Social Comparison: An Unavoidable Upward Or Downward Spiral

social comparisonSocial comparison is a normal behavior strategy where we seek to better understand our ‘status’—whether relating to ability, opinion, emotional reaction, and more—by comparing ourselves to other people.

Social comparison can be useful because it provides us with a way to determine if we are ‘on track’… but there is also a risk that it can be extremely harmful and result in negative thoughts and behaviors.

Instead of the desired effect where we can assess our abilities and opinions against a realistic, achievable benchmark (or role model), social comparisons can result in the opposite outcome, where we compare our behavior to an unrealistic benchmark and subsequently develop low self-esteem.

In this article, we will explore social comparison theory and how our social comparisons can lead to positive and negative emotions. We’ll learn about different types of social comparison theories and how different comparisons result in different emotional states.

Afterward, we’ll examine the relationship between depression and social comparison, as well as social media and social comparison. In conclusion, we’ll offer a better strategy, one that we think supersedes social comparison behaviors and is more powerful; this strategy is to foster gratitude.

Before you read on, we thought you might like to download our 3 Self-Compassion Exercises for free. These detailed, science-based exercises will not only help you increase the compassion and kindness you show yourself but will also give you the tools to help your clients, students, or employees show more compassion to themselves.

You can download the free PDF here.

Social Comparison Theory Defined

How many times have you compared yourself to your friends or colleagues using a trait that you consider desirable, for example, money or success? In literature, this comparison is known as social comparison.

Social comparison refers to a behavior where we compare certain aspects of ourselves (inter alia our behavior, opinions, status, and success) to other people so that we have a better assessment of ourselves (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007).

Initially, social comparison theory only included comparisons of opinions and abilities (see our next section for more discussion; Festinger, 1954), but since then, the theory has expanded to include other aspects as well (Gibbons & Buunks; for example emotions; Schachter, 1959).

Festinger (1954) proposed that social comparison was driven by a need to evaluate ourselves so that we had more information about ourselves; however, the more recent theory suggests that social comparison is motivated by three drives (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999):

  • self-evaluation (which is the same as Festinger’s argument),
  • self-improvement, and
  • self-enhancement.

Therefore, the concept of social comparison has expanded dramatically from a limited theory that only addressed opinions and abilities to include more abstract concepts such as job satisfaction and overall life success.

 

History of Social Comparison Theory

The concept of social comparison was first termed and fully developed by Festinger (1954), who hypothesized that we are unable to self-judge our opinions and abilities accurately, and instead rely on comparing ourselves to other people to form an evaluation.

These assessments created through comparisons with other people are referred to as social comparisons. He argues that:

  1. we are driven to assess our abilities and opinions to determine whether we are good enough or correct, respectively, and
  2. set a benchmark of what we aim to achieve.

This benchmark is referred to as the level of aspiration.

 

Summary of Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory

Festinger Social Comparison TheoryIn his 1954 paper, Festinger outlined nine hypotheses about our behavior and motivations when using social comparisons under different scenarios.

Below is a summary of these hypotheses; however, it is highly recommended that you read the original paper because it is more detailed.

Festinger’s argument begins with the initial hypothesis that evaluating our skills and opinions is extremely important for our survival. Good examples of survival behaviors and beliefs include running quickly (so that you can outrun a lion) or having an opinion about how newly discovered food should be eaten.

These types of views and behaviors are not that relevant to current modern life, but we can easily think of examples of behaviors and opinions that are still important, for example, how would you know if you worked a sufficient number of hours in a day? Or how do you know that your opinion about climate change is correct?

 

Subjective versus Objective Metrics

For some comparisons, we can easily make these comparisons reliably by using an objective metric, for example, we could objectively evaluate our sporting performance based on the time taken to run a mile, the pounds that we can lift, or the number of times that we win against our opponent. For other comparisons, however, it is not so easy, because an objective metric doesn’t exist.

For example, what would make a political opinion ‘correct’? How would I know if I am ‘more honest’ than other people? For these comparisons, we need to rely on more subjective metrics.

Festinger was more interested in comparisons that used objective metrics; however, he recognized that most comparisons in the real-world were a mix of objective and subjective metrics.

In instances where an objective metric doesn’t exist, we can rely on either self-evaluation or social evaluation. However, these two types of assessments are not equally useful.

Self-evaluations are problematic because our assessments of our skills and opinions are unstable and unreliable. The instability of our self-assessments is due to the volatility of our self-imposed benchmarks.

For example, the benchmark that I set for myself today for being ‘productive’ might differ from my benchmark tomorrow. As a consequence, my self-assessments of my level of productivity keeps changing. In contrast, social evaluations are more stable and informative, and we tend to prefer them to self-assessments.

 

Different Types of Social Evaluations

Not all social evaluations are equal. When making a social evaluation, we are unlikely to compare ourselves with a randomly chosen individual; instead, we are inclined to draw comparisons with individuals whose ability or opinion we judge as being close to our own.

For example, I would need to choose an appropriate comparison person when making a meaningful judgment about my daily work productivity. Someone similar to me would be a good example (e.g., approximately the same age and education without children), and I would not compare myself against someone exceptionally dissimilar (e.g., a parent who is trying to work while keeping an eye on their children).

These types of comparisons with similar individuals yield more useful, reliable assessments.

But what do we do if a similarly-skilled individual does not exist for comparison purposes? If the only other option is to compare ourselves to someone whose skill level or opinion is exceptionally different to ourselves, then we seem to avoid making a comparison at all.

Festinger argues that the level of aspiration that we use is more stable when we use similarly-skilled individuals for comparison than when we compare ourselves to individuals whose skills/opinions differ significantly from our own.

 

Consequences of Differences Between Us and Others

If we find that our ability/opinion is highly similar to the benchmark of perceived-to-be-similar individuals, then we feel more emboldened and confident in our abilities/opinions.

If the evaluation highlights that we are performing poorly, then there are two possible outcomes: First, we may aim to improve our behavior so that we are more similar to the other individuals. Second, we may strive to influence the other individuals so that they become more similar to us (We should note that this tactic is more apt when trying to change opinions compared to abilities).

For example, if my opinion differs greatly from individuals similar to me, then I will either change my opinion to be more in line with them, or I will try to change their views so that they are more in line with mine.

Either way, the net result is that the group members – that is, me and the people with whom I am comparing myself – become more similar.

 

Group Dynamics

Not all group members are included in comparisons. Within a group, there may be an individual whose ability or opinion diverges significantly from the other members.

In such instances, this individual is no longer considered a viable comparison and is no longer included in comparisons. Festinger argued that the outcome is even more severe in cases in which we are comparing opinions, because this divergent individual poses such a threat to our evaluation of our own views that we consider them removed from the group, and we will no longer talk to them.

Group membership plays an essential role in evaluations. When group membership (and conforming to group norms) is desirable, then we are more likely to reject members who are very different from us; these members are no longer included in our social comparisons. If we feel that the quality that is being compared is important, then we are also more motivated to conform to the group’s behaviors and opinions.

Furthermore, group members who perform most similar to the group norm are the least motivated to change away from the accepted standard (i.e., change their behavior or opinion), and are more motivated to change the behavior and opinions of other group members instead.

When an individual has a view or an ability that is extremely divergent from the group, then that individual might be forced to leave the group in favor of another one, or the original group might split into a small subgroup.

But what would happen if a second comparison group doesn’t exist, or if the original group is a highly desirable one? Of the possible outcomes that Ferdinger presents, the most interesting are the following:

First, if the individual and the group differ in opinion, then it is very likely that the individual’s opinion will change and conform to that of the group.

Second, if the individual and the group differ on ability, then it is unlikely that the ability level will change – instead, the individual will develop feelings of inferiority.

It should be immediately evident that the origin of social comparison theory is quite complex. Social comparison has grown substantially in the last 50 years, and there has been a great deal of empirical research on the impact of different types of comparisons.

We’ll explore this in the next sections.

 

The Direction of Social Comparison

Direction of Social ComparisonSocial comparisons are described as either upward or downward.

When we engage in upward social comparison, we compare ourselves to someone who is (perceived to be or performing) better than we are.

In contrast, when we engage in downward social comparison, we compare ourselves to someone who is (perceived to be, or performing) worse than we are.

The direction of the comparison doesn’t guarantee the direction of the outcome: Both types of social comparison can result in negative and positive effects.

 

Upward Social Comparison

“He is so much happier and more successful than I am.

Social comparisons can be made upwards, where we compare ourselves to other individuals who are perceived as performing better than we are. The typical inclination is to compare upwards: When asked who individuals wanted to compare themselves with, the majority of individuals chose to compare with people who achieve higher scores (Wheeler, 1966).

This isn’t surprising: Most of us would want to know how we are performing compared to others who appear to be better off. This upwards comparison is also referred to as an upwards drive (Festinger,1954).

The effect of upwards social comparison is variable. Sometimes upwards social comparison can be very motivating; for example, we might aspire to follow in the footsteps of a role model.

The following factors moderate the strength of the upwards drive:

  • Upwards drive is stronger when the comparison is made covertly rather than overtly.
    • For example, I am more motivated to improve my ability/skills when I can make comparisons privately. But I am less motivated if I must make these comparisons in person by coming in contact with the comparison-person.

  • Upwards drive is stronger when the individual is not at risk of being judged as inferior.
    • For example, I am more motivated to improve my ability/skills when I don’t feel like the comparison-person will treat me poorly or like I am inferior. I am less motivated when the comparison-person treats me poorly.

  • Upwards drive is stronger when the individual is invested in the trait or ability.
    • For example, my upwards drive is stronger for topics that interest me. But I have little upwards drive for topics that are of no interest to me.

However, we are not always motivated to improve our ability/skill/opinion after upward social comparison, and upwards social comparison can have detrimental effects. Here are some examples where an upward social comparison is not productive and results in negative behaviors instead:

  • Festinger (1954) suggests that when the comparison-person is deemed superior, or very different to us, then we might consider them not to be a viable comparison;
  • In more extreme examples, we may even exclude these individuals from our social group (Festinger, 1954);
  • Or we may isolate ourselves from others (Tesser, 1988);
  • Sometimes we may choose to handicap ourselves by choosing someone who is extremely superior (Shepperd & Taylor, 1999);
  • We may sabotage the efforts of other people so that they perform less well (Pemberton & Sedikides, 2001).
  • We may develop feelings of inferiority, because we are reminded that we are inferior, and lead to negative emotions, such as depression (e.g., Marsh & Parker, 1984).

 

Downward Social Comparison

“At least I didn’t embarrass myself in front of everyone like that girl.

In downward social comparisons, we compare ourselves to other people who are worse-off.

This is a common experience, and we’ve all had ‘that’ experience where we reassured ourselves of our behavior by comparing ourselves with someone else. Although downward social comparison might seem like a quick-and-dirty move to boost our self-esteem, the effect of downward social comparisons are variable, and can also result in negative outcomes.

We’re more likely to engage in downward social comparisons in situations where our sense of self and wellbeing is under threat; these downward social comparisons make us feel better about ourselves (Wills, 1981).

Downward social comparisons also result in various other positive outcomes (e.g., Amoroso & Walters, 1969; Gibbons, 1986; see for a review seek Buunk & Gibbons, 2007) such as:

  • Boosting self-esteem
  • Experiencing positive emotions, such as happiness
  • Reducing anxiety

Some researchers have argued that the effect of social comparisons – upwards or downwards – depends on the individual. The direction of the comparison does not guarantee only positive or negative outcomes.

With upward social comparisons, we can become motivated to strive towards new achievements because ‘someone like us’ has reached these achievements too; however, we might also be constantly reminded that we are inferior to someone else.

Social comparison theory hypothesizes that downward social comparisons should elevate how we feel about our current state, and we can take comfort in knowing that we could be worse off.

However, downward social comparisons might cause us unhappiness, because we are reminded that the situation always has the potential to worsen, or we might feel unhappy knowing the situation can become worse.

For example, when cancer patients meet other patients whose illness has progressed further, they reported that they felt threatened. The explanation for these contrary findings is that the other patients, who were worse-off, were a reminder that their health could deteriorate (Wood et al., 1985).

 

12 Real-Life Examples

“I kind of looked up to him. He was one of the first high-profile sportspeople that was half Japanese. I think to be in the role he is now, and people be telling me that I am the face of Japan’s multiculturalism is something I’ve always dreamed about.”

Naomi Osaka describing how Apolo Ohno is her role model

Each of us has anecdotal experiences where we have relied on upward or downward social experiences. I’ve provided a list of some everyday examples where we might use comparisons. Perhaps some of these examples resonate with you?

Comparisons about … Upward Social Comparisons Downward Social Comparisons
Sporting performance My neighbor inspires me – if he can run a half marathon, then so can I. I feel happy knowing that I beat my neighbor in the half-marathon.
Physical appearance My friend met her target weight. If she can, then so can I. At least I don’t drink as much alcohol as other people I know.
Job performance My colleague always manages to balance work and life. I want to achieve that. My other colleague’s situation reminds me to plan my work better so that I’m not in the same position that they’re in.
Intelligence My friend is smarter than I am – she just ‘gets’ it. My colleague struggles all the time with the same study topics, whereas it just ‘clicks’ for me.
Relationships Couple Z makes it look so easy. They get along so well and never fight, unlike us. When I see Couple X fight, I’m reminded to be grateful for my relationship. It could be a lot worse!
Money I want to work hard so that I can earn the same amount as my boss. Before he knew it, he was retrenched. At least I have a job, but it could change any day.

 

These are only a snapshot of some of the examples of social comparison behaviors that we might demonstrate.

 

Contrast vs. Assimilation

Contrast versus Assimilation

“If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.”

Desiderata

Earlier in this article, I mentioned that upward and downward social comparisons could lead to negative or positive outcomes. The distinction is more nuanced than merely positive and negative outcomes. Comparisons can be further classified as contrastive or assimilation.

 

Contrastive Comparisons

Contrastive comparisons further emphasize the difference between the compared persons and us. For upward comparisons, we are seen as more inferior to the comparison-person, and for downward comparisons, we are considered as more superior.

 

Assimilative Comparisons

Assimilative comparisons describe comparisons where the compared person’s circumstances could easily be our own.

Upward assimilative comparisons are motivating because we believe that we can achieve the same level of success, whereas downward assimilative comparisons remind us that we could easily do worse.

A good way to think about the relation between contrastive and assimilative is that contrast increases the distance between the comparison person and us, whereas assimilative reduces the gap.

 

Emotions Linked to Contrastive and Assimilative Outcomes

Smith (2000) further expands this argument by arguing that:

(a) these contrastive and assimilative outcomes can result in positive and negative feelings specifically, and

(b) these feelings can be directed inwards towards ourselves, or outwards to the compared-individual.

He provides an extremely useful Figure (Figure 1 in Smith, 2000), which I have replicated in the tables below.

In downward social comparisons, the comparison-person (the ‘other’) always has an outcome that we consider undesirable since their outcome is inferior to our own.

The emotion towards the comparison-person that is evoked through the comparison differs for contrastive and assimilative outcomes: In the former scenario, we might feel contempt for them, whereas, in the latter scenario, we might feel pity.

In downwards social comparisons, the outcomes for us can be desirable or undesirable. Contrastive outcomes result in desirable outcomes for us – that is, we feel the positive emotion ‘pride’ because we are ‘better’- but assimilative outcomes remind us that we could be in the same situation as the comparison, and this realization induces fear or worry.

This theory explains why cancer patients felt afraid when they met other cancer patients who were worse-off: They had adopted downward assimilative social comparisons.

Downward Social Comparisons
Contrastive Outcomes Assimilative Outcomes
Outcomes Desirable outcome for self Dual focus Undesirable outcome for other Undesirable outcome for self Dual focus Undesirable outcome for other
Emotions Pride Schadenfreude Contempt/scorn Fear/worry Sympathy Pity

 

Unlike downward social comparison, the comparison-person in upward social comparisons always has the desirable outcome – we want to achieve what they have.

For contrastive outcomes, the difference between us and the comparison-person is emphasized to such an extent that we feel resentment towards them, and our current state is undesirable, leading to feelings of depression.

Assimilative outcomes are associated with more positive and desirable emotions: We feel admiration for the comparison-person, and optimism about our own state – we can achieve the same level as them.

Upward Social Comparisons
Contrastive Outcomes Assimilative Outcomes
Outcomes Undesirable outcome for self Dual focus Desirable outcome for other Desirable outcome for self Dual focus Desirable outcome for other
Emotions Depression/shame Envy Resentment Optimism Inspiration Admiration

 

 

Measuring Social Comparison: A Scale

In early research, social comparison was measured using Likert-scales and open-ended questions in an interview (e.g., Wood, Taylor, & Lichtman, 1985).

Wood et al. (1985) reported a group of patients who were diagnosed with cancer and asked them how much contact they had with other patients, whether they compared their current situation with that of other people, and asked them to evaluate how well they were coping in comparison.

Although the authors were expecting evidence of social comparisons to arise from the closed questions, they found instead, there were many instances of spontaneous mentioning of social comparisons during the interview.

It appeared that the participants were less willing to openly declare in the questionnaire that they did engage in social comparisons, but this behavior was evident in their interviews.

Although open-ended interviews can yield a lot of information, qualitative data can be challenging to analyze. In such situations, the open-ended interview would be transcribed and then coded by two independent coders using a logbook.

Any disagreements in the coding would need to be resolved before coding can continue. Although data collected in this manner are extremely useful, there is no doubt that the analysis thereof is laborious and time-consuming.

Gibbons and Buunk (1999) have done the hard work for us and developed the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (INCOM), which consists of 11 scale items that ask about social comparison. Of the 11 items, six of the questions ask about ‘ability.’

For example:

  • I always pay a lot of attention to how I do things compared to how others do things.

The remaining five items ask about ‘opinions.’ For example:

  • I always like to know what others in a similar situation would do.

For each item, participants indicate their level of agreement on a five-point scale, ranging from I disagree strongly to I agree strongly. The scale has high reliability (ranging between .78 to .85 for various samples), indicating that the measurements are stable.

Despite the high reliability, researchers accept and recognize that admitting making social comparisons are considered very undesirable; for these reasons, it is probably always better to follow up any assessment with an open-ended interview or questions to probe some of the responses on the scale (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007).

 

Social Comparison and Depression

social comparison and depressionAlthough we all engage in social comparison behaviors, we might do so at varying rates – some people engage in comparisons more often than others.

Buunk and Gibbons (2007) argue that people with certain personality types are more likely to make social comparisons.

Specifically, individuals with the following traits are more likely to engage in social comparison (Buunk & Gibons, 2007):

  • Increased public and private self-consciousness
  • More empathetic and sensitive towards others
  • An interest in how other people feel
  • High narcissism
  • Low self-esteem
  • High neuroticism

Upward social comparison was thought to result in more negative feelings (e.g., shame, inferiority); the research, however, is equivocal. Upward social comparison can be helpful because it allows for self-enhancement; for example, we might feel motivated to improve our performance (Collins, 1996).

For people who suffer from depression, social comparison can have mixed effects. Clinically depressed individuals who reported that they often used social comparisons, experience a positive change in their mood when their levels of aspirations were easily achievable (i.e., assimilative upward social comparison).

However, when the level of aspiration / the comparison-person was challenging to achieve (i.e., contrastive social comparison), then they experienced an adverse change in their mood (Buunk & Brenninkmeijer, 2001).

These findings suggest that the choice of comparison-person, or the level of aspiration, is important for certain subpopulations. There is additional evidence that compared to individuals who engage in fewer social comparisons, individuals who engage in more social comparisons respond more negatively to downward social comparisons (e.g., Buunk, Oldersma, & De Dreu, 2001).

Their greater response to downward social comparisons is not echoed in upward social comparisons. The authors posit that the downward social comparisons remind the participants of their own situation, and consequently increases their level of unhappiness.

 

The Link Between Social Media and Self-Esteem

social media and self-esteemSocial media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, are good examples of modern-day opportunities for social comparison.

We can browse our friends’ photographs, read updates about their lives, and learn about big and special events.

Social media posts, however, are overwhelming, and as a result, we are often engaging upwards social comparisons. There is some evidence that increased use of social media is associated with more negative feelings.

One explanation thereof is that we engage in more upward social comparisons on social media than we would in real life, which results in feelings of inferiority and envy. Some evidence exists that the immediate use of social media results in :

  • increased depressive symptoms (Feinstein et al., 2013).
  • experience of depressive episodes three weeks later (Feinstein et al., 2013).
  • lower self-esteem (de Vries & Kühne, 2015; Liu et al., 2017).
  • lower body image (de Vries & Kühne, 2015; Liu et al., 2017).

The relationship between upward social comparison on social media and depression is more complicated than it appears: The presence of optimism further mediates this relationship.

Participants with high optimism experienced a weaker relationship between using social media and symptoms of depression; optimism buttressed them from the harmful effects of upwards social comparison on social media. For participants with low optimism, the adverse effects of upwards social comparison were more pronounced: These individuals also reported more resultant depressive symptoms.

 

A Better Approach: Gratitude

gratitude resolves social comparison

“Stop comparing yourself to other people, just choose to be happy and live your own life.”

Roy T. Bennett, The Light in the Heart

One of the challenges of social comparison theory is deciding who we’re going to compare ourselves to, especially since the outcome of the social comparison differs according to the type of comparison (contrastive/assimilative), as well as our characteristics.

This can be especially important for people who are transitioning from one stage of their lives to another and don’t know whether they are performing at the optimal level.

For example, students who enter university might feel overwhelmed with academic and social expectations, and graduates starting their first job might also rely on social comparisons as a way to judge their performance. For more on this, have a look at our post on Positive Transitioning After School.

Unfortunately, these comparisons might be unrealistic or encourage unsustainable behaviors. Knowing this, what can we do instead?

 

Develop Gratitude

Well, one answer is to adopt an attitude of gratitude. Don’t worry – we know that this is easier said than done. However, there is ample evidence that focusing on gratitude, rather than negative circumstances, neutral events that are neither positive nor negative, or downward social comparisons, leads to:

  • increased positive affect,
  • better sleep,
  • higher levels of optimism (which is a buffer against the negative effects of downward social comparisons) and
  • more prosocial behavior (Emmons & McCullough, 2003).

To develop gratitude, follow the procedure used by Emmons and McCullough (2003):

  • Make a list of five things that you are grateful for in your life.
  • Try not to repeat items.
  • Don’t worry if the items are big or small.
  • Do this exercise every day.

If you need help finding items, think back to something that has happened in the last week that you’re grateful for.

 

Change the Comparison-Person from a Person to a Period

If you struggle to refrain from social comparisons, try to reframe the social comparisons so that you can express gratitude. Also, try to identify someone as the comparison-person, but use an ‘abstract’ comparison point like the one that Fagley used when measuring appreciation:

  • I reflect on the worst times in my life to help me realize how fortunate I am now.”

In this item, the reference point is a previous, more negative time of one’s life. Using this comparison point, instead of a different person, might help you focus on the positive aspects of your life currently.

 

A Take-Home Message

Social comparisons are normal – we all engage in these behaviors. Sometimes these behaviors make us feel better, and they can be motivating; however, they can also lead to detrimental side effects.

The research about social comparisons is complex and equivocal. Still, one pattern seems clear: The outcome of social comparisons hinges on who we are, who we are comparing ourselves to, and what we want from the comparison.

There are many more beneficial ways to develop self-esteem, and chasing after someone else’s successes so that you can feel proud of yourself is hardly healthy. Each of us was born in a unique set of circumstances, in a unique environment, and our successes are not limited by the people who we compare ourselves to; instead, we should be grateful for what we have achieved and grateful that we can continue to achieve what we desire.

Adopting this attitude can be difficult – especially when we feel uncertain, stressed out, or afraid – but the comparison point in a gratitude exercise remains constant despite our surroundings and circumstances, and in that, we can feel content.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our 3 Self Compassion Exercises for free.

If you wish to learn more, our Science of Self Acceptance Masterclass© is an innovative, comprehensive training template for practitioners that contains all the materials you’ll need to help your clients accept themselves, treat themselves with more compassion, and see themselves as worthy individuals.   

  • Amoroso, D. M, & Walters, R. H. (1969). Effects of anxiety and socially mediated anxiety reduction on paired-associate learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 388-39.
  • Buunk, B. P., & Brenninkmeijer, V. (2001). When individuals dislike exposure to an actively coping role model: Mood change as related to depression and social comparison orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(5), 537-548.
  • Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 3-21.
  • Buunk, B. P., Oldersma, F. L., & De Dreu, C. K. (2001). Enhancing satisfaction through downward comparison: The role of relational discontent and individual differences in social comparison orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(6), 452-467.
  • De Vries, D. A., & Kühne, R. (2015). Facebook and self-perception: Individual susceptibility to negative social comparison on Facebook. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 217-221.
  • Feinstein, B. A., Hershenberg, R., Bhatia, V., Latack, J. A., Meuwly, N., & Davila, J. (2013). Negative social comparison on Facebook and depressive symptoms: Rumination as a mechanism. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(3), 161.
  • Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
  • Gibbons, F. X. (1986). Social comparison and depression: Company’s effect on misery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 140-148.
  • Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76(1), 129.
  • Liu, Q. Q., Zhou, Z. K., Yang, X. J., Niu, G. F., Tian, Y., & Fan, C. Y. (2017). Upward social comparison on social network sites and depressive symptoms: A moderated mediation model of self-esteem and optimism. Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 223-228.
  • Pemberton, M., & Sedikides, C. (2001). When do individuals help close others improve? The role of information diagnosticity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(2), 234.
  • Schacter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Shepperd, J. A., & Taylor, K. M. (1999). Ascribing advantages to social comparison targets. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(2), 103-117.
  • Smith, R. H. (2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social comparisons. In Handbook of social comparison (pp. 173-200). Springer, Boston, MA.
  • Tesser, A. (1985). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior.
  • Wood, J. V., Taylor, S. E., & Lichtman, R. R. (1985). Social comparison in adjustment to breast cancer. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49(5), 1169.

About the Author

Alicia Nortje, Ph.D. is a research fellow at the University of Cape Town, where she is involved in multiple projects investigating eyewitness memory and face recognition. She’s highly skilled in research design, data analysis, and critical thinking. When she’s not working, she indulges in running on the road or the trails, and enjoys cooking.

Comments

  1. antsar.jssam

    Very good

    Reply
  2. Ha

    Hey 🙂 Thanks for a nice read! Keep it up!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *