Maintaining positive self-evaluations: Reducing attention to diagnostic but unfavorable social comparison information when general self-regard is salient

We predicted that when (1) people are faced with diagnostic but personally challenging social comparison information in a domain, and (2) their self-regard is salient, they will be less likely to use the comparison information when judging their standing in the domain (making the judgment less inductive). Participants in Study I estimated their standing on risk factors for two health problems, and some did so after their self-regard was made salient. Moreover some received information (about their peers' standing on these risk factors) that challenged participants' self-serving comparative beliefs. As expected, estimates of personal risk factor standing among high self-regard salience/comparison information participants were less correlated with similar estimates collected 2 months earlier suggesting the estimates had become less inductive. There was also tentative evidence that, in this condition, self-esteem played a greater role in constructing these estimates. In Study 2, participants were led to believe that their comparative standing on risk factors was better than it actually was, and in this case, they were more likely to use this information when making self-judgments about their personal risk. Evidently, the extent to which people use diagnostic comparison information inductively when making self-inferences depends on the favorability of that information.