{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018826135105204873, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.503597122302159, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Social Comparison Choice During Ability Evaluation

Using the rank-order paradigm, the effects of comparison publicity, performance feedback, and self-esteem on ability-related social comparison choices were examined. Subjects chose the highest ranked score less frequently when comparison was expected to be public rather than private, when performance feedback suggested failure rather than success, and when subjects were low rather than high in self-esteem. In contrast to previous reports of a stable tendency for subjects to select first the highest ranked score when the range of scores is unknown, the combination of anticipated public social comparison, low score, and low self-esteem created a preference for this score that was descriptively less frequent than chance. It was argued that these results provide converging evidence for social comparison choices motivated by defensive concerns.