Self-promotion, widespread in the workplace, has received extensive attention from scholars. However, due to the narrow one-dimensional structure of traditional self-promotion and the limitations of theoretical thinking, its antecedents and consequences are still unclear. Therefore, we propose a new pair of self-promotion behaviors (sole self-promotion and joint self-promotion), and develop the measures based on a more grounded definition of self-promotion. In phase 1, we developed the scales of sole self-promotion and joint self-promotion (sample 1), and assessed their psychometric properties (i.e., content validity, factor structure, and reliability) by using two samples (samples 2 and 3). In phase 2, using three-wave data (sample 4) with two sources (employees and coworkers), we tested the overall model based on social comparison theory, examining the antecedents and consequences of sole and joint self-promotion, and exploring the different effects of these two behaviors on career success. Overall, our research offers new insight into self-promotion research and provides a useful tool to evaluate employee self-promotion. Implications for theory and practice, and suggestions for future research are discussed.

People often object to inequity; they react negatively to receiving less than others (disadvantageous inequity aversion), and more than others (advantageous inequity aversion). Here we study people’s folk intuitions about inequity aversion: what do people infer about others’ fairness concerns, when they observe their reactions to disadvantageous or advantageous inequity? We hypothesized that, people would not intuitively regard disadvantageous inequity aversion by itself as being rooted in fairness, but they would regard advantageous inequity aversion by itself as being rooted in fairness. In four studies, we used vignettes describing inequity aversion of a made up alien species to assess people’s folk intuitions about inequity aversion. The studies supported our main hypothesis that disadvantageous inequity aversion, without advantageous inequity aversion, does not fit people’s folk conception of fairness. Instead, participants reported it to be rooted in envy. According to these results, the claim that disadvantageous inequity aversion reveals a concern with fairness, does not readily accord with people’s intuitions. We connect these findings to other pieces of evidence in the literatures of behavioral economics, developmental psychology, and social psychology, indicating that lay people’s intuitions may be on the mark in this case. Specifically, unlike advantageous inequity aversion, disadvantageous inequity aversion need not be rooted in a sense of fairness.

People often use tools for tasks, and sometimes there is uncertainty about whether a given task can be completed with a given tool. This project explored whether, when, and how people’s optimism about successfully completing a task with a given tool is affected by the contextual salience of a better or worse tool. In six studies, participants were faced with novel tasks. For each task, they were assigned a tool but also exposed to a comparison tool that was better or worse in utility (or sometimes similar in utility). In some studies, the tool comparisons were essentially social comparisons, because the tool was assigned to another person. In other studies, the tool comparisons were merely counterfactual rather than social. The studies revealed contrast effects on optimism, and the effect worked in both directions. That is, worse comparison tools boosted optimism and better tools depressed optimism. The contrast effects were observed regardless of the general type of comparison (e.g., social, counterfactual). The comparisons also influenced discrete decisions about which task to attempt (for a prize), which is an important finding for ruling out superficial scaling explanations for the contrast effects. It appears that people fail to exclude irrelevant tool-comparison information from consideration when assessing their likelihood of success on a task, resulting in biased optimism and decisions.

The construction of social preferences often requires one to reconcile various social motives, such as concern with unfavorable inequality and maximization of social welfare. We propose a novel theory whereby people’s level of agency influences the relative intensities of their social motives, and thus their social preferences. Agency in this context refers to decision makers’ active involvement in the processes that produce social outcomes. Nonagentic decision makers are not involved in creating the outcomes. Therefore, the comparison between self and others is highly informative for them and they shun settings in which their outcome appears to be inferior. Conversely, agentic decision makers, who take action to influence social outcomes, care more about others’ outcomes and are more inclined to promote social welfare. We report five studies testing the agency hypothesis. Participants were presented with realistic scenarios involving outcomes for themselves and another person. In each scenario, the outcome for oneself was fixed, while the outcome for the other person varied. The participants’ task was to indicate their satisfaction with the other person obtaining either the same outcome as their own or a better one. We found that participants who were involved in creating the outcomes (agentic condition) were more satisfied with the other getting the better option than were participants who were not involved (nonagentic condition). Even low levels of influence on the outcomes were sufficient for a strong agency effect to occur. We discuss the agency hypothesis in relation to theories of social preference, the effects of voicing and participation in decision processes, and trade-offs in public policy.

Indicators are important sources of information about problems across many policy areas. However, despite a growing number of indicators across most policy areas, such as health care, business promotion, or environmental protection, we still know little about if, how, and when such indicators affect the policy agenda. This article develops a theoretical answer to these questions and examines the implications using a new large-n dataset with 220,000 parliamentary questions asked by government and opposition MPs in Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. The data contain information on political attention to 17 problems, such as unemployment, C02 emission, and crime from 1960 to 2015. Across this wealth of data, the article demonstrates that politicians respond to the severity and development of problem indicators over time and in comparison to other countries. Results also show that politicians respond much more when problem indicators develop negatively than when they develop positively.

Older adults consistently report young subjective age and provide high ratings of their subjective health. The current research examined which social comparisons older adults make when they assess their subjective age and health, as well as the effects of experimentally manipulated social comparisons on these assessments. In Study 1, 146 participants (aged 60 and over) reported to whom they compared themselves when assessing their subjective age or health. In Study 2, 100 participants (aged 60 and over) reported their subjective age and health after receiving feedback that compared them to younger adults or to their peers. Study 1 shows that participants compared themselves primarily to their peer group. Yet, individuals who selected a younger comparison group when assessing subjective age reported a younger subjective age, better self-rated health and more positive expectations regarding ageing relative to those who selected their peers as a comparison group. No equivalent differences emerged in any of the measures when participants were divided by their selection of comparison group after providing their self-rated health ratings. In Study 2, feedback that emphasised the performance of younger people led to reports of younger subjective age relative to feedback that emphasised peer performance, with no equivalent difference for self-rated health. These findings help explain why older adults feel younger and healthier than they actually are. We suggest that older adults use social comparisons as a strategy that protects them from the negative effects of ageing on self-perception.

Personality disorders are frequently associated with socially unacceptable behaviours that might not be always considered deviant. On the other hand, envy has been linked with various forms of maladjustment such as interpersonal conflicts, low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, aggressiveness, and even criminal behaviour such as vandalism and even murder. According to the DSM-IV, none of the personality disorders, except the narcissistic personality, is formally associated with envy. Nevertheless, this ‘deadly sin’ is so omnipresent in human relationships that it cannot be restricted only to the narcissistic personalities. Most scholars recognise that people would deny that they envy someone else since envy is socially considered as highly undesirable; verbal reports are expected to be biased. To circumvent this difficulty, a projective questionnaire is proposed. We constructed two questionnaires: a direct version (DV) and an indirect version (IV). The sample consisted of 786 students from high school and university. Results suggest that the indirect version provides a more accurate assessment of envy.

Mass media research on the portrayal of older people has primarily focused on television series and advertisements. News programmes on television have received little attention. We argue that viewers perceive characters on the news as more direct and more accurate representations of social reality than fictional characters, and therefore portrayals on the news are more likely to be integrated in viewers’ stereotypes about elderly people or used as standards of comparison. In order to explore potential differences in the representation of senior men and women, we conducted a quantitative content analysis on a sample of 754 elderly people who appeared on the evening news programmes of four major Hungarian television channels with high viewership. Each character was coded in terms of 115 qualitative variables. Our results indicate that older men are portrayed significantly more often than women as affluent, elegant, knowledgeable, powerful and actively working. By contrast, women are more commonly shown as kind, family-oriented, in ordinary roles (e.g. as the ‘woman in the street’) and engaged in less-productive activities such as shopping. Based on previous research on the role of mass media in the socialisation process as well as social comparison theory, we discuss how these imbalances in the representation of older men and women may affect viewers of different age groups, genders and social status.