Comparisons with social, expectation-based, counterfactual, and temporal standards may play a significant role in the maintenance of social anxiety disorder (SAD). The general comparative-processing model outlines the comparison process, encompassing comparison frequency, discrepancy, and affective/behavioral impact. For instance, an individual may frequently compare their performance to their colleagues', perceive themselves as less competent, and consequently experience negative emotions that lead to avoidance. Two studies examined these processes across different time frames. In a 10-day ecological momentary assessment with 133 individuals with probable SAD, daily stressors and all comparison components (frequency, discrepancy, impact) were positively linked to social anxiety both between and within individuals. Additionally, comparison affective and behavioral impact were significant within-person mediators. In Study 2, which had 376 participants and included four assessments over 1 year, stable between-person effects and less consistent within-person effects were found. These findings advance our understanding of comparative thinking in SAD and may inform related therapeutic interventions.

Effort-related motivational deficits in depression are often studied through effort-reward decisions, yet everyday effort also depends on the reference standards against which it is judged. In a preregistered laboratory crossover study, 51 participants with at least mild depressive symptoms received two opposing effort framings: self-initiated allocation toward goals and need frustration emphasizing burden and affective demand. After reconstructing previous-day activities, participants evaluated upward and downward social, temporal-past, criteria-based, and counterfactual standards for their two most effortful activities per session, yielding 1,632 standard-endorsement judgments followed by intensity and discrepancy ratings for endorsed standards. As predicted, need-frustration framing increased endorsement of upward criteria-based standards (“this should feel less effortful”). However, this effect did not generalize across upward comparisons. Instead, need frustration decreased upward temporal standards (“this used to feel easier”) and increased downward counterfactual standards (“it could have been harder under worse circumstances”). Intensity ratings among endorsed standards were not reliably affected, although an exploratory relevance score supported the specific role of upward criteria-based standards. Perceived effort was higher under allocation but correlated more positively with depressive symptoms under need frustration. These findings suggest that motivational framing changes the comparison standards people identify as relevant to everyday effort judgments and highlight the need to assess the appraised meaning of effort-related comparisons directly.

Background: Cognitive theories on trauma memory postulate that trauma-related intrusions are associated with more data-driven and less contextual processing. However, contextualisation can be enhanced via verbalization, suggesting that verbalizing traumatic material should reduce the number of intrusions and other trauma-relevant symptoms and processes. Methods: In this experimental study, participants watched different trauma films and were instructed to verbalize the contents of each film clip, to visually imagine them, or to let their mind wander freely. Intrusions were measured via a diary and an intrusion provocation task applied three days after film presentation, and general trauma-relevant symptoms were assessed with the Posttraumatic Symptom Checklist (PCL-5). Thought suppression was measured twice, i.e., before and after the experimental manipulation. During a memory processing task, participants were asked to recall the film clips, and their performance was evaluated based on the number of details they accurately remembered as well as the time it took them to do so. Results: No group differences emerged regarding the number of intrusions, PCL-5 scores, memory processing task outcomes, levels of thought suppression or data driven processing. Exploratory correlational analyses revealed that intrusion frequency (i.e., diary intrusions, provoked intrusions, PCL-5) was positively correlated with thought suppression pre- and post-manipulation. Conclusion: The verbalization task did not result in a reduction of intrusions and other trauma-relevant symptoms. However, results further underline the relationship between thought suppression and intrusions.

We tested whether enhanced allocentric spatial memory of a distressing scene can attenuate intrusive memories. Using virtual reality (VR), we developed an immersive trauma analogue to measure and manipulate spatial memory. Study 1 (N=92) established the paradigm’s validity in eliciting intrusions and assessing spatial memory for scene-embedded objects. Results showed that spatial memory was better for more distressing objects and when participants were probed from the original encoding viewpoint, but memory performance did not differentiate egocentric from allocentric strategies or relate to intrusions during a 15-minute interval. Critically, Study 2 (N=120) showed that targeted spatial memory training on scene contents, administered after viewing the traumatic scene, significantly reduced intrusions, as assessed by a 3-day intrusion diary and a retrospective self-report assessment, compared to a perceptual control. These findings support our main hypothesis, suggesting that therapeutic approaches targeting intrusions may benefit from enhancing memory for the spatial layout of traumatic events.

Background: Social comparisons shape our behavior. The general comparative processing model (gComp) suggests that evaluating one’s attributes against salient upward social standards elicits motivational appraisal ranging from threat to challenge, each typically associated with corresponding pessimistic or optimistic coping responses. This, in turn, manifests in specific affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses. To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide an initial experimental test of gComp assumptions. Methods: Participants completed a 2-back task framed as indicative of academic performance. They were randomly assigned to high-threat (n = 67) or low-threat (n = 62) conditions, receiving false social comparison feedback on their performance relative to that of previous participants. Outcome measures included affect, cognitive responses (i.e., rededication, distraction, reconstrual, commitment), and a behavioral choice (i.e., task repetition). Results: Participants in the high-threat condition reported significantly higher increases in negative affect (p < .001), greater rededication (i.e., downplaying the task's importance; p = .011), and lower commitment (p < .001) compared to those in the low-threat condition. However, no significant differences were found for the behavioral outcome measure (p = .149). Conclusions: The findings underscore the potential of a process-based approach to social comparison to advance our understanding of how comparative feedback shapes affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses.

Studying for exams can be a stressful time. Uncertainty and stress often reach their peak during exam preparation, as students frequently grapple with feelings of inadequacy and anxiety regarding their academic performance. To assess their exam readiness, students can use social, temporal, criteria-based, and counterfactual comparisons. Engaging in upward comparative thinking during exam preparation may increase students’ stress levels. However, previous studies have not examined whether students’ daily comparisons related to exam preparation are associated with their stress, negative mood, and learning behavior. Therefore, we used Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) to capture daily frequency and affective impact of upward comparisons and their influence on stress, negative mood, and self-reported learning behavior among 170 psychology students at a German University. During an eleven-day EMA-phase leading up to exams, participants completed brief surveys three times daily, supplemented by baseline and follow-up assessments. Multilevel models revealed that both between-person and within-person upward comparison frequency correlated positively with stress and negative mood over time. A more negative comparison affective impact mediated the within-person associations of comparison frequency with stress and negative mood. A more negative comparison affective impact also predicted more self-reported avoidant learning behavior, both between-person and within-person. Comparison also influenced depression, test anxiety, and burnout at follow-up. The findings may have implications for designing well-being interventions during periods of performance-related pressure.

Perceived social impressions - namely, how individuals believe they come across in social situations - are often evaluated by engaging in social comparison. Such evaluations may shape cognition, affect, and behavior. However, a validated measure to assess social impression comparisons is lacking. Therefore, we developed and validated the Social Impression Comparison Scale (SICS) that assesses the frequency of upward and downward social comparison of social impressions, the perceived discrepancy to the standard, and the affective impact of these comparisons during the last three weeks, in two studies (Ns = 478/507). Confirmatory factor analyses supported the hypothesized two-factor model, representing upward and downward comparison, displaying better model fit than a one-factor model. The scale demonstrated measurement invariance across gender, probable social anxiety disorder diagnosis, and studies. Upward comparison correlated with comparison-related variables, mental health, and other relevant variables, supporting the scale's validity cross-sectionally, during an Ecological Momentary Assessment, and at the three-month follow-up. Downward comparison showed less consistent correlations. In multiple regression models, all comparison indicators (frequency, discrepancy, and affect) of upward and downward comparisons showed distinct associations with specific outcomes. The SICS is free-to-use, efficient, and appears reliable and valid, with broad applicability across several contexts.

Patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) often report psychological distress. Literature suggests that patients with physical disease often compare their well-being and coping to fellow patients. However, we lack knowledge on social comparison among patients with ICD. In this study, we examined psychological distress and social comparison selection in patients with (ICD+) and without experienced ICD shocks (ICD−). We theorized that relative to ICD− patients, those with ICD+ display higher levels of psychological distress and thereby compare more frequently with fellow patients with more severe disease, but better disease coping and try to identify more strongly with these standards to improve their own coping. We recruited 92 patients with (ICD+, n = 38) and without an experienced ICD shock (ICD−, n = 54), who selected one of four comparison standards varying in disease severity and coping capacity. Relative to ICD−, ICD+ patients reported higher levels of device-related distress, but there were no significant differences in anxiety, depression, or quality of life. ICD+ patients selected more often comparison standards with poor coping and, irrespective of standard choice, displayed more negative mood following comparison. Our results show that ICD+ patients tend to perform unfavorable comparisons to fellow patients, which might explain higher psychological distress and worse coping. These findings warrant further research into social comparison as a relevant coping mechanism in ICD patients.

People constantly compare their appearance and well-being to that of other individuals. However, there is a lack of a measure of social comparisons of well-being, and existing appearance-related social comparison scales assess social comparison tendency using predefined social situations. This limits our understanding of the role of social comparison in self-evaluation and well-being. Therefore, we developed the Scale for Social Comparison of Appearance (SSC-A) and the Scale for Social Comparison of Well-being (SSC-W) that assess downward and upward social comparisons with regards to a) frequency, b) perceived discrepancy, and c) affective impact during the last three weeks. In one longitudinal and three cross-sectional studies with sample sizes ranging from 500 to 1,119 participants, we administered the SSC-A or the SSC-W alongside measures of appearance social comparisons, body satisfaction, self-concept, social rank, psychological well-being, envy, rumination, depression and anxiety. Confirmatory factor analyses supported the expected two-factor solution representing upward and downward social comparisons for both scales. Their validity was supported by significant associations with the measured constructs. Overall, upward comparisons displayed higher associations with most measured constructs than downward comparisons. The SSC-A and SSC-W offer parsimonious, reliable and valid measures of social comparisons of appearance and well-being.

People can easily rate and express their current levels of wellbeing, but the cognitive foundations for such judgments are poorly understood. We examined whether comparisons to varying standards underlie fluctuating wellbeing judgments within-person (i.e., throughout daily episodes) and between-person (i.e., high vs. low levels of psychopathology). Clinical and non-clinical participants recorded subjective affect for each distinct episode for one week. Participants briefly described current, best, and worst daily episodes, which we coded for presence and type of comparison standard (social, past temporal, criteria-based, counterfactual, prospective temporal, and dimensional). Participants also rated their engagement with these standards and the respective affective impact. During best episodes, participants reported more downward (vs. upward) comparisons that resulted in positive affective impact. In worst episodes, upward (vs. downward) comparisons were more frequent. In best and worst episodes, we most frequently identified past-temporal and criteria-based comparisons, respectively. The clinical group engaged more often with all potential standard types during worst daily episodes and was more negatively affected by comparative thoughts, amid consistently more negative affect levels across all episode types. Our data suggest that judgments of affect and wellbeing may indeed rely on comparative thinking, whereby certain standards may characterize states of negative affect and poor mental health.

Social comparison has a significant impact on individuals' motivation, affect, and behavior. However, we lack a scale that captures individual differences in attitudes toward social comparison. To address this gap, we developed the Attitudes Toward Social Comparison Inventory (ASCI) drawing on existing scales that tap into metacognitive beliefs about worrying, self-motives, beliefs about emotions, and the general comparative-processing model. We examined the psychometric properties of the ASCI in a longitudinal study (N = 1,084), and a second (N = 550) and third cross-sectional study (N = 306). Through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, we identified a 12-item two-factor solution capturing positive and negative attitudes toward social comparison. The ASCI demonstrated measurement invariance across gender and time. The two factors were differentially and longitudinally associated with relevant constructs, including social comparison, metacognitive beliefs about worrying, depression, self-concept clarity, envy, and self-esteem. The ASCI facilitates comprehensive investigations of social comparison processes.

A recommendation of: Nathan Pond, Frances Meeten, Patrick Clarke, Lies Notebaert, Ryan Scott The Efficacy of Attentional Bias Modification for Anxiety: A Registered Replication https://psyarxiv.com/cf4xz

Social comparison plays an important role in depression. However, the process of social comparison selection among depressed individuals remains understudied. This study investigated the choices made by individuals with elevated depression scores (assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-8) when exposed to vignettes depicting individuals with varying depression severity and coping ability. We experimentally activated either self-assessment or self-enhancement motives and had participants choose from four vignettes: (1) Mild Depression/Coping Well; (2) Mild Depression/Coping Poorly; (3) Severe Depression/Coping Well; and (4) Severe Depression/Coping Poorly. Our first hypothesis was that most participants would select the Mild Depression/Coping Well vignette, presenting a potential upward social comparison standard (H1). Additionally, we expected higher depression scores to correlate with selecting vignettes featuring greater severity (H2). We further hypothesized that those in the self-enhancement condition would prefer coping poorly vignettes more than those in the self-assessment condition (H3). We conducted a between-subject online experiment (N = 449). Confirming H1, most participants favored the Mild Depression/Coping Well vignette, while the Severe Depression/Coping Poorly vignette was least selected. Supporting H2, higher depression levels were linked to opting for alternative comparison standards over the Mild Depression/Coping Well vignette. Contrary to H3, participants' choices were not influenced by self-motives.

Academic self-concept (ASC) is a prominent predictor of educational achievement and student mental health. Although it is widely accepted that ASC is fundamentally comparative, little is known about different comparison types driving students' ASC construal and its impact on mental health. Therefore, we examined whether self-evaluations relative to criteria-based, social, temporal, dimensional, and counterfactual comparison standards represent independent factors that contribute to general ASC. Next, we assessed the association of general ASC and its comparison-based facets with achievement emotions and psychopathology. University students (N=348) completed an online survey of general ASC as well as subordinate comparison-based ASC facets, positive and negative achievement emotions, psychological distress, and symptoms of student burnout. We further assessed comparison frequency, student task values, and achievement levels. Factor analysis indicated that criteria-based, social, temporal, dimensional, and counterfactual standards reflect mainly distinct yet correlated comparison domains. General ASC construal was most strongly based on the criteria-based and social facets. Favourable general ASC predicted lower learning-related anxiety, psychological distress, and student burnout. Largely similar correlations emerged for all comparison-based ASC facets, whereby the criteria-based and social facets were particularly strong predictors of learning-related anxiety. Our findings support the view that ASC construal relies on comparisons with multiple standards. Criteria-based and social comparisons were particularly dominant and may be the main drivers of learning-related anxiety. Carefully designed follow-up studies with longitudinal designs and interventions are warranted.

We introduce a novel approach to assess habitual comparison processes, while distinguishing between different types of comparison standards. Several comparison theories (e.g., social) suggest that self-evaluations use different standards to inform self-perception and are associated with wellbeing and personality. We developed the Comparison Standards Scale for Appearance (CSS-A) to examine self-reported engagement with social, temporal, criteria-based, dimensional, and counterfactual comparisons for upward and downward standards in relation to appearance. The scale was completed by three hundred participants online alongside measures of appearance schemas, social comparison evaluations, depression, anxiety, stress, self-esteem, physical self-concept, narcissism, and perfectionism. The CSS-A was found to reliably assess individual differences in upward and downward comparison frequency and affective impact for multiple comparison standards. In line with theory, CSS-A upward comparisons were more frequent than downward comparisons and coincided with negative (versus positive) affective impact. Comparison intensity (i.e., comparison frequency × discrepancy) predicted negative and positive affective impact for upward and downward comparisons, respectively. This relationship was partially mediated by appearance concern for upward comparisons (a composite of appearance schemas and physical self-concept), yet moderated by negativity for downward comparisons (a composite of depression, anxiety, stress, and self-esteem). We offer a framework for measuring the comparison process that warrants further research on underlying comparison processes, for which the CSS(-A) and experience sampling methods should serve as useful tools.

Background Humans constantly compare their attributes to different reference frames. According to the theoretical framework of the general comparative-processing model, such comparisons may be perceived as aversive (i.e., appraised as threatening the motives of the comparer) or appetitive (i.e., appraised as consonant with, or positively challenging the motives). However, we lack a measure that adequately captures multi-standard comparisons. Methods Considering appearance-related comparisons as a relevant comparison domain, we introduce the Comparison Standards Scale for Appearance (CSS-A) that assesses appearance-related social, temporal, counterfactual, criteria-based, and dimensional upward and downward comparisons regarding their (a) frequency, (b) perceived discrepancy, and (c) engendered affect. We administered the CSS-A to 1121 participants, along with measures of appearance social comparison, body satisfaction, physical self-concept, self-esteem, well-being, and depression. Results A two-factor model ( aversive and appetitive comparisons ) fit the data better than a bifactor model with an additional general domain-factor ( comparative thinking ). The validity of the CSS-A was supported by correlations with external validators beyond appearance, social comparison, and body satisfaction. Aversive comparisons displayed higher associations with most outcomes than appetitive comparisons. Conclusions Overall, the CSS-A offers a psychometrically sound and useful measure of multi-standard comparisons.

Background: Academic self-concept (ASC) is a prominent predictor of educational achievement and plays a critical role in student mental health. Although it is widely accepted that ASC is fundamentally comparative, little is known about the comparison types driving students’ ASC construal and its impact on mental health. Therefore, we examined whether self-evaluations relative to criterion-based, social, temporal, dimensional, and counterfactual comparison standards represent independent factors that contribute to general ASC. Next, we assessed the association of general ASC and its comparison-based facets with achievement emotions and psychopathology. Methods: University students (N=348) completed an online survey of general ASC as well as subordinate comparison-based ASC facets, positive and negative achievement emotions, psychological distress, and symptoms of student burnout. We further assessed comparison frequency, student task values, and achievement levels. Results: Factor analysis indicated that criterion-based, social, temporal, dimensional, and counterfactual standards reflect mainly distinct yet correlated comparison domains. General ASC construal was most strongly based on the criterion-based and social facets. Favourable general ASC predicted lower learning-related anxiety, psychological distress, and student burnout. Largely similar correlations emerged for all comparison-based ASC facets, whereby the criterion-based and social facets were particularly strong predictors of learning related anxiety. Limitations: The cross-sectional design precludes causal inferences. Conclusions: Our findings support the view that ASC construal relies on comparisons with multiple standards. Criterion-based and social comparisons were particularly dominant and may be the main drivers of learning-related anxiety. Careful follow-up studies with longitudinal designs and interventions are warranted.

The psychosocial environment is pivotal for the adjustment to traumatic experiences, yet the role of social cognition in the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) remains obscure. We theorize that comparison with other trauma survivors reporting high or low levels of stress-related symptomatology might attenuate or amplify the development of PTSD, depending on perceived similarities with the standard. 90 healthy participants viewed traumatic footage and read ostensible testimonials from a fellow participant from a similar background, reporting high levels of PTSD symptoms (i.e. a similar-vulnerable social comparator), low distress (similar-resilient) or by a demographically dissimilar person reporting low distress (different-resilient). A separate no-comparison group ( n = 30) served to gauge the presence of assimilative responding. Relative to similar-vulnerable comparison, a similar-resilient comparator tended to attenuate acute negative affect, but this did not translate to a similar effect on seven-day intrusive memories. Here, the similar-vulnerable group tended to report fewer intrusive memories compared to control, indicating a contrastive response. Taken together, we provide preliminary evidence that social comparison modulates the adjustment to adversity, whereby acute affect and intrusion development may be influenced differentially.