Methods to Assess Social Comparison Processes Within Persons in Daily Life: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Self-evaluations relative to others (i.e., social comparisons) have well-established implications for health and well-being, and are typically assessed via global, retrospective self-report. Yet, comparison is inherently a dynamic, within-person process; comparisons occur at different times, on a range of dimensions, with consequences that can vary by context. Global, retrospective assessment forces aggregation across contexts and reduces ecological validity, limiting its utility for informing a nuanced understanding of comparisons in daily life. Research across social and clinical psychology has implemented methods to assess comparisons naturalistically, involving intensive, repeated assessments of comparison occurrence, characteristics, and consequences in everyday life (via ecological momentary assessment or daily diaries). Although promising, this work to date lacks an overarching conceptual framework for guiding decisions about assessment design and implementation. To address this gap, the aims of this scoping review were: (1) to summarize available literature on within-person naturalistic assessment of social comparison, and (2) to provide a set of key considerations to inform future social comparison research using within-person naturalistic assessment. Searches in PubMed, PsycInfo, and CINAHL identified relevant articles published before June 2019. Articles were included if they described at least 3 comparison assessments within each participant, taken in the natural environment, and spaced no more than ∼24 h apart (i.e., repeated momentary or daily assessment). In articles meeting these criteria (33 unique studies across 36 published papers), we summarized aspects of the comparison assessment, including recording methods, direction (e.g., upward, downward), target (e.g., friend, stranger), and dimension (e.g., status, appearance). Most studies assessed appearance comparisons (vs. other comparison dimensions) and collected information in response to signals (rather than initiated by participants). However, there was considerable heterogeneity in the number of assessments, assessment periods, recording modalities, and comparison predictors and outcomes assessed. Findings Arigo et al. Intensive Assessment of Social Comparison broadly establish heterogeneity in the aspects of comparison considered critical for within-person naturalistic assessment. We describe key decision points for future work to help advance within-person naturalistic assessment methods and improve the utility of such approaches to inform research, theory, and intervention.

Rationale and Design of the Women’s Health And Daily Experiences Project: Protocol for an Ecological Momentary Assessment Study to Identify Real-Time Predictors of Midlife Women’s Physical Activity

“…Those who report one or more comparisons are asked what aspect or aspects of the self they compared (eg, appearance, health habits, abilities, etc) and the direction or directions of their comparisons (if they perceived the target to be upward, lateral [same as the self], or downward). Participants are also asked to provide these details about their most recent comparison before completing the survey, with additional items related to identification or contrast processes and affective response to the comparison ( Textbox 1 ) [ 70 , 132 , 133 ].…”

“…Social comparisons, or self-evaluations relative to others, represent an additional facet of social perception that may influence PA among midlife women. Comparisons with others are common in daily life and can be made across a range of domains (eg, appearance, wealth, work performance, health behaviors) and communication modes (eg, in person, via phone, via a social media platform) [ 70 ]. Social comparisons can have stronger effects on self-concept and behavior than comparisons with objective standards [ 71 , 72 ], and reported engagement in comparison shows both cross-sectional and prospective relations with health outcomes [ 35 , 73 , 74 ].…”

“…Recent evidence shows that when assessed repeatedly over hours and days, both PA and each of the psychosocial experiences described above (body satisfaction, social interactions, social comparisons, and mood state) can vary considerably within the same person [ 50 , 70 , 106 , 107 ], and relations at the between-person level may not translate to the within-person level. For example, a stronger (vs weaker) between-person tendency to make upward comparisons is associated with greater engagement in PA [ 108 ], although experiencing an upward comparison may be associated with less PA in the short term (if an individual engages in upward contrast) [ 75 , 109 ].…”

Operationalizing Behavior Change Theory as Part of Persuasive Technology: A Scoping Review on Social Comparison

“…Subsequent research has broadened the understanding of the complex nature of comparing oneself to others and expanded the list of socalled "comparison dimensions" including contemporary factors such as accomplishments, possessions, and feelings (Gibbons and Buunk, 1999). The effect of social comparison depends on several contextual factors including the type of "comparison target" (e.g., friend or stranger); the "comparison dimension" (e.g., income or social status); and the "comparison direction" (Arigo et al, 2019). Research furthermore indicates that this comparison directionincluding upward (comparing one's situation to someone who is perceived to be superior), lateral (comparing one's situation to someone who is perceived to be on the same level), and downward (comparing one's situation to someone who is perceived to be worse)-has a significant influence on the effect of social comparison (Corcoran et al, 2020;Wayment et al, 2020).…”

“…Research furthermore indicates that this comparison directionincluding upward (comparing one's situation to someone who is perceived to be superior), lateral (comparing one's situation to someone who is perceived to be on the same level), and downward (comparing one's situation to someone who is perceived to be worse)-has a significant influence on the effect of social comparison (Corcoran et al, 2020;Wayment et al, 2020). Additional contextual factors include the "perceived similarity" with the target which allows to either identify or contrast oneself with the target as well as the "comparison mode" (e.g., online or in person) (Arigo et al, 2019). There are different definitions of social comparison and what it entails.…”