Why do we compare ourselves to others?
Social comparison as a four-step sequence, from choosing a target to judging reach, and what research says makes a comparison useful.
Answer to the question
Why do we compare ourselves to others?
People compare themselves to others because other people are often the only available measure of ability and opinion. Social comparison runs in steps: choosing a target, testing similarity or difference, reading the result and judging whether the gap can be closed. A large meta-analysis found contrast effects dominate, while attainable success tends to inspire.
Key takeaways
- A meta-analysis of more than 60 years of studies found a strong preference for downward comparison targets, with upward choices increasing under threat (Gerber and colleagues).
- Thomas Mussweiler proposed that similarity testing typically produces assimilation and dissimilarity testing typically produces contrast.
- In the second meta-analysis, contrast effects dominated, strongest for ability estimates, and similarity priming produced only weak assimilation.
- Penelope Lockwood and Ziva Kunda proposed that a relevant star inspires when success looks attainable and deflates when it looks unattainable.
- Mel Robbins, in The Let Them Theory, sorts comparison by whether the attribute compared can be changed.
Social comparison runs in four steps, and most of them finish before anyone decides to measure up. A person picks someone to look at, tests that person against a private standard, takes away a higher or lower view of themselves, and then judges whether the gap can be closed. Each step has been studied on its own, and together they explain why we compare ourselves to others even when the other person is a stranger.
Why we compare ourselves to others, step by step
| Step | What happens | What the research found |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Choose a target | Someone becomes the yardstick | Downward targets are preferred, upward ones are sought under threat |
| 2. Test the match | Knowledge of likeness or difference comes to mind | Similarity testing tends towards assimilation, dissimilarity testing towards contrast |
| 3. Read the result | The view of the self moves | Contrast effects dominated, strongest for ability |
| 4. Judge the reach | The gap looks open or closed | Attainable success inspired, unattainable success deflated |
The table compresses a long literature, and the first thing it shows is that comparison is not one act. Social comparison is the name for using other people as a measure of oneself, a framework Leon Festinger set out in 1954 for opinions and abilities that have no objective yardstick. A runner without a stopwatch, a new employee without a pay scale and a parent without a milestone chart fall back on the same tool, which is whoever is nearby.
Social comparison is an act of measurement, and its output is a revised estimate of where the person stands. Someone who hears that a colleague finished a project in a week updates a belief about their own pace, whether or not they feel anything about the colleague. Each step can go one way or the other. That is why the same glance at a neighbour can motivate one person and deflate another, and why the answer to why we compare ourselves to others has to be told as a sequence and not as a single urge.
Picking a target and testing the match
Given a choice, people lean towards those doing worse. A meta-analysis led by Jonathan Gerber, covering more than 60 years of studies, found a strong preference for downward targets whenever both downward and upward options were on offer. The preference reversed under threat: when something about the self felt at risk, upward choices increased. When targets at the person's own level were available, choices spread less sharply between higher and lower.
Looking up is therefore a response to need and not a default in social comparison. Rebecca Collins proposed in 1996 that upward comparison supplies useful information, which would explain why people so often look at those ahead of them even though the view can deflate. Someone weighing a move into a new role studies the people already in it, and the choice of whom to study is already part of the answer.
A person can only pick from the targets in view, so a wider view widens the set of people who can become a yardstick. Wanting what a visible neighbour has, the subject of Why do we want what other people have, begins at this step, with the decision about whom to look at. By the time a possession or a title seems desirable, a target has already been selected, often without a decision.
Whether a social comparison lifts or lowers a person depends on what it brings to mind. Thomas Mussweiler proposed in 2003 that comparison runs on two kinds of testing. Similarity testing makes knowledge about how the person and the target are alike easy to retrieve. Dissimilarity testing makes knowledge about how they differ easy to retrieve. That knowledge then shapes the judgement that follows. Similarity testing typically produces assimilation, a self-view pulled towards the target, and dissimilarity testing typically produces contrast, a self-view pushed away from it.
The second meta-analysis from Gerber and colleagues looked at reactions to social comparison and shows which of the two prevailed across the studies. Contrast effects dominated, and they were strongest for estimates of ability. Priming people to notice dissimilarity produced contrast, while priming similarity produced only weak assimilation. In studies with control groups, upward and downward targets produced mostly contrastive effects of similar size, and the authors discuss the self-deflating nature of upward comparison.
In daily life a social comparison can go either way, and the same colleague can be a benchmark or a reminder of distance, depending on what the mind goes looking for. A shared first job is the kind of fact that similarity testing finds, and a gap in pace is the kind that dissimilarity testing finds. Because the testing step is quick and mostly unnoticed, the person usually experiences only its result, and the interpretation that follows meets other habits of self-judgement, such as the one described in What is the self-serving bias.
How reach decides whether a comparison helps
The last step of social comparison is the one most within a person's control, and it turns on relevance and reach. Penelope Lockwood and Ziva Kunda proposed in 1997 that a high achiever shapes someone's self-view mainly when the achiever's field matters to that person. Within that condition, a star whose success looks attainable provokes self-enhancement and inspiration, and a star whose success looks unattainable provokes self-deflation.
In practice the four steps suggest three questions to ask of any social comparison: who was chosen and why, what the mind went looking for, and whether the field matters to the person at all. Where it does not, Lockwood and Kunda found that the star left self-views unchanged, so letting that comparison go costs little. Where the field does matter and the gap can be closed, it can become a goal, the territory of What is goal-setting theory.
Mel Robbins draws a related line in The Let Them Theory, where she sorts comparison by what is being compared. Measuring oneself against fixed attributes, such as height or family history, she calls torture, and measuring oneself against anything a person can change she calls a teacher. It is a practical rule offered by the author and not a research finding, yet it asks the question that the laboratory result makes useful, which is whether the gap can be closed at all.
In the experiments, self-views were affected only when the star's field was relevant to the participant, and the lift went with two beliefs: that there was still time to reach comparable success, or that ability could improve over time.
Common questions
Why do we compare ourselves to others?
Because other people are often the only available measure of ability and opinion. Research describes a sequence of choosing a target, testing similarity or difference, reading the result and judging reach.
Do people prefer to compare upward or downward?
A meta-analysis of more than 60 years of studies found a strong preference for downward targets, with upward choices rising under threat.
Does comparison always lower how people see themselves?
No. Contrast effects dominated in the same meta-analysis, but a relevant star whose success looked attainable inspired participants in Lockwood and Kunda.
What makes a comparison useful?
Studies point to relevance and reach. A comparison inspired when the field mattered to the person and the gap looked closable, through time left or ability that could improve.
Sources
Robbins, M. The Let Them Theory. Seed book; vault hub Books/The Let Them Theory.
Gerber, J. P., Wheeler, L., & Suls, J. (2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 177-197. doi:10.1037/bul0000127 https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000127
Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110(3), 472-489. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.472 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.472
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91-103. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.91 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.91
Collins, R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 51-69. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.51 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.51