How am I doing compared to different standards? Comparative thinking and well-being following exposure to a vehicle-ramming attack

Do aversive well-being comparisons mediate the effects of childhood adversity on anxiety and depression?

BACKGROUND

Childhood adversity (CA) is strongly associated with depression and anxiety in later life. Many adults with a history of CA may have internalized an insecure self-concept, which may contribute to negative evaluations of one's current well-being relative to different standards. Yet, there is lack of research on well-being comparisons in adults with a history of CA.

OBJECTIVE

We examined aversive well-being comparisons (i.e., comparisons threatening the comparer's motives) in the context of CA and their predictive value in depression and anxiety beyond self-esteem, emotion regulation, and external control beliefs. Further, we investigated whether well-being comparison processes mediate the relationship between CA and depression and anxiety.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

We conducted a two-wave longitudinal study with 942 adult participants (mean age: 31.56 years, SD = 10.49, 18-75 years).

METHODS

Participants completed measures of CA, aversive well-being comparisons (social, temporal, counterfactual, and criteria-based comparisons), self-esteem, emotion regulation, and locus of control at two time points, three months apart.

RESULTS

CA was significantly linked to more frequent aversive well-being comparisons. These comparisons were associated with greater discrepancies relative to the comparison standard and a more negative affective impact, ultimately contributing to higher levels of subsequent anxiety and depression symptoms. Comparison frequency emerged as key mediator, highlighting potential pathways through which CA affects adult mental health. These associations emerged despite controlling for established variables in this context, namely self-esteem, emotion regulation, and external locus of control.

CONCLUSION

Our findings underscore the unique importance of aversive well-being comparisons in individuals with a history of CA.

Comparison Is the Thief of Joy? Introducing the Attitudes Towards Social Comparison Inventory

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.

Associations among posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, life satisfaction, and well-being comparisons: A longitudinal investigation

Many individuals who encounter potentially traumatic events go on to develop symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Research suggests that survivors of traumatic events frequently compare their current well-being to different standards; yet, knowledge regarding the role of comparative thinking in well-being is limited to a few cross-sectional studies. We therefore examined the temporal associations among aversive well-being comparisons (i.e., comparisons threatening self-motives), PTSD symptoms, and life satisfaction in individuals exposed to traumatic events. Participants (N = 518) with a trauma history completed measures of PTSD symptoms and life satisfaction, as well as the Comparison Standards Scale for Well-being (CSS-W), at assessment points 3 months apart. The CSS-W assesses the frequency, perceived discrepancy, and affective impact of aversive social, temporal, counterfactual, and criteria-based comparisons related to well-being. All participants reported having engaged in aversive well-being comparisons during the last 3 weeks. Comparison frequency emerged as a significant predictor of PTSD symptoms, β = .24, beyond baseline PTSD symptom severity. Life satisfaction contributed unique variance to the comparison process by predicting comparison frequency, β = -.18; discrepancy, β = -.24; and affective impact, β = .20. The findings suggest that frequent aversive comparisons may lead to a persistent focus on negative aspects of well-being, thereby exacerbating PTSD symptoms, and further indicate that comparison frequency, discrepancy, and affective impact are significantly influenced by life satisfaction. Taken together, the findings support the need for a thorough examination of the role of comparative thinking in clinical populations, which may ultimately help improve clinical care.

Selection of social comparison standards in cardiac patients with and without experienced defibrillator shock

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.

Comparison standards shape everyday judgments of low and high wellbeing in individuals with and without psychopathology: a diary-based investigation

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.

Cognitive factors underlying the impact of postmigration stressors on subjective well-being: Well-being comparisons and self-efficacy

BACKGROUND

Migration and the resulting challenges in the host country can have a profound impact on the mental health of refugees and intensify preoccupation with one's own well-being. Yet, cognitive factors underlying the adverse impact of postmigration stressors are poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed at exploring the frequency and nature of well-being comparisons in the context of flight and migration using the Comparison Standards Scale for Well-being (CSS-W), which assesses well-being related social, temporal, counterfactual, criteria-based and dimensional aversive and appetitive comparisons. We further aimed at examining the mediating role of well-being comparisons and general self-efficacy in the relationship between postmigration stressors and psychological well-being.

METHODS

We conducted a survey with 1070 Arabic speaking forcibly displaced people in Germany assessing well-being comparisons, general self-efficacy, postmigration stressors, subjective well-being and social media engagement.

RESULTS

Factor analysis of the CSS-W yielded a theoretically grounded two-factor structure proposing an aversive (mostly upward) and an appetitive (mostly downward) comparison factor. Aversive and appetitive comparisons were reported by more than 99% of participants, with temporal comparisons being reported by 98.7% of participants. Postmigration stressors were significantly related to subjective well-being and aversive well-being comparisons and general self-efficacy partially mediated this relationship. Appetitive well-being comparisons, however, were not significantly related to neither postmigration stressors nor general self-efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Aversive well-being comparisons and general self-efficacy seem to play a significant role in the adverse effects of postmigration stressors on subjective well-being. Longitudinal research is needed to examine the directional dynamics between general self-efficacy, well-being comparisons and postmigration stressors.

Counterfactual comparisons and affective styles in the aftermath of traumatic events

Traumatic events often lead to counterfactual comparison (CFC), defined as comparing one’s current attributes to that of a hypothetical mentally simulated alternative that might have occurred but is counter to the facts. CFC can differ in its direction and in terms of the referent of action. The mentally simulated alternative may be evaluated as more favorable (upward CFC) or less favorable (downward CFC) and the counterfactual alteration (e.g., preventing the event) may have been performed by oneself (self-referent) or others (other-referent). The frequency and engendered affective valence of CFC differ between trauma survivors and correlate with PTSD symptoms. However, knowledge about the mechanism involved is lacking. Individuals differ in how they regulate the engendered affective valence following CFC, suggesting that dispositional affect regulation styles may be implicated in this relationship. We therefore examined the affective styles of adjusting, concealing, and tolerating and their relationship with CFC frequency and engendered affective valence. In 556 individuals who had encountered at least one traumatic event, we examined this question separately for (1) upward self-referent CFC, (2) upward other-referent CFC, (3) downward self-referent CFC and (4) downward other-referent CFC. Most effects were found for upward (rather than downward) CFC and particularly for upward self-referent CFC. The frequency of engaging in upward self-referent CFC was associated with all three affective styles and with engendered affective valence. Different emotion regulation processes appear to be associated with more frequent engagement in upward self-referent CFC and more negative engendered affective valence. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.

How we compare: A new approach to assess aspects of the comparison process for appearance-based standards and their associations with individual differences in wellbeing and personality measures

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.

How do I know how I am doing? Use of different types of comparison in judgment of well-being in patients seeking psychological treatment and healthy controls

Judgment of well-being is formed on the spot, and we know little about its foundations. We aimed at examining the role of comparison standards in informing evaluations of well-being in a clinical and a nonclinical sample. In a semi-structured face-to-face interview, individuals seeking psychological treatment and healthy control individuals rated how they have been feeling in general and relative to specific comparison standards and were each time invited to substantiate their ratings. Independent coders assessed number, type, direction, and specificity of reported comparisons. When asked to explain why they chose a particular rating of their well-being, 93% of clinical participants and 61% of nonclinical participants spontaneously reported some type of comparison standard. Both groups reported highest well-being ratings relative to social and past temporal comparisons and lowest relative to prospective temporal comparison. Furthermore, clinical participants engaged in more upward than downward comparisons, whereas this was not the case for healthy control participants. Our findings suggest that evaluations of well-being are informed by different comparison types and that individuals with clinical complaints use more comparisons when evaluating their well-being. The results encourage further investigation of comparative thinking as an underlying mechanism of judgment of well-being and ill-being.

Comparisons Inform Me Who I Am: A General Comparative-Processing Model of Self-Perception

People's self-concept contributes to their sense of identity over time. Yet self-perception is motivated and serves survival and thus does not reflect stable inner states or accurate biographical accounts. Research indicates that different types of comparison standards act as reference frames in evaluating attributes that constitute the self. However, the role of comparisons in self-perception has been underestimated, arguably because of lack of a guiding framework that takes into account relevant aspects of comparison processes and their interdependence. I propose a general comparative model of self-perception that consists of a basic comparison process involving the individual's prior mental representation of the target dimension, the construal of the comparison standard, and the comparison outcome representing the posterior representation of the target dimension. The generated dimensional construal is then appraised with respect to one's motives and controllability and goes on to shape emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses. Contextual and personal factors influence the comparison process. This model may be informative in better understanding comparison processes in people's everyday lives and their role in shaping self-perception and in designing interventions to assist people overcome undesirable consequences of comparative behavior.