Learn from others or put them down? The double-edged effect of upward social comparison in the workplace

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00658

Abstract

Abstract:

Upward social comparison is common in workplaces, and many studies have identified its downsides, such as negative emotions and dysfunctional behaviors. However, a few studies have revealed positive effects, such as learning from comparison targets. These conflicting results suggest that the mechanism underlying the effect of upward social comparison in workplaces remains unclear. Furthermore, most research is based on social comparison theory, whereas few studies have explored upward social comparison through a cognitive lens. To fill these research gaps, we drew on the cognitive appraisal theory of stress to investigate upward social comparison in the workplace and determine how and when it yields (mal)adaptive behavioral outcomes.

We used a multi-wave, round-robin design to collect data. 270 employees from 65 teams agreed to participate. At Time 1, 270 employees were invited to assess their workplace upward social comparison, performance-prove goal orientation, social comparison orientation, learning goal orientation, and demographics. 251 employees provided valid responses (response rate = 93%). Two weeks after Time 1, 251 employees were invited to evaluate their challenge and threat appraisals, and 240 employees provided valid responses (response rate = 95.6%). Two weeks after Time 2, 240 employees were invited to report their learning behaviors towards their coworkers, and meanwhile, employees were invited their received social undermining from coworkers. 240 valid responses were received (response rate = 100%). Finally, 720 dyads from 240 employees from 60 teams were used to test our proposed model.

We adopted measures established and applied in previous studies to ensure the validity of the survey. Consistent with Reh et al. (2018), we invited employees to rate their workplace upward social comparison with other coworkers using the 8-item scale developed by Brown et al. (2007). Performance-proving goal orientation was rated using the 4-item scale developed by VandeWalle (1997). Employees of the same team assessed their threat and challenge appraisals toward all other coworkers in the team using the 6-item scale from LePine et al. (2016). Finally, employees assessed their learning behavior from and social undermining toward other coworkers in the team using the 5-item and 4-item scales from Lee and Duffy (2019).

Given that the dyads nested in employees and then employees nested within teams, we tested our hypothesis by multilevel social relations model. To test the conditional indirect effects, a Monte Carlo simulation with 20, 000 replications was used to generate the 95% Monte Carlo confidence intervals in R 3.5. The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among all variables are reported in Table 1. Table 2 shows how much outcome variable variance is explained by the characteristics of the actor, the target, the dyad, and the team. Tables 3 and 4 demonstrate the social relations model results for hypotheses testing. The results showed that employees with low levels of performance-prove goal orientation tended to appraise upward social comparison as a challenge, which prompts learning from the comparison targets. However, employees with high levels of performance-prove goal orientation tended to appraise upward social comparison as a threat, motivating them to socially undermine the comparison targets.

Our study provides theoretical and practical implications. We reveal the double-edged effects of workplace upward social comparison on subsequent learning behaviors and social undermining through a cognitive rather than emotional lens. Our findings demonstrate how and why workplace upward social comparison drives employees to develop two distinct behavioral responses, from a novel theoretical perspective—the cognitive appraisal theory of stress. Finally, the performance-prove goal orientation determines the effects of workplace upward social comparison. Furthermore, our findings offer important practical implications to managers and policymakers.

Key words: workplace upward social comparison, the cognitive appraisal theory of stress, performance-prove goal orientation, challenge appraisals, threat appraisals

SONG Qi, ZHANG Lu, GAO Lifang, CHENG Bao, CHEN Yang. (2023). Learn from others or put them down? The double-edged effect of upward social comparison in the workplace. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(4), 658-670.

Source of variance	Challenge appraisals			Threat appraisals			Learning behaviors			Social undermining
Source of variance	Estimate	%	SE	Estimate	%	SE	Estimate	%	SE	Estimate	%	SE
Team variance	0.18	20.4%	0.42	0.24	37.4%	0.49	0.10	33.0%	0.32	0.06	22.7%	0.24
Actor variance	0.01	0.7%	0.08	0.21	33.4%	0.46	0.14	45.7%	0.38	0.11	41.6%	0.32
Partner variance	0.51	58.6%	0.72	0.003	0.4%	0.05	0.00	0.0%	0.00	0.01	2.0%	0.07
Dyadic variance	0.18	20.3%	0.42	0.18	28.7%	0.43	0.07	21.3%	0.26	0.09	33.8%	0.29

Source of variance	Challenge appraisals			Threat appraisals			Learning behaviors			Social undermining
Source of variance	Estimate	%	SE	Estimate	%	SE	Estimate	%	SE	Estimate	%	SE
Team variance	0.18	20.4%	0.42	0.24	37.4%	0.49	0.10	33.0%	0.32	0.06	22.7%	0.24
Actor variance	0.01	0.7%	0.08	0.21	33.4%	0.46	0.14	45.7%	0.38	0.11	41.6%	0.32
Partner variance	0.51	58.6%	0.72	0.003	0.4%	0.05	0.00	0.0%	0.00	0.01	2.0%	0.07
Dyadic variance	0.18	20.3%	0.42	0.18	28.7%	0.43	0.07	21.3%	0.26	0.09	33.8%	0.29

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1. Team size (team level)	-
2. Team age (team level)	0.19^**	-
3. B’s age (individual level)	-0.02	0.06	-
4. B’s gender (individual level)	0.15^**	0.00	0.12^**	-
5. B’s education (individual level)	-0.01	0.05	-0.16^**	-0.04	-
6. B’s tenure (individual level)	0.09^*	0.08^*	0.69^**	0.04	-0.16^**	-
7. A’s age (individual level)	-0.02	0.06	0.05	0.00	-0.02	0.07	-
8. A’s gender (individual level)	0.15^**	0.00	0.00	0.15^**	-0.01	0.02	0.12^**	-
9. A’s education (individual level)	-0.01	0.05	-0.02	-0.01	0.23^**	-0.03	-0.16^**	-0.04	-
10. A’s tenure (individual level)	0.09^*	0.08^*	0.07	0.02	-0.02	0.12^**	0.69^**	0.04	-0.16^**	-
11. A’s social comparison orientation (individual level)	0.14^**	-0.01	0.08^*	0.00	-0.13^**	0.04	0.03	0.03	-0.16^**	0.01	(0.90)
12. A’s learn goal orientation (individual level)	0.04	0.01	0.04	-0.03	-0.16^**	0.05	0.17^**	0.05	-0.08^*	0.09^*	0.04	(0.88)
13. A’s workplace upward social comparison with B (dyadic level)	-0.11^**	0.00	0.14^**	-0.07^*	0.00	0.19^**	-0.03	-0.02	-0.06	-0.03	0.16^**	-0.14^**	(0.90)
14. A’s performance-proving goal orientation (individual level)	0.05	-0.11^**	-0.06	0.04	-0.10^**	-0.10^**	0.04	0.15^**	-0.10^**	-0.08^*	0.09^*	0.33^**	-0.18^**	(0.89)
15. A’s challenge appraisals of B (dyadic level)	-0.04	-0.22^**	0.09^*	0.05	0.01	0.08^*	0.08^*	0.06	0.01	0.04	0.06	0.07	0.12^**	-0.02	(0.93)
16. A’s threat appraisals of B (dyadic level)	0.07	0.08^*	-0.12^**	0.02	0.03	-0.10^**	-0.13^**	-0.02	0.03	-0.08^*	0.26^**	-0.16^**	0.10^*	-0.03	-0.10^**	(094)
17. A’s learning behaviors from B (dyadic level)	0.20^**	-0.15^**	-0.02	0.17^**	-0.02	-0.03	-0.06	0.19^**	-0.05	-0.08^*	0.10^**	0.10^**	-0.03	0.12^**	0.25^**	-0.06	(0.81)
18. A’s social undermining toward B (dyadic level)	0.03	0.03	-0.05	-0.08	-0.08^*	-0.07	0.00	-0.02	-0.10^*	0.00	0.14^**	-0.09^*	0.08^*	0.04	-0.14^**	0.30^**	-0.10^**	(0.74)
M	26.77	8.52	30.55	0.64	3.61	5.06	30.55	0.64	3.61	5.07	3.11	3.89	2.62	3.30	3.60	1.97	4.17	1.54
SD	19.36	4.97	6.41	0.48	0.57	4.83	6.41	0.48	0.57	4.83	0.66	0.61	0.65	0.76	0.93	0.80	0.56	0.50

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1. Team size (team level)	-
2. Team age (team level)	0.19^**	-
3. B’s age (individual level)	-0.02	0.06	-
4. B’s gender (individual level)	0.15^**	0.00	0.12^**	-
5. B’s education (individual level)	-0.01	0.05	-0.16^**	-0.04	-
6. B’s tenure (individual level)	0.09^*	0.08^*	0.69^**	0.04	-0.16^**	-
7. A’s age (individual level)	-0.02	0.06	0.05	0.00	-0.02	0.07	-
8. A’s gender (individual level)	0.15^**	0.00	0.00	0.15^**	-0.01	0.02	0.12^**	-
9. A’s education (individual level)	-0.01	0.05	-0.02	-0.01	0.23^**	-0.03	-0.16^**	-0.04	-
10. A’s tenure (individual level)	0.09^*	0.08^*	0.07	0.02	-0.02	0.12^**	0.69^**	0.04	-0.16^**	-
11. A’s social comparison orientation (individual level)	0.14^**	-0.01	0.08^*	0.00	-0.13^**	0.04	0.03	0.03	-0.16^**	0.01	(0.90)
12. A’s learn goal orientation (individual level)	0.04	0.01	0.04	-0.03	-0.16^**	0.05	0.17^**	0.05	-0.08^*	0.09^*	0.04	(0.88)
13. A’s workplace upward social comparison with B (dyadic level)	-0.11^**	0.00	0.14^**	-0.07^*	0.00	0.19^**	-0.03	-0.02	-0.06	-0.03	0.16^**	-0.14^**	(0.90)
14. A’s performance-proving goal orientation (individual level)	0.05	-0.11^**	-0.06	0.04	-0.10^**	-0.10^**	0.04	0.15^**	-0.10^**	-0.08^*	0.09^*	0.33^**	-0.18^**	(0.89)
15. A’s challenge appraisals of B (dyadic level)	-0.04	-0.22^**	0.09^*	0.05	0.01	0.08^*	0.08^*	0.06	0.01	0.04	0.06	0.07	0.12^**	-0.02	(0.93)
16. A’s threat appraisals of B (dyadic level)	0.07	0.08^*	-0.12^**	0.02	0.03	-0.10^**	-0.13^**	-0.02	0.03	-0.08^*	0.26^**	-0.16^**	0.10^*	-0.03	-0.10^**	(094)
17. A’s learning behaviors from B (dyadic level)	0.20^**	-0.15^**	-0.02	0.17^**	-0.02	-0.03	-0.06	0.19^**	-0.05	-0.08^*	0.10^**	0.10^**	-0.03	0.12^**	0.25^**	-0.06	(0.81)
18. A’s social undermining toward B (dyadic level)	0.03	0.03	-0.05	-0.08	-0.08^*	-0.07	0.00	-0.02	-0.10^*	0.00	0.14^**	-0.09^*	0.08^*	0.04	-0.14^**	0.30^**	-0.10^**	(0.74)
M	26.77	8.52	30.55	0.64	3.61	5.06	30.55	0.64	3.61	5.07	3.11	3.89	2.62	3.30	3.60	1.97	4.17	1.54
SD	19.36	4.97	6.41	0.48	0.57	4.83	6.41	0.48	0.57	4.83	0.66	0.61	0.65	0.76	0.93	0.80	0.56	0.50

Variables	A’s challenge appraisals of B						A’s threat appraisals of B
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4		Model 5		Model 6
	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Control variables
Team size (team level)	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Team age (team level)	-0.04^*	0.02	-0.04^*	0.02	-0.04^*	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01
B’s age (individual level)	-0.01	0.00	-0.01	0.00	-0.01	0.00	-0.01	0.00	-0.01	0.00	-0.01	0.00
B’s gender (individual level)	0.03	0.05	0.04	0.05	0.04	0.05	0.10^*	0.04	0.10^*	0.04	0.10^*	0.04
B’s education (individual level)	-0.00	0.04	-0.00	0.04	-0.00	0.04	0.03	0.04	0.02	0.04	0.02	0.04
B’s tenure (individual level)	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	-0.00	0.01	-0.00	0.01	-0.00	0.01
A’s age (individual level)	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01	-0.01	0.01	-0.01	0.01	-0.01	0.01
A’s gender (individual level)	0.07	0.09	0.07	0.09	0.07	0.09	0.02	0.09	0.01	0.09	0.00	0.09
A’s education (individual level)	0.00	0.07	0.00	0.07	0.01	0.07	0.06	0.07	0.07	0.07	0.06	0.07
A’s tenure (individual level)	-0.01	0.01	-0.01	0.01	-0.01	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01
A’s social comparison orientation (individual level)	-0.05	0.08	-0.03	0.08	-0.01	0.08	0.26^***	0.07	0.25^***	0.07	0.22^**	0.07
A’s learning goal orientation (individual level)	0.00	0.07	0.06	0.08	0.06	0.08	-0.12	0.07	-0.11	0.08	-0.11	0.07
Δχ²(12)	17.71						29.70^***
Main predictors/moderator
A’s workplace upward social comparison with B (dyadic level)			0.09	0.05	0.09	0.05			0.09	0.05	0.09	0.05
A’s performance-prove goal orientation (individual level)			-0.09	0.06	-0.06	0.06			0.03	0.06	-0.01	0.06
Δχ²(2)			10.34^**						0.27
Cross-level interaction
A’s workplace upward social comparison with B × A’s performance-prove goal orientation					-0.18^*	0.07					0.22^**	0.07
Δχ²(1)					5.40^*						6.84^**

Learn from others or put them down? The double-edged effect of upward social comparison in the workplace

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 4

References

Related Articles 0

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments