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

Is my body better than yours? Validation of the German version of the Upward and Downward Physical Appearance Comparison Scales in individuals with and without eating disorders

Introduction

This study examines the psychometric properties of a German version of the Upward and Downward Physical Appearance Comparison Scales (UPACS and DACS).

Methods

A total of 2,114 participants, consisting of 1,360 women without eating disorders (M age = 25.73, SD age = 6.84), 304 men without eating disorders (M age = 24.48, SD age = 6.34), and 450 women with eating disorders (M age = 27.11, SD age = 7.21), completed the UPACS and DACS as well as further questionnaires on appearance comparisons, eating disorder pathology, and self-esteem.

Results

Structural equation modeling confirmed the proposed one-factor structure of the original English-language version of the DACS but not of the UPACS. Both scales showed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The UPACS and DACS showed the expected correlations with related constructs, indicating acceptable construct validity, with some limitations for women with eating disorders.

Discussion

Overall, this study indicates that the German versions of the UPACS and DACS are psychometrically suitable for assessing upward and downward physical appearance comparisons in women and men without eating disorders and women with eating disorders in research and clinical practice.

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.

Evaluation of the Scales for Social Comparison of Appearance and Social Comparison of Well-Being

People constantly compare their appearance and well-being to that of other individuals. However, a measure of social comparison of well-being is lacking and existing appearance-related social comparison assessment is limited to comparison tendency using predefined social situations. This limits our understanding of the role of social comparison in appearance 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) to assess upward and downward social comparisons with regard to (a) frequency, (b) perceived discrepancy to the standard, and (c) engendered affective impact during the last 3 weeks. In one longitudinal and three cross-sectional studies (Ns = 500-1,121), we administered the SSC-A or SSC-W alongside measures of appearance social comparison, body satisfaction, self-concept, social rank, well-being, envy, rumination, depression, and anxiety. Confirmatory factor analyses supported the expected two-factor model representing upward and downward social comparison for both scales. Overall, upward comparison displayed the anticipated associations with the measured constructs, whereas downward comparison showed mostly small or nonsignificant correlations with the validators. The SSC-A and SSC-W are efficient measures of social comparison for appearance and well-being with good evidence for their reliability and validity in our samples.