Social Comparison Processes in Social Phobia Martin M. Antony, Karen Rowa, Andrea Liss St. Joseph's Healthcare and McMaster University Stephen R. Swallow, Private Practice, Oakville, Ontario Richard R Swinson, St. Joseph's Healthcare and IVlcMasterUniversity
This study used diaries to investigate social comparison processes in 59 individuals with social phobia (SP) and 58 nonclinical controls. Although groups did not differ on the
total number of comparisons made during the 2-week study period, those with SP made significantly more upward comparisons (i.e., comparisons where the individual assesses him- or herself as not measuring up to others) and significantly fewer downward comparisons (i.e., comparisons where the individual assesses him- or herself as superior to others) relative to controls. SP was also associated with comparisons on a greater number of dimensions or attributes and more comparisons on particular dimensions. Those in the SP group tended to experience greater changes in affect following social comparisons than those in the comparison group. For example, upward comparisons tended to lead to increased anxiety and depression, partic-
ularly for the socially anxious participants. Implications for these findings are discussed.
SOCIAL PHOBIA (SP) is associated with an extreme and persistent fear of social or performance situations in which an individual might be exposed to scrutiny from others (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Examples of situations feared by individuals with SP include meeting new people, conversations, public speaking, parties, and other social situations in which a person might feel embarrassed or humiliated. Cognitive formulations of SP (e.g., Clark & Wells, 1995; Rapee & Heimberg, 1997) assign a central role to negative selfevaluations in the maintenance of the interpersonal This study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Martin M. Antony, Principal Investigator). The authors thank Allison Wagg for her assistance with the preparation of this manuscript. Address correspondence to Martin M. Antony, Ph.D., Anxiety Treatment and Research Centre, 6th Floor, Fontbonne Building, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, 50 Charlton Ave. East Hamilton, ON L8N 4A6 Canada; e-mail:
[email protected]. BEHAVIORTHERAPY36, 65--75, 2005 005-7894/05/0065-007551.00/0
Copyright 2005 by Associationfor Advancementof BehaviorTherapy All rights for reproductionin any form reserved.
discomfort experienced by socially anxious individuals. These negative beliefs about oneself can manifest as concerns about being evaluated negatively by others or, alternatively, may emerge in the form of self-critical thoughts related to themes of personal inadequacy, incompetence, unattractiveness, and inferiority, particularly in the presence of others (Norton & Hope, 2001; Rapee & Lim, 1992; Stopa & Clark, 1993; Strahan & Conger, 1998; Wallace & Alden, 1995). Indeed, the relationship between SP and negative self-appraisal appears to be extremely robust, emerging in a wide range of studies, conducted in different settings and with different populations. Taken together, a growing body of research now points to an association between SP and negative self-appraisal. Somewhat less clear is the nature of the social cognitive mechanisms involved in mediating this association. One such putative mechanism relates to social comparison. Comparisons between oneself and others represent a foundational source of self-evaluative information--particularly in the absence of objective evaluative criteria (Festinger, 1954). Furthermore, research has shown that social comparison is a ubiquitous feature of social relating, both between individuals (Wood, 1989) and between groups (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1994). As such, it seems reasonable to consider the potential involvement of social comparison processes in the negative self-appraisals characteristic of socially anxious people. The notion that social comparison processes may be involved in the tendency to evaluate oneself negatively is not new. The last decade has witnessed considerable interest in the link between negative self-appraisal and social comparison. However, this interest has focused almost exclusively on individuals experiencing dysphoric or depressed mood (for a review, see Wood & Lockwood, 1999), with evidence that social comparison processes may serve to maintain or even exacerbate the negative self-appraisals associated with dysphoric mood (e.g., Swallow & Kuiper, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993). Because of their potential relevance to the
66
ANTONY
present study, we will briefly review the findings on social comparison and low mood. More detailed reviews are available elsewhere (e.g., Ahrens & Alloy, 1997; Suls & Wheeler, 2000). Research on the relationship between the motivation for social comparison and low mood (e.g., dysphoria, low self-esteem) has yielded inconsistent results (for a review, see Collins, 1996). Whereas some studies find that individuals who are dysphoric or have low self-esteem report greater motivation to engage in social comparison behavior (e.g., Heidrich & Ryff, 1993; Swallow & Kuiper, 1990), other studies, based on monitoring with a naturalistic diary procedure, have found that dysphoric individuals make fewer social comparisons than nondysphoric individuals (Giordano & Wood, 2002; Giordano, Wood, & Michela, 2000). Experts disagree about the potential relationship between one's view of oneself and the types of social comparison behavior used by an individual. For example, Wills (1981) hypothesized that individuals with low self-esteem might be more likely to engage in downward social comparisons (i.e., comparing oneself with others who are perceived as worse off on a particular dimension) in order to boost their self-esteem. In contrast, Swallow and Kuiper (1988) have theorized that upward social comparisons (i.e., social comparisons with others who are perceived as better on a particular dimension) may lead to, or maintain, negative selfviews, suggesting that perhaps depressed individuals engage more frequently in upward social comparisons. Findings from studies support both these views (e.g., DeVellis et al., 1990; Gibbons, 1986; Swallow & Kuiper, 1993; Wheeler & Miyake, 1992). A number of studies have examined the effects of social comparison behavior on subsequent depressive affect. In general, individuals report an improvement in affect following downward comparisons and a worsening in affect following upward comparisons (Ahrens & Alloy, 1997; Wheeler & Miyake, 1992). The improvement in affect following downward comparisons may be particularly marked for individuals who are dysphoric, or who were unhappy before the comparison (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1993; Gibbons, 1986; Gibbons & Gerrard, 1989; Gibbons & McCoy, 1991; Giordano & Wood, 2002; cf. Lyubomorsky & Ross, 1997). In addition, dysphoric individuals (Giordano et al., 2000), neurotic individuals (Olson & Evans, 1999), and individuals with low self-esteem (Gibbons & Gerrard, 1989; Wheeler & Miyake, 1992) may be particularly disheartened following upward social comparisons.
ET
AL.
There are several reasons to study the relationship between social comparison processes and SP. First, social anxiety shares many features with depression and dysphoric mood, which, as reviewed earlier, seem to be related to social comparison processes. For example, SP and depression often co-occur in the same individuals (Brown, Campbell, Lehman, Grisham, & Mancill, 2001; Zimmerman, Chelminski, & McDermut, 2002). SP and depression also share cognitive features, including a tendency to experience negative selfevaluative thoughts (Clark, Beck, & Alford, 1999; Cox et al., 2000; Stopa & Clark, 1993) and perfectionistic thinking (Antony, Purdon, Huta, & Swinson, 1998; Brown & Beck, 2002). A second reason to study the relationship between social comparison and SP is the fact that social anxiety is associated with excessive concern about how one is being evaluated by others, as well as a tendency to evaluate oneself negatively (Clark & Wells, 1995; Rapee & Heimberg, 1997). Because of this concern, socially anxious individuals might be expected to engage in more frequent social comparisons (and perhaps different types of social comparisons) than people who are less concerned about negative evaluation from others. In addition, social anxiety tends to be associated with biases to attend selectively to information that is consistent with this negative view. Winton, Clark, and Edelmann (1995) found that social anxiety is associated with a bias to view other people's emotional expressions as negative. Similarly, people who are high in social anxiety seem to attend selectively to social-evaluative threat cues in studies of information processing (e.g., Asmundson & Stein, 1994). Moreover, people high in social anxiety tend to underestimate the quality of their performance (Stopa & Clark, 1993) and appear to show a positive bias when appraising the performance of others (Alden & Wallace, 1995). Although few, if any, studies have systematically investigated the relationship between social anxiety and social comparison, a study by Mahone, Bruch, and Heimberg (1993) touched on the topic. In this study, a thought-listing paradigm was used to study the effect of negative self-thoughts and perceptions of a partner's positive attributes on subsequent anxiety. After controlling for negative self-thoughts, perceived positive attributes in the partner were related to heightened behavioral signs of anxiety. It is likely that these perceptions arose from some sort of comparison made by participants. This finding is consistent with the notion that social comparison may contribute to anxiety in people who are socially anxious. The present study used methods similar to Wheeler
SOCIAL
COMPARISON
and Miyake (1992), a seminal paper investigating naturalistic social comparisons, to examine the relationship between social anxiety and social comparison processes in participants' day-to-day lives. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first to examine in detail social comparison processes in SP, representing a natural extension of the previous work on social comparison and dysphoria highlighted earlier. In the current study, participants with or without SP completed diaries over a 2week period each time they engaged in a social comparison. In addition to providing a measure of social comparison frequency, the diaries provided data regarding the types of comparison, the dimensions being compared, the comparison target, the direction of the comparison, and the effect of the comparison on depression, anxiety, and other affective states. The very fact that people with SP believe that they come up short in social interactions may influence their impressions of whether a given comparison is in the upward or downward direction. Unfortunately, in a naturalistic study it is necessary to define upward or downward comparisons in the context of the perceived outcome of the comparison. Indeed, this leaves open the possibility that some comparisons were not objectively upward or downward, even if participants rated the outcome as such. This issue is discussed further in the Discussion. Based on previous research on social comparison and dysphoria, as well as existing models of SP, we hypothesized that SP would be associated with a tendency to make more frequent social comparisons, involving a larger number of dimensions. In light of findings that SP is associated with a tendency to view the experience of anxiety symptoms as particularly negative (e.g., Purdon, Antony, Monteiro, & Swinson, 2001; Roth, Antony, & Swinson, 2001), we expected that those in the SP group would be more likely than controls to make comparisons on dimensions related to their social anxiety (e.g., signs of anxiety, social skills), and that there would be few group differences in the tendency to make comparisons on less related dimensions (e.g., age, wealth). We also expected individuals in the SP group to engage in more frequent upward social comparisons and less frequent downward comparisons, relative to controls, and to experience larger changes in affect following these comparisons, particularly following upward comparisons. Although we did not have any particular predictions regarding the types of situations in which social comparisons would occur, or the target people for social comparisons, we also examined these vari-
PROCESSES
67
ables to see if any preliminary patterns emerged that might inform future research on this topic. Method PARTICIPANTS
Participants included 59 individuals (59% women) with a principal DSM-IV diagnosis of SP and a nonclinical comparison (NC) group of 58 individuals (83% women) without any DSM-IV Axis I disorders. Participants in the SP group were either referred to a specialty anxiety disorders clinic for an evaluation or responded to research recruitment advertisements posted in local hospitals and libraries. Diagnoses in this group were established using the Structured Clinical Interview for D S M - I V (SCID-IV; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 1996) administered by trained interviewers. Training involved observing at least three SCID-IV interviews conducted by experienced interviewers and then completing at least three SCID-IV interviews while being observed by an experienced interviewer. Some participants also received a consultation with a staff psychiatrist during which SCID-IV diagnoses were confirmed. Any discrepancies in diagnosis between the two interviewers were resolved by consensus during a weekly staff meeting. Participants with a current diagnosis of substance dependence, psychotic disorder, or uncontrolled bipolar disorder (i.e., a manic episode within the past 6 months) were excluded. Other forms of comorbidity were allowed (as long as SP was the most impairing or distressing problem), and 68% of the SP participants reported the presence of at least one other mood or anxiety disorder (e.g., major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, panic disorder with agoraphobia, generalized anxiety disorder, specific phobia, or obsessive-compulsive disorder). Sixteen (27%) participants with social phobia had a comorbid diagnosis of major depressive disorder or dysthymic disorder, whereas another 5 participants received a diagnosis of major depressive disorder in partial remission. Thus, approximately two thirds of the social phobia group did not have a comorbid mood disorder. Participants in the NC group were recruited by advertisements placed at a local university as well as local hospitals and libraries, seeking individuals without a history of mental health problems. Participants in this group received a telephone interview based on the screening questions from the SCID-IV, to ensure that they did not have a lifetime history involving any of the major forms of psychopathology. Individuals for whom this telephone interview indicated a possible problem were excluded. Some participants completed only part of the
68
ANTONY
study, dropping out after the initial meeting or returning only a portion of their total diaries (n = 8 in the SP group and n = 2 in the NC group). Data from these individuals were not included. Demographic characteristics for these individuals were similar to the rest of the sample. The mean age of the SP group was 34 years (SD = 9.8), and 40% had completed college or university. Fifty-six percent of participants in this group were single, with 27% in a steady relationship and 17% separated or divorced. Just over half of the participants in the SP group were on medication for anxiety. In the NC group, the mean age was 34 (SD = 11.8) and 76% had completed college or university. Almost half of the participants in this group were single, and 36% were in a steady relationship. MEASURES
Rochester Social Comparison Diary (Wheeler & Miyake, 1992). The Rochester Social Comparison Diary (RSCD) was constructed to provide naturalistic records of social comparisons, and has been validated in independent studies (e.g., Giordano & Wood, 2002). We used a modified version of Wheeler and Miyake's diary method, which included social anxiety-relevant questions and asked for more detail about participants' reactions to comparisons. Each diary required participants to indicate the following: (a) in what situation did the comparison occur, (b) which dimension(s) or characteristic(s) did the comparison involve, (c) with whom did the participant make this comparison, (d) how close were they to the target of comparison (1 = not at all close, 7 = extremely close), (e) how similar, in general, were they to the target (1 = dissimilar, 7 = very similar), (f) how similar were they to the target on the specific dimensions they outlined earlier (1 = I was inferior, 4 = I was about the same, 7 = I was superior), and (g) to what extent did they experience particular emotions before and after the comparison was made. Emotions were rated on seven affective dimensions (certain/ uncertain; anxious/relaxed; depressed/happy; discouraged/encouraged; dissatisfied/satisfied; jealous/ not jealous; envious/not envious), using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 reflects negative affect (e.g., uncertain, anxious) and 7 reflects positive affect (e.g., certain, relaxed). Modifications to the original RSCD included the following: (1) several dimensions were added on which participants could compare themselves to others, including quality of relationships, quality of life, artistic ability, sense of humor, signs of anxiety, achievements, current happiness, and athletic abilities; (2) participants were allowed to select as many dimensions as they felt were involved
ET
AL.
in each comparison; and (3) participants rated seven dimensions of affect (described earlier) before and after each social comparison instead of the original two (happy vs. depressed and encouraged vs. discouraged). Giordano and Wood (2002) measured the reliability of the RSCD using both Cronbach's alpha and split half reliability. Both methods suggested strong reliability (i.e., split half reliability was .94 and Cronbach's alpha was .91 for precomparison mood and .94 for postcomparison mood; Giordano & Wood, 2002). In the current sample, precomparison and postcomparison mean affect ratings showed high internal consistency, with alphas of .94 and .95, respectively. Validation of the RSCD involved examining associations between measures of individual differences (e.g., self-esteem, Type A personality, envyproneness, and attention to social comparisons) and comparison frequency/impact of comparisons on affect ratings. The majority of predicted associations were observed, though some correlations were not strong enough to reach significance (Giordano & Wood, 2002). Results were generally consistent with Wheeler and Miyake (1992), lending support to the utility of the RSCD. Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition (BDIII; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996). The BDI-II is an efficient and widely used measure of depressive symptoms. The 21-item BDI-II has been shown to have high internal consistency and stability, and has demonstrated validity (Beck et al., 1996). The analyses reported in this paper are based on BDI-II scores from the initial meetings with participants (before any social comparison records were completed). PROCEDURE
All participants first met with a research assistant at which time they completed a series of questionnaires about mood, anxiety symptoms, self-esteem, and related issues, as part of a larger project. Upon completion of these questionnaires, participants were provided with a definition and examples of social comparison behaviors, including examples of upward, downward, and same-level comparisons. They were then shown the modified Rochester Social Comparison Record (see section on Measures), and reviewed this record in detail with the research assistant. Participants completed a sample comparison record about a recent example of a comparison they had made, with the research assistant present to answer any questions as the diary was being filled in. When participants indicated that they felt comfortable completing the social comparison record, they were provided with a stack
SOCIAL
COMPARISON
of blank records and were asked to complete one record for each comparison they made during the subsequent 2 weeks. Participants were instructed not to go out of their way to make social comparisons, but to simply monitor whether these comparisons were occurring and to complete a diary if a comparison occurred. To facilitate the ease with which diaries were completed, participants were asked to call or fax in their diaries at some point during the first several days of diary completion. Most participants did so, allowing the research assistant to ensure that participants were completing their diaries properly. After 2 weeks of diary completion, participants returned for a second meeting with the research assistant. During this meeting, participants completed the same questionnaires that were completed before the diary task, and the research assistant clarified any unclear information in the participants' diaries. Participants were then debriefed and paid a small honorarium.
Results APPROACH
TO
ANALYSES
Because participants completed varying numbers of diaries over the 2-week monitoring period, participant responses were averaged across total number of diaries to create a set of aggregate variables for each participant. Thus, the level of analysis was the individual, rather than diaries. Depending on the diary item being analyzed, aggregation was done in several ways to best preserve the most meaningful data. For some diary questions (e.g., on what dimensions people compared), data were simply averaged across all diaries. For others it was averaged across different types of comparisons (e.g., an average on a given variable was computed for upward, downward, and same-level comparisons), or the incidence of occurrence was counted across diaries and a proportional score was computed for each participant (e.g., the proportion of times a person made a comparison involving "intelligence"). The aggregation strategy for each analysis will be noted in the relevant section of the Results. Participants who completed only one, two, or three diaries were retained in analyses after results for key analyses suggested no difference in the pattern of results either with or without the inclusion of these participants. Due to the presence of comorbid depressive disorders in approximately one third of the SP group, each of the following analyses were rerun with the following adjustments: (1) covarying out BDI-II scores and (2) excluding participants in the SP group for w h o m criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD), dysthymic disorder, or MDD in par-
69
PROCESSES
tial remission were met. Any change in findings as a result of these procedures is noted in the corresponding section. EQUIVALENCE
OF
GROUPS
Groups did not differ in age, t(113) -- .40, p = .69, or relationship status, X2(2, N = 96) = .1.04, p = .60. Groups did differ on gender distribution, with the NC group having a higher proportion of women, X2(1, N = 116) = 8.82, p = .01, as well as on education level, where the NC group consisted of more university or college graduates, X2(1, N = 99) = 12.43, p -- .001. However, correlations among dependent variables of interest were similar across gender as well as across education level. Further, after initial analyses, all analyses were run again within the SP and NC groups, separately, including gender and education level as between-subjects variables. Because these demographic variables were correlated with group status, it seemed most appropriate to examine the effects of gender and education separately for each group. Examining their effects for the entire sample might have led to incorrect conclusions about the relative effects of group vs. the effects of gender and education, due to the variance they share. These analyses revealed few differences on dependent variables according to education and gender, suggesting that in most cases, these demographic differences did not account for group differences between the SP and NC groups on dependent variables. The few differences that emerged are described in the relevant parts of the Results section. NUMBER SOCIAL
AND
TYPE
OF
COMPARISONS
Groups did not differ on the total number of diaries completed over the 2-week period, t(l15) = .24, p = .82, with both groups completing an average of 10 diaries (range = 1 to 38 diaries in the SP group and 1 to 73 diaries in the NC group). Though the distribution of number of diaries was skewed in both groups, distributions were both unimodal, suggesting that groups were similar in number of completed diaries. A mean of 10 diaries over 14 days is consistent with previous research where participants completed an average of 15 diaries over 20 days (Giordano & Wood, 2002). Although groups did not differ in total number of diaries, groups did differ in terms of the types of comparisons they reported (i.e., upward, downward, or same level; see Table 1). Following Giordano and Wood (2002), we defined upwardcomparisons as those for which the participant gave a rating of 1, 2, or 3 (i.e., "I am inferior") on the question of "How similar are you to this person(s) on the dimension
70
ANTONY
TABLE I Descriptive Information (Percentages) and G r o u p Differences on Diary Variables SP
NC
Group
Group
n = 59
n = 58
F
Upward Same level
64 II
39 18
5.38*** -2.03*
,201 .035
Downward
25
43
-4.18***
132
Variable Type o f comparison
Sizes ~lp~
t
Complex vs. simple comparisons Unidimensional Multidimensional
Effect
ET
AL.
mensional (i.e., making a comparison involving only one dimension) versus multidimensional (i.e., making a comparison involving more than one dimension). Individuals with SP completed significantly more multidimensional comparisons (72% vs. 47%), t(115) = 4.40, p < .001, and fewer unidimensional comparisons (28 % vs. 53 % ), t(115) = - 4 . 3 3 , p < .001, than did participants in the NC group. Once again, effect sizes for these betweengroups differences could be classified as large.
t
28 72
53 47
-4.33*** 4.40***
140
SOCIAL
144
TARGETS
25
18
3.05¢
Appearance Quality o f relationships
32 16
24 16
3.03 ,00
.026 .026
Artistic abilities Sense o f humor Personality Wealth
2 8 49 13
4 4 27 II
I.S7 4.62*24.79*** .42
Dimension Intelligence
.000 .013 .039 .177 .004
Signs o f anxiety
I3
4
I 1,53"*
.091
Achievement Age Social skills
16 20 38
17 12 IS
.04 2.90 27,91 * * *
.000 .025 ,195
Quality o f life Current happiness
23 20
13 13
6.63"t 3,69
6 7
8 12
.28 3.29
.055 .031 .002 .028
Athletic abilities Other
Note. SP - social phobia NC - nonclinical comparison. Percentages are based on the total number of comparisons made by each individual (ie,, I 0 upward comparisons/20 total comparisons = 50% of comparisons were upward for that individual), Percentages for dimensions do not equal 100% because participants could check off as many dimensions as were relevant for each comparison Effect sizes are based on the original ANOVAs, before BDIdl scores were covaried. *p < 05;**p < .OI;***p < .OOI, Univariate Ftest became significant (p < ,05) once BDI II scores were covaried, I Univariate F tests were no longer significant (p < 05) once BDI-II scores were covaried.
on which you compared," same level as those for which the subject rated this question a 4 (i.e., "I am about the same"), and downward as those for which the subject rated a 5, 6, or 7 (i.e., "I am superior"). Individuals with SP made significantly more upward comparisons than those in the NC group (64% vs. 39%, respectively), t(115) = 5.38, p < .001, and fewer same-level (11% vs. 18%), t(115) = - 2 . 0 3 , p < .05, and downward comparisons (25% vs. 43%), t(115) = - 4 . 1 8 , p < .001. Effect sizes were also calculated for these betweengroup differences. As shown in Table 1, effect sizes were generally found to be large, based on Cohen's (1988) recommendations for interpreting such effects. We also examined differences in the percentage of comparisons in each group that were unidi-
COMPARISON OF
SITUATIONS
AND
COMPARISONS
To examine the situations in which comparisons were made and the targets of comparisons, we summed the number of comparisons made in each situation (or for each target) for each participant, then divided this number by the total number of diaries completed by that particular participant. This yielded a proportion or percentage of comparisons made, for each subject, in each situation (and for each target of comparison). Group differences were investigated using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The overall MANOVAs indicated that groups did not differ in the types of situations in which they typically made comparisons, F(6, 110) = .85, p : .54, nor in their targets of comparisons, F(10, 106) = 1.00, p = .45. Results for comparison situations are similar to those reported in Wheeler and Miyake (1992) and Giordano and Wood (2002) (see Table 1). Most participants made social comparisons while they were engaged in a prolonged interaction with another person or group of people (39% of all comparisons in the SP group and 35% of comparisons in the comparison group). The next most likely situations in which participants made comparisons included simply seeing or observing another person(s), or thinking or daydreaming about a comparison target. All participants in the current study made most of their comparisons with strangers, acquaintances, close friends, ordinary friends, and family members. This pattern of results is somewhat different than in previous research, where more comparisons were made with close and ordinary friends, and fewer with strangers. SOCIAL
COMPARISON
DIMENSIONS
Data on the dimensions or characteristics about which participants made comparisons were aggregated in the same way as for comparison situations. The overall MANOVA was significant, using Wilks's Eambda as the criterion, F(15, 101) = 3.38, p < .001. A number of group differences emerged (see Table 1). Individuals with SP made significantly more comparisons involving personal-
SOCIAL
COMPARISON
ity, social skills, quality of life, sense of humor, and signs of anxiety. When scores on the BDI-II were covaried, the overall MANOVA remained significant, F( 15, 93) = 3.50, p < .001. Follow-up univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) revealed the following differences from original analyses: group differences on quality of life and sense of humor disappeared, and the SP group made more comparisons about intelligence when BDI-II scores were controlled. Effect size calculations (see Table 1) indicated that the group differences on comparisons involving personality, social skills, and signs of anxiety were the most meaningful, with large or medium to large effects. Effect sizes for other group differences fell in the small to medium range. GENERAL
SIMILARITY
CLOSENESS
TO
AND
TARGET
Groups differed in how similar, in general, they felt they were to their comparison target. Similarity ratings were averaged across all diaries for each participant. Individuals in the NC group reported feeling slightly more similar to their comparison target than did individuals in the SP group, t(115) = 3.11, p < .01. However, when general similarity ratings were averaged across types of comparisons (i.e., upward, downward, and same-level comparisons), group differences disappeared. All participants rated themselves as moderately similar to their comparison target. Individuals in the NC group also reported being closer to their comparison target than did individuals in the SP group, t(115) = -2.18, p < .05. When closeness ratings were computed for the different types of comparisons, group differences remained only for upward comparisons where NC group individuals still reported being closer to their comparison target, t(108) = -2.26, p < .05. -
CHANGES SOCIAL
IN AFFECT
FOLLOWING
COMPARISONS
To examine participants' affect reactions after making different types of comparisons, affect scores were averaged across diaries separately for each type of comparison (i.e., upward comparisons, downward comparisons, same-level comparisons). Although affect was rated on seven different dimensions, we were particularly interested in the anxiety/relaxation and depression/happiness dimensions, given the hypotheses of the present study. Therefore, we computed a general affect score (summing responses across all seven affect adjectives) and also examined the anxiety/relaxation and depression/happiness ratings separately. General depression scores on the BDI-II were added as
PROCESSES
71
covariates to analyses to control for the influence of depressed mood on affect ratings. All analyses were 2 (Group) by 2 (Time) ANOVAs with time as a repeated measures variable and affect as the dependent variable. Analyses were run for upward, downward, and same-level comparisons separately because different numbers of participants were involved in each. Effect of social comparisons on composite general affect scores. Using the affect composite score as the dependent variable and covarying out BDI-II scores, the only significant effect that emerged was a main effect of time for upward comparisons, F(1, 98) = 45.56, p < .001. Both groups showed a worsening of general affect after making upward comparisons. Due to group differences in gender composition and education level, analyses were conducted again within the SP and NC groups including the demographic variables as between-subject variables. In the NC group for mood change following upward comparisons, the interaction of Time x Educational Level was significant, F(1, 34) = 4.81, p = .04. Follow-up analyses revealed that individuals in the NC group who had less education experienced a greater worsening of mood after making upward comparisons than those with more education. Further, the interaction of Time x Gender was significant in the SP group, F(1, 51) = 5.63, p = .02, with males experiencing a greater worsening of mood after an upward comparison than women. For mood change following downward comparisons~ the interaction of Time x Gender was significant in the SP group, F(1, 40) = 6.88, p = .012. Men with SP did not experience a shift in mood after making downward comparisons, whereas women with SP reported a slight improvement in their mood following downward comparisons. Effect of downward comparisons on anxious and depressed affect. For anxiety/relaxation ratings, there was a significant main effect for group, F(1, 89) = 7.26, p < .01 Tip 2 = .081, and the Group × Time interaction approached significance, F(1, 89) = 2.81, p < .10, lip 2 = .03. The SP group reported higher anxiety levels (both before and after downward comparisons) than the NC group, but also reported that their anxiety decreased (as reflected by higher relaxation ratings) slightly after downward comparisons, whereas the NC group's anxiety increased slightly after downward comparisons. No significant effects emerged for downward comparisons using the depression rating as the dependent variable. No differences emerged across educational levels or gender. Results of these analyses are reported in Table 2.
72
ANTONY
ET
AL.
TABLE :2 Means (and SDs) for Anxiety and Depression Ratings Before and After Making Upward, Downward, and Same Level Comparisons Downward Comparisons
Same Level Comparisons
Upward Comparisons
SP
NC
SP
NC
SP
NC
(n = 45)
(n = 51)
(n = 26)
(n = 39)
(n = 56)
(n = 53)
Precomparison anxiety/relaxation ratings
4.21 (I. 13)
5.39 (I .25)
4.48 (I .23)
5.47 (I .27)
4.30 (I .26)
5.27 (I.3 I)
Postcompadson anxiety/relaxation ratings
4,48 (I. 15)
5,27 (I ,28)
4.71 (I .45)
5.20 (I .27)
3.33 (I .02)
4.78 (I .39)
Precomparison depression/happiness ratings
4.50 (0.99)
5,35 (1.04)
4.68 ( 1.4 I)
5.50 (I .26)
4.49 ( I, 19)
5.37 (I .05)
Postcomparison depression/happiness ratings
4.89 (0.93)
5,36 (0.98)
4.53 (I .46)
5.12 (t.32)
3.46 ( I. 17)
4.73 (1.22)
Variable
Note.
SP = social phobia; NC = nonclinical comparison. Lower scores represent greater levels of anxiety and depression, Anxiety ratings are based on a scale ranging from I to 7, where I = anxious and 7 = relaxed. Depression ratings are based on a scale ranging from I to 7, where I = depressed and 7 = happ)4
Effect of upward comparisons on anxious and depressed affect. When examining upward comparisons, several significant effects emerged even after BDI-II scores were covaried. For anxiety/ relaxation ratings, main effects emerged for group, F(1, 98) = 4.67, p < .05, ~qp2= .044, and time, F(1, 98) = 17.70, p < .001, Xlp2 = .155. Results are reported in Table 2. The interaction term also approached significance, F(1, 98) = 3.39, p < .07, ~qp2= .034. All participants reported an increase in anxiety after making upward comparisons, but the increase in anxiety in the SP group was more pronounced than that in the NC group. Individuals with SP generally reported higher anxiety levels than did those in the NC group. Follow-up analyses also revealed that women experienced a greater increase in anxiety after upward comparisons than did men in both the NC and SP groups. In the NC group, individuals with less education showed a greater increase in anxiety ratings after upward comparisons than those with more education, F(1, 34) = 5.74, p = .02. This effect of education was not seen in the SP group. Similar results were found with depression ratings as the dependent variable, except that the main effect for group was not significant after covarying BDI-II scores. All participants reported increased depression (i.e., decreased happiness ratings) after making upward comparisons, F(1, 99) = 28.56, p < .001, ~qp2= .227, with a nonsignificant tendency for depression to increase even more in the SP group than in the NC group, F(1, 99) = 2.34, p = .13, ~qp2= .024. Follow-up analyses indicated that participants in the NC group with higher educational levels showed less of an increase in depression after making an upward comparison,
F(1, 34) = 6.49, p = .02, and that men in the SP group reported a greater increase in depression ratings than women, F(1, 51) = 8.16, p = .006.
Effect of same-level comparisons on anxious and depressed affect. No significant main effects or interactions emerged for same-level comparisons. Results of these analyses are reported in Table 2.
Discussion The findings in the present study were generally consistent with the initial hypotheses. Based on current models of social anxiety, we hypothesized that individuals with SP would be particularly motivated to evaluate their standing relative to others, and therefore, would rely on social comparisons as a way of doing so. Thus, we predicted that those in the SP group would make more frequent social comparisons, and that their comparisons would involve a larger number of dimensions, relative to individuals in the NC group. Although the number of social comparison diaries did not differ across groups, groups did differ with respect to the complexity of their comparisons. Those in the SP group tended to make comparisons on a larger number of dimensions, lending support to the second of these two hypotheses. One possible reason for the lack of group differences in the number of comparisons reported is that the number of diaries completed may be affected by a wide range of factors that have little to do with the actual frequency of social comparisons, including participants' awareness of social comparisons, whether the participant remembered to complete the diary, the context of the comparison (e.g., whether the individual could complete the diary without anybody noticing), the way the par-
SOCIAL
COMPARISON
ticipant was feeling at the time (e.g., fatigue), and other practical issues (e.g., whether the participant had the diary available at the time of the comparison). Therefore, we suggest that the number of comparisons reported, though consistent with previous research, may not be an accurate reflection of the true number of comparisons made, which is why we focused more on the content of each comparison. We also hypothesized that the social comparisons of those in the SP group would be more frequently focused on dimensions related to SP, relative to comparisons made by the NC group. This hypothesis was confirmed, in general. Individuals in the SP group were about twice as likely as those in the NC group to compare themselves to others on dimensions such as showing signs of anxiety, social skills, personality, and sense of humor. Effect sizes indicated that group differences were especially meaningful for variables relevant to social anxiety including social skills, personality, and signs of anxiety. In contrast, groups did not differ in their tendency to make comparisons on other dimensions, such as appearance, artistic abilities, and others (see Table 1). These findings (especially the group differences for "signs of anxiety" and "social skills") are consistent with the notion that individuals with SP are selective about the types of dimensions on which they compare themselves to others, and that they tend to focus on dimensions on which they see themselves as inferior. Consistent with some previous studies on the relationship between dysphoria and social comparison, we expected those in the SP group to make more frequent upward comparisons and less frequent downward comparisons relative to those in the NC group. It is important to note that upward and downward comparisons were defined by subjective ratings made by participants. Thus, it is possible that ratings do not reflect objective reality (e.g., someone with SP may perceive that she does not measure up to someone else when, in reality, she does). However, the data suggest that people with SP can and do make downward comparisons, just not as often as they make upward comparisons. The fact that almost two thirds of the comparisons made by those in the SP group were upward comparisons may have a role in the maintenance of social anxiety over time. Frequent upward comparisons may be an example of an information processing bias involving a tendency to seek out information that confirms an individual's anxious beliefs and assumptions. In particular, comparisons to people who are perceived as superior on a particular dimension may serve to reinforce the individual's beliefs that he or she is inadequate.
PROCESSES
73
Finally, we hypothesized that those in the SP group would experience larger changes in affect, particularly after making upward comparisons. Consistent with previous studies, upward comparisons led to a worsening of affect (based on a composite of several affect ratings) in both groups, and downward comparisons had no effect on the composite affect ratings. When depression was examined separately, downward comparisons did not change depressive affect in either group. However, as predicted, upward comparisons led to a worsening of depression in both groups, with the strongest changes in the SP group. Education level also affected depression scores differently in the SP and NC groups, with less well-educated NC participants demonstrating the least change in depression ratings after upward comparisons. Further, men with SP demonstrated a greater increase in depression scores after upward comparisons than did women with SP, suggesting that the differences between the SP and NC group in depression ratings may be the result of the different gender composition of each group. In other words, it may be that men, regardless of diagnostic status, have the most striking depressive reactions after upward comparisons. The findings for changes in anxiety ratings after comparisons were even more striking. Downward comparisons led to a reduction in anxiety, with a nonsignificant tendency for these changes to be greater in the SP group than in the NC group. Also, upward comparisons led to significant increases in anxiety across groups, with the largest changes occurring in the SP group. Not surprisingly, samelevel comparisons did not have an impact on depressive or anxious affect. Although changes in anxiety and depression ratings generally showed different patterns in each group after upward and downward comparisons, effect size analyses suggest that interaction effects only accounted for a small to medium amount of variance. Thus, this effect needs to be replicated in future studies. In summary, findings from the present study suggest that, relative to nonanxious individuals, people with SP tend to engage in more frequent upward social comparisons and that the effect of these comparisons is more negative for those with SP than for those without SP. In other words, socially anxious individuals tend to engage in social comparison behaviors that may serve to maintain their anxious symptoms over time. This is the first study to examine the relationship between social comparison behavior and social anxiety, so these findings remain to be replicated. In addition, although the naturalistic approach to assessing social
74
ANTONY
comparison behavior has a number of strengths (Wheeler & Miyake, 1992), the relationship between social anxiety and social comparison behavior should also be studied using standard experimental paradigms that have previously been used to study social comparison behavior in the social psychology literature. Naturalistic diary studies and more tightly controlled experimental studies can provide complementary information. One limitation of this study was the lack of a clinical comparison group. Although the majority of our sample of people with SP did n o t have a comorbid mood disorder (almost two thirds of the sample), and we covaried depression severity scores in analyses, another way to address the role of depressed mood in a study such as this would be to compare social comparison processes in socially anxious individuals with those in a comparison group of depressed individuals. This is an option for future study. Without such a comparison group, it is possible that differences in social comparison processes may be better explained by symptoms of depression, rather than by symptoms of social anxiety (e.g., the SP group may have made more upward comparisons due to self-critical feelings and pessimism associated with depression, rather than due to anxiety). On the other hand, the content of comparisons in the SP group (e.g., making comparisons about signs of anxiety and social skills) and the consistency of analyses even after covarying depression argue that results may be better explained by anxiety-specific concerns. The findings in the present study have direct clinical implications. Treatment outcomes for SP might be improved if cognitive behavioral therapies that target anxious thoughts and behaviors address social comparison behaviors explicitly. Although this notion has been raised in a recent treatment book on dealing with perfectionism (Antony & Swinson, 1998), it remains to be integrated into evidencebased treatments for social anxiety. Teaching clients to decrease the frequency of unflattering social comparisons and to deal more effectively with the impact of such comparisons may be useful. References Ahrens, A. H., & Alloy, L. B. (1997). Social comparison processes in depression. In B. P. Buunk & E X. Gibbons (Eds.),
Health, coping, and well-being: Perspectives from social comparison theory (pp. 389-410). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Alden, L. E., & Wallace, S. T. (1995). Social phobia and social appraisal in successful and unsuccessful social interactions.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33,497-505. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author. Antony, M. M., Purdon, C. L., Huta, V., & Swinson, R. P.
ET A L . (1998). Dimensions of perfectionism across the anxiety disorders. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 1143-1154. Antony, M. M., & Swinson, R. P. (1998). When perfect isn't
good enough: Strategies for coping with perfectionism. Oakland, CA- New Harbinger Publications. Asmundson, G. J. G., & Stein, M. B. (1994). Selective processing of social threat in patients with generalized social phobia: Evaluation using a dot-probe paradigm. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 8, 107-117. Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1993). Effects of social comparison direction, threat, and self-esteem on affect, selfevaluation, and expected success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 708-722. Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. (1996). Manual for Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Brown, G. P., & Beck, A. T. (2002). Dysfunctional attitudes, perfectionism, and models of vulnerability to depression. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 231-252). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Brown, T. A., Campbell, L. A., Lehman, C. L., Grisham, J. R., & Mancill, R. B. (2001). Current and lifetime comorbidity of the DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders in a large clinical sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 11 O, 585-599. Clark, D. A, Beck, A. T. with Alford, B. A. (1999). Scientific
foundations of cognitive theory and therapy of depression. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & E R. Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 69-93), New York: The Guilford Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Collins, R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 51-69. Cox, B. J., Rector, N. A., Bagby, M. R., Swinson, R. P., Levitt, A. J., & Joffe, R. P. (2000). Is self-criticism unique for depression? A comparison with social phobia. Journal of Affective Disorders, 57, 223-228. DeVellis, R. E, Holt, K., Renner, B. A., Blalock, S. J., Blanchard, L. W., Cook, H. I,., Klotz, M. L., Mikow, V., & Harring, K. (1990). The relationship of social comparison to rheumatoid arthritis symptoms and affect. Basic and Applied Psychology, 11, 1-18. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1996). Structured Clinical Interview for Axis I DSM-IV
Disorders Research Version--Patient edition (SCID-I/P, ver. 2.0). New York: New York State Psychiatric Institute, Biometrics Research Department. Gibbons, E X. (1986). Social comparison and depression: Company's effect on misery. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51,140-148. Gibbons, E X., & Gerrard, M. (1989). Effects of upward and downward social comparison on mood states. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 8, 14-31. Gibbons, E X., & McCoy, S. B. (1991). Self-esteem, similarity, and reactions to active versus passive downward comparisons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 414-424. Giordano, C., & Wood, J. V. (2002). Effects of social com-
parison in everyday life: Moderators and validation of
SOCIAL
COMPARISON
the diary method. Unpublished manuscript, University of Waterloo. Giordano, C., Wood, J. V., & Michela, J. L. (2000). Depressive personality styles, dysphoria, and social comparisons in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 438451. Heidrich, S. M., & Ryff, C. D. (1993). The role of social comparison processes in the psychological adaptation of elderly adults. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 48, 127-136. Lyubomirsky, S., & Ross, L. (1997). Hedonic consequences of social comparison: A contrast of happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1141-1157. Mahone, E. M., Bruch, M. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (1993). Focus of attention and social anxiety: The role of negative self-thoughts and perceived positive attributes of the other. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 17, 209-224. Norton, P. J., & Hope, D. A. (2001). Kernels of truth or distorted perceptions: Self and observer ratings of social anxiety and performance. Behavior Therapy, 32, 765-786. Olson, B. D., & Evans, D. L. (1999). The role of the big five personality dimension in the direction and affective consequences of everyday social comparisons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1498-1508. Pratto, E, Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763. Purdon, C., Antony, M. M., Monteiro, S., & Swinson, R. P. (2001). Social anxiety in college students. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 15, 203-215. Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of social anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 741-756. Rapee, R. M., & Lim, L. (1992). Discrepancy between selfand observer ratings of performance in social phobics. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 728-731. Roth, D., Antony, M. M., & Swinson, R. P. (2001). Interpretations for anxiety symptoms in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 129-138. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 998-1011. Stopa, L., & Clark, D. M. (1993). Cognitive processes in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31,255-267.
PROCESSES
75
Strahan, E., & Conger, A. J. (1998). Social anxiety and its effects on performance and perception. Journal of Anxiety
Disorders, 12,293-305. Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum. Swallow, S. R., & Kuiper, N. A. (1988). Social comparisons and negative self-evaluations: An application to depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 55-76. Swallow, S. R., & Kuiper, N. A. (1990). Mild depression, dysfunctional cognitions, and interest in social comparison information. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 289-302. Swallow, S. R., & Kuiper, N. A. (1992). Mild depression and frequency of social comparison behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11,167-180. Swallow, S. R., & Kuiper, N. A. (1993). Social comparison in dysphoria and nondysphoria: Differences in target similarity and specificity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 17, 103-122. Wallace, S. T., & Alden, L. E. (1995). Social anxiety and standard setting following success or failure. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 613-631. Wheeler, L., & Miyake, K. (1992). Social comparisons in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 760 - 773. Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245-271. Winton, E. C., Clark, D. M., & Edelmann, R. J. (1995). Social anxiety, fear of negative evaluation and the detection of negative emotion in others. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 193-196. Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 231-248. Wood, J. V., & Lockwood, P. (1999). Social comparisons in dysphoric and low self-esteem people. In R. Kowalski & M. Leary (Eds.), The social psychology of emotional and
behavioral problems: Interfaces of social and clinical psychology (pp. 97-135), Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Zimmerman, M., Chelminski, I., & McDermut, W. (2002). Major depressive disorder and axis I comorbidity. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 63, 187-193. RECEIVED: July 8, 2003 ACCEPTED: January 2, 2004
