A Theory of Social Comparison Processes

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first to expIain "pressures for conformity" from the logical relationship of conformity to certain interaction patterns known to be rewarding, i.e., perceived consensus, fulfillment of expectations, and influence; second, to show the relationships between the formulations of Festinger and Newcomb, and to partially integrate their analyses with the one presented here. A small-scale empirical study is presented which lends some confirmation to the logical analysis.The present analysis is presented as a more acceptable alternative to Festinger's derivation of pressures for conformity from a postulated "drive to evaluate one's opinions" and the empirical observation that those with similar opinions are used for comparison and evaluation of one's own opinions.1 According to Festinger, we try to reduce discrepancies in order to have similar opinions with which to compare our own. I n his analysis we create "conformity" (or approach it) in order to make comparisons. There are several difficulties in this hypothesis. First there is the difficulty of having to postulate a special drive from which to derive the pressures for conformity. Second, there are difficulties in avoiding tautological statements in determining how similar the opinion must be before the comparison can be made. More fundamentally, however, to this writer it is not satisfactory to postulate the making of comparisons as a drive-goal, as though the comparison itself were then drive reducing. Rather the present argument develops logic based on the point of view that we make comparisons and reduce discrepancies in order to achieve a state of relationships among interactors which is rewarding. This state is not postulated as rewarding simply because of the conformity of the interactors, but because conformity exists in situations which are rewarding on the basis of other factors logically related to conformity.As seen here, interactors do not work toward a state of conformity simply because conformity per se is rewarding. They work toward maximizing their rewards from interaction. If conformity can be shown * Revised and expanded version of paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, St. Louis, Mo., August, 1961. Appreciation is expressed to Robert M.Stokes for his assistance in collecting and processing the data.

Future directions for positive body image research

“…The two most relevant theories to social processing of environmental messages around appearance are Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954) and Schema Theory (Altabe & Thompson, 1996). Links between positive body image and social comparison behaviors need to be explored.…”

“Still the same and better off than others?”: social and temporal comparisons in old age

“…The motivational structure underlying social comparisons has been progressively elaborated since Festinger's (1954) early work, and especially research in naturalistic settings has proved that social comparisons serve several motives (e.g. Taylor 1983;Taylor et al 1995; for an overview see Buunk and Gibbons 2007).…”

The effect of digital alteration disclaimer labels on social comparison and body image: Instructions and individual differences

“…Thus, it seems plausible that disclaimer labels indicating digital alteration might encourage women to be more critical of the unrealistic thin ideal images presented in fashion magazines. Based on the logic that negative body image results from comparisons with unrealistic thin ideal media images (Festinger, 1954;Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & Tantleff-Dunn, 1999;Want, 2009), it is reasoned that a disclaimer label would highlight a model's appearance as unrealistic and inappropriate as a comparison target. The disclaimer label would thereby reduce social comparison on the basis of appearance, and thus preserve body satisfaction (Tiggemann, Slater, Bury, Hawkins, & Firth, 2013).…”