# The long-term effect of social comparison on academic performance #### (2010) Maike J. P. W. Wehrens, Hans Kuyper, Pieternel Dijkstra, Abraham P. Buunk, Margaretha P. C. Van Der Werf Link:: https://discovery.ebsco.com/c/u2yil2/viewer/html/mvhsthortv Related:: Tags:: #📜 [[We tend to socially compare ourselves to those in our immediate environment even when objective metrics are available]]. This is largely why the [[Big Fish Little Pond Effect]] exists. [[Generally, upward social comparisons enhance negative self affect and lower self-evaluation]] while [[Generally, downward social comparisons enhance positive affect and increase self-evaluations]]. Behaviorally, however, [[Upward social comparisons generally lead to improved performance over time]] where as [[Downward social comparisons generally lead to decreased performance over time]]. This is only true, however, if the students comparative evaluation is high because otherwise people don't believe they can reasonably reach the goals they set from that upward social comparison. In effect, goals people set and their comparative evaluation become a [[Self-fulfilling prophecy]]. In these upward and downward comparisons, the way that students compare themselves mattered. [[In social comparison individuals can identify or contrast themselves with their comparison target]]. [[Our self is more influenced by social comparisons with those we identify with]]. [[Student's influence from social comparison through their comparison choice and comparison evaluation may decrease over time]]. ### Abstract The present study was part of a large-scale cohort study among several thousand students in the Netherlands. The purpose of the study was to investigate the long-term effects of comparison choice, i.e., comparison with a target performing better or worse than oneself, and academic comparative evaluation, i.e., the extent to which one thinks one's performance is better or worse than that of others, on scores on standardized tests for reading comprehension and mathematics. While controlling for earlier performance, the results showed that both comparison choice and academic comparative evaluation positively predicted test scores over a period of 2 years. Moreover, it was found that the positive effect of comparison choice only applied to students with a favorable comparative evaluation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) # Annotations (10/17/2022, 9:19:51 AM) “Over 50 years ago Festinger (1954) proposed his theory of social comparison. This theory states that people have a fundamental desire to evaluate their opinions and abilities, and strive to have stable, accurate appraisals of themselves. Although according to Festinger, individuals prefer to evaluate themselves using objective and non-social standards, they will evaluate themselves by comparison with others when such objective information is unavailable.” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1158) Festinger's theory is accurate in that we tend to make lots of comparisons with other people to evaluate ourselves among the group but we often use comparisons with those in our immediate environment even when objective metrics are available. This was shown in Even when (Harris, Sparks, & Raats, 2002). “Marsh and colleagues reported the ‘‘Big-Fish-Little-Pond’’ effect (BFLPE, e.g., Marsh, 1991), i.e., the phenomenon that equally able students have lower academic self-concepts in schools or classes where the average achievement level is high than in schools or classes where the average achievement level is low.” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1158) “Students who compared themselves with a high-performing classmate obtained higher grades than students who compared themselves with a low-performing classmate, and students who had a favorable comparative evaluation obtained higher grades than students who had an unfavorable comparative evaluation. These results were replicated and extended by Huguet, Dumas, Monteil, and Genestoux (2001) who showed that students compared upward with classmates to whom they felt close and with whom they identified, and that this identification was more likely to occur when students perceived control over their standing relative to their comparison target. Comparison choice and academic comparative evaluation predicted grades only for cross-sectional relationships.” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1159) Students tend to compare themselves upward with those they felt close with and who they identified, their friends. It's important to note this predicted grades only cross sectionally meaning in the long run probably when the students no longer had that person to compare to, they had to change their comparison target. “In general, upward comparisons enhance negative affect and lower self-evaluations by reminding one that one is inferior (e.g., Salovey & Rodin, 1984; Wheeler et al., 1969). This effect has been found to be especially large when the frame of references is operationalized in terms of school- or class-average achievement (e.g., Marsh & Hau, 2003). Downward comparisons generally generate positive affect and boost self-evaluations (e.g., Wills, 1981).” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1159) “With regard to performance, i.e., behavioral consequences, the opposite is often thought to be true. That is, whereas upward comparisons enable individuals to improve their performance, downward comparisons are generally thought to be useless from the perspective of self-improvement (Wills, 1981).” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1159) Downward comparisons will generally improve affect and self-evaluations but won't lead to long term growth while upward comparisons will generally decrease affect and lower self-evaluations but is more likely to lead to academic growth. Upward social comparisons can be a double edged sword. “Individuals may contrast themselves with the comparison target (i.e., focus on the differences between themselves and the target) or they may assimilate with the comparison target (i.e., focus on the similarities between themselves and the comparison target). For instance, when students compare upwards and contrast themselves with the comparison target, they may experience negative affect and feel inferior, whereas, when they identify with a better performing other, they may feel inspired to perform better in the future. Conversely, when students compare downwards and contrast themselves, they may feel superior and experience positive affect, whereas, when they identify with a worse-off other, they may feel depressed and uninspired.” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1159) This reminds me of Wehrens et al. (2010) where they found that students with a high empathetic response could increase their reading comprehension grades through upward comparison as they could imagine themselves being in the position of the person who did very well (e.g., Lockwood, 2002; Lockwood & Kunda, 1997) “Blanton et al. (1999) pointed out several reasons why an upward comparison choice can be expected to be positively associated to future academic performance. First, observing someone who is competent at a task can reveal useful information about how to improve (e.g., Buunk & Ybema, 1997; Taylor & Lobel, 1989). Second, seeing someone succeed may endow oneself with a sense of own potential (e.g., Buunk et al., 1990; Lockwood & Kunda, 1997; Major, Testa, & Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1158–1171 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp Long-term effect of social comparison 115” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1159) “Bylsma, 1991), which can raise self-confidence and feelings of self-efficacy at the task. Also, identification with a better performing target can lead to imitation of the target’s actions (e.g., Schunk, 1987), and fourth, seeing others performing better may lead people to set higher personal standards for evaluating their own performance, which can motivate efforts toward these new and more challenging goals (Seta, 1982).” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1160) This reminds me of the concept of imitation being one of the best ways to get better at something. We used to imitate lots in history with apprenticeships and the such but do so much less now. “A study by Matz and Hinsz (2000) showed that participants often rated themselves as above average in ability, set higher performance goals for themselves than for other participants in the study, and had more confidence in their own ability to attain their goals than in the ability of the other participants.” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1160) We tend to overestimate our ability to pursue or goals and get good grades. This reminds me of how we underestimate our levels of sociableness compared to others from Gilovich. “Huguet et al. (2001) investigated whether the influence of comparison choice and comparative evaluation on grades decreased with time by testing these relationships cross-sectionally at the end of both the second and third trimesters of the first year at high-school. They found lower sizes of the regression coefficients for the cross-sectional relationships at the end of the third trimester than for the crosssectional relationships at the end of the second trimester, indicating that the influence of comparison choice and comparative evaluation may decrease with time.” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1160) This indicates that our tendency to socially compare ourselves to others probably decreases over time as our self-concept becomes more ingrained. In effect, we will be more prone to compare ourselves socially during the freshman year of High school and Freshman semester of College. But as this study shows, the social comparisons we make in one year can still have effects up to two years later. “Although a causal relationship is likely to exist and previous research has shown the academic selfconcept, including comparative evaluations of achievement, and social comparisons to be reciprocally related (e.g., Marsh & Craven, 2006; Valentine, Dubois, & Cooper, 2004), our data are correlational in nature and can, therefore, not provide hard evidence for a causal relationship. We can, therefore, only conclude that the more upward or the less downward students compared themselves, the higher their academic performance was 2 years later, as indicated by their test scores for reading comprehension and mathematics.” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1168) “Note that a positive parameter value of comparison choice can be found even when all the participants choose a downward comparison target and can be interpreted in that case as that less downward comparisons are predictive of higher own scores 2 years later. Having made this point, we continue writing ‘‘comparing upward,’’ where in fact ‘‘comparing more upward or less downward’’ would be more appropriate.” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1168) In other words, the less downward someone compares themselves to another student the better predictor of higher scores in academic performance up to two years later as well as the more upward. “In addition, we found that, the more favorable students’ comparative evaluation was, the higher their academic performance. Interestingly, however, we found that comparing upward was only beneficial for students with a favorable comparative evaluation. This may be interpreted as follows: Comparing upward can be considered a way of setting challenging goals. Of course, for these goals to seem realistic and attainable it is very important to believe in one’s own capacity to perform at that higher level.” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1168) Comparing upward and setting challenging goals is only useful in increasing academic performance so far as you believe you are capable of achieving those challenging goals. “This implies that encouraging students who make unfavorable comparative evaluations to make more favorable ones may create a ‘‘self-fulfilling prophecy.’” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1168) The story you tell yourself is so important to determining how you feel about something and how you will subsequently act in the future. This reminds me of the note that our judgements of events hurt us rather than the events themselves. “we have shown that the choices of classmates for comparison and comparative evaluations may have long-term consequences for students’ academic performance.” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1169) While we don't know why social comparisons made during one year can have effects even two years later, they do. “students with favorable comparison evaluations who make unfavorable comparison choices—less upward and/or more downward—may benefit from learning how to make more favorable comparative choices, i.e., more upward and/or less downward.” (Wehrens et al., 2010, p. 1169)