Habitual aversive and appetitive well-being comparisons in dysphoria: Introducing the Comparison Standards Scale for...

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.