Social Comparison Overview

Personal Interest

  • It is self-evident that a large part of our identity is formed by who we compare ourselves to and how we
  • There is an inevitability toward it.
  • "The great conundrum of social comparison is why people choose to compare upward when the most likely result is a self- deflating contrast. It would seem more logical to make downward comparisons in order to feel better about oneself." —A Social Comparison Theory Meta-Analysis 60 Years On
  • If you think you are better than average when you're not, you may be in for rude awakenings
  • Social media (media in general) shows extreme weird of things (most successful, most attractive, etc.

Overview

Every day in different contexts and with different purposes we engage in social comparison processes, whether consciously or at subliminal level (e.g., Kahneman and Miller, 1986; Mussweiler and Rüter, 2003). Indeed, social comparisons represent a powerful tool people attend to infer their self-worth or to judge on their abilities by “stacking [oneself] up against the others” (Festinger, 1954). The information retrieved this way is treated as more accurate and objective and strategically useful, especially under tight timelines or in situations of uncertainty (e.g., Corcoran et al., 2011; Lockwood et al., 2012; van Dick et al., 2018).
Social comparison (Festinger, 1954) can be defined as the“process of thinking about information about one or more other people in relation to the self” (Wood, 1996). The phrase “in relation to the self” means that the comparer looks for or notices similarities or differences from the target of comparison on some dimension. The dimension can be anything on which the comparer can notice similarity/difference. We would usually expect the comparer to react in some way to the existence of the similarity/difference with a change in self-evaluation, affect, or behavior. —A Social Comparison Theory Meta-Analysis 60 Years On

Review Study

Recently, Gerber et al. (2018) presented a meta-analysis of social comparison research, where they identified mechanisms that enhance the social comparison effects. This work showed that besides manipulation of self through priming, novel information assessment indeed showed a consistent increase in social comparison effects as well as proximity of the standards (perceived relevance, similarity, or identification with the standard). The latter was associated with immediacy or salience of the standard perception of which outweigh general comparison (Buckingham and Alicke, 2002; Zell and Alicke, 2013). Finally, the meta-analytical analysis demonstrated that people generally choose upward comparison (better-off) standards, even when such comparison poses a threat to their self-esteem, bridging their interests, and that these comparisons tend to undermine well-being and ability self-evaluations. According to Gerber et al. (2018), contrast is a default reaction to social comparisons, whereas assimilation appears when conditions that suggest these processes are provided through priming, identification with the standard, or situations of uncertainty. Overall, this evidence only partly confirms the Self-Evaluation Model (SEM; Mussweiler, 2003), which suggested assimilation as a default mechanism and a threat to self-esteem to guide the use of social comparison information not allowing to inflict a traumatic conclusion.

Keywords

Social Comparison

  • "Social comparison consists of comparing oneself with others in order to evaluate or to enhance some aspects of the self."

Downward Comparison Theory

Wills (1981) proposed in his theory of downward comparison that threat produces downward comparison in an attempt to restore self-esteem. Wills argued that comparisons are generally upward (a conclusion based largely on the selection studies to be reviewed in the first meta-analysis) but that when self-esteem is threatened, comparison changes to a downward direction (Hakmiller, 1966) to restore self-esteem. Wills also predicted that people with low self-esteem would be particularly prone to downward comparison when self-esteem is threatened. Wills’ theory is actually a two-part theory, one part predicting downward selection (when threatened) and the second part predicting a positive reaction after downward comparison. Other theories (e.g., Wood, 1989) also assert that downward comparisons can boost self-evaluations so it is the first part that distinguishes Wills’ downward comparison theory. In the first meta-analysis presented in this article, we will examine stud- ies of comparison selection and whether threat has the proposed effect of producing downward comparison. —A Social Comparison Theory Meta-Analysis 60 Years On

Constructual Theory And Upward Social Comparisons

Collins (1996, 2000) proposed that people may assimilate their self-evaluation upward to those who are better off. Collins was influenced by the early work on comparison selection using the rank-order paradigm (Thornton & Arrowood, 1966; Wheeler, 1966) showing that people generally choose to compare upward. Collins argued that an upward comparison can be construed as showing similarity to the better-off target, leading the person to elevate their own self-worth to be in the same category as the target. This is most likely to happen if the person making the comparison initially expects to be similar to the target and is thus primed to construe any difference as slight or nonexistent. Down- ward assimilation is unlikely to occur because people do not expect or want to be similar to worse-off others and will not construe differences to be slight. Empirically, high self-esteem and shared distinctiveness with the target (Brewer & Weber, 1994) are the two factors most clearly linked to upward assimilation, accord- ing to Collins. —A Social Comparison Theory Meta-Analysis 60 Years On

Selective Accessibility Model

Mussweiler (2003; Mussweiler & Strack, 2000) has also pro- posed a model emphasizing assimilation, the selective accessibility model (SAM). When faced with a possible social comparison, a person makes a tentative and rapid judgment of similarity or dissimilarity to the comparison target. This can be based on any information we have about the target, although Mussweiler argues that the default hypothesis is that of similarity. Then there is a cognitive search for information consistent with the preliminary hypothesis of similarity or dissimilarity (e.g., Klayman & Ha, 1987). In the case of self-other comparisons, whether one searches for similarity information or dissimilarity information, it should be easy to find information that is consistent because self-concepts are remarkably rich and complicated. That information then becomes selectively accessible when we make judgments about ourselves. If we have searched for information that we are similar to the standard, we are likely to assimilate our self-evaluations toward the target. If we have searched for information that we are dissimilar to the target, we are likely to contrast our self-evaluations away from the target. Social comparison, according to SAM, does not just increase the accessibility of standard consistent knowledge but also provides a reference point against which this knowledge is evaluated (Up- shaw, 1978; Manis, Biernat, & Nelson, 1991). Comparing our scientific success to that of an American Psychological Associa- tion Distinguished Scientist may make knowledge of our own scientific achievements more accessible, which should lead to assimilation, but it also provides a reference point (the Distin- guished Scientist) against which to judge our success, which should lead to contrast. Absolute or objective questions such as “How many publications do you have in top journals?” should show the effects of assimilation (due to greater accessibility of our scientific achievements), whereas subjective questions such as “How distinguished is your scientific career?” should lead to both contrast (due to the high reference point) and to assimilation (due to greater accessibility of our scientific achievement). Thus, the predictions of SAM can most clearly be tested with objective questions (Mussweiler, 2003). —A Social Comparison Theory Meta-Analysis 60 Years On

Target Immediacy

Local information tends to be more highly weighted in self- valuation than distant information (Zell & Alicke, 2010). For example, although comparison information about other students at a university may have effects on a person’s self-evaluation, those effects can easily be removed or muted by comparison information about the other students in one’s dormitory, and those effects can be removed or muted by comparison information about the students in one’s suite. A well-known example from education is the frog-pond effect (Davis, 1966; Huguet et al., 2009; Marsh & Parker, 1984), which shows that academic self-concept is lower in highly selective high-schools than in less selective high-schools (after controlling for student academic ability). Students in elite high-schools compare themselves to their fellow students rather than to the outside world and suffer in self-concept as a result. Zell and Alicke (2010) believe this to be true because humans evolved in small groups and are habitually exposed to peer comparisons during development. We coded how close the comparison target was to the comparer, reasoning that comparison with a local target should have larger effects than comparison with a distant target.

Assimilation

Occurs when one’s drive for distinction leads to a perceived similarity in ability with a high-performing other. —A Social Comparison Theory Meta-Analysis 60 Years On

Reflection

Occurs when one gives up any claim to distinction on the comparison dimension and basks in the connection (or in Heider’s [1958] terms, “unit relationship”) with a psychologically/emotionally close other. —A Social Comparison Theory Meta-Analysis 60 Years On

Self Evaluation Maintenance Model (SEM)

One theoretical framework, Tesser’s (1988) SEM, is not tested in this article so an explanation for this apparent omission is appropriate. SEM predicts how people maintain self-evaluation under the confluence of three interacting independent variables: (1) performance of the self relative to another (2) psychological closeness to the other (3) the relevance of the comparison dimension to the individual’s self-definition. Under the SEM, comparison occurs when the actor is out- performed by a close other on a relevant dimension. In this case, upward contrast will result, and the actor’s ability-evaluation will be diminished. The comparison process always leads to downward contrast from a superior other. This prediction of upward contrast is not unique to SEM and is tested as a matter of course in our analysis. If, however, the dimension is not relevant to the actor’s self-definition, the actor can bask in the reflected glory of her close friend (i.e., what Tesser called “reflection”). Her self-esteem and affect may increase (but her self-evaluation on the performance dimension will not increase). Unlike Tesser, some writers unfortunately have equated reflection with assimilation. Assimilation occurs when one’s drive for distinction leads to a perceived similarity in ability with a high-performing other. Reflection occurs when one gives up any claim to distinction on the comparison dimension and basks in the connection (or in Heider’s [1958] terms, “unit relationship”) with a psychologically/emotionally close other. Thus, the reflection prediction of the SEM does not rely on social comparison per se. Where possible, however, we included any SEM-derived studies that met our inclusion criteria (e.g., Blanton, Crocker, & Miller, 2000). But Tesser’s model does not use self-evaluation as a dependent variable and instead uses other dependent variables such as perceptions of the other, changes in relevance of a self-definition, and closeness to the other. As such, there are few SEM studies that directly involve social comparison, echoing Pleban and Tesser’s (1981) suggestion that the “. . . comparison process is not the same as that discussed by Festinger (1954)” (p. 279). We were unable to code the studies for Tesser’s variable of relevance (because it was rarely a manipulated variable), but we did code them for immediacy of the comparison target, an approximation of Tesser’s variable of closeness. —A Social Comparison Theory Meta-Analysis 60 Years On

Better Than Average Effect

There is also the persistent Western belief that we are better than the average peer. We are better drivers, better lovers, and better parents than the average person. The better-than-average effect (BTAE) seems to be due to some factors that are independent of social comparison. Alicke and Govorun (2005) explain it as an “automatic tendency to assimilate positively-evaluated social objects toward ideal trait conceptions” (p. 99; see also Brown, 2012). If you were asked to indicate how kind you are relative to the average person, and if you thought you were generally kind, you would assimilate your view of your kindness to the ideal point on the kindness scale, which would make you kinder than the average person. More cognitive explanations may also contribute to the BTAE, such as the selective recruitment of information about the self because it is more accessible (Dunning, Meyerowitz, & Holzberg, 1989) or applying greater weight to own characteristics in judgment (Chambers & Windschitl, 2004). —A Social Comparison Theory Meta-Analysis 60 Years On

Key Findings

  • Identity. Comparison to others is a big part of how we build our identity.
  • Triggers. Social comparison triggers
    • Priming
    • Novel information assessment
    • Proximity of the standards (perceived relevance, similarity, or identification with the standard). The latter was associated with immediacy or salience of the standard perception of which outweigh general comparison (Buckingham and Alicke, 2002; Zell and Alicke, 2013).
  • Comparison Selection (Up vs Down). People generally choose upward comparison (better-off) standards, even when such comparison poses a threat to their self-esteem, bridging their interests, and that these comparisons tend to undermine well-being and ability self-evaluations.
  • Contrast vs Assimilation. According to Gerber et al. (2018), contrast is a default reaction to social comparisons, whereas assimilation appears when conditions that suggest these processes are provided through priming, identification with the standard, or situations of uncertainty. Overall, this evidence only partly confirms the Self-Evaluation Model (SEM; Mussweiler, 2003), which suggested assimilation as a default mechanism and a threat to self-esteem to guide the use of social comparison information not allowing to inflict a traumatic conclusion.

Visuals

image

Examples

Income

Physical Attractiveness

  • Women buy fashion magazines that force them into self-deflating contrasts and men do exactly the same thing with fashion and body building magazines (e.g., Grabe, Ward, & Hyde, 2008; Myers & Crowther, 2009).

Personality

Aptitude

Health

  • Being diagnosed with an illness and comparing oneself to those who are in better health.

Parenting