PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Piko, Bettina]On: 8 February 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 919138104]Publisher Psychology PressInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713659663

Social orientations and adolescent health behaviours in HungaryBettina F. Piko a; Dóra Skultéti a; Aleksandra Luszczynska b; Frederick X. Gibbons c

a University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary b Warsaw School of Social Psychology, Poland, and Universityof Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO c Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

First published on: 18 June 2009

To cite this Article Piko, Bettina F., Skultéti, Dóra, Luszczynska, Aleksandra and Gibbons, Frederick X.(2010) 'Socialorientations and adolescent health behaviours in Hungary', International Journal of Psychology, 45: 1, 12 — 20, Firstpublished on: 18 June 2009 (iFirst)To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00207590903030279URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207590903030279

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Social orientations and adolescent health behavioursin Hungary

Bettina F. Piko and Dora Skulteti

University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary

Aleksandra Luszczynska

Warsaw School of Social Psychology, Poland, and

University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO, USA

Frederick X. Gibbons

Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

A dolescent health behaviours are influenced by a variety of social factors, including social orientations, such

as social comparison or competitiveness. The main goal of the present study was to investigate the role

that these social orientations might play in health behaviours (both health-impairing and health-promoting).

Data were collected from high school students (N 5 548; ages 14–20 years; 39.9% males) in two counties of the

Southern Plain Region of Hungary. The self-administered questionnaires contained items on sociodemo-

graphics, such as age, sex, parental schooling, and socioeconomic status (SES) self-assessment; school

achievement, health behaviours, competitiveness and social comparison. Multiple regression analyses suggest

that those who scored higher on competitiveness engaged in more substance use, a pattern that was not present

for health-promoting behaviours. Social comparison, however, was associated with lower levels of substance

use. In addition, in relation to health-impairing behaviours, both competitiveness and social comparison

interacted with sex; both social orientation variables proved to be more important for boys. Social comparison

also contributed to health-promoting behaviours among boys. Findings support the idea that the role of social

orientations, such as competitiveness and social comparison, can be quite different depending on sex and the

nature of the health behaviour. While competitiveness may act as a risk factor for substance use among boys,

social comparison may act as a protection. It appears that social orientations play less of a role in girls’ health-

related behaviours. More focus is needed on gender differences in influences on adolescents’ health-related

behaviours.

L es comportements de sante des adolescents sont influences par une variete de facteurs sociaux, incluant les

orientations sociales telles que la comparaison sociale ou la competitivite. Le but principal de la presente

etude etait d’examiner le role que ces orientations sociales peuvent jouer dans les comportements de sante (a la

fois nefastes et benefiques). Les donnees ont ete recueillies aupres d’etudiants collegiaux (N 5 548; ages de 14 a 20

ans; 39.9% masculins) dans deux comtes du sud de la Hongrie. Les questionnaires auto-administres contenaient

des items portant sur les aspects sociodemographiques (tels que l’age, le sexe, la scolarite des parents et le niveau

economique), la performance scolaire, les comportements de sante, la competitivite et la comparaison sociale.

Des analyses de regression multiple suggerent que ceux qui ont obtenu des scores superieurs de competitivite

consommaient plus de substances, un patron qui n’etait pas present pour les comportements de sante benefiques.

La comparaison sociale, cependant, etait associee a de faibles niveaux de consommation de substances. De plus,

en relation avec les comportements de sante nefastes, a la fois la competitivite et la comparaison sociale

interagissaient avec le sexe; les deux variables d’orientation sociale se sont revelees etre plus importantes pour les

garcons. La comparaison sociale contribuait aussi aux comportements de sante benefiques chez les garcons. Ces

resultats soutiennent l’idee que le role des orientations sociales, telles que la competitivite et la comparaison

sociale, peut etre assez different dependamment du sexe de l’individu et de la nature du comportement de sante.

Tandis que la competitivite peut agir comme facteur de risque pour la consommation de substances chez les

# 2009 International Union of Psychological Science

http://www.psypress.com/ijp DOI: 10.1080/00207590903030279

Correspondence should be addressed to Bettina F. Piko, Department of Behavioural Sciences, University of Szeged, 6722 Szeged,

Szentharomsag str. 5, Hungary (E-mail: pikobettina@yahoo.com).

We thank Brielle Leonard for helping us with literature review.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2010, 45 (1), 12–20

Downloaded By: [Piko, Bettina] At: 14:14 8 February 2010

garcons, la comparaison sociale peut agir comme facteur de protection. Il apparaıt que les orientations sociales

jouent un role moins grand en ce qui concerne les comportements de sante des filles. Il est necessaire de focaliser

davantage sur les differences de genre dans les influences reliees aux comportements de sante des adolescents.

L as conductas de salud en adolescentes son influenciadas por una variedad de factores sociales, incluyendo

las orientaciones sociales, la comparacion social, ası como la capacidad de competencia. La meta principal

de este estudio fue el investigar el rol que pueden jugar estas orientaciones sociales sobre las conductas de salud

(tanto perjudiciales como promotoras de salud). Los datos fueron obtenidos en escolares de la escuela secundaria

(N 5 548; edad 14–20 anos; 39.9 por ciento hombres) en dos provincias de la zona sur de Hungrıa. Los

cuestionarios autoadministrados incluyen preguntas sobre datos socio-demograficos como edad, sexo, nivel

educativo de los padres y autoevaluacion del estatus socio-economico; logros academicos, conductas de salud,

competitividad y comparacion social. Los analisis de regresion multiple sugieren que aquellos participantes con

altos puntajes en la capacidad de competencia estaban mas comprometidos con el uso de substancias, un patron

que no esta considerado dentro de las conductas de promocion de la salud. Por otro lado la comparacion social

estuvo asociada con bajos niveles de uso de substancias. Adicionalmente en relacion a las conductas perjudiciales

para la salud, tanto la competitividad como la comparacion social interactuaban con el sexo. Se pudo observar

que ambas variables de la orientacion social eran mas importantes para los muchachos. La comparacion social

tambien contribuye con las conductas promotoras de salud entre los muchachos. Estos descubrimientos apoyan

la idea de que el rol de las orientaciones sociales, como la competitividad y la comparacion social, pueden actuar

de manera diferente, dependiendo del sexo y de la naturaleza de la conducta de salud. Mientras que

competitividad puede actuar como un factor de riesgo respecto del uso de substancias entre muchachos, la

comparacion social puede actuar como una factor protectivo. Aparentemente las orientaciones sociales juegan un

rol menos importante en las conductas de salud de las muchachas. Por ello se necesita una mayor focalizacion

respecto de la influencia de las diferencias de genero sobre las conductas asociadas con la salud en adolescentes.

Keywords: Social comparison; Competitiveness; Health behaviour; Adolescence.

Adolescent health behaviours are influenced by a

variety of factors, including social impacts. Social

influences vary from social norms and expecta-

tions to more direct factors such as invitations and

pressures (see e.g. Simons-Morton, Haynie,

Crump, Eitel, & Saylor, 2001). Among social

variables, few studies have dealt with social

orientations, such as social comparison or compe-

titiveness. Although social pressure from peers

generally plays an important role in an adoles-

cent’s motives for substance use, not all adoles-

cents are vulnerable to the same degree; less

socially competent adolescents are more likely to

use substances (Piko, 2006). We assume that

substance use may be modified by differences in

social orientations.

Social comparison theory helps to explain a

broad variety of phenomena, including social

beliefs or attitudes. Furthermore, social compar-

ison helps us obtain valuable information about

ourselves. Adolescents often observe and learn

new behavioural patterns through social compar-

ison, a process that helps them adjust to peer

norms and behaviours (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999).

For example, when people make social compar-

isons, they use social information to facilitate self-

improvement (Mussweiler & Ruter, 2003). Social

comparison represents a collective self-construal

orientation, a feeling of ‘‘togetherness’’.

Adolescents who are high in social comparison

are more concerned about their social images—

how their behaviours are represented to others. So,

they try to behave in a way that will make a good

impression on others in social situations. This is

particularly true in terms of positive social

comparison information, which may activate the

collective self (Mussweiler & Strack, 2000). This

process may help foster group identity in adoles-

cents without necessarily pressuring them to use

substances (Piko, 2006). In contrast, negative

social comparison may often lead to hostility or

anger due to the lack of activation of the collective

self when making comparisons with others.

As some empirical research has revealed, the

effects of social comparisons can be quite different

depending on the situation in which they are

displayed; therefore, the role of social comparison

in adolescent substance use also may be different

(Marx, Stapel, & Muller, 2005). Social comparison

tendencies may promote adolescent smoking when

adolescents tend to use peers as a basis of

comparison rather than the general population

(Aspinwall, 1997). On the other hand, social

comparison might also lead to reduced smoking

for those whose peers do not smoke (Hussong,

2002). In this case, we suggest that adolescents

who are high in social comparison are more

concerned about their social images and so they

SOCIAL ORIENTATIONS AND HEALTH BEHAVIOURS 13

Downloaded By: [Piko, Bettina] At: 14:14 8 February 2010

do not want others to think of them as ‘‘smokers’’,

because they do not like the image. In other words,

social comparison may serve as a protective factoragainst substance use in this sense. This suggests

that social comparison processes might play an

important role in prevention (Buunk, Gibbons, &

Visser, 2002).

Competitiveness—an attitude towards competi-

tion—is another important variable that is tied to

an individual’s perceived social environment as a

performance standard (Smither & Houston, 1992).Competitiveness reflects a desire to win in inter-

personal situations; it has been shown to influence

a range of social interactions (Houston, Harris,

Moore, Brummett, & Kametani, 2005). One of the

biggest problems of competitiveness, however, is

its association with hostility, which has been

shown to be a significant risk factor for poor

health among adults (e.g., coronary heart disease),in part through poorer health habits such as

smoking (Whiteman, Fowkes, Deary, & Lee,

1997). The association of health behaviours,

except for unsafe driving, with competitiveness

has received less empirical attention (Houston,

Harris, & Norman, 2003). However, as previous

research has shown, more competitive adolescents

tend to smoke more frequently (Johnson &Hoffmann, 2000). Sensation-seeking may play a

decisive role in this relationship (Jonah, Thiessen,

& Au-Yeung, 2001). Another explanation may be

the achievement orientation that has been found to

be associated with elevated levels of adolescent

substance use through generating anxiety (Piko,

2005).

We should also note a possible gender effect inthe relation between social orientations and

behaviours. This is because women and men differ

in self-construals, particularly when applying

social information, and these sex differences also

occur in children’s social behaviour (Zakriski,

Wright, & Underwood, 2005). For example,

research suggests that men tend to be more

competitive, presumably because of an evolution-ary process, such as a drive for elevating risk-

taking, gaining power or access to females

(Houston et al., 2005). Women, on the other

hand, tend to score higher on social comparison

scales (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). However, the

role of these social orientations in behaviours may

be different, and boys seem to be more sensitive to

social influences regarding substance use. Forexample, social motives or communal mastery

were found to be more important determinants of

adolescent boys’ substance use as compared to

girls (Piko, 2006; Piko, Wills, & Walker, 2007).

Previous research has also indicated that social

comparison and other types of social influence are

stronger predictors of smoking behaviour among

boys than among girls (Evans, Powers, Hersey, &

Renaud, 2006).

Based on previous findings, we assumed that

both social orientations would be related to health

behaviours. However, because forms of health

behaviours vary in terms of motives and social

variables, we also assumed that the nature of these

relationships may be different. Some findings

provide support for the existence of a coherent

health-related lifestyle (Donovan, Jessor, & Costa,

1993). Therefore, we aimed at testing the coher-

ence of health-impairing and health-promoting

behaviours by factor analysis and then applied

them in relation to these social orientations.

In light of these findings, we expect that social

comparison and competitiveness might play dif-

ferent roles in health behaviours, depending on

whether they are health-impairing or health-

promoting. In addition, we expected sex differ-

ences in the relation between adolescents’ health

behaviours and their social orientations.

METHOD

Sample

Data were collected from students enrolled in two

counties of the Southern Plain Region of Hungary

(namely, Bekes and Csongrad). Multistage sam-

pling (choosing towns.high schools.classes) was

used to get a sample consisting of 548 students.

The sampling was based on randomly selected

classes from each randomly selected high school

from a list (four schools altogether). Of the 600

questionnaires sent out, 548 were returned and

analysed, yielding a response rate of 91.3% (the

remaining students were likely absent).

Participation in the sample was 42% boys and

58% girls. The age range of the respondents was

14–20 years (mean 5 16.5, SD 5 1.3). In

Hungarian high schools, after completing an 8-

year elementary school, there are grades from 1 to

4 from the age of 14 until 18 or 19. In addition,

there is a grade 5 for those who do not want to

continue their studies in higher education. In the

current sample, students from grade 1 to grade 5

participated in the study.

Procedure

Data were collected during the spring semester of

2005, using a self-administered questionnaire. A

standardized procedure of administration was

14 PIKO ET AL.

Downloaded By: [Piko, Bettina] At: 14:14 8 February 2010

followed. Trained public health workers distrib-

uted the questionnaires to students prior to the

start of class. Previously, parental permissions and

informed consent had been obtained. Students

were given a brief explanation of the objectives of

the study and instructions for filling out the

questionnaire. Participation in the study was

voluntary and the questionnaires were anon-

ymous. Confidentiality of the responses was

emphasized, as was the fact that data were to be

used for research purposes only. The response time

was 30–40 min. Completed questionnaires were

placed in sealed envelopes and collected from each

of the participating schools.

Measures

The self-administered questionnaires contained

items on sociodemographics such as age, sex,

parental schooling, and socioeconomic status

(SES) self-assessment; school achievement; health

behaviours, competitiveness and social compari-

son. The academic achievement variable was a

self-report measure indicating ‘‘grades you mostly

get in school’’, ranging from 1 5 mostly Ds and Fs

to 7 5 mostly As. A four-level classification of

education was used to measure fathers’ and

mothers’ schooling: primary education; appren-

ticeship; General Certificate of Education, i.e.

high-school level; university or college degree. In

additon, a subjective evaluation of SES was used.

We asked adolescents to respond to the following

question: ‘‘How would you rate your family’s

socioeconomic status?’’ The answer categories

included: lower; lower-middle; middle; upper-

middle; and upper class (Piko & Fitzpatrick,

2007).

Health behaviour was measured by six items,

three health-impairing (smoking, binge drinking,

and illicit drug use) and three health-promoting

(exercise, diet control and tooth care) (Kann et al.,

1998; Luszczynska, Gibbons, Piko, & Tekozel,

2004). We chose items of substance use that are a

common cluster of health-impairing actions; also,

we chose a variety of items whose health-protec-

tive effects have been established. All these

behaviours were assessed as a self-report during

the previous month. Specifically, the following

questions were asked: ‘‘During the past one month

how often did you smoke/drink more than five

units of alcohol/try an illicit drug/do exercise/

watch your diet/brush your teeth?’’ Response

categories were: smoking 5 not at all (0), several

times per week (1), regularly, 1 to 5 per day (2),

regularly, 6 to 10 per day (3), regularly, 11 to 20

per day (4), and regularly, more than 20 per day

(5); binge drinking 5 never (0), once (1), twice (2),

three to five times (3), six to nine times (4) andmore than 10 times (5); drug use 5 not at all (0),

once or twice (1), three to nine times (2), 10 to 19

times (3), 20 to 39 times (4), 40 or more times (5);

and diet control 5 not at all (0), a little (1), about

half the time (2), most of the time (3), and always

(4) (Kann et al., 1998; Luszczynska et al., 2004).

Exercise referred to activities outside school for at

a minimum of 30 min. The frequency of exercisevaried from never outside school (0), once or twice

(1), two or three times per month (2), once or twice

per week (3), to three or more times per week (4)

(Luszczynska et al., 2004). The frequency of tooth

brushing was based on the following categories:

irregularly (0), once per day (1), twice per day (2),

and more than twice per day (3).

Competitiveness was measured by the revisedCompetitiveness Index (Houston, Harris,

McIntire, & Francis, 2002). The index contains

14 items designed to assess the desire to win in

interpersonal situations. The Likert-type responses

include a five-point scale format ranging from 1

(‘‘strongly disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘strongly agree’’). The

scale was translated from English into Hungarian

and back-translated by bilingual translators.Example of items: ‘‘I am a competitive indivi-

dual’’, ‘‘I often try to outperform others’’.

Cronbach’s alpha was .85 in the present sample.

Social comparison tendencies were measured by

the Hungarian version of the Iowa Netherlands

Comparison Orientation Measure (INCOM)

(Gibbons & Buunk, 1999; Piko, Luszczynska,

Gibbons, & Tekozel, 2005). The scale includes 11items (e.g., ‘‘I always pay a lot of attention to how

I do things compared with how others do things’’).

The scores ranged from 11 to 55 using a five-point

response scale. Similarly to the previous index, the

scale was translated from English into Hungarian

and back-translated by bilingual translators. The

scale was reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha value of

.79.SPSS for MS Windows Release 15.0 was used in

the calculations, with maximum significance level

set to .05. First, principal component analysis was

used to detect health behaviour patterns and two

health behaviours indices were computed based on

the results. In descriptive statistics for variables,

differences according to sex were determined by

Student’s t-test. Correlation analysis was used toprovide an initial examination of bivariate rela-

tionships among the variables. The role of socio-

demographics and social orientation variables in

health-impairing and health-promoting beha-

viours was assessed by hierarchical regression

SOCIAL ORIENTATIONS AND HEALTH BEHAVIOURS 15

Downloaded By: [Piko, Bettina] At: 14:14 8 February 2010

analysis. All continuous variables entered into the

equations were standardized. The values of cate-

gorical variables (sex) were coded as 21 (boys)

and +1 (girls), as suggested by Muller, Judd, and

Yzerbyt (2005). To test further for the effects of

the interaction between sex and social orientation

variables, the interaction term was decomposed in

the manner specified by Aiken and West (1991),

with the simple slopes representing sex. Non-

standardized regression coefficients (B) were

applied to decompose the interaction terms

(Aiken & West, 1991).

RESULTS

Factor analysis of health behaviour variables

Factor analysis was conducted to detect groups of

health behaviours (both health-impairing and

health-promoting). Using principal component

analysis we could check the coherence of these

health behaviour patterns. The analysis indeed

provided a two-factor solution. Eigenvalues above

1 were applied as the point to stop extracting

factors (Kaiser’s criterion). Variance explained

was 49.4%. Table 1 presents the final factor

structure for this solution, in which only factor

loadings greater than 0.3 were included.

Factor 1 (eigenvalue 5 1.7) was labelled a

‘‘health-impairing behaviours’’ factor, which

included the following items: smoking, binge

drinking, and drug use. Factor 2 (eigenvalue 5

1.3) was labelled a ‘‘health-promoting behaviours’’

factor, which included the following items: exer-

cise, diet control, and tooth cleaning. In subse-

quent analyses, summary scores of the health

behaviour indices were computed and applied as a

health-impairing behaviours index and a health-

promoting behaviours index.

Descriptive statistics and bivariatecorrelations between variables

Table 2 provides descriptive statistics (means and

standard deviations) for health behaviour indices,

competitiveness, and social comparison scales for

boys and girls. As Student’s t-tests revealed, the

mean competitiveness score was higher among

boys (p,.001), whereas girls scored significantly

higher on social comparison (p,.001). The mean

score for health-impairing behaviours was higher

among boys (p,.05), whereas no significant sex

difference was found in terms of health-promoting

behaviours (p..05).

Bivariate correlations between health beha-

viours indices and social orientations are presented

in Table 2. As the results indicate, the health-

impairing behaviours were positively correlated

with competitiveness in both sexes (r 5 .28,

p,.001 for boys and r 5 .17, p,.01 for girls)

and negatively correlated with social comparison

TABLE 1Results of factor analysis of health behaviours among high

school students (N 5 548)

Factor 1

(eigenvalue 5 1.7)

Factor 2

(eigenvalue 5 1.3)

Smoking .73 –

Binge drinking .78 –

Drug use .73 –

Exercise – .50

Diet control – .77

Tooth care – .64

% variance 28.4 21.0

Factor labels ‘‘Health-impairing

behaviours’’ factor

‘‘Health-promoting

behaviours’’ factor

Final rotated structure. Only factor loadings greater than .30

were included.

TABLE 2Descriptive statistics and correlations of study variables (for boys above diagonal, for girls below; N 5 548)

M (SD)Health-impairing

behaviors

Health-promoting

behaviors Competitiveness

Social

comparison AgeBoys Girls

Health-impairing

behaviors

2.13 (2.80) 1.73 (2.11) – 2.03 .26*** 2.19** .19**

p,.05{Health-promoting

behaviors

5.88 (2.03) 6.09 (1.93) .03 – .13 .17* 2.07

p..05

Competitiveness 46.95 (10.02) 41.95 (10.21) .17** .08 – .04 2.01

p,.001

Social comparison 33.43 (7.73) 35.76 (7.79) 2.03 .01 .13* – .09

p,.001

Age 16.50 (1.39) 16.20 (1.30) .12* .04 2.04 .05 –

p..05

{Student’s t-test. * p,.05; **p,.01; *** p,.001.

16 PIKO ET AL.

Downloaded By: [Piko, Bettina] At: 14:14 8 February 2010

among boys (r 5 2.19, p,.01). Among girls, both

social orientation variables were related to the

health-promoting behaviours. Among boys, how-

ever, the health-promoting behaviours were posi-

tively correlated with social comparison (r 5 .17,

p,.05).

Relationships between social orientationvariables, sex, and health behaviour

In order to test the effects of social orientation

variables and their interactions with sex, hierarch-

ical linear regression was applied. Predictors were

entered in three steps: (1) controlled sociodemo-

graphic variables, including sex, age, parental

schooling, SES, and academic achievements; (2)

social comparison and competitiveness; (3) inter-

action terms (sex 6 social comparison and sex 6competitiveness).

Regarding the health-impairing behaviours,

older participants (b 5 .12, p,.01), those with

lower academic achievements (b 5 2.29, p,.001),

and those with mothers who had a higher level of

schooling (b 5 .18, p,.001) reported more health-

impairing behaviours (Table 3). The last step of the

regression analysis indicated that social compar-

ison (B 5 20.29, SE 5 0.10) and sex (B 5 0.08,

SE 5 0.10) interacted significantly (B 5 0.20, SE

5 0.10, p,.05). Further, sex and competetiveness

(B 5 0.60, SE 5 0.10) interacted significantly (B 5

20.22, SE 5 0.10, p,.05). Plotting the interaction

terms indicated that although girls reported similar

levels of health-impairing behaviours regardless of

their social comparison level, boys with low social

comparison indicated more health-compromising

behaviours than boys with high social comparison

(Figure 1). Social comparison had an effect of

medium size (Cohen’s d 5 0.73) on health-

compromising behaviours among boys.

Regarding competitiveness, the analysis of

interaction terms suggested that significant effects

may be observed among boys: Those with high

competitiveness reported more health-impairing

behaviours than those with low competitiveness

(Figure 2) . Competitiveness had an effect of large

size (Cohen’s d 5 1.55) on boys’ health-compro-

mising behaviours. Similar, medium (Cohen’s d 5

0.68) effects of competitiveness were observed

among girls (Figure 2).

Regarding health-promoting behaviours we

found that girls (b 5 .10, p,.05), those with

higher SES (b 5 .12, p,.01) and higher level of

mother’s schooling (b 5 .14, p,.05) reported more

health-promoting behaviours (Table 3). However,

the interaction between social comparison (B 5

0.17, SE 5 0.09) and sex (B 5 0.20, SE 5 0.09)

produced a significant increment (B 5 20.22, SE

5 0.09, p,.05). Differences among girls reporting

different levels of social comparison were negli-

gible (Figure 3); however, boys who reported

higher levels of social comparison also reported

higher levels of health-promoting behaviours than

did those with low levels of social comparison

(medium effect size, Cohen’s d 5 0.68)

DISCUSSION

The main goal in this paper has been to test a

possible relationship between health behaviour

TABLE 3Regression estimates from health-impairing and health-promoting behaviors on sociodemographic factors and social orientations

Health-impairing behaviors Health-promoting behaviors

b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE

Step 1: Sociodemographics

Sex 2.04 .10 .03 .11 .03 .10 .10* .09 .10* .09 .10* .09

Age (years) .12** .10 .13** .10 .14** .10 .01 .09 .01 .09 2.01 .09

Academic achievement 2.29*** .10 2.29*** .10 2.29*** .10 .09* .09 .08 .09 .08 .09

Father’s schooling .06 .13 .03 .12 .03 .12 2.01 .11 2.01 .11 .01 .11

Mother’s schooling .18*** .12 .18*** .12 .18*** .10 .14** .11 .13* .11 .14* .10

SES self-assessment 2.01 .10 2.01 .10 2.01 .10 .12** .09 .12** .09 .12** .09

Step 2: Social orientations

Competitiveness .23*** .10 .25 .10 .08 .09 .08 .09

Social comparison 2.11** .10 2.12 .10 .07 .09 .09 .09

Step 3: Interactions

Competitiveness 6 sex 2.09* .10 2.01 .09

Social comparison 6 sex .08* .10 2.11* .09

R2 .13 .19 .20 .06 .07 .08

D R2 .06*** .01* .01 .01*

Sex: Female was coded as +1, male was coded as 21. * p,.05; **p,.01; *** p,.001.

SOCIAL ORIENTATIONS AND HEALTH BEHAVIOURS 17

Downloaded By: [Piko, Bettina] At: 14:14 8 February 2010

patterns and two social orientation variables,

namely, competitiveness and social comparison.

Although some social influences of adolescent

health behaviour, such as social motives from

peers, have been widely studied (Piko et al., 2007;

Simons-Morton et al., 2001), detecting the role of

social orientations is a relatively under-investi-

gated field of research. We hypothesized that the

role of these social orientations might vary as a

function of gender and the nature of health

behaviours. Since our findings show a two-

factor solution of health behaviour patterns—a

Figure 2. Explaining health-impairing behaviours: The interaction effect of sex and competitiveness.

Figure 3. Explaining health-promoting behaviours: The interaction effect of sex and social comparison.

Figure 1. Explaining health-impairing behaviours: The interaction effect of sex and social comparison.

18 PIKO ET AL.

Downloaded By: [Piko, Bettina] At: 14:14 8 February 2010

‘‘health-impairing behaviours’’ factor and a

‘‘health-promoting behaviours’’ factor similar to

previous studies (e.g., Donovan et al., 1993)—wehave constructed two health behaviours indices in

the analyses related to social orientations.

Based on a review of the literature (e.g.,

Gibbons & Buunk, 1999; Hussong, 2002;

Whiteman et al., 1997), there is reason to believe

that competitiveness and social comparison are

important social orientations that influence ado-

lescents’ health behaviours. In addition, we haveassumed that due to differences in motivational

structures, competitiveness and social comparison

might be related to various types of health

behaviour patterns in different ways. Indeed, those

who scored higher on competitiveness were

engaged in more substance use, which was not

present in terms of health-promoting behaviours.

Previous studies also showed that more competi-tive adolescents had a higher likelihood of

substance use, for example, smoking (Johnson &

Hoffman, 2000). Social comparison, however, was

associated with lower levels of substance use. We

believe that this is because social comparison may

facilitate adolescents’ self-improvement through

their social images of being a nonuser (Mussweiler

& Ruter, 2003). In addition, social comparisonmay help develop a collective self-construal

orientation (Mussweiler & Strack, 2000) without

creating a need for demonstrating social identity

by using substances together. A previous study

also demonstrated a negative relationship between

adolescent smoking and drinking and communal

mastery as a social orientation (Piko, 2006).

Collectively, these studies suggest that socialcomparison is a social orientation that may act

in a protective way against substance use.

As expected, gender differences were also

evident in the role that social orientations played

in adolescents’ health behaviours. Particularly in

relation to health-impairing behaviours, both

competitiveness and social comparison interacted

with gender—both social orientation variablesproved to be more important for boys. This

finding is in accordance with previous research

that reported a greater role of social influences,

such as communal mastery (Piko, 2006), social

motives (Piko et al., 2007) or competitiveness

(Evans et al., 2006) in substance use among boys

as compared to girls. In addition, it seems that

social comparison may contribute to health-promoting behaviours among boys.

Sociodemographics also modified the picture of

interrelationships. Although health-impairing

behaviours were more common among boys, in

multivariate analyses, gender did not play a

significant role in predicting substance use,

whereas both social orientations interacted with

gender. Health-promoting behaviours were more

common among girls. Good academic achieve-

ment was negatively related to adolescent sub-

stance use, similarly to previous studies (e.g.,

Simons-Morton et al., 2001) and positively with

health-promoting behaviours. Parental SES also

played a role in adolescents’ health-promoting

behaviours. Mother’s schooling contributed to

both adolescent health-promoting behaviours

and health-impairing behaviours (positively).

These associations are more or less similar to

previous research results (Piko & Fitzpatrick,

2007).

Our findings support the idea that the role of

social orientations, such as competitiveness and

social comparison, can be quite different depend-

ing on the nature of health behaviours. A previous

study also has found that the effect of social

comparison depends on the situation in which it is

displayed (Marx et al., 2005). While among boys,

social comparison was positively associated with

health-promoting behaviours, it was negatively

related to their health-impairing behaviours, such

as substance use. Competitiveness, on the other

hand, was a positive contributing factor for

substance use among boys. It seems that social

orientations do not play a role in girls’ health-

reated behaviours.

We may conclude that competitiveness and

social comparison as social orientation variables

may have opposite roles in prevention. While

competitiveness may act as a risk factor for

substance use, certain forms of social comparison

(i.e., a general and not behaviour-specific form)

may act as a protection among boys. The risk and

protective factors approach helps us develop an

useful guide for behaviour modification including

multilevel risk and protective factors. More focus

is needed on gender differences in influences of

adolescents’ health-related behaviours. For girls,

more research is needed to identify influential

factors.Manuscript received August 2008

Revised manuscript accepted March 2009

First published online June 2009

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression:Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Aspinwall, L. G. (1997). Future-oriented aspects ofsocial comparisons. In B. P. Buunk & F. X. Gibbons(Eds.), Health, coping, and well-being: Perspectives

SOCIAL ORIENTATIONS AND HEALTH BEHAVIOURS 19

Downloaded By: [Piko, Bettina] At: 14:14 8 February 2010

from social comparison theory (pp. 125–166).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Buunk, B. P., Gibbons, F. X., & Visser, A. (2002). Therelevance of social comparison processes for preven-tion and health care. Patient Education andCounseling, 47, 1–3.

Cheng, S. T., & Chan, A. C. (1999). Sex, competitive-ness, and intimacy in same-sex friendship in HongKong adolescents. Psychological Reports, 84, 45–48.

Donovan, J. E., Jessor, R., & Costa, F. M. (1993).Structure of health-enhancing behavior in adoles-cence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Healthand Social Behavior, 34, 346–362.

Evans, W. D., Powers, A., Hersey, J., & Renaud, J.(2006). The influence of social environment andsocial image on adolescent smoking. HealthPsychology, 25, 26–33.

Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individualdifferences in social comparison: Development of ascale of social comparison orientation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 76, 129–142.

Houston, J. M., Harris, P. B., McIntire, S., & Francis, D.(2002). Revising the Competitiveness Index.Psychological Reports, 90, 31–34.

Houston, J. M., Harris, P. B., & Norman, M. (2003).The Agressive Driving Behavior Scale: Developing aself report measure of unsafe practices. NorthAmerican Journal of Psychology, 5, 269–278.

Houston, J. M., Harris, P. B., Moore, R., Brummett, R.,& Kametani, H. (2005). Competitiveness amongJapanese, Chinese, and American undergraduatestudents. Psychological Reports, 97, 205–212.

Hussong, A. M. (2002). Differentiating peer contextsand risk for adolescent substance use. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 31, 207–220.

Johnson, R. A., & Hoffmann, J. P. (2000). Adolescentcigarette smoking in US racial/ethnic subgroups:Findings from the National EducationalLongitudinal Study. Journal of Health and SocialBehavior, 41, 329–407.

Jonah, B. A., Thiessen, R., & Au-Yeung, E. (2001).Sensation seeking, risky driving and behavioraladaptation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33,679–684.

Kann, L., Kinchen, S. A., Williams, B. I., Ross, J. G.,Lowry, R., & Hill, C. V., et al. (1998). Youth riskbehavior surveillance – United States, 1997. MMWRSurveillance Summaries, 47, 1–89.

Luszczynska, A., Gibbons, F. X., Piko, B. F., &Tekozel, M. (2004). Self-regulatory cognitions, socialcomparison, and perceived peers’ behaviors aspredictors of nutrition and physical activity: Acomparison among adolescents in Hungary, Poland,

Turkey, and USA. Psychology and Health, 19,577–593.

Marx, D. M., Stapel, D. A., & Muller, D. (2005). Wecan do it: The interplay of construal orientation andsocial comparison under threat. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 88, 432–446.

Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). Whenmoderation is mediated and mediation is moderated.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,852–863.

Mussweiler, T., & Ruter, K. (2003). What friends arefor! The use of routine standards in social compar-ison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,85, 467–481.

Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). The ‘‘relative self’’:Informational and judgemental consequences ofcomparative self-evaluation. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 79, 23–38.

Piko, B. F. (2005). Adolescents’ health-related behaviorsin the light of their value orientations. Substance Use& Misuse, 40, 735–742.

Piko, B. F. (2006). Adolescent smoking and drinking:The role of communal mastery and other socialinfluences. Addictive Behaviors, 31, 102–114.

Piko, B. F., & Fitzpatrick, K. M. (2007). Socioeconomicstatus, psychosocial health and health behaviorsamong Hungarian adolescents. European Journal ofPublic Health, 17, 353–360.

Piko, B. F., Luszczynska, A., Gibbons, F. X., &Tekozel, M. (2005). A culture-based study ofpersonal and social influences of adolescent smoking.European Journal of Public Health, 15, 393–398.

Piko, B. F., Wills, T. A., & Walker, C. (2007). Motivesfor smoking and drinking: Gender and countrydifferences in samples of Hungarian and US highschool students. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 2087–2098.

Simons-Morton, B., Haynie, D. L., Crump, A. D.,Eitel, P., & Saylor, K. E. (2001). Peer and parentinfluences on smoking and drinking among earlyadolescents. Health Education & Behavior, 28,95–107.

Smither, R. D., & Houston, J. M. (1992). The natureof competition: Construction and validation ofthe Competitiveness Index. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 52, 407–418.

Whiteman, M. C., Fowkes, F. G. R., Deary, I. J., &Lee, A. J. (1997). Hostility, cigarette smoking andalcohol consumption in the general population.Social Science and Medicine, 44, 1089–1096.

Zakriski, A. L., Wright, J. C., & Underwood, M. K.(2005). Gender similarities and differences in chil-dren’s social behavior: Finding personality in con-textualized patterns of adaptation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 88, 844–855.

20 PIKO ET AL.

Downloaded By: [Piko, Bettina] At: 14:14 8 February 2010