Research has highlighted the role of social comparison processes in varying affect and psychological wellbeing. These processes can provide greater insight into cognitions and behaviours related to depression and anxiety disorders. This review aimed to examine the relationship of social comparison with depression and anxiety in clinically relevant samples, using a process-based approach. Studies of clinical and subclinical populations that utilized observational or experimental social comparison assessment were considered for review. A systematic literature search in Medline and PsycInfo databases produced 54 relevant studies (49 studies on adults and five on child and adolescent populations), 14 of which were suitable for a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis of the association of social comparison evaluation with depression and anxiety in clinical populations revealed weighted correlations of −0.53 and − 0.39, respectively. No subclinical studies were included in a meta-analysis due to a lack of comparable outcomes. Evidence suggests differences between depression and anxiety disorders in information seeking, where frequency and diversity of social comparisons vary; however, studies comparing disorders are lacking. Heterogeneity of experimental studies precluded inclusion in a meta-analysis. A narrative review of experimental data indicated depression and anxiety status is related to reactions to upward comparisons in the domains of affect and behaviour, where individual differences in evaluation can determine affective reactions and how comparison information is further sought. This review suggests social comparison has a significant association with depression and anxiety. However, the limited number of studies with clinical populations necessitates further research on social comparison processes in clinical samples.

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.

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.

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.