Social comparison theory

Social comparison theory explains how people evaluate their opinions and abilities by comparing themselves with others, especially when objective standards are unavailable.

Upward social comparison: Comparison with someone perceived as better in a relevant quality or achievement. It describes comparisons that can inspire improvement or lower self-evaluation.
Leon Festinger: An American social psychologist who proposed social comparison theory in 1954. His original account established the theory’s central questions about self-evaluation.
Social media and mental health: The study of associations between social media use and psychological well-being. Feeds expose people to curated comparison targets that can shape self-evaluation.
Social identity theory: A theory explaining how group memberships shape identity, attitudes, and intergroup behavior. It focuses on group-based identity, whereas social comparison theory centers on evaluating oneself against others.
Downward social comparison: Comparison with someone perceived as worse off in a relevant quality or achievement. It shows how comparing downward can protect self-esteem or provide reassurance.
A Theory of Social Comparison Processes: Leon Festinger’s 1954 paper introducing a theory of how people evaluate opinions and abilities. This paper is the theory’s foundational statement.
Body image: A person’s perceptions, thoughts, and feelings about their own body. Appearance comparisons are a major route through which social standards affect body judgments.
Self-categorization theory: A theory of how people classify themselves and others into social groups. It explains when group membership becomes salient, a process distinct from comparing personal ability.
Lateral comparison: Comparison with people perceived as similar in status, ability, or circumstances. Similarity often makes another person a more credible standard for self-evaluation.
Social comparison theory of 1954: Festinger’s original formulation, emphasizing evaluation through similar others and pressures toward uniformity. Its assumptions differ from later accounts that include self-enhancement and diverse comparison targets.

Linked from 28 pages