Approaches to Comparison and Their Influence on Social Comparison

Cognitive psychology identifies different assumptions about the mental representations that form the basis of theories of comparison. Each representation requires a different process to generate a comparison, and both the computational complexity and the output of the different processes differ. Spatial models require a low-complexity process but only reveal the distance between points representing individuals. Featural models are more intensive than spatial comparisons but provide access to particular commonalities and differences. Structural models are more computationally intensive but support a distinction between alignable and nonalignable differences. Social comparison theories make assumptions about how knowledge is represented, but they are rarely explicit about the type of comparison process that is likely to be involved. The merging of work on social comparison with more explicit cognitive science theories of comparison science has the potential to both identify gaps in the literature and expand our knowledge about how comparison operates in social settings. This chapter first discusses the concept of mental representation and then addresses spatial models of comparison, featured models of comparison, structural models of comparison, transformation models. The chapter concludes with a discussion of similarity models and social comparison.

Comparing One and Many

Social comparisons are not only ubiquitous and influential but also represent a naturally occurring example of more general evaluative judgment. As such, they can be examined using the general types of mental processes that are used in the judgment and decision-making literature. While the direction of social comparison processes can be easily characterized as upward or downward, for instance, their specific calibration (e.g., sensitivity to absolute differences) is more difficult to determine. Insights gleaned from judgment and decision-making can inform research examining the calibration of social comparisons to different standards. In turn, the specific lessons gleaned from social comparisons, particularly with respect to how comparison targets are chosen, can inform judgment and decision-making. The chapter begins with a successful example of the integration of these literatures, research on anchoring bias. The authors then explain how social comparison research might benefit from judgment and decision-making research examining how calibration and sensitivity to absolute differences depend on the number of standards in the comparison set and their relative position on a continuum. The authors review different prototype, exemplar, and hybrid models explaining how people compare a target to distributions and sets of multiple standards, which could be of use to researchers examining social comparisons to multiple targets and groups. The chapter ends by noting how judgment and decision-making may benefit from the insight that social comparisons provide into the selection of comparison standards and directions for cross-pollination between these fields.

Envy and Social Comparison

Upward social comparison can give rise to the emotion of envy: the pain caused by the good fortune of others. This chapter explains what envy is and what the possible function of envy is to an organism experiencing it. The authors provide an overview of past work on envy, the distinction between two subtypes (benign and malicious envy), possible antecedents of envy, possible consequences of envy, and the responses to being envied by others. In each of these areas, there are clear links to research on social comparison and research on envy has greatly benefited from insights from the social comparison literature. Given the surge in research on envy in the last decade, the authors hope that the findings on envy inspires those investigating social comparisons.

Social Comparison Before, During, and After the Competition

This chapter provides an overview of the interplay between social comparison and competition before, during, and after the competition. Competition is defined broadly to include an act or process of competition, explicit or implicit, linked to basic social comparison processes. Before the competition, the authors consider the lessons of the social comparison literature on motives, individual differences, cultural and social norms, and competition entry decisions. The authors then review relevant findings on the role of individual factors (personal and relational) as well as situational factors that affect motivation and competitive behavior during the competition. Finally, the chapter examines the social comparison literature on downward comparison, upward comparison, and competition re-entry decisions after the competition.

Individual Differences in Social Comparison

Individuals differ considerably in their social comparison orientation (SCO), that is, the extent to which and the frequency with which they compare themselves with others. In this chapter, the major findings with the scale assessing SCO are discussed. After presenting the basic psychometric properties of the scale and the relationships with various personality variables, the authors discuss how SCO is related to, among others, seeking upward and downward social comparison information, to establishing one’s risk, and to assessing one’s future prospects. Next, we present particularly the role of SCO in moderating the effects of upward and downward social comparison information with respect to a variety of contexts and dimensions, including close relationships, ageing, work and organizations, depression, health, and physical attractiveness. Special attention is paid to the question if SCO fosters identification and assimilation rather than contrast.

A History of Social Comparison Theory

This chapter provides a history of social comparison theory starting in 1944 with the “Level of Aspiration” paper by Kurt Lewin and colleagues. From the work of Stan Schachter on affiliation in the 1950s, the chapter maintains a linear narrative, attempting to tell the story with numerous digressions into what and how particularly important events happened. The authors are uniquely suited to do this, as their professional lives and friendships have overlapped almost completely with the developments of social comparison theory. They then discuss several theories that are often confused as being based on social comparison theory but are not. They yield the razor with gusto! The chapter ends with a discussion of the neighboring fields and applications that are indeed on the reasons this book is being published.

How Social Networks Shape Social Comparison

While social comparison research has focused on the processes and consequences of how the comparer gleans information from the comparison other (individual or group), recent research on social networks demonstrates how information and influence are distributed across persons in a network. This chapter reviews social influence processes in social networks. The authors first review recent research on social comparison and its negative consequences in online social networks. Then the authors delve into discussing the social network causes of biased social perceptions online and how this can be remedied by building more accurate perceptions through constructed online networks. Lastly, the authors discuss findings from recent experimental studies that illustrate how constructed online networks can harness social comparison to induce significant changes in health behavior.

Local Comparisons and General Standards

Member-to-group comparisons, in which the relative standing of particular group members vis-à-vis the other group members is judged (e.g., how competent is Dan relative to the others in the department? How tasty is this pizza relative to the other pizzas on the counter) are highly prevalent. According to LOGE theory, in making such comparisons, people strike a compromise between the local judgmental standard pertaining to the judged group and the general standard, which refers to the broader parent category. The resultant nonselective superiority and inferiority comparative biases are described, and their generality and robustness are reviewed. The author suggests that the egocentric superiority and inferiority biases in self–others comparisons can be viewed as part of these more general judgmental tendencies.

Temporal Comparisons in a Social World

People evaluate themselves against a variety of standards. In addition to measuring themselves against relevant others (social comparisons), individuals often appraise their current selves by looking to their former and future selves (temporal comparisons). This chapter first considers temporal comparison in relation to social comparison and then describes processes of temporal self-appraisal in more detail. The authors first consider the relative frequency and impact of temporal comparison relative to social comparison and describe how comparison preference and impact depends on method, context, and self-appraisal goals. Both comparison types are meaningful, and people show considerable fluidity in their use of these self-appraisal standards. Next, the authors describe temporal self-appraisal theory, which unpacks the nuanced mechanisms underlying active selection and construction of temporal comparisons, drawing parallels to similar social comparative processes.

Navigating the Perils of Outperforming Others

Outperforming others can be an enjoyable experience, satisfying goals for achievement and competitive success. However, high-performing people may also have other goals, such as to avoid causing those whom they have outperformed to feel discouraged or maliciously envious. This chapter summarizes Exline and Lobel’s conceptual framework about the concerns outperformers sometimes have about being a target of threatening upward comparisons. The authors review the research on individual and group differences in propensity to be concerned when one seems to be posing an upward comparison threat to others. The authors survey strategies that high performers use to try to avoid or minimize negative reactions in those whom they have outperformed. Finally, the chapter explores what the available research suggests regarding the effectiveness and costs of these strategies.