Which of the following is an example of someone making an UPWARD social comparison

Downward Comparisons

Another milestone in social comparison research came with the publication of Wills’ article on downward social comparison theory. According to the theory, people who compare with others who are thought to be faring worse experience an improvement in their mood (in other words, their subjective well-being increases). People who feel threatened should be most likely to engage in downward comparison, especially if there is no direct way to confront the source of the threat. If there is a direct way to deal with the stressor (instrumental coping), then this will be the first option. Downward social comparison is an emotional coping technique that can help one feel better in the short-term, although it is often not the best long-term strategy for dealing with a threat (see Coping entry). The threat need not be physical – threats to a person's ego will lead to the same motivation to compare with a less fortunate person. Wills proposed that people with low self-esteem should be more likely to engage in downward comparison than those with high self-esteem, as they are more likely to experience low levels of subjective well-being.

Wills maintained that self-enhancement through downward comparisons can be accomplished through either an active or passive process. The latter occurs when people learn about others who are worse off and then use that information as an opportunity to improve how they feel. With more active forms of downward comparison, the comparer can derogate the target or cause them physical harm, both of which will have the result of lowering the status of the target, and making them appear inferior. For instance, Wills suggested hostile forms of humor can be used to derogate a person or group of people. Putting others down, even in jest, serves to boost one's own status – in comparison. Another illustration of self-enhancing comparisons is when a teenage girl who is feeling insecure about her own appearance calls a classmate overweight and unattractive. Wills also noted that people are generally ambivalent about downward comparisons. On the one hand, they don't like to take joy in someone else's misfortune or be seen as gloating (this has been referred to as schadenfreude, or ‘joy from damage’). On the other hand, they realize it can have emotional benefits. Wills used the self-enhancement motive and the concept of active downward comparisons to explain a broad range of research, from prejudice to physical and verbal aggression.

Related to downward social comparisons is the notion of downward shifts put forth by Gibbons and colleagues. Whereas downward comparisons are usually motivated by a desire to enhance (damaged) self-esteem, downward shifts usually reflect a desire to protect threatened self-esteem. Downward shifts are more common, because true downward comparison with a person who is believed to be worse off may not always be feasible or desirable. This may be the case for the student who received the lowest grade in the class; there simply is not a classmate who is worse off to compare with. Other times, downward comparisons are unwanted because of the discomfort that arises. In these situations, when people are feeling threatened but either cannot or do not want to engage in true downward comparisons, there is a tendency to lower one's preferred target level. For instance, the aforementioned student will not want to compare with the best student in the class, but selects a classmate who is not quite as accomplished (a student who is doing okay rather than excellent). This downward shift has been demonstrated in a variety of situations, including health: people who are attempting to quit smoking and then relapse show decreasing interest in comparison with successful abstainers.

Social comparison

There are two types of social comparisons discussed in the research literature: upward comparisons and downward comparisons. Upward social comparisons involve comparing oneself to someone else that is perceived as “better”. In a social media context, this can look like scrolling past a picture of an influencer and thinking “this person is so much more pretty/athletic/wealthy/fun/happy etc. than I am”. In contrast, downward social comparisons involve comparing oneself to someone else perceived as “lesser” or “worse”. For example, this could look like reading a post about someone moving to a new house or apartment and thinking “my house is so much larger/more attractive/more expensive etc. than their house is”. Although both upward and downward comparisons take place on social media, research indicates that when individuals make upward social comparisons (perceiving someone else is “better”), their mental health may be negatively affected (McCarthy and Morina, 2020), especially as these harmful comparisons take place while on social media (e.g., Wang et al., 2020). Upward social comparisons are in part so prevalent on social media because social media primarily features individual's highlight reels. While most users are quick to post pictures with good lighting and filters, clean homes, perfect children and fun vacations, few are as eager to display their average days and dirty dishes (Tiggemann and Anderberg, 2020). Given these trends, it is no surprise that individuals on social media can leave their feed feeling that their own lives and relationships do not measure up, and thus negatively affecting their overall mental health.

4.2 Development of Proving and Improving Approaches to Self-Evaluation

Gendered approaches to evaluation appear to develop well before the college years. By middle childhood (when children can respond reliably to self-report surveys) and continuing through college, girls reported basing their academic self-efficacy beliefs on social feedback from parents, teachers, and peers far more than did boys. Boys based their self-efficacy almost entirely on their past attainments and perceived ability (for a review, Usher & Pajares, 2008). Usher and Pajares interpreted these results as evidence that boys develop more internal, autonomous standards for self-evaluation than girls. This is an oversimplification, however, because from an early age boys tend to be very responsive to another kind of social information—social comparison.

In a current project, we are asking children between the ages of four and nine to give an example of something they are good at, and succeed in, and something that they are not good at, and do not succeed in (Butler, 2012a). For each, we ask them how they know. By age five, more girls than boys spontaneously referred to social feedback (my teacher, parent, peers say I'm good or not good at the activity); more boys than girls cited social comparison ("I run faster than Adam"). Beginning at ages six to seven, boys, but not girls, showed an increasing preference for upward over downward social comparisons; they were more likely to say that they know they are good at something because they do better than others than they were to say that they are not good at something because they do worse (see Figure 1). Approaches that posit a universal tendency to self-enhance vis-à-vis valued domains and standards (Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003) might imply that girls will show a bias toward valued positive over negative social feedback. If young girls attend to both positive and critical social feedback, they should not show positive bias, however. The frequencies in Figure 2 show that girls were equally likely to cite social feedback as their source of knowledge about low and high competence. There was a weak tendency among the older boys to refer to positive more than negative feedback.

There is other evidence that young boys are more interested in social comparison and that sex differences in self-appraisals and strategies are made rather than born. Some years ago I asked children between the ages of four and eight to rate their performance on a tracing task after we showed them the work of another child who had traced either more or less of the path (Butler, 1998a). I also asked children why they evaluated their performance as they did. Among even the preschoolers, more boys than girls cited the social standard. Beginning in kindergarten, boys were more likely than girls to give a social comparison reason if they did better rather than worse than the other child or to refer to the social standard in a self-serving manner, for example, by saying that they did better than the superior other, “because his line is crooked.” Boys rated their performance higher than did girls; they also expressed more optimistic expectancies about their future performance. In an observational study of KI to Grade 4 classrooms, Frey and Ruble (1987) found that boys made more self-congratulatory and fewer self-critical spontaneous comments than girls; boys were also more likely than girls to denigrate and less likely to praise peers' work. Ruble, Eisenberg, and Higgins (1994) found that boys were more prone to self-other bias; given the same performance outcome, boys rated themselves more favorably and the other child less favorably than did girls.

Young children rarely cite progress as a standard for self-appraisal (Frey & Ruble, 1987), possibly because the understanding that comparison information is diagnostic for self-appraisal develops later for temporal than for social comparisons (Butler, 1998a). In another study, children at ages four to nine rated their performance and explained their rating in one of two conditions (Butler, 2012a). In the normative success-temporal failure (NS-TF) condition, they saw that they had traced more of the path than a peer, but less than on an earlier attempt. In the normative failure-temporal success (NF-TS) condition, they did worse than another child, but better than before. Looking first at the results for girls in Figure 3, as one would expect on developmental grounds, the number of girls who explicitly compared current with prior performance increased with age; older (but not younger) girls attended more to the temporal than the social standard. Importantly, girls were equally likely to base performance-appraisal on temporal comparison when they had done better than when they had done worse than before and were equally likely to cite an upward as a downward social comparison. The results for boys presented in Figure 4 were very different. Again, the youngest children attended mainly to the social standard in both conditions. By Grade 1, boys were far more likely to cite the more favorable standard and to make a gratifying downward social comparison in the NS-TF condition and a gratifying downward temporal comparison in the NF-TS condition. As a result, the sex difference favoring boys in performance-appraisal increased with age.

These results provide further confirmation of the early development of male proving. They also suggest that with age girls become increasingly interested in whether they are learning and improving. In another new study in our lab, middle school students worked on problems in which the aim was to pour a certain quantity from other jars to a target jar in as few moves as possible. Scores depended on the quality of the strategy, so it was possible to improve during the session. Students could choose whether to receive their overall percentile score, their scores on each problem in order of presentation, or no information. They also rated the degree to which normative and temporal information were each useful for evaluating their performance. As expected, girls rated temporal information as more diagnostic than normative information, whereas boys rated normative information as more diagnostic. Girls were more likely than boys to ask for their scores on problems over time, and were far less likely to choose to receive no information. Thus, by early adolescence girls were clearly more oriented to evaluating whether they had learned and improved. Furthermore, information-seeking was moderated dramatically by math self-concept among boys but not girls. Among boys who thought that they were good at math, most (70%) chose to receive their percentile score and none preferred to receive no information. In contrast, among boys who thought that they were not good at math, few (20%) chose to receive their percentile score and 40% preferred to receive no information.

So from an early age, boys and girls tend to be guided by different self-evaluative motives that orient them to different evaluative strategies and inferences. Motives for self-enhancement, veridical self-assessment, and self-improvement are themselves motivated, however, by what people are trying to achieve in a given situation, and in the classroom by their achievement goals for schoolwork (Butler, 2000).

Older Adults

It is something of a truism in the gerontology literature that when compared with other adults, older adults are apt to experience acquired disability as less traumatic. It is thought that this is because some sort of ill-health is expected or ‘on time’. Older adults generally have a positive body image, adjusting their expectations according to a peer reference group (e.g., “I am in good shape for a guy my age”). When disability occurs, downward social comparison also buffers body image concerns (e.g., “My stroke had minor effects compared to my neighbor’s stroke”). In as much as it broadly and accurately encapsulates the developmental frame for older adults experiencing disability, this observation also obscures the role of body image in the adjustment process.

Even when experienced as a ‘normal’, or at least an expected aspect of aging, acquired disability may also be experienced as enforcing cultural stereotypes of age-related inactivity, frailty, and asexuality. Anecdotally, many individuals report having ignored or been all but unaware of their own aging until a disabling event occurred. Faced with a new disability, such individuals may implicitly or explicitly accept most or all of the negative stereotypes associated with aging. Body image for these individuals may then shift from descriptors such as ‘healthy’, ‘strong’, and ‘athletic’ to ‘unhealthy’ and ‘weak’. Even for individuals with a more nuanced sense of their own aging, disabling events can be regarded as definitively ending important roles or activities in their lives, and often these roles are explicitly tied to aspects of body image. One’s roles as caregiver and sexual partner, for example, are apt to be explicitly linked to a sense of oneself as ‘strong’ and ‘attractive’.

Certainly, many older adults ably overcome or adjust to disabling events and their impact on body image. However, in this regard, the sense of disability as ‘on time’ may work against one’s willingness or ability to redefine oneself as cultural stereotypes, and genuinely limited life span may encourage passivity. Yet, as a counterpoint to this trend, many older adults experience such events as opportunities to adopt roles that emphasize wisdom, experience, and mentoring. Paralleling this trend toward a role as an ‘elder’ is a shift from a sense of self-dependence on body image to one that is linked to one’s standing in high priority relationships. In fact, it has been theorized that learning to value wisdom over physical powers is a healthy developmental change that begins at midlife.

Social Aspects of Self

From a very early age, we take into account what others think of us gauged by their reactions during our social encounters. The internalization of what we perceive others think of us is critical in our development of our sense of self. The social encounters per se vary in terms of the strength of our relationship, the context in which the encounter occurs, and the medium used as a vehicle for the encounter to take place. More often than not these are face-to-face with family, friends, significant others, and acquaintances. However, the social milieu is such that we receive messages about ourselves through the media, print, and the Internet.

The mass media is central to the development of cultural standards that impact body image. This comes about as individuals compare themselves to what they perceive the ideal presented in the media to be. Attitudes toward the aging body, particularly in Western cultures, are far from positive, with youthful appearance held as the ideal. It is clear that older adults cannot compare positively to this ideal and are likely to internalize a negative view of themselves and of other older adults. As such, we are both the recipients of negative evaluation from our own assessment of self and that of others and the perpetrators of the negative evaluation toward others.

Social comparison is therefore an important factor in our self-evaluation, with both upward and downward social comparisons a possibility. Upward social comparison refers to comparing ourselves with others who are better than us on the comparison point. For example, if we are concerned with success, we might compare ourselves to someone our age who has made it to the top in his or her career when we are struggling to achieve our next promotion. Downward social comparison, on the other hand, refers to comparing ourselves to those who are worse off than us on the comparison point. For example, if physical activity is something we value, we might compare ourselves to someone who is far more inactive than us. The results of the former level of social comparison are feelings of inadequacy, perhaps helplessness, and at times despair. The latter, on the other hand, is likely to leave a person feeling positive about themselves and the future, and confident in pursuing social relationships.

A significant social relationship in most people’s lives is the intimate relationship. We approach this armed with a sense of what we have to offer the relationship and what we hope to gain from it. This is traditionally seen as a task for adolescents who have attained a sense of self and are searching to share their identity in an intimate relationship. At first, appearance plays a significant role, but this tends to subside as other factors such as interests, personality, goals, and visions are exchanged. As the relationship develops, there emerges a sense of acceptance of the other for who they are, and a confidence in oneself.

With increases in the divorce rate across various ages, there are now more than ever before a greater number of older adults who are seeking intimate relationships. For both men and women, this can be a daunting experience. Once again they are faced with assessing what they have to offer and what it is they are expecting of the other person. Their reflections are likely to include cultural standards against which they compare themselves. Within a youth-oriented society, the outcome is grim. Older women, in this situation, are particularly at risk of being under undue pressure to alter their appearance to be more in line with the current ideal that equates youth with beauty and sexuality. Implicit in this ideal is that the older woman represents loss – loss of beauty and loss of sexuality. This is hardly an incentive to pursue a new relationship. Having lost the comfort of being in a long-term intimate relationship, which was defined by acceptance, it now seems that they are back to their adolescent years in which appearance once again dominates. Seeking an intimate relationship in older adulthood may be daunting enough for some to abandon the attempt, opting for the alternative of living the rest of one’s life alone.

A further demographic change that has occurred over the past few decades that has impacted the social aspect of aging is the increase in older adults in the workforce. From the perspective of government bodies, retaining adults beyond retiring age in the workforce is an economic necessity. The increase in life expectancy for both men and women coupled with a decrease in family size has led to what is called the graying of society. It has been predicted that in 2026 there will be more adults over the age of 65 than there will be children. The consequences are such that the economic structure in many countries may not be able to sustain the burden of caring for the older members of the society. Removing the compulsory retirement age is seen as an economic necessity and a breakdown of discriminatory and ageist practice. However, for the older worker, discriminatory practice may still be a reality in their social encounters in the workplace.

Although discrimination in the workforce due to age is not acceptable under equity and diversity regulations, the practice continues. Middle-aged adults have reported being discouraged from applying for positions because they were too old, or being denied a position subsequent to the interview stage, due to their age. Prohibiting any reference to age in job advertisements or in the interview may be positive steps to addressing age discrimination in the workforce, yet the message that one is too old need not be explicit to be sustained. Even for those remaining in the workforce, many have reported having career paths severed prematurely as a consequence of being older and perceived as being at the end of their working life. Such discrimination can be the cause of men and women entering retirement well before they are financially and emotionally prepared and can lead to poor body image and dissatisfaction with their body, which they perceive as having been instrumental in the ageist attitudes they experienced.

A poor sense of social self is largely a product of negative messages we receive in our social interactions. For the older adult, these messages are indicative of an ageist society that undermines the self-worth, self-esteem, and self-concept of the aging person, a consequence of which may be a negative impact on one’s psychological self.

Social Comparison Theory

Festinger believed that individuals were interested in accurate self-evaluation and that they had a preference for objective information about their standing on a particular dimension. He argued that individuals make subjective comparisons with other people around them only in the absence of objective information about norms and standards. However, there is evidence that subjective social comparisons occur even when objective information is available and are much more central to our everyday processing than Festinger imagined. Furthermore, Wood developed the original theory to account for evidence that individuals are motivated to engage in social comparisons not only for self-evaluation, but also for self-improvement and self-enhancement. The self-evaluation motive drives judgments about one’s ability or standing on a dimension, the self-improvement motive refers to attempts to learn how to improve or to be inspired to improve a particular attribute, and the self-enhancement motive reflects an individual’s attempts to maintain, protect, or enhance self-esteem.

There is a basic distinction in social comparison theory between upward and downward comparisons. Upward social comparisons describe comparisons between an individual and a comparison target that is considered superior on the dimension of interest. As these comparisons provide evidence that an individual is not as good as someone else, traditionally they were assumed to lead to negative self-evaluations. Downward social comparisons involve comparisons with a target that is considered inferior on the dimension of interest and provided evidence that an individual is better than others. Traditionally, downward comparisons were assumed to lead to positive self-evaluation. An individual’s choice of comparison target is related to the specific motivations for the comparison. Theoretically, downward comparisons are used when an individual wants to boost positive self-regard, for example, when they are under threat; if an individual is interested in self-evaluation, they make lateral comparisons with a target who is similar, just slightly better, or just slightly worse on the dimension of evaluation; and upward social comparisons are used for both self-evaluation and self-improvement.

There is substantial evidence to support the proposition that upward social comparisons are associated with increased negative affect and decreased self-esteem. Similarly, it has been demonstrated that downward comparisons occur when individuals are under threat and that these comparisons result in increased positive self-regard. However, depending on the way the comparison is construed, both upward and downward comparisons can either enhance or deflate self-evaluations, and both can lead to contrast or assimilation with the comparison target. The construal of a social comparison, in turn, is chiefly dependent on three factors: the similarity of the comparison target, the relevance of the dimension of comparison, and controllability of the dimension. The type of comparison made by an individual should serve their immediate motivations. However, evidence suggests that individuals have a general tendency to select self-enhancing comparisons that will maintain or boost their self-evaluations.

The ‘similarity hypothesis’ was central to Festinger’s original theory. It states that individuals prefer to make comparisons with similar others. Generally, research indicates that comparisons with targets that are close on a variety of dimensions, such as age, gender, or family ties, have a greater affective impact than comparisons with targets that are not so close on these dimensions. This means individuals avoid potentially damaging upward comparisons with targets that can be classed as dissimilar, for example, a teacher would avoid comparing their salary with a film star. However, a sense of similarity between an individual and the comparison target can also lead to assimilation effects, whereby an individual rates their own standing on a dimension as closer to the standing of the comparison target because they feel related to the target. In this case, upward comparisons can inflate, and downward comparisons deflate, positive self-regard.

If the comparison target is perceived as similar to the observer, then the relevance of the comparison dimension becomes important. Social comparisons will have psychological impact only if the domain of comparison is relevant to an individual. On a dimension of little relevance to an individual, comparison with a ‘better’ other does not pose a threat to the individual’s self-evaluation. This protects the individual from a negative outcome of upward comparison when the target is considered dissimilar. In fact, when the target is similar an upward comparison on an irrelevant dimension may lead to increased positive mood as the individual may ‘bask in the reflected glory’ of the similar target’s success even though the success is not on a personally relevant dimension. Interestingly, the relevance of the comparison dimension to an individual can also influence that individual’s perception of similarity to a comparison target. If a dimension is very central to an individual, there needs to be only a loose bond of identity with a comparison target, for example, being of the same gender, for a comparison to impact self-evaluation.

Finally, if the social comparison target is perceived as similar and the dimension of comparison is relevant, controllability of the dimension becomes important to the construal of the comparison. Controllability has different implications for upward and downward social comparisons. On a dimension that is seen as either generally or personally unchangeable, an upward comparison will result in lowered self-esteem and depression as the individual is inferior on this dimension and can do nothing about it. However, if an upward comparison concerns a dimension that is both generally and personally changeable, for example, fitness, the predicted outcome involves affiliation with and increased liking of the comparison target. Also, the individual will experience increased self-efficacy and engage in self-improvement efforts as they feel they can match this standard. Considering downward comparisons, if the comparison dimension is unchangeable, the outcome will be positive affect and enhanced self-esteem. The individual is superior on this dimension and feels confident that this superiority is unlikely to change. Yet, if the comparison dimension is changeable, a downward comparison can lead to depression and lowered self-efficacy as the individual feels vulnerable to getting worse on this changeable dimension.

In summary, the effects of upward and downward social comparisons are sensitive to a number of factors that determine the construal of the comparison. Upward comparisons can serve self-enhancement goals through assimilation and through instilling inspiration and hope for change. This means that both downward and upward comparisons can be chosen as a means to boost positive self-regard. Also, in specific circumstances, downward comparison can be negative, revealing not only that things could be worse, but also that things could get worse.

Dominant societal attitudes toward appearance have an impact on shaping the construal of appearance comparisons. According to the similarity hypotheses, individuals should avoid making comparisons with media ideals of attractiveness. However, society tells us that appearance is important and advertising messages tell us that these images present relevant and valuable comparison targets, and moreover that we can move closer to these appearance goals by consuming the products offered. Generally, dimensions of attractiveness concerning body size and shape are seen as changeable and controlling one’s appearance is considered an important personal responsibility. The ‘transformation story’ represents a particularly salient discourse in the media, describing personal success stories in which individuals drastically change their appearance. Most commonly, this involves changes in the size and shape of the body resulting from diet and exercise regimes. However, with the increasing prevalence of cosmetic surgery, these stories also involve the construction of new bodies. This is often at odds with individuals’ experiences. Many individuals do not feel that appearance or body size is controllable, due to genetic factors, health conditions, or time pressures, or that the appearance standards set are not personally achievable.

In Festinger’s original theory, social comparisons were considered conscious, effortful actions engaged in to inform self-evaluation. As Wood notes, there has been considerable emphasis placed on the choices people make when making comparisons and, as a consequence, the power of environmental factors to elicit comparisons has been underestimated. She argues that in some situations people are forced, rather than choose, to make social comparisons. Also, evidence from the social cognition literature led Daniel Gilbert and colleagues to propose that social comparisons are automatic and involve two steps. They argue that, initially, we make automatic comparisons with others around us whether we want to or not. Then, if we have sufficient cognitive resources available we engage in a process of ‘decomparing’ in order to undo any negative effects of the comparison. In this model, salience is still seen as driving comparison processes, as it is implausible that we make automatic comparisons on every dimension of self-evaluation with every target. However, other factors that influence the construal of a comparison are thought to operate in the second step. So considerations of similarity and controllability come after an initial comparison has been made to adjust the impact of the comparison. Therefore, if appearance is salient, an individual may automatically evaluate themselves negatively against a model they see in a magazine but then note all the reasons they should discount the relevance of this comparison. Consistent with this proposal, recent evidence demonstrates that social comparisons can occur outside conscious awareness. This has implications for interpreting much of the experimental research in relation to body image and appearance comparisons.

In summary, social comparisons processes are complex and numerous factors need to be taken into account when trying to predict or understand the outcome of comparisons. However, it is also clear that social comparisons are central to our everyday experiences and, therefore, will be pivotal to the development of body image through an individual’s life.

Psychological Mechanisms and Cognitive Biases That Influence Self-Perceptions

One way that aging women may attempt to evaluate themselves is by relying on social comparison and/or temporal comparison (ie, whether the evaluation of self improves or deteriorates over time) (Zell & Alicke, 2009). Aging women may engage in selectively evaluating with whom they compare themselves (Wood, 1989), a process of strategic comparison known as “downward social comparison” (Festinger, 1954).

Quotes from Famous, Positively Aging Women

I think it’s nice to age gracefully.

OK, you lose the youth, a certain stamina and dewy glow,

but what you gain on the inside as a human being is wonderful:

the wisdom, the acceptance and the peace of mind. It’s a fair exchange.

—Cherie Lunghi, Actress

Nature gives you the face you have at twenty;

it is up to you to merit the face you have at fifty.

—Coco Chanel, Fashion Designer

It is sad to grow old but nice to ripen.

—Brigitte Bardot, Actress

This evaluative process has been shown to be an adaptive strategy where people selectively choose to evaluate themselves against others who are in a worse position (eg, Taylor, Wood, & Lichtman, 1983). Researchers have demonstrated that downward social comparison can help protect the self-esteem of aging adults (eg, Kohn & Smith, 2003; Rickbaugh & Tomlinson-Keasey, 1997) and that social comparison (both upward and downward) has a considerable influence on the well-being of older women (Heidrich & Ryff, 1993) and helps to “maintain the illusion of youth” (Rodeheaver & Stohs, 1991). Frieswijk, Buunk, Steverink, and Slates (2004) reported that frail, older adults benefited the most from downward social comparison when they viewed the target as different from her/himself. In one study, Peck and Merighi (2007) found that social comparison accounted for a significant amount of variance associated with physical and mental health suggesting that social comparison plays a critical role in influencing longevity and decreasing depressive symptomatology.

Temporal comparison, may also play a role in how aging adults evaluate themselves and some researchers have argued that social comparison happens more frequently earlier in life while temporal comparisons take precedence in later life (eg, Suls & Mullen, 1984); however, research by Robinson-Whelen and Kiecolt-Glaser (1997) showed no difference in these strategies between “young-old” and “older-old” adults. Specifically, if comparing oneself to a younger version where things might be considered “better” or an older version where one might anticipate that things will be “worse” may cause older adults to make a negative assessment (eg, Suls, Marco, & Tobin, 1991).

Tips for Women’s Aging Well

Have a regular health checkup (physical, dental, mental).

Do not put limitations on yourself—explore hobbies and options.

Take care of yourself and “listen” to your body.

Apply your accumulated wisdom in life decision-making.

See yourself as a “work in progress.”

The role of “rosy retrospection,” a form of memory bias, may also play a role in allowing aging adults to maintain a positive self-concept in that they may focus on positive rather than negative memories when recounting the past (eg, Storm & Jobe, 2012). For example, in one study participants who were asked to reminisce about past accomplishments showed higher coping self-efficacy and less anxiety than groups who were not asked to reminisce (Rybarczyk & Auerback, 1990). Reis-Bergan, Gibbons, Gerrard, and Ybema (2000) concluded that older women who reminisced about the past had an influence on how they responded to (upward and downward) social comparison and this is especially true for women who reported being currently dissatisfied with the status of their life.

A person’s physical characteristics (gender, age, appearance) is the most obvious aspect of a person during an initial interaction and an abundant amount of research in Social Psychology offers many examples of people relying on physical appearance and concluding that “what is beautiful is good.” For instance, attractive individuals are believed to possess other socially desired characteristics (eg, interesting, sincere, and modest; Dion, Berschied, & Walster, 1972), known as the “halo effect of attractiveness” (Thorndike, 1920). Interestingly, even babies as young as two months old show a preference for attractive over unattractive faces (Langlois et al., 1987). Eagly and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis and demonstrated that physical attractiveness has the strongest influence on ratings of social competence (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991). Larose and Standing (1998) hypothesized that older adults would be less susceptible to the halo effect because “age should bring wisdom,” therefore reducing this judgmental bias; however, their study revealed that older adults were just as likely to make this judgmental error as younger adults. Zebrowitz and Franklin (2014) found results similar to Larose and Standing (1998) and extended their line of research to demonstrate that older adults also respond in a more stereotypical way to faces that are closer to their own age.

A influence of a person’s appearance has applied implications as well, namely that research has shown that appearance has been cited as one of the strongest influences of employee selection and some argue might be the newest form of discrimination, referred to as “lookism” (eg, Warhurst, van den Broek, Hall, & Nickson, 2009). In fact, some researchers have argued that women have the dubious distinction of being in “triple jeopardy” because they may be discriminated against because of their age and/or gender (“gendered ageism”) and/or physical appearance (“lookism”) (Granleese & Sayer, 2006).

Think About It!

Do you think the recent trend for advertisers to show “real” women (eg, Dove advertisements) in their ads will help alleviate body image issues for women? Why or why not?

Some questions to consider:

Can we empirically study this?

How would you design a study to assess the differences between “real” (or “everyday”) women and “supermodels”? What would be the independent variable? What would be the dependent (outcome) variable?

Is there a better way, other than an experimental design, to answer this question?

1.3 Self-regulation of unattainable goals

Given the impact of experiencing unattainable goals on a person's quality of life, the identification of adaptive self-regulation processes that can mitigate these negative consequences is of primary importance. To this end, different researchers have pointed to the possibility that adaptive goal adjustment processes, enacted when unattainable goals are encountered, can critically protect a person's quality of life (see moderation path in Fig. 1). These theoretical accounts assume that goal disengagement is an important process in the successful management of unattainable goals, and suggest a number of different self-regulation processes that could be associated with goal disengagement (Carver & Scheier, 1999; Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995; Wrosch, Scheier, Carver, et al., 2003). For example, it has been proposed that people can maintain their subjective well-being if they psychologically accommodate to the inability to reach a goal by flexibly adjusting to unattainable goals (Brandtstädter & Renner, 1990). In addition, people may protect their quality of life if they reprioritize certain goals by redefining an unattainable goal as not necessary for achieving a satisfied life (Sprangers & Schwartz, 1999) or accept a less stringent standard for the goal being pursued (Carver & Scheier, 1999).

Research from the motivational theory of lifespan development further suggests that people need to engage in certain self-protective, secondary control strategies in the context of goal failure. Such control strategies relate to downward social comparisons, self-protective attributions, or positive reappraisals, which can protect self-related perceptions and psychological well-being and foster disengagement by making it easier for a person to accept that a certain goal is out of reach (Heckhausen et al., 2010, 2019). Similarly, Folkman (1997) postulated that meaning-based coping processes can contribute to improved levels of emotional well-being among people who confront stressful situations that cannot be resolved. Such meaning-based coping tactics involve, among other things, a positive reframing of stressful encounters, which may help some people to adapt to the experience of goal-related constraints (Folkman, 1997).

In addition to pointing to the importance of goal disengagement, many of the latter theoretical accounts address the importance of goal reengagement when people cannot make progress toward a desired goal (Brandtstädter & Renner, 1990; Folkman, 1997; Heckhausen et al., 2010). From this perspective, people who confront an unattainable goal need to identify and pursue other, feasible goals. Note that these approaches further consider that goal disengagement may not only protect subjective well-being and physical health directly in the context of unattainable goals, but it also frees up resources that can be used elsewhere (Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, et al., 2003).

If the resources available to a person do get reallocated to the pursuit of an alternative and valued activity or goal, the person's life can continue with purpose. Such feelings could prevent the experience of the aimlessness associated with goal failure or lack of goal progress toward a particular goal, as well as contribute to an increase in the positivity of the person's emotional state (Carver & Scheier, 1999; Ryff, 1989). In this regard, the pursuit of new meaningful goals may promote a sense of coherence and feelings of control (Antonovsky, 1987; Kobasa, 1979; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). These ideas are consistent with action-phase models of motivation, which propose that the pursuit of new goals is associated with a change in focus of a person's thought content toward the newly adopted goal (e.g., after crossing the Rubicon, Gollwitzer, Heckhausen, & Steller, 1990; Heckhausen, 1999). As such, the engagement with new goals may shift negative thought content and attention away from an unattainable goal, which could reduce adverse psychological states associated with the inability to attain a desired goal (Wrosch, Scheier, & Miller, 2013).

Social Media

The widespread use of digital editing has expanded from public content such as advertisements and magazines to private use in personal social media accounts. One difference between social media images and images in magazines is the type of comparison targets that they contain. Thus while magazines generally feature images of models and celebrities, social media also features images of one’s peers (Hew, 2011). Like magazine images, Facebook images can also be “enhanced” before publication. A variety of computer programs and apps allow for endless manipulation of images to the point that the image the audience sees does not resemble the actual photograph. Techniques such as airbrushing can remove any flaws on a face or body. Regular people can now make their waists look smaller and their breasts look bigger.

The increasing use of social media and social networking sites (SNSs) also changed which components of appearance were salient during the appearance comparison process (Fardouly, Diedrichs, Vartanian, & Halliwell, 2015). While traditional media focus primarily on the body, social media focus more on portrait pictures (Haferkamp, Eimler, Papadakis, & Kruck, 2012). This provides opportunities for women to make face-, skin-, and hair-related comparisons (Fardouly et al., 2015). In fact, in a study with female participants from a university in the United Kingdom, Fardouly et al. (2015) found that Facebook exposure was associated with face-, hair-, and skin-related concerns but not weight-related body dissatisfaction.

The use of social media has been linked to increased social comparison and diminished self-esteem. Self-esteem refers to a person’s positive or negative evaluation of the self—that is, the extent to which an individual views the self as worthwhile and competent (Coopersmith, 1967). Vogel, Rose, Roberts, and Eckles (2014) did a study with undergraduate students to determine whether people who have greater exposure to upward social comparisons via SNSs have lower trait self-esteem. The results of their experimental study revealed that people who had the most chronic exposure to Facebook (i.e., used it most frequently) tended to have lower trait self-esteem. Moreover, the extent of upward social comparison on Facebook was greater than the extent of downward social comparison, and this extent of upward (but not downward) social comparison via Facebook significantly mediated the relationship between Facebook use and trait self-esteem.

Haferkamp et al. (2012) further explored self-presentation on SNSs in the context of gender. Their study found that women were more likely to use SNSs for comparing themselves with others and acquiring information, whereas men primarily used SNSs to look at other people’s profiles to find friends. Thus a study by Chua and Chang (2016) with high school girls from Singapore revealed that all participants encountered upward and downward comparisons depending on the peer being observed. The girls agreed that peer comparison was “stupid,” “unhealthy,” and “unnecessary” and viewed it as “not making sense.” Still, all the participants made remarks about how peer comparison can have unhealthy consequences and lead to unhealthy behaviors, including them going back and deleting social media photos with few likes due to “frustration or embarrassment” (Chua & Chang, 2016). Participants acknowledged that being visually perceived as the “best” on social media has become the norm and the only way to be “pretty enough” for peers. One’s number of followers is another status setter. In the Chua and Chang (2016) study, pride came with an increase in followers, and disappointment followed a decrease in followers. A girl’s status online and in her peer group was determined by likes and followers; lower numbers could cause the peer group to experience “anger, jealousy, inadequacy, and doubts about self-worth.” 38% of the girls perceived intense competition and would try to ignore likes and follows so that they could avoid paying attention to their peers’ beauty and popularity (Chua & Chang, 2016).

Haferkamp and Kramer (2011) investigated the effects of online profiles on SNSs in two studies. The first study found that participants had a more negative body image after being shown profile pictures of physically attractive individuals than those who had been shown profile pictures of less physically attractive individuals. The second study found that male participants who were shown profiles of more successful men reported a higher perceived divergence between their current career status and their ideal career status when compared with male participants who were shown profiles of less successful individuals.

Social media are visual and therefore most comparisons are in terms of physical appearance. Rutledge, Gillmor, and Gillen (2013) found that Facebook is more appealing to those who are concerned with their appearance, because it allows them to construct the image that they wish to portray to the public. Chou and Edge (2012), however, examined the impact of using social media on people’s perceptions of others’ lives. They found that those who used Facebook longer thought that others were happier and had better lives. This is due to availability heuristic. People make judgments about others based on other-generated descriptions, which can include comments left on someone’s social media account (Walther, Van Der Heide, & Kim, 2008). This phenomenon might be common on social media where users may not know all of their friends closely.

Instagram. Instagram has a lot of features that might encourage social comparisons. First, unlike other social media outlets that are more text based (e.g., Twitter), Instagram focuses only on images. The two most common types of images shared on Instagram are selfies and photos of friends (Hu, Manikonda, & Kambhampati, 2014; Ridgway & Clayton, 2016). These types of posts can explicitly communicate beauty, but they also encourage social comparisons.

Studies have examined social comparison processes on Instagram. Hendrickse, Arpan, Clayton, and Ridgway (2017) found that individuals who engaged in more appearance-related comparisons on Instagram reported experiencing a more intense drive toward thinness and greater body dissatisfaction. Ahadzadeh, Pahlevan Sharif, and Ong (2017) also found that Instagram usage was negatively associated with body satisfaction for college students, especially those with lower levels of self-esteem. A survey of female undergraduate students revealed that acute exposure to fitspiration images on Instagram led to increased body dissatisfaction and decreased self-esteem (Tiggemann & Zaccardo, 2015).

A popular trend that has emerged on the Internet in recent years is “fitspiration.” Fitspiration (a blending of the words “fitness” and “inspiration”) arose as an antidote to the trend of “thinspiration” (a blending of “thinness” and “inspiration”) (Ghaznavi & Taylor, 2015). Fitspiration consists of images and messages that purport to motivate people to exercise and pursue a healthier lifestyle (Abena, 2013), with a goal to encourage strength and female empowerment (Tiggemann & Zaccardo, 2015). However, studies have suggested that, just like thinspiration, fitspiration also promotes a homogenous body shape (tall, lean, toned, and “perfectly proportioned”), often contains guilt-inducing messages, and emphasizes dieting and restrictive eating (Boepple, Ata, Rum, & Thompson, 2016; Tiggemann & Zaccardo, 2016).

Most, if not all, previous studies have looked at appearance-related social comparisons. Sheldon and Wiegand (2018), however, did a study to explore how female college students use social media to compare themselves not only in terms of physical appearance but also school success, eating habits, exercise habits, happiness, intelligence, and popularity (see Table 4.2).

Table 4.2. Comparison to Female Friends on Social Media Items

Note: Bold is the highest mean.

From Sheldon, P., & Wiegand, A. (2018). Comparing ourselves to friends on social media: The role of body esteem and Instagram gratifications. In: Paper presented at the Alabama Communication Association conference.

Sheldon and Wiegand (2018) found that women who compare themselves to other women on social media tend to have a lower body esteem (see Table 4.3).

Table 4.3. Correlations Between Body Mass Index (BMI), Body Esteem, and Comparison to Friends on Social Media Items

Note: p stands for significance: *p<.05; **p<.01.

Comparisons to female friends also influenced how women used Instagram. Thus comparison in terms of popularity was the only comparison category significantly related to the number of Instagram followers—indicating again that Instagram is all about self-promotion. Another study (Marcus, 2015) found that, unlike other SNSs, Instagram is based more on one’s personal identity than their relational identity. Marcus (2015) analyzed the images that five individuals, ages 22–25, posted on Instagram and concluded that Instagram exists for people to self-promote—and, unlike Facebook, it does not focus on social relationships as much.

The study by Sheldon and Wiegand (2018) also found a positive relationship between socially interacting on Instagram and comparison in terms of popularity, physical appearance, body weight, and muscle tone. This reaffirms the common belief that Instagram is all about self-promotion and looks. Prior theories on the psychological development of emerging adults state that young adults tend to explore self-identity by seeking continuous approval from peers during the process (Arnett, 2004). This reflects the tenets of social comparison theory. In addition, those who make comparisons in terms of popularity, physical appearance, body weight, and muscle tone also engage in more frequent editing of their Instagram posts (Sheldon & Wiegand, 2018). This reveals how much effort one is putting into making sure they look as good as their friends and are as popular as them. It also reflects the tenets of social comparison theory.

2 Therapeutic Factors in Groups

Group psychotherapy is based on the Lewin's law of psychological change: ‘It is easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any of them separately’ (Lewin 1951, p. 228). But what aspects of the group promote positive change? A common-factors perspective on group therapy suggests that various types of group psychotherapies, despite their many differences, share some common properties, and these commonalities may be responsible for their effectiveness. A psychodynamic therapist uses different techniques than a cognitive-behavior or interpersonal therapist, but these various formats share mechanisms that promote change and sustain well-being. Yalom (1995) terms these shared qualities curative factors, and his list includes the installation of hope, universality, the imparting of information, altruism, the corrective recapitulation of the primary family group, the development of socializing techniques, imitative behavior, interpersonal learning, group cohesiveness, catharsis, and existential factors.