- Email: [email protected]
Social Comparison
Social Comparison E A Pomery, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA F X Gibbons, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA M L Stock, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA ã 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Glossary Assimilation Looking for similarities between oneself and the comparison target and feeling close to or like the target. Contrast Looking for dissimilarities between oneself and a comparison target and feeling distant or unlike the target. Lateral Same-level comparison. Prototype An individual’s subjective perceptions about the typical member of a certain category.
Introduction Every day, whether we are aware of it or not, we compare ourselves with others. We compare on a variety of dimensions from appearance (‘Am I underdressed for this party?’) to opinions (‘Is my belief valid? What do others think?’), to performance on a task (‘What does my exam score mean? Should I be happy or worried?’). Sometimes, the person we are comparing ourselves with may not even be real. For instance, students might compare themselves in terms of level of stress with their perception of the average student at their school. Although no truly ‘average’ student exists, feeling that one is experiencing more stress than the average student will nonetheless be disheartening. Thus, it is possible that comparing with an imagined other person will have just as profound an impact as comparing with a real person. These comparisons may be deliberate and conscious, but they also can be triggered unconsciously or can happen spontaneously. It’s not just that people are being nosey; these comparisons have specific purposes. In fact, these comparisons serve many adaptive functions. The present article lays out a brief history of research on social comparison and highlights the many factors that influence the type, frequency, and effects of social comparisons. Real world applications are described and future directions in social comparison research are also discussed.
Festinger’s Original Social Comparison Theory The term social comparison was coined in 1954 by Leon Festinger. His article proposing social comparison theory was instrumental in jumpstarting this line of research. According to his theory, there is a universal drive for people to evaluate their abilities and opinions. One way to gain perspective on one’s abilities or opinions is to compare with others. If objective information is available that can inform a person regarding his or her performance or opinion, then social comparison should not be necessary. According to Festinger, only when
Self-enhancement The desire to improve one’s feelings of self-worth. Self-evaluation The desire to evaluate one’s behaviors or opinions. Self-improvement The desire to gain new skills to better oneself. Social comparison Comparing oneself along one or more dimensions with a real or imagined person. Target The person, real or imagined, with whom one is comparing.
objective information is absent will people compare with others to better appraise the situation. Subsequent research has shown that Festinger was actually underestimating social comparison, and that, in fact, people often prefer knowing their relative status, via comparisons with others, as opposed to their absolute standing. The basic principles of the theory, however, have held the test of time and continue to influence research in the field of psychology.
Social Comparison and Self-evaluation Festinger proposed that the best way for a person to gain insight about his or her performance would be to compare with someone who is perceived to be similar. For instance, an amateur musician might compare his performance with a person who has similar years of experience, rather than comparing with a professional musician (clearly superior) or someone who has never played before (clearly inferior). The greater the similarity of the comparison target (the person to whom one is being compared), the more precise is the evaluation. Festinger believed that only when similar comparison targets are unavailable will people resort to comparisons with others perceived to be dissimilar from the self; in these cases, the comparer will have less confidence about the conclusions he or she can draw from the comparison.
Social Comparisons and Groups Festinger was particularly interested in the role that social comparison plays in the behavior of group members. He demonstrated how social comparison could be used to explain various group processes, including group formation, conformity, and competition. If the group is important to a member and the ability or opinion being evaluated is central to the group, then the member should be motivated to regularly compare with other group members. For example, a member of an important committee at work may find it necessary to compare with his coworkers to assess his status in the group
463
464
Social Comparison
(‘Am I contributing enough?’), as well as assess his opinions (‘Do others agree with my idea for the project?’). If the worker feels that his status is slipping or his opinions are not shared, then he should be motivated to conform with the group – if it is important to him. If the comparison dimension is not much valued or the group is seen as less important by a member, then he or she will not face the same pressure to engage in social comparison. Members who, upon comparison, are deemed too dissimilar from the rest of the group are most likely to be excluded from the group.
to feel better about their own situation. The self-enhancement motive gained popularity in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as will be discussed in the next section. Whereas the early focus of social comparison research was selection of comparison targets, it has shifted over the last 30 years to an emphasis on the motives behind, and effects of, engaging in social comparison.
Milestones Broadening the Scope
Social Comparison and Improvement In addition to the desire to evaluate oneself, Festinger also recognized that there is a constant desire to improve one’s abilities. Thus, people might be motivated to compare with others who have performed slightly better than they have. This would allow the comparer to gain insight as to why his or her performance was inferior and provide motivation to work harder. Festinger noted that this upward drive for abilities may be more pronounced in Western cultures, because traits such as individualism and autonomy are seen as more important in Western cultures, where people will feel the need to stand out from the crowd. These cultural norms provide motivation to compare as a way to improve one’s standing. In Eastern cultures, more value is placed on group harmony. These two motives, self-evaluation and self-improvement, are discussed in more detail in the next section.
Directions and Motives As noted earlier, Festinger originally proposed that people are most likely to engage in social comparison with those who they think are similar to themselves. These same-level comparisons, referred to as lateral comparisons, were believed to result in the most accurate evaluation of a person’s own abilities or opinions. Comparing with a person who is highly divergent, either greatly superior or inferior, would provide less precise information to the comparer. Although self-evaluation is still viewed as a primary reason why people engage in social comparison, researchers now recognize two (at least) additional types of motives: self-improvement and self-enhancement. As these terms suggest, people may wish to compare with others in order to learn new skills or become inspired (selfimprovement), or to feel better about themselves or their situation (self-enhancement). Self-improvement is often associated with upward comparisons – it should be easier to gain inspiration and learn new skills from a person who is doing better than oneself as opposed to worse. The reasoning behind providing children with role models is the assumption that they will be motivated to be more like the admired individuals. Role models act as upward social comparison targets that children can learn from and aspire to be like, motivating them to work harder to achieve similar goals. Self-enhancement is also a common motivation behind social comparison. As a general rule, individuals prefer to view themselves in a positive light and are motivated to sustain their positive self-images. Comparing with others who are perceived to be worse off allows individuals the opportunity
As noted in the previous section, Festinger proposed that social comparison played a role in people’s assessments of their opinions and abilities. Thus, the initial studies investigating the theory focused on these two dimensions. This line of research was soon broadened to include emotions as well. Stanley Schachter’s research in the late 1950s on fear and affiliation demonstrated that during times of high anxiety, people showed a preference to be around others who were in a similar high-stress situation. This was the case even when participants knew they would not be allowed to converse with each other. It was proposed that people could gain insight into how nervous they should be (and how they might cope) by comparing with someone facing the same stressor. An important outgrowth of Schachter’s work on emotional comparison was his two-stage theory of emotion developed with Singer. They suggested that when people experience physiological arousal (increased heart rate, rapid breathing), they will attempt to label that arousal as a particular emotion. Schachter and Singer cleverly showed that, when the source of the arousal is unclear, the emotional label given can be influenced by social factors, specifically, others in the situation. Participants were given adrenaline to produce physiological arousal, but only some were told what symptoms they could expect. All of the participants were then paired with a confederate who acted either euphoric or angry. Those who had not expected the injection to cause physiological arousal behaved similarly to the target (becoming either euphoric or angry themselves), suggesting that these participants labeled their mood state on the basis of a comparison with the confederate. Of course, most of the time when people are aroused they do not try to label and they do not socially compare – they do not need to, as the cause and the emotional reaction are clear. Nonetheless, Schachter’s research clearly demonstrated the important role that social comparison can play in emotions, as well as other behaviors.
Downward Comparisons Another milestone in social comparison research came with the publication of Wills’ article on downward social comparison theory. According to the theory, people who compare with others who are thought to be faring worse experience an improvement in their mood (in other words, their subjective well-being increases). People who feel threatened should be most likely to engage in downward comparison, especially if there is no direct way to confront the source of the threat. If there is a direct way to deal with the stressor (instrumental coping), then this will be the first option. Downward social comparison is an emotional coping technique that can help
Social Comparison
one feel better in the short-term, although it is often not the best long-term strategy for dealing with a threat (see Coping entry). The threat need not be physical – threats to a person’s ego will lead to the same motivation to compare with a less fortunate person. Wills proposed that people with low selfesteem should be more likely to engage in downward comparison than those with high self-esteem, as they are more likely to experience low levels of subjective well-being. Wills maintained that self-enhancement through downward comparisons can be accomplished through either an active or passive process. The latter occurs when people learn about others who are worse off and then use that information as an opportunity to improve how they feel. With more active forms of downward comparison, the comparer can derogate the target or cause them physical harm, both of which will have the result of lowering the status of the target, and making them appear inferior. For instance, Wills suggested hostile forms of humor can be used to derogate a person or group of people. Putting others down, even in jest, serves to boost one’s own status – in comparison. Another illustration of self-enhancing comparisons is when a teenage girl who is feeling insecure about her own appearance calls a classmate overweight and unattractive. Wills also noted that people are generally ambivalent about downward comparisons. On the one hand, they don’t like to take joy in someone else’s misfortune or be seen as gloating (this has been referred to as schadenfreude, or ‘joy from damage’). On the other hand, they realize it can have emotional benefits. Wills used the self-enhancement motive and the concept of active downward comparisons to explain a broad range of research, from prejudice to physical and verbal aggression. Related to downward social comparisons is the notion of downward shifts put forth by Gibbons and colleagues. Whereas downward comparisons are usually motivated by a desire to enhance (damaged) self-esteem, downward shifts usually reflect a desire to protect threatened self-esteem. Downward shifts are more common, because true downward comparison with a person who is believed to be worse off may not always be feasible or desirable. This may be the case for the student who received the lowest grade in the class; there simply is not a classmate who is worse off to compare with. Other times, downward comparisons are unwanted because of the discomfort that arises. In these situations, when people are feeling threatened but either cannot or do not want to engage in true downward comparisons, there is a tendency to lower one’s preferred target level. For instance, the aforementioned student will not want to compare with the best student in the class, but selects a classmate who is not quite as accomplished (a student who is doing okay rather than excellent). This downward shift has been demonstrated in a variety of situations, including health: people who are attempting to quit smoking and then relapse show decreasing interest in comparison with successful abstainers.
Factors that Influence Comparisons Similarity Researchers have long focused on what factors influence who is selected as a comparison target. As Festinger noted in his seminal article, similarity plays an important role, with people
465
selecting targets that are viewed as similar to themselves. The more similar the comparison target, the easier it is for people to make a comparison and the greater the certainty they have in their conclusions. Similarity may be on the basis of a dimension relevant to the comparison, such as a golfer comparing with someone with the same handicap; however, people may compare with others who are similar on dimensions less central to the comparison. It has been shown that the type of similarity with the target can be important. A person is more likely to identify with a comparison target if the two share a distinctive quality as opposed to a nondistinctive one. If the target shares a birthday or also has a rare hobby, then the comparer is going to be more influenced by him or her. If the target shares a more common quality, such as a popular hobby, then this target is less likely to have an influence on the comparer.
Assimilation Versus Contrast The more similar the target, the easier it is to identify with him or her; identifying with a comparison target is known as assimilation. The more a person identifies with an upward comparison target, for instance, the greater is the positive impact of the comparison; conversely, the more similar a downward target is perceived to be, the greater is the negative impact. If comparers identify with someone superior, then they should feel hopeful that they too can experience that level of success. If they feel similar to a person who is worse off, then they are likely to worry that they, too, will experience the same fate. There are times when the comparison target may be viewed as different from oneself along dimensions important to the comparison. Rather than identifying with the comparison target, comparers in this case will contrast themselves with the target. Contrasting with an upward target will have a negative impact (‘There’s no way I can perform that well’), whereas contrasting with a downward target is more likely to have a positive impact (‘I am not like him – that will never happen to me’). Originally, researchers believed that downward comparisons were generally self-enhancing and that upward comparisons could be threatening. Since then, it has become apparent that whether a comparison has a positive or negative impact is determined by whether a person identifies or contrasts with the comparison target. To paraphrase Bram Buunk, both upward and downward comparisons have their ups and downs. So what determines whether people identify or contrast with a comparison target? Mussweiler has proposed that people do a quick holistic assessment as to whether they are similar to or different from the target. This initial determination of similarity, in turn, influences how they go about making the comparison. If they view themselves as similar, then similarities are more likely to come to mind (targetconsistent knowledge becomes more accessible). If they view themselves as being different from the target, then dissimilarities are more likely to come to mind (target-inconsistent knowledge becomes more accessible). Similarity testing is more likely to lead to identification with the target, whereas dissimilarity testing is more likely to lead to contrasting with the target. It has been shown that similarity testing, as opposed to dissimilarity testing, seems to be people’s initial default tendency.
466
Social Comparison
Perceived Future Similarity Another factor that has been identified as playing an important role is attainability – that is, whether comparers believe that what the target is experiencing could happen to them. If people feel that they can be like superior others, for instance, then they will be motivated to work harder. If they feel that they cannot be like superior others, then an upward comparison will be potentially threatening. Along those lines, Lockwood and colleagues demonstrated that whether comparison with a ‘superstar’ – in their case, a graduating senior who had succeeded both academically and socially – had a positive or negative impact on undergraduate college students depended on whether participants were freshmen or seniors. Those in their first semesters in college were inspired by superstars who shared their major. Seniors, however, did not have the time left in college to reach the same level of success. Lockwood and colleagues found that the seniors tended to react defensively in an ego-protective manner, apparently to prevent them from feeling worse about their own situation. For instance, seniors were less likely than underclassmen to rate the superstar as being superior and downplayed the importance of the superstar’s accomplishments. Similarly, if the experiences of a downward comparison target are seen as likely to occur to the self in the future, then it will affect the impact that the comparison will have. Using an example from the health domain, patients with a deteriorating illness will not want to compare themselves to a patient experiencing more severe symptoms (a downward comparison target), as they realize that they will likely be in the same situation in the future. If people have a health condition that is not likely to deteriorate, however, then making a downward comparison should be self-enhancing and should improve one’s mood.
Individual Differences Although, social comparison is a universal phenomenon, and often done automatically, there are clearly individual differences in the extent to which people compare – some people compare more regularly than others. Gibbons and Buunk created a scale to measure individuals’ tendencies to engage in social comparison. They have found that people who are more self-conscious socially compare more often. People who are aware of themselves when they are around others, and who often reflect on their thoughts and feelings, are more frequent comparers. High comparers also have a greater ability to imagine themselves in others’ shoes, leading them to be more empathetic than those who compare less often. There is also a downside to frequent comparison, however, as those who socially compare more also are more likely to have lower self-esteem, be more depressed, and experience more mood swings compared to those low in social comparison orientation. Finally, women compare more frequently, on average, than men.
Adaptive Benefits Why is social comparison so common? Researchers have suggested that social comparison has a number of adaptive benefits. As Festinger originally noted, comparisons with others allow individuals to get a better idea of where they stand in
the group. It was likely important for our ancestors that group members avoid potential harmful competition. Comparing one’s abilities with other group members, can allow a member to determine which specialized role should be taken and which abilities he or she should focus on improving. Thus, members are motivated to improve on behaviors they feel that they are specifically qualified to engage in and that bring a unique contribution to the group. For example, a member who, upon comparison, discovers that he is particularly adept at fishing but not at hunting, will be better off focusing on his role as a fisherman as opposed to his role as a hunter. Feeling like an important, contributing group member, in turn, helps to enhance a member’s self-esteem. Social comparison also plays a role in the cohesiveness of the group. By making sure one’s views and goals are in line with those of the group, members prevent themselves from potentially being excluded – which could have dire consequences. Maintaining the cohesion of the group increases its likelihood of prospering. In addition to evolutionary benefits, social comparisons are adaptive in terms of how humans process information. Social comparison makes processing information more efficient in that it allows a person to limit the range of information that is needed to make an evaluation or judgment. Humans have many demands on their time and attention (and thus have scarce available cognitive resources), so having a way to simplify the processing of information is extremely beneficial.
Social Comparison and Biased Perceptions As the field of social psychology turned its collective attention to cognition in the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers began applying this new approach to the study of social comparisons. People are predisposed to hold themselves in high regard and are motivated to maintain these overly positive beliefs of themselves relative to others, and social comparison processes appear to drive these biased perceptions. One illustration of this phenomenon is that people tend to view their ideas and opinions as being correct or appropriate and therefore more prevalent among the public than they actually may be (this is known as the false consensus effect). Believing that the majority of others share their views strengthens people’s confidence in the validity of these beliefs. This increase in confidence, in turn, will influence their future behavior. There are times, however, when individuals prefer to see themselves as standing out from the crowd, in other words more different or special than they actually are (this is termed the false uniqueness effect). This belief in false uniqueness is maintained by underestimating the prevalence of an ability or belief in the general population. It has been shown that people have a tendency to select comparison targets that are most likely to lead to these biased conclusions. For instance, a person might compare his or her political views with those of his or her close friends and find that they all hold similar beliefs. Of course, an individual’s group of friends is likely not representative of the general public. Individuals tend to be friends with similar people, and so it is likely that they hold similar political beliefs. In this case, the result is that the person overestimates the percentage of people who share his or her political opinions. This belief, in turn, results in increased confidence in his or her
Social Comparison
views and strengthens his or her resolve to promote the political party most associated with his or her views.
Applications to Health Social comparison plays an important role in health behaviors and cognitions. For instance, the decision to seek medical attention is often influenced by social comparison. When deciding whether to go to the doctor or not, a person will compare his or her symptoms to those of others he or she knows (‘My friend had similar symptoms and needed antibiotics. I may be at risk and should see a doctor’ or ‘My friend had similar symptoms, but was fine the next day. It’s not worth seeing a doctor’). Thus, people with the same symptoms may make different decisions on the basis of whom they compare themselves with. Additional examples of health-related social comparison research are described below.
Risk Perceptions Social comparison plays an important role in people’s perceptions of risk. How vulnerable people feel to negative outcomes is largely based on their relative judgments. Along these lines, Jemmott and Croyle found that the more prevalent a behavior or event is thought to be (in their case, contracting a fictitious disease), the less severe it is viewed; in other words, there is safety in numbers. If the behavior or event is less common, then people tend to see it as being more severe and are more worried about the possibility of negative consequences. As noted earlier, people tend to overestimate the extent to which others share their opinions and abilities in order to normalize them. Thus, college students who binge drink overestimate the number of their peers who also drink heavily. Because they think that, ‘everyone is doing it,’ they perceive the behavior as less risky and are less concerned with its potential consequences. When estimating the likelihood of experiencing different events, people also display an optimistic bias. As Weinstein has shown, people underestimate their likelihood relative to other people of experiencing negative events (such as getting divorced, experiencing a heart attack), but overestimate their likelihood of experiencing positive events (e.g., winning the lottery). One way that people maintain these beliefs is to choose social comparison targets who lead them to these biased or overly optimistic views of themselves. For instance, when estimating his risk of having a heart attack, a man may choose a target that has a poor diet, or smokes, or does not exercise; by choosing a prototypical unhealthy target, he ends up feeling less vulnerable.
Affiliation As noted earlier, Schachter proposed that people under stress will be motivated to affiliate with people who are in the same situation, as a way to gain insight into how they should react to and cope with a threatening situation. More recent research, however, has shown that people facing major surgeries (and therefore experiencing stress) actually prefer to spend time with people who have already undergone the surgery, rather than someone who is also waiting for the same procedure. The reason,
467
apparently, is that they can gain useful information from a person who has already experienced the threat. In fact, several studies support the idea that upward targets are more beneficial in these instances. In a novel field experiment, Kulik and colleagues found that patients who, prior to cardiac operations, were randomly assigned a roommate who had already undergone a cardiac operation were less likely to experience anxiety before the operation, more likely to walk in the days following the operation, and more likely to be discharged from the hospital earlier than those who had been assigned a roommate who was also about to have a cardiac operation or who had a noncardiac condition. Similarly, one reason support groups work well is that members can learn from each other. For example, a member of a weight loss group may learn better coping strategies from those who have been more successful (upward comparison targets) or they may feel less deviant if others report experiencing the same (or worse) struggles and temptations. Members of the group who may be struggling can gain inspiration from those who have had more success (‘if she can lose 25 pounds and keep it off for 6 months, then so can I’), as well as learn new ways to deal with their own obstacles (such as tips on eating healthy while on vacation). The benefits for successful members of support groups are less clear, as they are more likely to make lateral or downward comparisons to other group members. Thus, successful members have less of an opportunity to improve by comparing with upward targets, but they can feel better by making downward comparisons.
Coping Techniques Although, as Wills suggested, many people are reluctant to admit that they engage in downward comparisons as a way to feel better, research with cancer patients has shown that it is a relatively common coping technique. In a series of studies, Shelley Taylor and her colleagues interviewed breast cancer patients and their spouses. During these interviews, it was found that patients would spontaneously make downward comparisons (e.g., a woman who had a lumpectomy would comment how bad it must be for women who have had a mastectomy). Even though others would probably judge their condition as being quite serious, patients coped by believing that it could be even worse. In some cases, patients did not have a specific person in mind, but imagined the downward comparison target. When interviewing the husbands of breast cancer patients, for instance, many of the men mentioned, ‘At least I am not like those husbands who leave their spouses.’ They viewed this behavior as being relatively common, even though, in fact, only a small minority of husbands actually left their cancer-stricken spouse. For this reason, Taylor called these comparison targets ‘mythical men.’ By creating a downward comparison target (or image) of someone who was not coping well, these men were able to feel better about the difficulties they were experiencing by consoling themselves with the fact that they had (at least) stuck around.
Prototype Images Similar to the ‘mythical men’ that Taylor found, other mental images have been found to influence health-related behaviors and cognitions through a similar social comparison process.
468
Social Comparison
Gibbons, Gerrard, and colleagues have proposed a prototype/ willingness model of health behavior that is based on social comparison. They have demonstrated that people often compare themselves to a prototype, that is, their idea or image of what a typical person who engages in a behavior is like. Using smoking as an example, adolescents have a general idea of what the typical smoker their age is like in terms of popularity, intelligence, etc. They realize that if they were to start smoking, their peers would then see them as being like a typical smoker. The more negative their prototype is of the typical smoker, the less willing they are to engage in the risky behavior for fear of being stereotyped. So, if they view the typical smoker as being uncool and unattractive, then they should be less willing to smoke than an adolescent who has a more favorable image of the typical smoker their age. Not only do prototypes influence a person’s future behavior, but the reverse has also been demonstrated, with behavior influencing future prototypes. Adolescents who begin smoking have been shown to increase the favorability of their smoker prototype. Thus, they come to see smokers their age as less negative than they had seen them before they started engaging in the behavior (‘They’re really not that bad’). And that, of course, can lead to more smoking, and can interfere with quitting. Gibbons and colleagues examined the prototypes of members of smoking cessation groups both before and after they attempted to quit. They found that the more members were able to distance themselves from their prototype of the typical smoker, the more successful they were at quitting smoking. Contrasting themselves with the smoker prototype actually facilitated quitting. However, for those who identified with their smoker prototype or who had family members who smoked, derogating the typical smoker became more difficult, and, in turn, quitting smoking became harder. Finally, research has shown that prototypes are more influential for those who are chronic social comparers. Those who generally avoid making social comparisons have images that may be positive or negative, but they are less likely to be influenced by those images.
Future Directions The Influence of Culture As noted briefly earlier, cultural norms can influence the motivations behind comparison with others. In more interdependent cultures (in East Asian countries, for example), people place great significance in maintaining group harmony and so conformity is stressed. Social comparison is integral to assuring that one is fitting in with the group. In Western cultures, social comparison may be used to assess conformity, but it also plays a large role in competitions, as people will often compare when they are trying to get ahead. In addition to the motives driving social comparison, cultural norms also influence whom one selects as the comparison target. Much attention has been placed on how individuals view themselves (in other words, their self-construals) and how these views differ between men and women. Stronger gender differences have been found in Western as opposed to Eastern cultures for personality traits, values, and emotions. These gender differences are surprising given the greater emphasis placed on gender equality in Western cultures. It appears that these cultural differences
may be driven by the fact that individuals in Eastern cultures, comparatively speaking, are more likely to select a same-gender target, whereas those in Western cultures are more likely to select a target of the opposite gender. Whether a same or opposite gender target is selected, in turn, influences the type of knowledge that comes to mind. Researchers in this area have been exploring the roles of cultural norms, especially beliefs in the social hierarchy, and how these normative beliefs influence people’s intergroup versus interpersonal comparisons. We expect future research to give more empirical attention to social comparison processes across cultures.
Neurological Mechanisms With the development of new technology, researchers have begun investigating the neurological mechanisms involved in social comparison. One important and intriguing question is what happens in the brain when one makes an upward or downward comparison? Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and event-related potentials (ERP) have been employed to identify specific neural substrates that are activated when a favorable or unfavorable comparison is made. This burgeoning area of research has so far focused on the impact that social comparison has on reward processing in the brain. As much remains unknown about the neural mechanisms underlying social comparisons, we expect this research to become more popular in the future.
Boundary Conditions and Other Influential Factors Attention is increasingly being drawn to the factors that impact various aspects of the social comparison process. In particular, more consideration is being given to elements such as comparison dimensions: How does the type of dimension on which a person compares influence the impact of upward and downward comparisons? Patients with a health condition, for instance, can compare themselves on a variety of dimensions and can learn about ways to deal with symptoms and side effects (coping techniques), or feelings they may experience (emotions), or they can learn more about what they should expect from future doctor visits (procedural information) by comparing with others. Buunk and colleagues have been exploring the impact of these three various comparison dimensions among samples of cancer patients. They have also examined the role of neuroticism and how this individual difference factor influenced the reaction that patients had to the different types of comparisons. Neuroticism is a personality trait, with those high in neuroticism (neurotics) being more emotionally volatile than those low in neuroticism. Neurotics are often described as being tense, anxious, or moody. Previous research has shown that people high in neuroticism tend to react more negatively to social comparisons than those low in neuroticism. However, Buunk and colleagues found that these negative effects could be buffered among neurotics if they compare with someone who is either coping well or who describes the procedures the patients will undergo. We expect this exploration of additional individual difference factors and comparison dimensions to continue. Interest in objective factors that affect social comparisons has also increased. In a recent study, Garcia and Tor investigated
Social Comparison
how the number of competitors influences people’s desire to socially compare and how this relates to their motivation to compete. Although having others present can facilitate people’s performance and act as a motivator to perform better, it is not the case that ‘more is always better.’ In cases where there are an extremely large number of competitors, an individual’s motivation to compete actually decreases. They termed this the N-effect and found that it is driven by the fact that as the number of people increases, interest in social comparison diminishes, which, in turn, lowers motivation. Identifying these boundary conditions will continue to be important in social comparison research.
469
can be studied in a variety of settings, including, but not limited to, health-related situations. It is expected that these applications of social comparison theory will continue to expand and, in the process, broaden the theory and our understanding of human social behavior.
See also: Coping; Evolutionary Psychology; Evolutionary Social Psychology; Preference Judgments (Individuals); Social Cognition; Uncertainty.
Further Reading Broadened Applications Social comparison research has been conducted in a number of areas in addition to health (such as educational and work settings). It is likely that social comparison will continue to be studied in these real world settings. With the immense popularity of social networking sites, such as Facebook, people routinely find themselves in situations that are ripe for social comparison (whether automatic or deliberate); these situations will increasingly warrant further study. The role of social comparison in other social psychological phenomena has also been investigated. For instance, social comparisons have been shown to influence the stereotypes people hold, how attitudes are formed and changed, and how the impressions of other people are established. As social comparison has proven to be a central part of our daily lives, we expect that social comparison processes will continue to be integrated into a number of different areas of human behavioral research.
Summary Social comparisons are an integral part of human nature and occur on a regular basis in a wide variety of situations. As Festinger theorized, social comparisons can be used to evaluate one’s abilities or opinions. They can also be used to selfenhance or self-improve. The impact that a comparison has on the comparer depends on a number of factors, such as personality traits (self-esteem, neuroticism) and perceptions of the target (similarity). These factors will continue to be explored. In addition, more attention is being paid to the neurological mechanisms that are involved when making social comparisons. Because of its ubiquity, social comparison
Blanton H and Stapel DA (2008) Unconscious and spontaneous and . . . complex: The three selves model of social comparison assimilation and contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94: 1018–1032. Buunk BP, Collins RL, Taylor SE, VanYperen NW, and Dakof GA (1990) The affective consequences of social comparison: Either direction has its ups and downs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 1238–1249. Buunk AP and Gibbons FX (2007) Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a filed. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 102: 3–21. Buunk B, Gibbons FX, and Reis-Bergan M (1997) Social comparison in health and illness: A historical overview. In: Buunk B and Gibbons FX (eds.) Health, Coping and Well-Being: Perspectives from Social Comparison Theory, pp. 1–23. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison. Human Relations 7: 117–140. Gibbons FX and Buunk BP (1999) Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76: 129–142. Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, and Lane DJ (2003) A social-reaction modle of adolescent health risk. In: Suls JJ and Wallston KA (eds.) Social Psychological Foundations of Health and Illness, pp. 107–136. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Guimond S (ed.) (2006) Social Comparison and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krizan Z and Gibbons FX (eds.) (2011) Communal Functions of Social Comparison. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lockwood P and Kunda Z (1997) Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73: 91–109. Mussweiler T (2003) Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review 3: 472–489. Suls J and Wheeler L (eds.) (2000) Handbook of Social Comparison. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Taylor SE (1983) Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cognitive adaptation. American Psychologist 38: 1161–1173. Taylor SE and Lobel M (1989) Social comparison activity under threat: Downward evaluation and upward contacts. Psychological Review 96: 569–575. Wills TA (1981) Downward social comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin 90: 245–271. Wood JV (1996) What is social comparison and how should we study it? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22: 520–527.
Glossary Assimilation Looking for similarities between oneself and the comparison target and feeling close to or like the target. Contrast Looking for dissimilarities between oneself and a comparison target and feeling distant or unlike the target. Lateral Same-level comparison. Prototype An individual’s subjective perceptions about the typical member of a certain category.
Introduction Every day, whether we are aware of it or not, we compare ourselves with others. We compare on a variety of dimensions from appearance (‘Am I underdressed for this party?’) to opinions (‘Is my belief valid? What do others think?’), to performance on a task (‘What does my exam score mean? Should I be happy or worried?’). Sometimes, the person we are comparing ourselves with may not even be real. For instance, students might compare themselves in terms of level of stress with their perception of the average student at their school. Although no truly ‘average’ student exists, feeling that one is experiencing more stress than the average student will nonetheless be disheartening. Thus, it is possible that comparing with an imagined other person will have just as profound an impact as comparing with a real person. These comparisons may be deliberate and conscious, but they also can be triggered unconsciously or can happen spontaneously. It’s not just that people are being nosey; these comparisons have specific purposes. In fact, these comparisons serve many adaptive functions. The present article lays out a brief history of research on social comparison and highlights the many factors that influence the type, frequency, and effects of social comparisons. Real world applications are described and future directions in social comparison research are also discussed.
Festinger’s Original Social Comparison Theory The term social comparison was coined in 1954 by Leon Festinger. His article proposing social comparison theory was instrumental in jumpstarting this line of research. According to his theory, there is a universal drive for people to evaluate their abilities and opinions. One way to gain perspective on one’s abilities or opinions is to compare with others. If objective information is available that can inform a person regarding his or her performance or opinion, then social comparison should not be necessary. According to Festinger, only when
Self-enhancement The desire to improve one’s feelings of self-worth. Self-evaluation The desire to evaluate one’s behaviors or opinions. Self-improvement The desire to gain new skills to better oneself. Social comparison Comparing oneself along one or more dimensions with a real or imagined person. Target The person, real or imagined, with whom one is comparing.
objective information is absent will people compare with others to better appraise the situation. Subsequent research has shown that Festinger was actually underestimating social comparison, and that, in fact, people often prefer knowing their relative status, via comparisons with others, as opposed to their absolute standing. The basic principles of the theory, however, have held the test of time and continue to influence research in the field of psychology.
Social Comparison and Self-evaluation Festinger proposed that the best way for a person to gain insight about his or her performance would be to compare with someone who is perceived to be similar. For instance, an amateur musician might compare his performance with a person who has similar years of experience, rather than comparing with a professional musician (clearly superior) or someone who has never played before (clearly inferior). The greater the similarity of the comparison target (the person to whom one is being compared), the more precise is the evaluation. Festinger believed that only when similar comparison targets are unavailable will people resort to comparisons with others perceived to be dissimilar from the self; in these cases, the comparer will have less confidence about the conclusions he or she can draw from the comparison.
Social Comparisons and Groups Festinger was particularly interested in the role that social comparison plays in the behavior of group members. He demonstrated how social comparison could be used to explain various group processes, including group formation, conformity, and competition. If the group is important to a member and the ability or opinion being evaluated is central to the group, then the member should be motivated to regularly compare with other group members. For example, a member of an important committee at work may find it necessary to compare with his coworkers to assess his status in the group
463
464
Social Comparison
(‘Am I contributing enough?’), as well as assess his opinions (‘Do others agree with my idea for the project?’). If the worker feels that his status is slipping or his opinions are not shared, then he should be motivated to conform with the group – if it is important to him. If the comparison dimension is not much valued or the group is seen as less important by a member, then he or she will not face the same pressure to engage in social comparison. Members who, upon comparison, are deemed too dissimilar from the rest of the group are most likely to be excluded from the group.
to feel better about their own situation. The self-enhancement motive gained popularity in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as will be discussed in the next section. Whereas the early focus of social comparison research was selection of comparison targets, it has shifted over the last 30 years to an emphasis on the motives behind, and effects of, engaging in social comparison.
Milestones Broadening the Scope
Social Comparison and Improvement In addition to the desire to evaluate oneself, Festinger also recognized that there is a constant desire to improve one’s abilities. Thus, people might be motivated to compare with others who have performed slightly better than they have. This would allow the comparer to gain insight as to why his or her performance was inferior and provide motivation to work harder. Festinger noted that this upward drive for abilities may be more pronounced in Western cultures, because traits such as individualism and autonomy are seen as more important in Western cultures, where people will feel the need to stand out from the crowd. These cultural norms provide motivation to compare as a way to improve one’s standing. In Eastern cultures, more value is placed on group harmony. These two motives, self-evaluation and self-improvement, are discussed in more detail in the next section.
Directions and Motives As noted earlier, Festinger originally proposed that people are most likely to engage in social comparison with those who they think are similar to themselves. These same-level comparisons, referred to as lateral comparisons, were believed to result in the most accurate evaluation of a person’s own abilities or opinions. Comparing with a person who is highly divergent, either greatly superior or inferior, would provide less precise information to the comparer. Although self-evaluation is still viewed as a primary reason why people engage in social comparison, researchers now recognize two (at least) additional types of motives: self-improvement and self-enhancement. As these terms suggest, people may wish to compare with others in order to learn new skills or become inspired (selfimprovement), or to feel better about themselves or their situation (self-enhancement). Self-improvement is often associated with upward comparisons – it should be easier to gain inspiration and learn new skills from a person who is doing better than oneself as opposed to worse. The reasoning behind providing children with role models is the assumption that they will be motivated to be more like the admired individuals. Role models act as upward social comparison targets that children can learn from and aspire to be like, motivating them to work harder to achieve similar goals. Self-enhancement is also a common motivation behind social comparison. As a general rule, individuals prefer to view themselves in a positive light and are motivated to sustain their positive self-images. Comparing with others who are perceived to be worse off allows individuals the opportunity
As noted in the previous section, Festinger proposed that social comparison played a role in people’s assessments of their opinions and abilities. Thus, the initial studies investigating the theory focused on these two dimensions. This line of research was soon broadened to include emotions as well. Stanley Schachter’s research in the late 1950s on fear and affiliation demonstrated that during times of high anxiety, people showed a preference to be around others who were in a similar high-stress situation. This was the case even when participants knew they would not be allowed to converse with each other. It was proposed that people could gain insight into how nervous they should be (and how they might cope) by comparing with someone facing the same stressor. An important outgrowth of Schachter’s work on emotional comparison was his two-stage theory of emotion developed with Singer. They suggested that when people experience physiological arousal (increased heart rate, rapid breathing), they will attempt to label that arousal as a particular emotion. Schachter and Singer cleverly showed that, when the source of the arousal is unclear, the emotional label given can be influenced by social factors, specifically, others in the situation. Participants were given adrenaline to produce physiological arousal, but only some were told what symptoms they could expect. All of the participants were then paired with a confederate who acted either euphoric or angry. Those who had not expected the injection to cause physiological arousal behaved similarly to the target (becoming either euphoric or angry themselves), suggesting that these participants labeled their mood state on the basis of a comparison with the confederate. Of course, most of the time when people are aroused they do not try to label and they do not socially compare – they do not need to, as the cause and the emotional reaction are clear. Nonetheless, Schachter’s research clearly demonstrated the important role that social comparison can play in emotions, as well as other behaviors.
Downward Comparisons Another milestone in social comparison research came with the publication of Wills’ article on downward social comparison theory. According to the theory, people who compare with others who are thought to be faring worse experience an improvement in their mood (in other words, their subjective well-being increases). People who feel threatened should be most likely to engage in downward comparison, especially if there is no direct way to confront the source of the threat. If there is a direct way to deal with the stressor (instrumental coping), then this will be the first option. Downward social comparison is an emotional coping technique that can help
Social Comparison
one feel better in the short-term, although it is often not the best long-term strategy for dealing with a threat (see Coping entry). The threat need not be physical – threats to a person’s ego will lead to the same motivation to compare with a less fortunate person. Wills proposed that people with low selfesteem should be more likely to engage in downward comparison than those with high self-esteem, as they are more likely to experience low levels of subjective well-being. Wills maintained that self-enhancement through downward comparisons can be accomplished through either an active or passive process. The latter occurs when people learn about others who are worse off and then use that information as an opportunity to improve how they feel. With more active forms of downward comparison, the comparer can derogate the target or cause them physical harm, both of which will have the result of lowering the status of the target, and making them appear inferior. For instance, Wills suggested hostile forms of humor can be used to derogate a person or group of people. Putting others down, even in jest, serves to boost one’s own status – in comparison. Another illustration of self-enhancing comparisons is when a teenage girl who is feeling insecure about her own appearance calls a classmate overweight and unattractive. Wills also noted that people are generally ambivalent about downward comparisons. On the one hand, they don’t like to take joy in someone else’s misfortune or be seen as gloating (this has been referred to as schadenfreude, or ‘joy from damage’). On the other hand, they realize it can have emotional benefits. Wills used the self-enhancement motive and the concept of active downward comparisons to explain a broad range of research, from prejudice to physical and verbal aggression. Related to downward social comparisons is the notion of downward shifts put forth by Gibbons and colleagues. Whereas downward comparisons are usually motivated by a desire to enhance (damaged) self-esteem, downward shifts usually reflect a desire to protect threatened self-esteem. Downward shifts are more common, because true downward comparison with a person who is believed to be worse off may not always be feasible or desirable. This may be the case for the student who received the lowest grade in the class; there simply is not a classmate who is worse off to compare with. Other times, downward comparisons are unwanted because of the discomfort that arises. In these situations, when people are feeling threatened but either cannot or do not want to engage in true downward comparisons, there is a tendency to lower one’s preferred target level. For instance, the aforementioned student will not want to compare with the best student in the class, but selects a classmate who is not quite as accomplished (a student who is doing okay rather than excellent). This downward shift has been demonstrated in a variety of situations, including health: people who are attempting to quit smoking and then relapse show decreasing interest in comparison with successful abstainers.
Factors that Influence Comparisons Similarity Researchers have long focused on what factors influence who is selected as a comparison target. As Festinger noted in his seminal article, similarity plays an important role, with people
465
selecting targets that are viewed as similar to themselves. The more similar the comparison target, the easier it is for people to make a comparison and the greater the certainty they have in their conclusions. Similarity may be on the basis of a dimension relevant to the comparison, such as a golfer comparing with someone with the same handicap; however, people may compare with others who are similar on dimensions less central to the comparison. It has been shown that the type of similarity with the target can be important. A person is more likely to identify with a comparison target if the two share a distinctive quality as opposed to a nondistinctive one. If the target shares a birthday or also has a rare hobby, then the comparer is going to be more influenced by him or her. If the target shares a more common quality, such as a popular hobby, then this target is less likely to have an influence on the comparer.
Assimilation Versus Contrast The more similar the target, the easier it is to identify with him or her; identifying with a comparison target is known as assimilation. The more a person identifies with an upward comparison target, for instance, the greater is the positive impact of the comparison; conversely, the more similar a downward target is perceived to be, the greater is the negative impact. If comparers identify with someone superior, then they should feel hopeful that they too can experience that level of success. If they feel similar to a person who is worse off, then they are likely to worry that they, too, will experience the same fate. There are times when the comparison target may be viewed as different from oneself along dimensions important to the comparison. Rather than identifying with the comparison target, comparers in this case will contrast themselves with the target. Contrasting with an upward target will have a negative impact (‘There’s no way I can perform that well’), whereas contrasting with a downward target is more likely to have a positive impact (‘I am not like him – that will never happen to me’). Originally, researchers believed that downward comparisons were generally self-enhancing and that upward comparisons could be threatening. Since then, it has become apparent that whether a comparison has a positive or negative impact is determined by whether a person identifies or contrasts with the comparison target. To paraphrase Bram Buunk, both upward and downward comparisons have their ups and downs. So what determines whether people identify or contrast with a comparison target? Mussweiler has proposed that people do a quick holistic assessment as to whether they are similar to or different from the target. This initial determination of similarity, in turn, influences how they go about making the comparison. If they view themselves as similar, then similarities are more likely to come to mind (targetconsistent knowledge becomes more accessible). If they view themselves as being different from the target, then dissimilarities are more likely to come to mind (target-inconsistent knowledge becomes more accessible). Similarity testing is more likely to lead to identification with the target, whereas dissimilarity testing is more likely to lead to contrasting with the target. It has been shown that similarity testing, as opposed to dissimilarity testing, seems to be people’s initial default tendency.
466
Social Comparison
Perceived Future Similarity Another factor that has been identified as playing an important role is attainability – that is, whether comparers believe that what the target is experiencing could happen to them. If people feel that they can be like superior others, for instance, then they will be motivated to work harder. If they feel that they cannot be like superior others, then an upward comparison will be potentially threatening. Along those lines, Lockwood and colleagues demonstrated that whether comparison with a ‘superstar’ – in their case, a graduating senior who had succeeded both academically and socially – had a positive or negative impact on undergraduate college students depended on whether participants were freshmen or seniors. Those in their first semesters in college were inspired by superstars who shared their major. Seniors, however, did not have the time left in college to reach the same level of success. Lockwood and colleagues found that the seniors tended to react defensively in an ego-protective manner, apparently to prevent them from feeling worse about their own situation. For instance, seniors were less likely than underclassmen to rate the superstar as being superior and downplayed the importance of the superstar’s accomplishments. Similarly, if the experiences of a downward comparison target are seen as likely to occur to the self in the future, then it will affect the impact that the comparison will have. Using an example from the health domain, patients with a deteriorating illness will not want to compare themselves to a patient experiencing more severe symptoms (a downward comparison target), as they realize that they will likely be in the same situation in the future. If people have a health condition that is not likely to deteriorate, however, then making a downward comparison should be self-enhancing and should improve one’s mood.
Individual Differences Although, social comparison is a universal phenomenon, and often done automatically, there are clearly individual differences in the extent to which people compare – some people compare more regularly than others. Gibbons and Buunk created a scale to measure individuals’ tendencies to engage in social comparison. They have found that people who are more self-conscious socially compare more often. People who are aware of themselves when they are around others, and who often reflect on their thoughts and feelings, are more frequent comparers. High comparers also have a greater ability to imagine themselves in others’ shoes, leading them to be more empathetic than those who compare less often. There is also a downside to frequent comparison, however, as those who socially compare more also are more likely to have lower self-esteem, be more depressed, and experience more mood swings compared to those low in social comparison orientation. Finally, women compare more frequently, on average, than men.
Adaptive Benefits Why is social comparison so common? Researchers have suggested that social comparison has a number of adaptive benefits. As Festinger originally noted, comparisons with others allow individuals to get a better idea of where they stand in
the group. It was likely important for our ancestors that group members avoid potential harmful competition. Comparing one’s abilities with other group members, can allow a member to determine which specialized role should be taken and which abilities he or she should focus on improving. Thus, members are motivated to improve on behaviors they feel that they are specifically qualified to engage in and that bring a unique contribution to the group. For example, a member who, upon comparison, discovers that he is particularly adept at fishing but not at hunting, will be better off focusing on his role as a fisherman as opposed to his role as a hunter. Feeling like an important, contributing group member, in turn, helps to enhance a member’s self-esteem. Social comparison also plays a role in the cohesiveness of the group. By making sure one’s views and goals are in line with those of the group, members prevent themselves from potentially being excluded – which could have dire consequences. Maintaining the cohesion of the group increases its likelihood of prospering. In addition to evolutionary benefits, social comparisons are adaptive in terms of how humans process information. Social comparison makes processing information more efficient in that it allows a person to limit the range of information that is needed to make an evaluation or judgment. Humans have many demands on their time and attention (and thus have scarce available cognitive resources), so having a way to simplify the processing of information is extremely beneficial.
Social Comparison and Biased Perceptions As the field of social psychology turned its collective attention to cognition in the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers began applying this new approach to the study of social comparisons. People are predisposed to hold themselves in high regard and are motivated to maintain these overly positive beliefs of themselves relative to others, and social comparison processes appear to drive these biased perceptions. One illustration of this phenomenon is that people tend to view their ideas and opinions as being correct or appropriate and therefore more prevalent among the public than they actually may be (this is known as the false consensus effect). Believing that the majority of others share their views strengthens people’s confidence in the validity of these beliefs. This increase in confidence, in turn, will influence their future behavior. There are times, however, when individuals prefer to see themselves as standing out from the crowd, in other words more different or special than they actually are (this is termed the false uniqueness effect). This belief in false uniqueness is maintained by underestimating the prevalence of an ability or belief in the general population. It has been shown that people have a tendency to select comparison targets that are most likely to lead to these biased conclusions. For instance, a person might compare his or her political views with those of his or her close friends and find that they all hold similar beliefs. Of course, an individual’s group of friends is likely not representative of the general public. Individuals tend to be friends with similar people, and so it is likely that they hold similar political beliefs. In this case, the result is that the person overestimates the percentage of people who share his or her political opinions. This belief, in turn, results in increased confidence in his or her
Social Comparison
views and strengthens his or her resolve to promote the political party most associated with his or her views.
Applications to Health Social comparison plays an important role in health behaviors and cognitions. For instance, the decision to seek medical attention is often influenced by social comparison. When deciding whether to go to the doctor or not, a person will compare his or her symptoms to those of others he or she knows (‘My friend had similar symptoms and needed antibiotics. I may be at risk and should see a doctor’ or ‘My friend had similar symptoms, but was fine the next day. It’s not worth seeing a doctor’). Thus, people with the same symptoms may make different decisions on the basis of whom they compare themselves with. Additional examples of health-related social comparison research are described below.
Risk Perceptions Social comparison plays an important role in people’s perceptions of risk. How vulnerable people feel to negative outcomes is largely based on their relative judgments. Along these lines, Jemmott and Croyle found that the more prevalent a behavior or event is thought to be (in their case, contracting a fictitious disease), the less severe it is viewed; in other words, there is safety in numbers. If the behavior or event is less common, then people tend to see it as being more severe and are more worried about the possibility of negative consequences. As noted earlier, people tend to overestimate the extent to which others share their opinions and abilities in order to normalize them. Thus, college students who binge drink overestimate the number of their peers who also drink heavily. Because they think that, ‘everyone is doing it,’ they perceive the behavior as less risky and are less concerned with its potential consequences. When estimating the likelihood of experiencing different events, people also display an optimistic bias. As Weinstein has shown, people underestimate their likelihood relative to other people of experiencing negative events (such as getting divorced, experiencing a heart attack), but overestimate their likelihood of experiencing positive events (e.g., winning the lottery). One way that people maintain these beliefs is to choose social comparison targets who lead them to these biased or overly optimistic views of themselves. For instance, when estimating his risk of having a heart attack, a man may choose a target that has a poor diet, or smokes, or does not exercise; by choosing a prototypical unhealthy target, he ends up feeling less vulnerable.
Affiliation As noted earlier, Schachter proposed that people under stress will be motivated to affiliate with people who are in the same situation, as a way to gain insight into how they should react to and cope with a threatening situation. More recent research, however, has shown that people facing major surgeries (and therefore experiencing stress) actually prefer to spend time with people who have already undergone the surgery, rather than someone who is also waiting for the same procedure. The reason,
467
apparently, is that they can gain useful information from a person who has already experienced the threat. In fact, several studies support the idea that upward targets are more beneficial in these instances. In a novel field experiment, Kulik and colleagues found that patients who, prior to cardiac operations, were randomly assigned a roommate who had already undergone a cardiac operation were less likely to experience anxiety before the operation, more likely to walk in the days following the operation, and more likely to be discharged from the hospital earlier than those who had been assigned a roommate who was also about to have a cardiac operation or who had a noncardiac condition. Similarly, one reason support groups work well is that members can learn from each other. For example, a member of a weight loss group may learn better coping strategies from those who have been more successful (upward comparison targets) or they may feel less deviant if others report experiencing the same (or worse) struggles and temptations. Members of the group who may be struggling can gain inspiration from those who have had more success (‘if she can lose 25 pounds and keep it off for 6 months, then so can I’), as well as learn new ways to deal with their own obstacles (such as tips on eating healthy while on vacation). The benefits for successful members of support groups are less clear, as they are more likely to make lateral or downward comparisons to other group members. Thus, successful members have less of an opportunity to improve by comparing with upward targets, but they can feel better by making downward comparisons.
Coping Techniques Although, as Wills suggested, many people are reluctant to admit that they engage in downward comparisons as a way to feel better, research with cancer patients has shown that it is a relatively common coping technique. In a series of studies, Shelley Taylor and her colleagues interviewed breast cancer patients and their spouses. During these interviews, it was found that patients would spontaneously make downward comparisons (e.g., a woman who had a lumpectomy would comment how bad it must be for women who have had a mastectomy). Even though others would probably judge their condition as being quite serious, patients coped by believing that it could be even worse. In some cases, patients did not have a specific person in mind, but imagined the downward comparison target. When interviewing the husbands of breast cancer patients, for instance, many of the men mentioned, ‘At least I am not like those husbands who leave their spouses.’ They viewed this behavior as being relatively common, even though, in fact, only a small minority of husbands actually left their cancer-stricken spouse. For this reason, Taylor called these comparison targets ‘mythical men.’ By creating a downward comparison target (or image) of someone who was not coping well, these men were able to feel better about the difficulties they were experiencing by consoling themselves with the fact that they had (at least) stuck around.
Prototype Images Similar to the ‘mythical men’ that Taylor found, other mental images have been found to influence health-related behaviors and cognitions through a similar social comparison process.
468
Social Comparison
Gibbons, Gerrard, and colleagues have proposed a prototype/ willingness model of health behavior that is based on social comparison. They have demonstrated that people often compare themselves to a prototype, that is, their idea or image of what a typical person who engages in a behavior is like. Using smoking as an example, adolescents have a general idea of what the typical smoker their age is like in terms of popularity, intelligence, etc. They realize that if they were to start smoking, their peers would then see them as being like a typical smoker. The more negative their prototype is of the typical smoker, the less willing they are to engage in the risky behavior for fear of being stereotyped. So, if they view the typical smoker as being uncool and unattractive, then they should be less willing to smoke than an adolescent who has a more favorable image of the typical smoker their age. Not only do prototypes influence a person’s future behavior, but the reverse has also been demonstrated, with behavior influencing future prototypes. Adolescents who begin smoking have been shown to increase the favorability of their smoker prototype. Thus, they come to see smokers their age as less negative than they had seen them before they started engaging in the behavior (‘They’re really not that bad’). And that, of course, can lead to more smoking, and can interfere with quitting. Gibbons and colleagues examined the prototypes of members of smoking cessation groups both before and after they attempted to quit. They found that the more members were able to distance themselves from their prototype of the typical smoker, the more successful they were at quitting smoking. Contrasting themselves with the smoker prototype actually facilitated quitting. However, for those who identified with their smoker prototype or who had family members who smoked, derogating the typical smoker became more difficult, and, in turn, quitting smoking became harder. Finally, research has shown that prototypes are more influential for those who are chronic social comparers. Those who generally avoid making social comparisons have images that may be positive or negative, but they are less likely to be influenced by those images.
Future Directions The Influence of Culture As noted briefly earlier, cultural norms can influence the motivations behind comparison with others. In more interdependent cultures (in East Asian countries, for example), people place great significance in maintaining group harmony and so conformity is stressed. Social comparison is integral to assuring that one is fitting in with the group. In Western cultures, social comparison may be used to assess conformity, but it also plays a large role in competitions, as people will often compare when they are trying to get ahead. In addition to the motives driving social comparison, cultural norms also influence whom one selects as the comparison target. Much attention has been placed on how individuals view themselves (in other words, their self-construals) and how these views differ between men and women. Stronger gender differences have been found in Western as opposed to Eastern cultures for personality traits, values, and emotions. These gender differences are surprising given the greater emphasis placed on gender equality in Western cultures. It appears that these cultural differences
may be driven by the fact that individuals in Eastern cultures, comparatively speaking, are more likely to select a same-gender target, whereas those in Western cultures are more likely to select a target of the opposite gender. Whether a same or opposite gender target is selected, in turn, influences the type of knowledge that comes to mind. Researchers in this area have been exploring the roles of cultural norms, especially beliefs in the social hierarchy, and how these normative beliefs influence people’s intergroup versus interpersonal comparisons. We expect future research to give more empirical attention to social comparison processes across cultures.
Neurological Mechanisms With the development of new technology, researchers have begun investigating the neurological mechanisms involved in social comparison. One important and intriguing question is what happens in the brain when one makes an upward or downward comparison? Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and event-related potentials (ERP) have been employed to identify specific neural substrates that are activated when a favorable or unfavorable comparison is made. This burgeoning area of research has so far focused on the impact that social comparison has on reward processing in the brain. As much remains unknown about the neural mechanisms underlying social comparisons, we expect this research to become more popular in the future.
Boundary Conditions and Other Influential Factors Attention is increasingly being drawn to the factors that impact various aspects of the social comparison process. In particular, more consideration is being given to elements such as comparison dimensions: How does the type of dimension on which a person compares influence the impact of upward and downward comparisons? Patients with a health condition, for instance, can compare themselves on a variety of dimensions and can learn about ways to deal with symptoms and side effects (coping techniques), or feelings they may experience (emotions), or they can learn more about what they should expect from future doctor visits (procedural information) by comparing with others. Buunk and colleagues have been exploring the impact of these three various comparison dimensions among samples of cancer patients. They have also examined the role of neuroticism and how this individual difference factor influenced the reaction that patients had to the different types of comparisons. Neuroticism is a personality trait, with those high in neuroticism (neurotics) being more emotionally volatile than those low in neuroticism. Neurotics are often described as being tense, anxious, or moody. Previous research has shown that people high in neuroticism tend to react more negatively to social comparisons than those low in neuroticism. However, Buunk and colleagues found that these negative effects could be buffered among neurotics if they compare with someone who is either coping well or who describes the procedures the patients will undergo. We expect this exploration of additional individual difference factors and comparison dimensions to continue. Interest in objective factors that affect social comparisons has also increased. In a recent study, Garcia and Tor investigated
Social Comparison
how the number of competitors influences people’s desire to socially compare and how this relates to their motivation to compete. Although having others present can facilitate people’s performance and act as a motivator to perform better, it is not the case that ‘more is always better.’ In cases where there are an extremely large number of competitors, an individual’s motivation to compete actually decreases. They termed this the N-effect and found that it is driven by the fact that as the number of people increases, interest in social comparison diminishes, which, in turn, lowers motivation. Identifying these boundary conditions will continue to be important in social comparison research.
469
can be studied in a variety of settings, including, but not limited to, health-related situations. It is expected that these applications of social comparison theory will continue to expand and, in the process, broaden the theory and our understanding of human social behavior.
See also: Coping; Evolutionary Psychology; Evolutionary Social Psychology; Preference Judgments (Individuals); Social Cognition; Uncertainty.
Further Reading Broadened Applications Social comparison research has been conducted in a number of areas in addition to health (such as educational and work settings). It is likely that social comparison will continue to be studied in these real world settings. With the immense popularity of social networking sites, such as Facebook, people routinely find themselves in situations that are ripe for social comparison (whether automatic or deliberate); these situations will increasingly warrant further study. The role of social comparison in other social psychological phenomena has also been investigated. For instance, social comparisons have been shown to influence the stereotypes people hold, how attitudes are formed and changed, and how the impressions of other people are established. As social comparison has proven to be a central part of our daily lives, we expect that social comparison processes will continue to be integrated into a number of different areas of human behavioral research.
Summary Social comparisons are an integral part of human nature and occur on a regular basis in a wide variety of situations. As Festinger theorized, social comparisons can be used to evaluate one’s abilities or opinions. They can also be used to selfenhance or self-improve. The impact that a comparison has on the comparer depends on a number of factors, such as personality traits (self-esteem, neuroticism) and perceptions of the target (similarity). These factors will continue to be explored. In addition, more attention is being paid to the neurological mechanisms that are involved when making social comparisons. Because of its ubiquity, social comparison
Blanton H and Stapel DA (2008) Unconscious and spontaneous and . . . complex: The three selves model of social comparison assimilation and contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94: 1018–1032. Buunk BP, Collins RL, Taylor SE, VanYperen NW, and Dakof GA (1990) The affective consequences of social comparison: Either direction has its ups and downs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 1238–1249. Buunk AP and Gibbons FX (2007) Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a filed. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 102: 3–21. Buunk B, Gibbons FX, and Reis-Bergan M (1997) Social comparison in health and illness: A historical overview. In: Buunk B and Gibbons FX (eds.) Health, Coping and Well-Being: Perspectives from Social Comparison Theory, pp. 1–23. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison. Human Relations 7: 117–140. Gibbons FX and Buunk BP (1999) Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76: 129–142. Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, and Lane DJ (2003) A social-reaction modle of adolescent health risk. In: Suls JJ and Wallston KA (eds.) Social Psychological Foundations of Health and Illness, pp. 107–136. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Guimond S (ed.) (2006) Social Comparison and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krizan Z and Gibbons FX (eds.) (2011) Communal Functions of Social Comparison. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lockwood P and Kunda Z (1997) Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73: 91–109. Mussweiler T (2003) Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review 3: 472–489. Suls J and Wheeler L (eds.) (2000) Handbook of Social Comparison. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Taylor SE (1983) Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cognitive adaptation. American Psychologist 38: 1161–1173. Taylor SE and Lobel M (1989) Social comparison activity under threat: Downward evaluation and upward contacts. Psychological Review 96: 569–575. Wills TA (1981) Downward social comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin 90: 245–271. Wood JV (1996) What is social comparison and how should we study it? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22: 520–527.