Habitual aversive and appetitive well-being comparisons in dysphoria: Introducing the Comparison Standards Scale for well-being.
Aversive comparisons
Comparison theory
Depression
Social comparison
Well-being
Journal
Journal of affective disorders
ISSN: 1573-2517
Titre abrégé: J Affect Disord
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7906073
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2023
01 02 2023
Historique:
received:
02
04
2022
revised:
19
07
2022
accepted:
06
11
2022
pubmed:
14
11
2022
medline:
7
12
2022
entrez:
13
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
People are constantly preoccupied with how they are doing compared to different standards. This preoccupation influences judgments of well-being, including depression. However, research on well-being comparisons is scarce, also due to a lack of a measure of multi-standard comparisons. Our research goals were twofold. First, we validated the Comparison Standards Scale for well-being (CSS-W). Second, by drawing on central propositions of the general comparative-processing model, we examined the association of habitual well-being comparisons, their perceived discrepancies with the standard, and engendered affect with depressive symptoms and psychological well-being in dysphoric participants (N = 500). The CSS-W assesses habitual social, temporal, counterfactual, and criteria-based upward and downward comparisons regarding their a) frequency, b) perceived discrepancy, and c) engendered affect. The findings confirmed the theoretically expected two-factor solution representing aversive (mostly upward) and appetitive (mostly downward) comparisons. Comparison frequency, discrepancy, and engendered affect were associated with depression and well-being. Yet, aversive comparisons displayed higher associations with the outcomes than appetitive comparisons. In particular, frequency of appetitive comparisons was not significantly correlated to depression. In line with our central theory-driven hypothesis, the relationship between frequency of aversive comparisons with depression was partially mediated by serial effects of comparison discrepancy and affect, whereas the relationship with well-being was fully mediated by comparison discrepancy and affect. The cross-sectional design of the study does not allow for conclusions of causal relations between the measured variables. The presented framework proves useful in examining significant comparison processes in well-being and depression.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
People are constantly preoccupied with how they are doing compared to different standards. This preoccupation influences judgments of well-being, including depression. However, research on well-being comparisons is scarce, also due to a lack of a measure of multi-standard comparisons.
METHODS
Our research goals were twofold. First, we validated the Comparison Standards Scale for well-being (CSS-W). Second, by drawing on central propositions of the general comparative-processing model, we examined the association of habitual well-being comparisons, their perceived discrepancies with the standard, and engendered affect with depressive symptoms and psychological well-being in dysphoric participants (N = 500). The CSS-W assesses habitual social, temporal, counterfactual, and criteria-based upward and downward comparisons regarding their a) frequency, b) perceived discrepancy, and c) engendered affect.
RESULTS
The findings confirmed the theoretically expected two-factor solution representing aversive (mostly upward) and appetitive (mostly downward) comparisons. Comparison frequency, discrepancy, and engendered affect were associated with depression and well-being. Yet, aversive comparisons displayed higher associations with the outcomes than appetitive comparisons. In particular, frequency of appetitive comparisons was not significantly correlated to depression. In line with our central theory-driven hypothesis, the relationship between frequency of aversive comparisons with depression was partially mediated by serial effects of comparison discrepancy and affect, whereas the relationship with well-being was fully mediated by comparison discrepancy and affect.
LIMITATIONS
The cross-sectional design of the study does not allow for conclusions of causal relations between the measured variables.
CONCLUSIONS
The presented framework proves useful in examining significant comparison processes in well-being and depression.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36372123
pii: S0165-0327(22)01259-9
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.11.012
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
132-140Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest None.