast, in the frog pond effect, people do not have objective representations of themselves relative to those around them versus the greater context of those not close. [18] This can lead to erroneous subjective poorer self-evaluation due to the over-reliance on local group comparisons, disregarding the greater comparison groups. [3]
Mere categorization is the effect of multiple categories on consumer satisfaction, where having different categories to choose from (ex. in a magazine section you have fashion, music, current events, etc.) people who are unsure of their choice will prefer having the categories. [19] This concept was applied to categories of evaluations groups where students were ranked in the middle of a group, either in the top 5 or bottom 5. When students appraised themselves, they had lower self-concepts if they were ranked 5th overall but categorized in the best group compared to higher evaluations when they were ranked 6th overall in the worse category group. So in this case, participants preferred to be the best of the worst rather than the worst of the best. [20]
Self-esteem is confidence in one's own worth, abilities, or morals. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs about oneself as well as emotional states, such as triumph, despair, pride, and shame. Smith and Mackie define it by saying "The self-concept is what we think about the self; self-esteem, is the positive or negative evaluations of the self, as in how we feel about it ."
Group dynamics is a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group, or between social groups. The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behaviour, tracking the spread of diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies. These applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work, leadership studies, business and managerial studies, as well as communication studies.
In social psychology, self-assessment is the process of looking at oneself in order to assess aspects that are important to one's identity. It is one of the motives that drive self-evaluation, along with self-verification and self-enhancement. Sedikides (1993) suggests that the self-assessment motive will prompt people to seek information to confirm their uncertain self-concept rather than their certain self-concept and at the same time people use self-assessment to enhance their certainty of their own self-knowledge. However, the self-assessment motive could be seen as quite different from the other two self-evaluation motives. Unlike the other two motives, through self-assessment people are interested in the accuracy of their current self view, rather than improving their self-view. This makes self-assessment the only self-evaluative motive that may cause a person's self-esteem to be damaged.
In the psychology of self, one's self-concept is a collection of beliefs about oneself. Generally, self-concept embodies the answer to the question "Who am I?".
The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.
Self-handicapping is a cognitive strategy by which people avoid effort in the hopes of keeping potential failure from hurting self-esteem. It was first theorized by Edward E. Jones and Steven Berglas, according to whom self-handicaps are obstacles created, or claimed, by the individual in anticipation of failing performance.
Social comparison theory, initially proposed by social psychologist Leon Festinger in 1954, centers on the belief that individuals drive to gain accurate self-evaluations. The theory explains how individuals evaluate their opinions and abilities by comparing themselves to others to reduce uncertainty in these domains and learn how to define the self. Comparing oneself to others socially is a form of measurement and self-assessment to identify where an individual stands according to their own set of standards and emotions about themselves.
Confidence is the state of being clear-headed: either that a hypothesis or prediction is correct, or that a chosen course of action is the best or most effective. Confidence comes from the Latin word fidere which means "to trust". In contrast, arrogance or hubris is a state of unmerited confidence—belief lacking evidence and/or a reason. Overconfidence or presumptuousness is excessive belief in success without regard for potential failure. Confidence can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, as those without it may fail because they lack it, and those with it may succeed because they have it rather than because of an innate ability or skill. We develop a tractable method for augmenting macroeconomic models with autonomous variation in higher-order beliefs
The overconfidence effect is a well-established bias in which a person's subjective confidence in their judgments is reliably greater than the objective accuracy of those judgments, especially when confidence is relatively high. Overconfidence is one example of a miscalibration of subjective probabilities. Throughout the research literature, overconfidence has been defined in three distinct ways: (1) overestimation of one's actual performance; (2) overplacement of one's performance relative to others; and (3) overprecision in expressing unwarranted certainty in the accuracy of one's beliefs.
The big-fish–little-pond effect (BFLPE) is a frame of reference model introduced by Herbert W. Marsh and John W. Parker in 1984. According to the model, individuals compare their own self-concept with their peers and equally capable individuals have higher self-concepts when in a less capable group than in a more capable group. For example, it is better for academic self-concept to be a big fish in a little pond than to be a big fish in a big pond. High achieving and gifted students are just as susceptible to the effect as are less talented students indicating that the effect depends only on the achievement of the reference group. Malcolm Gladwell publicized the BFLPE in his 2013 book David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants.
Positive illusions are unrealistically favorable attitudes that people have towards themselves or to people that are close to them. Positive illusions are a form of self-deception or self-enhancement that feel good; maintain self-esteem; or avoid discomfort, at least in the short term. There are three general forms: inflated assessment of one's own abilities, unrealistic optimism about the future, and an illusion of control. The term "positive illusions" originates in a 1988 paper by Taylor and Brown. "Taylor and Brown's (1988) model of mental health maintains that certain positive illusions are highly prevalent in normal thought and predictive of criteria traditionally associated with mental health."
Self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) concerns discrepancies between two people in a relationship. The theory posits an individual will maintain as well as enhance their self-esteem via a social comparison to another individual. Self-evaluation refers to the self-perceived social ranking one has towards themselves. It is the continuous process of determining personal growth and progress, which can be raised or lowered by the behavior of others. Abraham Tesser created the self-evaluation maintenance theory in 1988. The self-evaluation maintenance model assumes two things: that a person will try to maintain or increase their own self-evaluation, and self-evaluation is influenced by relationships with others.
Self-enhancement is a type of motivation that works to make people feel good about themselves and to maintain self-esteem. This motive becomes especially prominent in situations of threat, failure or blows to one's self-esteem. Self-enhancement involves a preference for positive over negative self-views. It is one of the three self-evaluation motives along with self-assessment and self-verification . Self-evaluation motives drive the process of self-regulation, that is, how people control and direct their own actions.
In social psychology, illusory superiority is a cognitive bias wherein a person overestimates their own qualities and abilities compared to other people. Illusory superiority is one of many positive illusions, relating to the self, that are evident in the study of intelligence, the effective performance of tasks and tests, and the possession of desirable personal characteristics and personality traits. Overestimation of abilities compared to an objective measure is known as the overconfidence effect.
Implicit self-esteem refers to a person's disposition to evaluate themselves in a spontaneous, automatic, or unconscious manner. It contrasts with explicit self-esteem, which entails more conscious and reflective self-evaluation. Both explicit and implicit self-esteem are constituents of self-esteem.
Self-image is the mental picture, generally of a kind that is quite resistant to change, that depicts not only details that are potentially available to an objective investigation by others, but also items that have been learned by persons about themselves, either from personal experiences or by internalizing the judgments of others. In some formulations, it is a component of self-concept.
The false-uniqueness effect is an attributional type of cognitive bias in social psychology that describes how people tend to view their qualities, traits, and personal attributes as unique when in reality they are not. This bias is often measured by looking at the difference between estimates that people make about how many of their peers share a certain trait or behaviour and the actual number of peers who report these traits and behaviours.
The liking gap is the disparity between how much a person believes that another person likes them, and that other person's actual opinion. Studies have found that most people underestimate how much other people like them and enjoy their company.
In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others.
Social identity threat is a theory in social psychology derived from social identity theory to explain the different types of threats that arise from group identity being threatened as opposed to personal identity. This theory distinguishes between four distinct types of social identity threats: categorization threat, distinctiveness threat, threats to the value of social identity, and acceptance threat. Each type is associated with particular social contexts that make the threats more or less likely to occur. This theory emphasizes how the level of commitment with the social identity shapes the nature of the threat experienced.