Social comparison processes and judgments of entitlement and satisfaction

Two experiments examined a process by which social comparison processes can produce group differences in judgments of outcome entitlement and satisfaction. We hypothesized that (1) similarity biases occur in the acquisition of social comparison information about the outcomes of others; (2) this leads to group differences in perceived outcome standards when some groups (e.g., women) are paid less than others; (3) these different standards produce corresponding group differences in judgments of outcome entitlement and satisfaction. In both experiments men and women performed a job, were paid, estimated a fair wage for their work, and rated their satisfaction with their payment. In the first experiment subjects selected the outcomes of one previous participant for comparison after being paid. Subjects in the second experiment were allowed to freely acquire information about the pay of up to 48 (bogus) others before receiving payment. Social comparison information was manipulated in both studies so that similarity-based comparisons would lead to the acquisition of different wage standards for women and men assigned to different jobs. Both experiments provided strong evidence of similarity biases in the acquisition of outcome comparison information, but only the first provided clear evidence that acquired comparison standards affect subsequent judgments of entitlement and satisfaction. Implications of these results for previously observed group differences (e.g., gender differences) in judgments of outcome entitlement and pay satisfaction are discussed.