How Implicit Upward Social ComparisonChanges Third-Party Moral Judgement: Evidence from an In-Person Quasiexperiment

• In Event: Joint Roundtables: Social Psychology Section and Sociology of Emotions Section
  In Refereed Roundtable (90 minute): Table 5 - Politics

Abstract

Since its inception, sociology has been centrally concerned with explaining social order and stability, from Durkheim’s formulation of social facts to Parsons’ theory of moral consensus. Contemporary scholarship in the “new sociology of morality” has shifted this focus toward moral contestation and change, while recent developments in cognitive sociology have employed longitudinal and experimental methods to demonstrate how cultural schemas shape action. Yet this body of research also reveals a striking degree of stability in moral commitments: panel analyses suggest that most attitudinal change reflects short-term fluctuation rather than durable transformation, and experimental studies show that even newly formed conventions quickly acquire normative inertia. These findings raise an important question: under what interactional conditions, if any, do everyday moral judgments recalibrate?

Drawing on status characteristics and social comparison theories, we examine whether diffuse peer status—operationalized as sociometric popularity—structures change in third-party moral judgments (TPMJs) under conditions of ambiguity. We hypothesized that (1) exposure to higher-status peers would produce greater shifts in moral judgment than exposure to similar-status peers, and (2) larger initial disagreement between one’s own and a peer’s judgment would predict greater subsequent change.

We conducted a longitudinal quasi-experiment with undergraduate students (final N = 35). Participants completed baseline TPMJ assessments based on ambiguous vignettes, were paired in dyads according to popularity (upward vs. lateral comparison), and re-evaluated the same scenarios approximately one month later following structured exposure to a peer’s judgments. Results indicate a significant association between magnitude of initial disagreement and subsequent change in TPMJ, but no clear effect of status asymmetry. Although limited by sample size, the study proposes a novel design for examining micro-level mechanisms of moral recalibration within stratified peer contexts, contributing to sociological efforts to move from theories of stability toward empirically grounded theories of change.

Authors

• Artem Oganyan, National Research University Higher School of Economics

• Inna F. Deviatko, National Research University Higher School of Economics