Subjective Well-Being, Social Comparisons, and Social Networking Sites: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Peter Tang and Version 1 by Phillip Ozimek.

Social networks are gaining widespread popularity, with Instagram currently being the most intensively used network. On these platforms, users are continuously exposed to self-relevant information that fosters social comparisons.

  • Instagram
  • social networking sites (SNSs)
  • social comparison orientation
  • well-being

1. Introduction

Facebook, X, and Instagram collectively boast up to 2.7 billion active users per month; so-called social networking sites (SNSs) have been growing in popularity for two decades [1]. On SNSs, users create their own electronic profile and can interact with other users in a variety of ways. This results in new forms of interaction that have also aroused research interest [2]. Numerous studies have already elaborated on the motivation to use SNSs and observed both positive and negative effects of the use of SNSs [3,4,5,6,7][3][4][5][6][7]. SNSs are about people. Therefore, the use of SNSs is intrinsically linked to the elicitation of social comparisons. They are frequently triggered when users are confronted with information about another individual that is related to their self [8]. Such information is omnipresent on SNSs, which is why social networks provide such a powerful platform for the elicitation of social comparisons online.

2. Social Networking Sites (SNSs)

Ellison and Boyd [9] defined SNSs as networked communication platforms where users create uniquely identifiable profiles that may include their own content as well as content from other users. Diverse content can be both consumed and produced. Interactions with this user-generated content are also possible. In addition, connections to people published by users can be accessed and viewed by other users. In general, SNSs differ in their designs and functions. The most popular functions include sending private messages, liking posts, uploading one’s own photos, and interacting with posts from other users [1]. Options such as creating group chats, joining group pages, or creating events are also available on many SNSs. Depending on the available functions, SNSs can differ accordingly in persistence, connections, visibility, and editability [10]. In addition, each SNS has a different focus. For example, Instagram is an image-based social network, while X is predominantly text-based. The platform Facebook currently has the highest number of users, with over 2.7 billion monthly active users [1]. However, the most intensively used SNS is Instagram [3]. Instagram is characterized as an image-based SNS due to the fact that photos can be edited and shared on one’s own profile [11]. In addition, moments from everyday life can be shared, which are visible for 24 h on the so-called “story”. It is also possible to privately send photos, videos, and messages to other users. The number of monthly active Instagram users doubled from 2013 to 2018, so that Instagram now has around two billion active accounts [1]. This development also aroused research interest regarding Instagram, which caused a rise in scientific papers on the subject. Since SNSs offer a new type of communication and interaction due to the functions mentioned [2], more intensive research must be conducted in the future to determine what the offline behavior of users looks like, what the motivation for use is, and how this can be compared with online behavior. The described designs of SNSs require, among other things, that users are confronted with the posted content of other users, so that through this social information social comparisons automatically take place.

3. Social Comparisons

Festinger [12] postulated in his theory of social comparison that comparing the self with others is a basic human need. The standard of comparison are people that are perceived as similar in relevant dimensions such as performance, success, and health. The theory focuses primarily on the motivational reasons for comparison and indicates that despite the existence of objective standards, subjective information gained through social comparison still has an influence. These comparisons take place whenever information about other individuals is available [8]. Information about the self can be gained from those comparisons and self-evaluation occurs. From a systematic point of view, three different comparison directions are distinguishable, i.e., lateral, upward, and downward. Therefore, social comparisons refer either to similar, superior, or inferior others. These comparison processes can take place either consciously or unconsciously (cf., [13]). Individuals compare themselves to others to assess their own abilities or opinions in relation to the comparison person’s [14]. SNSs provide platforms on which social comparisons are enabled, as self-referential information is continuously presented and retrievable (cf., [8,15][8][15]). Instagram, as an image-based medium, provides quick and easy ways to access millions of profiles and use them to collect social comparison information, and allows people to present themselves [16,17,18][16][17][18]. Accordingly, Instagram can meet the basic needs for the social comparison described above. Sheldon and Bryant [7] generally identified four motives for using Instagram; in addition to photo or video documentation, creativity, and coolness, observing others is an important motive for use. According to Mussweiler et al. [8], social comparison automatically results from observing others. It has also already been shown for Facebook that the need to compare oneself functions as a relevant motive for use. Thus, in addition to the need for belonging and the need for self-presentation, the need to compare was added [14,15,19,20][14][15][19][20]. The Social Online Self-Regulation Theory (SOS-T [15]) embeds the motives for using SNSs in an overarching framework and considers SNSs as means for the purpose of self-regulation. Self-regulation describes a process by which one’s thoughts and actions are controlled to achieve positive and avoid negative end states [21]. This process is mostly unconscious and occurs mostly automatically [22]. It is assumed that people have motives in terms of higher-level goals, which in turn activate specific goals that can be achieved by different means [23,24][23][24]. The numerous opportunities for social comparison presented on SNSs are likely to influence users’ subjective well-being. For example, the inference of one’s own superiority is likely to enhance subjective well-being, whereas the inference of one’s own inferiority is likely to reduce subjective well-being.

4. Subjective Well-Being, Social Comparisons, and SNSs

In general, different results of social comparisons may arise. The construct of subjective well-being (SWB) turns out to be particularly important in this context. SWB constitutes a multidimensional construct which is divided into an affective and a cognitive component [25]. The affective component includes the positive and negative affect, whereas the cognitive component refers to life satisfaction and evaluation of the self. In this context, affect refers to a persistent state that manifests itself in short-term moods and emotions and is influenced by internal and external factors [26]. Life satisfaction refers to a comprehensive cognitive evaluation process of quality of life based on comparing one’s own situation with an adequate situational standard [27]. The Ourresearchers' approach is based on the tripartite model of happiness [28] which combines measures of life satisfaction, and positive and negative affect. In addition, wthe researchers included self-esteem as an indicator of subjective well-being which constitutes a positive characteristic of happy people and connects happiness with flourishing and positive mental health [29]. High self-esteem is defined as the positive evaluation of one’s own person and reflects positive thoughts toward the self (in contrast to negative thoughts toward the self [30]). In general, stable global self-esteem, as the overall evaluation of the self, is contrasted with the state of self-esteem, as momentary self-esteem varying depending on time and situation [31]. This research focusses on global self-esteem. In general, social comparisons elicited on SNSs tended to reduce subjective well-being [6,14,32,33,34,35,36,37,38][6][14][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. One possible explanation is that self-presentation on SNSs is excessively positive and idealized [39]. In effect, users frequently compare their real selves with the ideal selves of others, which may result in a feeling of inferiority. As a consequence, the elicitation of upward comparisons are likely to facilitate negative feelings [15,40,41][15][40][41]. Specifically, initial evidence has been found that social comparisons generated on Instagram have negative repercussions on well-being [17,18,42][17][18][42]. In agreement with these results, further studies, which were conducted recently, revealed a negative association between social comparisons on SNSs and subjective well-being [43,44][43][44]. This pattern of results was modified after taking the distinction between active and passive use of social media into account. Whereas active users communicate directly with others (e.g., posting comments, chatting, uploading content), passive users merely consume the content elaborated by others without interacting with them (e.g., reading comments, viewing profiles [45]). Taking this distinction into account, it became apparent that active use was associated with higher subjective well-being, while passive usage was associated with lower subjective well-being [46,47,48][46][47][48]. Another important distinction refers to ability- and opinion-oriented comparisons [41]. This distinction was originally introduced by Festinger [12] in his groundbreaking publication on social comparisons, who contrasted opinions and abilities by pointing out that opinions possess no objective basis of evaluation whereas abilities are measurable in terms of objective performance criteria. Festinger [12] postulated that social comparisons with others who are expected to be close to one’s own position result in stable evaluations of opinions and abilities. In addition, he postulated that abilities elicit a pursuit to become better, distinguishing them from opinions: a unidirectional upward orientation. In the same vein, Park and Baek [41] focused on the distinction between opinions and abilities in the context of upward and downward social comparisons. Following the Social Comparison-Based Emotions model [49], they distinguished between upward assimilative emotions (optimism, inspiration), upward contrastive emotions (envy, depression), downward assimilative emotions (worry, sympathy), and downward contrastive emotions (schadenfreude, pride). Specifically, their results indicated that a high ability-oriented social comparison orientation led to less subjective well-being based on upward comparisons (but not based on downward comparisons). In addition, a high opinion-oriented social comparison orientation led to more subjective well-being because of upward comparisons. Their research, which integrated several emotions, led to complex results. But a main path of influence was revealed from ability-based comparisons via envy/depression (positive association) to satisfaction with life (negative association). Therefore, ability comparisons considerably increased envy and depression, which in turn strongly reduced satisfaction with life. This path was much stronger than the other paths considered (e.g., opinion-based comparison via worry/sympathy (positive association) to satisfaction with life (positive association)).

References

  1. Statista. Umfrage zu den Genutzten Funktionen in Sozialen Netzwerken in Deutschland 2023. Welche der Folgenden Funktionen Nutzen Sie Zumindest Gelegentlich in Sozialen Netzwerken? 2023. Available online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/812503 (accessed on 28 August 2023).
  2. Wilson, R.E.; Gosling, S.D.; Graham, L.T. A Review of Facebook Research in the Social Sciences. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2012, 7, 203–220.
  3. Alhabash, S.; Ma, M. A Tale of Four Platforms: Motivations and Uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat Among College Students? Soc. Media Soc. 2017, 3, 205630511769154.
  4. Lee, E.; Lee, J.-A.; Moon, J.H.; Sung, Y. Pictures Speak Louder than Words: Motivations for Using Instagram. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 2015, 18, 552–556.
  5. Meier, A.; Schäfer, S. The Positive Side of Social Comparison on Social Network Sites: How Envy Can Drive Inspiration on Instagram. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 2018, 21, 411–417.
  6. Sagioglou, C.; Greitemeyer, T. Facebook’s emotional consequences: Why Facebook causes a decrease in mood and why people still use it. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 35, 359–363.
  7. Sheldon, P.; Bryant, K. Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and contextual age. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 58, 89–97.
  8. Mussweiler, T.; Rüter, K.; Epstude, K. The why, who, and how of social comparison: A social-cognition perspective. In Social Comparison and Social Psychology (S. 33–54); Guimond, S., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006.
  9. Ellison, N.B.; Boyd, D.M. Sociality through Social Network Sites; Dutton, W.H., Ed.; Bd. 1; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013.
  10. Treem, J.W.; Leonardi, P.M. Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association. SSRN Electron. J. 2012, 36.
  11. Instagram. Instagram Features. 2020. Available online: https://about.instagram.com/features (accessed on 28 August 2023).
  12. Festinger, L. A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Hum. Relat. 1954, 7, 117–140.
  13. Suls, J.; Martin, R.; Wheeler, L. Social Comparison: Why, With Whom, and With What Effect? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2002, 11, 159–163.
  14. Lee, S.Y. How do people compare themselves with others on social network sites? The case of Facebook. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 32, 253–260.
  15. Ozimek, P.; Förster, J. The Social Online-Self-Regulation-Theory: A review of self-regulation in social media. J. Media Psychol. 2021, 33, 181–190.
  16. de Vries, D.A.; Möller, A.M.; Wieringa, M.S.; Eigenraam, A.W.; Hamelink, K. Social Comparison as the Thief of Joy: Emotional Consequences of Viewing Strangers’ Instagram Posts. Media Psychol. 2018, 21, 222–245.
  17. Ozimek, P.; Lainas, S.; Bierhoff, H.W.; Rohmann, E. How photo editing in social media shapes self-perceived attractiveness and self-esteem via self-objectification and physical appearance comparisons. BMC Psychol. 2023, 11, 99.
  18. Stapleton, P.; Luiz, G.; Chatwin, H. Generation Validation: The Role of Social Comparison in Use of Instagram Among Emerging Adults. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 2017, 20, 142–149.
  19. Krämer, N.C.; Winter, S. Impression Management 2.0: The Relationship of Self-Esteem, Extraversion, Self-Efficacy, and Self-Presentation Within Social Networking Sites. J. Media Psychol. 2008, 20, 106–116.
  20. Nadkarni, A.; Hofmann, S.G. Why do people use Facebook? Personal. Individ. Differ. 2012, 52, 243–249.
  21. Carver, C.S.; Scheier, M.F. Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality–social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychol. Bull. 1982, 92, 111–135.
  22. Förster, J.; Jostmann, N.B. What Is Automatic Self-Regulation? Z. Psychol. 2012, 220, 147–156.
  23. Higgins, E.T. Activation: Accessibility, and salience. In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (S. 133–168); Kruglanski, A.W., Higgins, E.T., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
  24. Higgins, E.T. Beyond pleasure and pain. Am. Psychol. 1997, 52, 1280–1300.
  25. Diener, E. Subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 1984, 95, 542–575.
  26. Peters, U.H. Wörterbuch der Psychiatrie und medizinischen Psychologie; Bechtermünz: Eltville am Rhein, Germany, 1997.
  27. Diener, E.; Emmons, R.A.; Larsen, R.J.; Griffin, S. The Satisfaction With Life Scale. J. Personal. Assess. 1985, 49, 71–75.
  28. Lucas, R.E.; Diener, E. Personality and subjective well-being: Current issues and controversies. In APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology; Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P.R., Eds.; APA: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; Volume 4, pp. 577–599.
  29. Seligman, M.E.P. Flourish; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
  30. Rosenberg, M. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1965.
  31. Rudolph, A.; Schröder-Abé, M.; Schütz, A. I Like Myself, I Really Do (at Least Right Now): Development and Validation of a Brief and Revised (German-Language) Version of the State Self-Esteem Scale. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2018, 36, 196–206.
  32. Appel, H.; Gerlach, A.L.; Crusius, J. The interplay between Facebook use, social comparison, envy, and depression. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2016, 9, 44–49.
  33. Kross, E.; Verduyn, P.; Demiralp, E.; Park, J.; Lee, D.S.; Lin, N.; Shablack, H.; Jonides, J.; Ybarra, O. Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e69841.
  34. Ozimek, P.; Bierhoff, H.-W. Facebook use depending on age: The influence of social comparisons. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 271–279.
  35. Ozimek, P.; Bierhoff, H.-W. All my online-friends are better than me—Three studies about ability-based comparative social media use, self-esteem, and depressive tendencies. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2020, 39, 1110–1123.
  36. Steers, M.L.N.; Wickham, R.E.; Acitelli, L.K. Seeing everyone else’s highlight reels: How Facebook usage is linked to depressive symptoms. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2014, 33, 701.e731.
  37. Tandoc, E.C.; Ferrucci, P.; Duffy, M. Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students: Is facebooking depressing? Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 43, 139–146.
  38. Verduyn, P.; Lee, D.S.; Park, J.; Shablack, H.; Orvell, A.; Bayer, J.; Ybarra, O.; Jonides, J.; Kross, E. Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal evidence. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2015, 144, 480.
  39. Walther, J.B. Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations over Time. Organ. Sci. 1995, 6, 186–203.
  40. Gonzales, A.L.; Hancock, J.T. Mirror, Mirror on my Facebook Wall: Effects of Exposure to Facebook on Self-Esteem. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 2011, 14, 79–83.
  41. Park, S.Y.; Baek, Y.M. Two faces of social comparison on Facebook: The interplay between social comparison orientation, emotions, and psychological well-being. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 79, 83–93.
  42. Lup, K.; Trub, L.; Rosenthal, L. Instagram #Instasad?: Exploring Associations Among Instagram Use, Depressive Symptoms, Negative Social Comparison, and Strangers Followed. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 2015, 18, 247–252.
  43. Brailovskaia, J.; Ströse, F.; Schillack, H.; Margraf, J. Less Facebook use—More well-being and a healthier lifestyle? An experimental intervention study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 108, 106332.
  44. Brailovskaia, J.; Margraf, J. Decrease of well-being and increase of online media use: Cohort trends in German university freshmen between 2016 and 2019. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 290, 113110.
  45. Krasnova, H.; Wenninger, H.; Widjaja, T.; Buxmann, P. Envy on Facebook: A Hidden Threat to Users’ Life Satisfaction? In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Leipzig, Germany, 27 February–1 March 2013; pp. 1477–1491.
  46. Ozimek, P.; Brailovskaia, J.; Bierhoff, H.W. Active and passive behavior in social media: Validating the Social Media Activity Questionnaire (SMAQ). Telemat. Inform. Rep. 2023, 10, 100048.
  47. Verduyn, P.; Ybarra, O.; Résibois, M.; Jonides, J.; Kross, E. Do Social Network Sites Enhance or Undermine Subjective Well-Being? A Critical Review: Do Social Network Sites Enhance or Undermine Subjective Well-Being? Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 2017, 11, 274–302.
  48. Verduyn, P.; Gugushvili, N.; Kross, E. The impact of social network sites on mental health: Distinguishing active from passive use. World Psychiatry 2021, 20, 133.
  49. Smith, R.H. Assimilative and Contrastive Emotional Reactions to Upward and Downward Social Comparisons. In Handbook of Social Comparison (S. 173–200); Suls, J., Wheeler, L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback