A double-edged sword? On the benefit, detriment, and net effect of dimensional comparison on self-concept.

Abstract

Dimensional comparison theory (DCT; Möller & Marsh, 2013) assumes that students compare their academic achievement intraindividually across domains to form domain-specific self-concepts. Upward dimensional comparisons are believed to lead to lower self-concepts in the worse-off domain, while downward dimensional comparisons should lead to higher self-concepts in the better-off domain. Furthermore, DCT assumes the net effect of upward and downward dimensional comparisons to be beneficial to the self. To test these assumptions, 3 experiments and 2 field studies were conducted investigating the relative effects of upward and downward dimensional comparisons as well as their net effect. In Studies 1 (N = 149), 2 (N = 150) and 3 (N = 300), participants were asked to infer self-concepts of fictitious students after receiving experimentally manipulated information about their achievements in 2 domains, whereas participants in Studies 4 (N = 2,268) and 5 (N = 20,662) assessed their own self-concepts in German and mathematics. In all studies, downward dimensional comparisons resulted in higher self-concepts, whereas upward dimensional comparisons led to lower self-concepts. The net effect of dimensional comparisons was always found to be not statistically different from zero. The findings therefore support the central prediction of DCT on the discreteness of the effects of upward and downward dimensional comparisons, yet do not support the assumed positivity of their net effect. Furthermore, results indicate the effect patterns to be rather universal as they were stable across different samples, domains, achievement situations, research designs, and types of assessment.

Dimensional comparisons: How academic track students’ achievements are related to their expectancy and value beliefs across multiple domains

“…In recent years, DCT has been shown to be a useful theoretical framework for stimulating a number of studies, the results of which have supported assumptions from the theory about the comparison processes that drive the formation of students' academic self-concepts (e.g., Jansen, Schroeders, Lüdtke, & Marsh, 2015;Marsh, Lüdtke, et al, 2015;Müller-Kalthoff et al, 2017). Important implications for theory, research, and practice have come from such studies.…”

Are dimensional comparisons performed unconsciously? An investigation of the internal/external frame of reference model using implicit self-concepts.

“…For example, this information can be helpful when making decisions that refer to multiple domains, as in the decision to choose certain courses at school or to apply for a certain job (e.g., Nagy, Trautwein, Baumert, Köller, & Garrett, 2006; Parker et al, 2012). In addition, findings from previous research suggest that dimensional comparisons are a suitable means for global mood enhancement (Möller & Husemann, 2006; Wolff, Helm, & Möller, 2018; but see Müller-Kalthoff, Jansen, et al, 2017).…”

Cross-cultural generalizability of social and dimensional comparison effects on reading, math, and science self-concepts for primary school students using the combined PIRLS and TIMSS data

“…Why is it important to incorporate multiple core subject domains to evaluate dimensional comparisons? Dimensional comparisons are a double-edged sword, since they lower the self-concept in the worse off domain while raising it in the better off domain (Möller & Marsh, 2013;Müller-Kalthoff et al, 2017). Thus, the consequence of dimensional comparisons is responsive to the standard selection processwhich dimension is chosen as the standard for a particular self-evaluation in a target domain.…”